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.

Not throwing away our Schatz: What kind of public option in the ACA marketplace?

Senator Brian Schatz's proposal to allow any American to buy into Medicaid is frustratingly vague: we don't know the plan design and how it would be integrated into the ACA marketplace, as David Anderson and Loren Adler point out in this Vox roundup of expert assessment.

Two disclosed details are salient, though -- and to me, point toward two essential features of an ACA redesign from the progressive side. The first is the provider payment rate: bumped up to Medicare. The second is a cap on premiums as a percentage of income -- 9.5% -- for any buyer. (Larry Levitt mentions that feature in the Vox roundup; it's apparently not yet part of any published plan outline.)

Those features bring me back to the compromise package floated by the Urban Institute's Linda Blumberg and John Holahan back in January (which in turn built on their 2015 ACA enrichment plan, with concessions to Republicans salted in). That plan included an 8.5% of income cap on premiums for any buyer -- and a cap on payment rates paid to providers (in concert with reinsurance):

If I had $194 billion...spending the federal funds that CSR cutoff would waste

The CBO report on the effects of the federal government ceasing reimbursement of insurers for the Cost Sharing Reduction subsidies they are required to provide to qualifying ACA marketplace enrollees includes two projections tantalizing to Democrats.

First, if not executed until 2018, not mishandled by states and not coupled with other forms of sabotage (a lot of ifs!), CSR defunding need not harm individual market enrollees and will in fact provide a windfall to many (by about a million as of 2020, sustained through 2026).*

Second, this means of boosting coverage is colossally inefficient, in fact outright profligate. CBO projects that ending the CSR reimbursements will cost the Treasury $194 billion over ten years, $37 billion in 2026 alone (and so imagine the 20-year cost).

That's a lot of money for Republicans to spend to spite Democrats. To review, the ACA instructs the Treasury to reimburse insurers for CSR and built the cost of reimbursement into the funding baseline, though it quaintly leaves it to Congress to appropriate the money. Doing so has no impact on the deficit; refusing swells it by said $194 billion.

This suggests to me a rather perverse deal: Republicans, pay the money budgeted, and use the $194 billion in "savings" for tax cuts. The "savings"should just about cover the ACA's surtax on investment income for the wealthy, as CBO pegged the 10-year cost of repealing that tax at $172 billion). Sure, that's deficit-funded, but as Dick Cheney told us, deficits don't matter when Republicans are in control.

Of course, those who want the ACA to work and who want to expand coverage can think of better uses for the (otherwise wasted) money. We now have $194 billion in sugarplums dancing in our heads. I canvassed a handful of healthcare scholars as to what they'd do with the money.  A few possibilities:

Compromise maybe a little? Urban Institute's Blumberg and Holahan on what's next for the ACA

In August 2015, Urban Institute healthcare scholars Linda Blumberg and John Holahan acknowledged that ACA marketplace subsidies were too skimpy to do all they were intended to and came up with a comprehensive proposal to enrich them.  In January 2016, staring down the barrel of Republican repeal vows, they remixed those improvements in a compromise package that included several concessions to conservative priorities. These included:

• Repeal the employer mandate (requiring employers with more than 50 employees to offer insurance or pay a penalty)
• Repeal and replace the individual mandate  (with a premium penalty for those who did not maintain continuous coverage)
• Examine the Essential Health Benefits and look for responsible ways to lighten them
• Allow states to drop the income threshold for Medicaid eligibility to 100% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL). At present, the threshold is 138% FPL in states that have accepted the ACA Medicaid expansion. 

As I noted recently, these concessions were embedded with offsets: reinsurance to mitigate the premium hikes likely to be triggered by individual mandate replacement, and lower out-of-pocket costs to cushion the substitution for enrollees in the 100-138% FPL range of private insurance for Medicaid (richer subsidies across all income levels would also offset the ill effects of a weaker mandate substitute).

Go ahead, Trump, cut off CSR payments -- starting in 2018

Imagine for a moment that Republicans fail to pass legislation repealing the ACA -- leaving the ACA marketplace intact as a matter of law,  however shaky its economic viability. Imagine further that Trump continues through this year to reimburse insurers for the Cost Sharing Reduction (CSR) subsidies they are obligated by law to provide to qualifying enrollees, but announces that he will cease paying them in 2018 -- declining to contest the suit that House Republicans filed against the Obama administration, challenging its authority to pay the subsidies without Congressional appropriation.

That act of continued apparent sabotage might shake insurers and drive some to exit the marketplace. But having already priced CSR in to their 2018 filings, as they are now doing, they probably wouldn't exit en masse, as David Anderson has argued. Leaving aside other acts of sabotage, forcing insurers to price in and pay out the full actuarial value of all the plans they sell might actually improve the marketplace -- providing a kind of backdoor CSR subsidy for shoppers at the upper end of the subsidy scale.

If serious compromise on healthcare were possible, what would Democrats give?

As Republicans flail away at the BCRA, Democrats' first murmurs about bipartisan legislation to stabilize the ACA marketplace have been pretty basic: guarantee CSR payments and re-institute some kind of reinsurance program.

If bipartisan legislation were truly possible, however -- and admittedly, we're in contrary-to-fact territory here -- what might Democrats give up to get the most basic fixes, -and possibly further improvements?

Back in January, two leading progressive healthcare scholars at the Urban Institute, Linda Blumberg and John Holahan, floated a compromise proposal that offset provisions Democrats would not embrace unforced with improvements in subsidies and marketplace structure. Here is the package summary.Concessions to conservative priorities are bolded:

1. Replace the individual mandate with a modified version of the late enrollment penalties currently used in Medicare Parts B and D.

ACA doctors (of the law): What would you do with $3-5 billion per year?

Republicans in power certainly don't want the ACA marketplace to thrive. But for the most part they don't want it to precipitously collapse, either -- though it's not hard to imagine the Trump administration pushing it off a cliff and then trying to blame Democrats ("it was collapsing already...").

While Republicans have no real wish to make adequate health insurance affordable for lower income people, they may prove somewhat receptive to the wishes insistences of insurers, out of long habit and because, again, they don't want the market to collapse. The Trump administration is reportedly considering a package of short-term stabilizers that includes enabling by administrative fiat a minor increase to age banding (the multiple by which older enrollees can be charged more than younger ones); allowing insurers to cut off coverage for late payers after just 30 days instead of the current 90; and tightening the standards and verification for those seeking "Special Enrollment Periods" (SEPS) outside of open enrollment.

In which Obama feels the pain of the price tag he imposed on the ACA

In an interview with Jonathan Chait, President Obama rather casually ticked off his first priority for shoring up the ACA:

In my mind the [Affordable Care Act] has been a huge success, but it’s got real problems. They’re eminently fixable problems in terms of strengthening the marketplace, improving the subsidies so more folks can get it, making sure everybody has Medicaid who was qualified under the original legislation, doing more on the cost containment. But you hit a point where if Congress just is not willing to make any constructive modifications and it’s all political football, then you’re getting a suboptimal solution. 

By now, the imperative to enrich the marketplace subsidies is a matter of consensus among progressive healthcare scholars and officials. Out-of-pocket costs are just too high for prospective enrollees with incomes over 200% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL)*, the cutoff for strong Cost Sharing Reduction (CSR) subsidies, and premium subsidies leave buyers paying too high a percentage of their income -- between 6.4% and 9.7% of income for those in the 200-400% FPL range. In August 2015, Urban Institute scholars Linda Blumberg and John Holahan put out a detailed proposal for subsidy enrichment that included raising the actuarial value of the benchmark plan to 80% from the current 70% , with richer CSR extending further up the income ladder, as well as capping premiums at 8.5% of income for all income levels. Hillary Clinton's rather vague proposal for subsidy enrichment is apparently based on Blumberg and Holahan's. ACA improvement proposals by Timothy Jost and Harold Pollack and Sabrina Corlette and Jack Hoadley also prominently feature subsidy boosts.

The inadequacy of marketplace subsidies was evident to progressives from the beginning. Complaints began when Max Baucus's Senate Finance Committee released its bill in fall 2009, with a subsidy schedule that was far skimpier than that of the House bill.** In his 2011 book about the battle to pass the ACA, Richard Kirsch, national campaign manager from 2008-12 for Health Care for America Now (HCAN), an  umbrella group formed by unions and progressive nonprofits to advocate for universal health care, pins responsibility for the skimpy subsidies primarily on Obama:

Blumberg and Holahan on belling the healthcare cost cat

This week, Urban Institute healthcare scholars Linda Blumberg and John Holahan published a report, Designing a Medicare Buy-In and a Public Plan Marketplace Option: Policy Options and Considerations.

The report demonstrates that while designing a Medicare buy-in would be dazzlingly complex (cf. my modest proposal for simplifying it), designing a "strong" public option would be relatively simple. For both programs, the rationale is also simple: moving part (or potentially all) of the individual market population into plans that pay Medicare rates to healthcare providers.  That, the authors note in conclusion, is is basically a sine qua non of healthcare cost control:

Regardless of the approach taken, providers are likely to resist new insurance options that may move more patients into plans paying lower rates. While this is to be expected, it highlights the perpetual quandary of health care cost containment. Health care spending and its growth cannot be reduced without either paying less, on average, per unit of service rendered or reducing the quantity of services provided. No matter the strategy for containing costs, achieving that goal will take money out of the pockets of providers. To protect providers financially means abdicating cost-containment efforts of any type.

Healthcare scholars who propose means of cutting payments to providers know that they're in the position of mice who propose putting a bell on the cat that stalks them. No one in elected office is willing to bell the cat.

Clinton's ACA subsidy sweeteners: Something for everyone

Of the roughly 24 million people whose health insurance is currently subsidized as a result of the Affordable Care Act*, over 80% have incomes below 200% the Federal Poverty Level (FPL).

About 14 million more people are enrolled in Medicaid than would have been had there been no ACA. They live in households with incomes below 138% FPL.  Of approximately 9 million subsidized enrollees in private plans sold in the ACA marketplace**, about 60%, or 5.4 million, have incomes under 200% FPL.

If banks are where the money are, the poor and "near-poor," as The CDC's National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) defines people in the 100-200% FPL range, are where the uninsured are most concentrated. A third of the U.S. population lives in households with incomes under 200% FPL. In 2013, just prior to ACA implementation, 55% of the uninsured had incomes below that level, according the most recent update of the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey. As of the first three quarters of 2015, according to the NHIS, the uninsured rate among those under age 65 had been cut by 35% for the poor (under 100% FPL) and by 38% for the near-poor (100-200% FPL).

Those with incomes over 200% FPL were not that far behind: the uninsurance rate for those above that income level fell by 30% from 2013 to 2015, according to the NHIS (from 9.6% to 6.7%).  But that may be a result more of stick than carrot: the tax penalty for remaining uninsured is quite stiff for higher earners. Among those in the upper range of ACA subsidy eligibility, 200-400% FPL, takeup has been poor. Above 200% FPL, subsidies require enrollees to pay between 6.4% and 9.7% of their incomes for benchmark silver plans. Cost Sharing Reduction subsidies fade to insignificance above 200% FPL and phase out entirely at 251% FPL, leaving silver plan holders with high deductibles and out-of-pocket costs.

Here comes Aunt Hillary's cavalry 

The concentration of ACA benefits on the poor and near-poor probably underlies the law's low approval ratings.  Enter Hillary Clinton's wish list. Her proposed package of supplements and sweeteners to ACA subsidies has something for people at all points in the income distribution, very much including those at the top of it (my emphasis below):

What about a state-level public option (with a remixed subsidy schedule?)

ACA marketplace plans work reasonably well for a majority of subsidy-eligible buyers -- but leave far too many underinsured, or paying premiums they can't readily afford. There's virtually a progressive consensus on that point by now.

The latest crystallization of this consensus is in an analysis of ACA plan holders' costs by the Urban Institute's* Linda Blumberg, John Holahan and Matthew Buettgens, which spotlights high combined premium and out-of-pocket costs for the sickest, oldest and wealthiest of subsidized plan holders in the ACA marketplace (as well as for those a notch above subsidy eligibility).

Among the subsidy-eligible, median costs are most acute for buyers with incomes over 200% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL), the threshold at which strong Cost Sharing Reduction (CSR) subsidies phase out while subsidized premiums as a percentage of income rise. Median combined premium and out-of-pocket costs for marketplace customers with incomes ranging from 200-500% FPL range from 10,8% to 13.4%, according to the study authors. The spike in costs at the 200% FPL threshold is reflected in ACA takeup rates, which  according to a cited study,** fall off a cliff at 200% FPL, from 62% of eligible individuals to 29%.

The authors recommend, as Blumberg and Holahan have previously, that ACA subsidies be enriched across the board, and that tax credits be added above the current 400% FPL cap. While the cost would be relatively modest -- covered, in fact, by reduced spending projections for the ACA and Medicare-- the political lift is plainly impossible for the foreseeable future.

There may, however, be revenue-neutral steps that would boost affordability and so, takeup. If so, they will have to be taken at the state level. That's not only because Congress is incapable of constructive action where the ACA is concerned. It's also because the ACA benefit structure militates against any realized cost savings being passed directly to the consumer.

In ACA marketplace, low-hanging fruit is more than half picked

My long two-pointed ladder's sticking through a tree

Toward heaven still,

And there's a barrel that I didn't fill

Beside it, and there may be two or three*

Apples I didn't pick upon some bough.

Goddamn it, don't stop apple-picking now!

(Apologies, Robert Frost)

* or 7 or 8 million

Gearing up for the ACA's third enrollment season, HHS has released an analysis estimating 10.5 million uninsured individuals are eligible to buy private plans in the ACA marketplace. In a separate brief, HHS forecasts that between 2.8 and 3.9 million from this pool  will select marketplace plans in 2016 -- which sounds low until you pick through the numbers a bit.

HHS estimates that 48% of the 10.5 million live in households with incomes under 250% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) -- qualifying them for both premium subsidies and Cost Sharing Reduction (CSR) subsidies. Another 30% have incomes between 250% and 400% FPL and so "may qualify" for premium subsidies. But not all of them do.*  And buyers in that range, who are expected to pay at least 8% of income for the benchmark second-cheapest silver plan in their region, have proved a tough sell to date.

About three quarters of all current marketplace enrollees and 88% of subsidized enrollees -- about 7.4 million -- (as of June 30) have incomes under 250% FPL*  If half of the estimated 5 million marketplace-eligible uninsured people with incomes under 250% FPL enroll in plans, and if they constitute about 75% of new enrollees (as they do of current ones), that suggests 3.3 million new enrollees -- almost exactly the midpoint in HHS's forecast range.