"Medicare for all who want it" raises the kludge question

Subscribe to xpostfactoid via box at top right (requires only an email address; you'll get 2-3 emails per week on average)

Given the "triple veto" imposed on legislators by the U.S. Constitution, U.S. policy is doomed to kludge. Policy design that's logical and internally coherent often can't survive the legislative process.

On the healthcare front, it's been evident since the early aughts that the logical, feasible, appropriately incremental way to improve access and control costs without throwing multiple healthcare industries into chaos and swiftly transitioning 150 million people out of employer-sponsored insurance is to offer a public plan on affordable terms to both employers and employees -- leaving employer insurance to either compete effectively or die on the vine.

Early iterations of such a "public option" included Helen Halpin's CHOICE program (2003), Rep Peter Stark's Americare bill (2006),and Jacob Hacker's Health Care for America plan (2007). All of these enabled any individual to buy in on an income-adjusted basis regardless of whether her employer offered insurance, and gave employers the option of paying into the public plan (e.g., via a payroll tax) rather than offering their own plans.  Instead we got the ACA -- with subsidy eligibility limited to those without access to employer insurance deemed "affordable" (by dubious standards), inadequate subsidies, and dependence on the whims, pricing, negotiated provider payment rates and plan designs of private insurers.

Now we're back to the future with the Medicare for America Act, introduced in late 2018 by Reps Rosa DeLauro and Jan Schakowsky and reintroduced last month. Medicare for America offers a revamped "Medicare" on affordable terms to any citizen or legally present noncitizen who opts in.

The kludge question: Does offering a truly comprehensive and affordable plan on affordable terms to anyone who wants it necessarily entail ending our existing mammoth and Byzantine public health insurance programs, Medicaid and as-currently-structured Medicare? Medicare for America's creators answered "yes."

Could Trump's ACA sabotage pave the way to a strong public option?

The Urban Institute's Linda Blumberg and John Holahan, authors of an "ACA 2.0" blueprint, mull healthcare reform after Trump

In August 2015, Urban Institute scholars Linda Blumberg and John Holahan warned that the ACA marketplace as then constituted would probably never perform to expectations. Subsidies were insufficient to draw the robust participation the law's creators had anticipated. They proposed a revamped subsidy schedule that reduced premiums and out-of-pocket costs at every income level. For those with incomes above the current subsidy threshold of 400% of the Federal Poverty Level, premiums for a benchmark plan covering 80% of the average enrollee's costs would be capped at 8.5%.

Hillary Clinton more or less incorporated the Blumberg-Holahan proposal into her healthcare platform. And now, two years later, bills to improve the ACA introduced by Democrats in the House and Senate do likewise. Both bills precisely reproduce the plan's enhanced premium subsidies and offer even more generous reductions in enrollees' cost sharing (see the Appendix below for a summary).

The Senate bill, introduced by Elizabeth Warren and four colleagues,* places several new constraints on insurers in the individual market. These include requiring insurers to provide a better selection of doctors and hospitals, raising the percentage of premium revenue insurers are required to spend on enrollees' medical costs, and standardizing plan design. The preamble to a one-page summary of the bill appears to blame insurers alone for Americans' high healthcare costs.  By generously subsidizing enrollees at all income levels, however, the bill creates conditions under which insurers in the individual market can thrive.

ACA 2.0 -- or a whole new system?

I spoke to Blumberg and Holahan last week to get their reaction to the "ACA 2.0" bills, the Warren bill in particular. Blumberg confirmed that they had been consulted by the bill's creators, though they did not participate in the drafting.

Medicare Extra creates an all-payer system -- via a bank shot for employers

Like many "Medicare for All" or "Medicare for Most" plans that preceded it, the Center for American Progress's Medicare Extra plan, released on Feb. 22, preserves employer-sponsored insurance. Employers can opt to continue to offer their own plans, with a minimum actuarial value of 80% (near the current employer average). They can sponsor their employees' entry into Medicare Extra. Or they can leave their employees to enter the system on their own and reimburse the government.

The plan spells out two reasons for maintaining employer-sponsored insurance: keep employer dollars in the system, and minimize disruption (if you and your employer like your plan, you can keep it):

U.S. employers currently provide coverage to 152 million Americans and contribute $485 billion toward premiums each year. Surveys indicate that the majority of employees are satisfied with their employer coverage. Medicare Extra would account for this satisfaction and preserve employer financing so that the federal government does not unnecessarily absorb this enormous cost.