The Counter-Upshot: Obamacare is quite as egalitarian as it appears

Tyler Cowen draws a rather odd conclusion from the spike this year in premiums for health plans sold in the nongroup market: The ACA is not as egalitarian as it appears.

Cowen legitimately spotlights the weakness of the ACA value proposition for uninsured people with incomes above 250% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) and so for a large group of the remaining uninsured. But his discussion of its "egalitarian" impact is limited by his leaving the Medicaid expansion out of the equation (if not entirely out of the discussion).

Cowen bases his case that "by some measures, the Affordable Care Act has had only a limited impact on economic inequality" mainly on a recent study* by Wharton School researchers led by health economist Mark Pauly.* Pauly et al found that slightly less than half of the still-uninsured who are eligible to buy health plans on the ACA exchanges would not experience "welfare improvements" if they buy health plans. Cowen summarizes:

Your health insurer may not want to control the cost of medical care

Two facts about the business of health insurance that must be obvious to practitioners and those who study the subject occurred to me recently.

First, if the cost of medical care goes up and the actuarial value of a health plan remains the same, consumers' out-of-pocket costs will go up.  87% of $5,000 is more than 87% of $4,000.

Second: A rise in the cost of medical care (theoretically) does not affect insurers' profit margins, since actuarial value and medical loss ratio stay the same. But the cost-hike does increase their revenue. They are, in a sense, reselling medical care to plan holders. Selling more expensive care is equivalent to selling more of it. If I sell you $120 in care and keep 20% of it, I earn more than if I sell you $100 worth and kept 20%.*

Conservative reform of the ACA: cutting strings at different ends

When those few conservatives who would genuinely like to see affordable health insurance available to all Americans -- and the many Republican office holders who pretend to -- float alternatives to the Affordable Care Act, they talk about making insurance more affordable, about offering more choice and flexibility to insurers and hence to customers.

Giving insurers more flexibility generally means three things. First, reducing or eliminating the ACA's federally mandated Essential Health Benefits (EHBs) -- which include mental health, drug treatment, childbirth and children's dental coverages that many people might plausibly protest they don't need. Second, allowing sale of plans with lower actuarial values -- the percentage of the average user's annual medical costs paid by the plan -- than the ACA allows. The law sets a floor of 60% AV in both the employer and individual markets and, in the exchanges, establishes silver-level 70% AV plans as the benchmark to which subsidies and Cost Sharing Reduction subsidies (boosting AV for lower income buyers) are tied. Third, widening the allowable price variation according to the plan holder's age and allowing price variation according to sex.

There's much less here than meets the eye.

Two ways to reform the ACA's free preventive services

The Wharton School's Mark Pauly has co-authored an article (with Duke's Frank A. Sloane and Sean D. Sullivan at U. Washington) arguing that the free preventive care services mandated by the ACA to be covered by all insurance plans should be subject to cost-benefit analysis. Currently they are not; the decisions of the two entities that determine which preventive services must be provided for free  "are based on a comparison of health benefits and risks alone," as Rebecka Rosenquist summarizes on the blog of the Leonard Davis Institute at Penn. She further notes:

Pauly and colleagues note that the groups “have no responsibility for a total expenditures budget for medical services that would constrain their recommendations.” They cite an analysis that shows a 1.5 percent increase in private insurance premiums due to the cost of the US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations. “When they do recommend a new costly vaccine or service, that recommendation usually increases both public and private spending (including insurance premiums).”

Indeed. Outcomes research funded by the ACA should also shape Medicare reimbursements, but demagogic screams about health care "rationing" made that impossible. Recall, too, the outcry in November 2009 when the US Preventive Services Task Force -- one of the two agencies* charged with setting the ACA's free preventive services mandates -- downgraded its mammography recommendation for women under 40, deeming that the decision whether to undergo the test should be based on individual circumstance.  The ACA drafters rushed to mandate free mammograms at any age.

The Republicans' ACA shell game

The most credible rap against the Affordable Care Act is that it raises the cost of insurance bought in the individual market for people who have no preexisting conditions and earn too much to qualify for subsidies.

That is true. Hence all the "rate shock" stories bruited by the GOP last fall.  Most of those stories did not survive scrutiny, because the GOP went for dramatic hardship cases, and most true hardship cases qualify for subsidized coverage.  Those truly dinged by the law were more like a couple with two children profiled by the New York Times earning about $100,000 per year and a single 50-something man earning just under $50,000 profiled in the same article -- folks on the wrong side of the subsidy cliff.*

Somewhere between one and five million people suffered at least short-term financial harm of this sort. Their numbers are now dwarfed by the 6-7 million people getting subsidized private plan coverage, the 7 million-odd added to the Medicaid rolls, and the 2-3 million under age 26 who gained coverage on their parents' plans.

The law as a whole remains unpopular -- because Republicans have been relentlessly smearing it for five years, because the individual mandate has always been an unpopular concept, because healthcare.gov dysfunction imprinted "train wreck" perceptions before the problems were patched and signups surged, and because astounding numbers of the still-uninsured still don't know that they qualify for subsidized coverage.

Nevertheless, reality has seeped in enough to sap the strength of the Republican attack.  And as the intensity of that attack has diminished, its policy core has shrunk to a simple line that masks a core evasion. Here's one iteration, as expressed to Talking Points Memo's Sahil Kapur:

"Ensuring that people with preexisting conditions have access to coverage has long been a popular policy, and one where there is bipartisan agreement. It's the the entirety of ObamaCare that remains EXTREMELY unpopular," Brad Dayspring, a spokesman for the Senate GOP's campaign arm, told TPM in an email.

Hey, red state governors: here's an ACA "repeal and replace" plan to protect the rate-shocked

Guaranteed issue -- the guarantee that one's health or medical history won't be factored into the cost of health insurance bought on the individual market -- is one of the most popular features of the ACA. Many Republicans vowing to "repeal and replace" the law promise to keep it. But maybe they shouldn't.

Guaranteed issue is also the primary driver of the rise in health insurance premiums triggered by the ACA (the base price, that is, offset for most consumers by government subsidies). Benefits consultant Milliman estimated in March 2013 that guaranteed issue would drive the cost of insurance in California up 26.5%.  More recently, with the data for the ACA's first open season in, a NBER study by a team of health economists led by the Wharton School's Mark Pauly identified it as the primary cause of cost increases averaging 14 to 28% in 24 states. 

The rise in insurance premiums for the unsubsidized, leading to "rate shock" for some who were already buyers in  the pre-ACA individual market and earned too much to qualify for subsidies, has been Republicans' most potent attack point against the ACA. Rhetorically, they like to pin the price hike on the "essential health benefits" (EHBs) that all policies must provide under the ACA -- e.g., childbirth and mental health coverage. But the price impact of EHBs is dwarfed by guaranteed issue. Some Republicans and conservatives acknowledge this indirectly by touting state-run high risk pools for those with preexisting conditions -- a proposal that implies the end of guaranteed issue.

State high risk pools have been around for some time, and were funded as a temporary measure by the ACA to cover those with pre-existing conditions until the state insurance marketplaces were launched in 2014.  They have generally been underfunded, often prohibitively expensive and/or available to only a fraction of those who needed them.

I have a question for health economists -- or, if you prefer, a modest proposal for red state governors who would like to "repeal and replace" the ACA on a state level -- as the law allows via innovation waivers that empower states to submit plans that would meet the law's goals by alternative means. If feasible, it might be attractive to self-styled champions of the free market -- and of constituents who liked their pre-ACA insurance and couldn't keep it, chiefly because they've been drafted to subsidize insurance for the less healthy.