Insuring the newly uninsured: COBRA or ACA?

Subscribe to xpostfactoid via box at top right. You'll get 2-3 posts per week, mostly re ACA.

So what about fully funding COBRA for the millions or tens of millions of Americans who lose job-based coverage? That is, bail out everyone -- insurers, employers large and small, employees, and hospitals and doctors, who depend on the commercial insurance gravy train?

It's the most expensive way to keep the ranks of the uninsured from ballooning. It's also the least disruptive way.  Families USA, hardly a corporate water-carrying outfit, supports it.

Thought bubbles:

Employer-sponsored insurance is deteriorating. What about fixing it rather than replacing it?

Subscribe to xpostfactoid via box at top right --->

Medicare for All's main political liability, as the presidential campaign has made clear, is loss aversion: most Americans are insured,  most are reasonably satisfied with their coverage, and a significant minority consider their top-drawer coverage a major asset. Americans also have ample cause to doubt their government's capacity to completely remake the country's healthcare system and serve as the sole source of major medical insurance to everybody.

At the same time, Medicare for All speaks to a current reality: employer-sponsored insurance (ESI), which covers the majority of Americans under age 65, is deteriorating, and Americans know it.  Kaiser Family Foundation tracking poll results released last week neatly capture the core household worries related to healthcare:

About two-thirds of Americans say they are either “very worried” (35%) or “somewhat worried” (30%) about being able to afford unexpected medical bills. This is larger than the share that say they are worried about affording a variety of expenses, including other types of health care costs as well as other household expenses. About half of insured adults say they worry about being able to afford their health insurance deductible (49%) and four in ten (40%) worry about being able to afford their premiums. More than four in ten adults overall worry about affording prescription drug costs (45%).

2019: Medicare at Will, Warren in the whirlpool, silver loading Year 2....

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

Below, a look back at some xpost focal points in 2019. Short version: the posts below index multiple posts on recurring themes:

Elizabeth Warren's healthcare toggle switch
Two years of rather quavery support for Medicare for All

Medicare for all who want it: Potential and pitfalls 
Scrutinizing the Medicare for America bill

Silver loading and 2019 enrollment
What impact has silver loading had so far? What can be done to increase its impact -- that is, to further boost ACA subsidies?

*          *          *

Early this year, I assumed that as the Democratic presidential candidate field was winnowed, the surviving candidates would converge on a "Medicare for all who want it" model for next-gen healthcare reform.

Elizabeth Warren's healthcare two-step

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

I owe a debt of gratitude to a Jacobin writer, Tim Higginbotham, who lambastes Elizabeth Warren for a) going into what he regards as unproductive detail about the financing of Medicare for All and b) signaling that she doesn't intend to enact M4A any time soon.

It's the latter that interests me. It solves something of a riddle. And unlike Higginbotham, I approve of this message. I think there may be a kind of deep realism in it, not severable from real commitment to major structural change.

Higginbotham notes that Warren's pay-fors depend in part on enacting other major legislation, and that her language accordingly projects Medicare for All into an..eventuality:

Warren’s remaining financing methods bring us to the biggest problem with her plan: its clear lack of urgency. Warren argues that her plan for comprehensive immigration reform could free up $400 billion toward Medicare for All over ten years, while cutting the dangerous military slush fund will free up another $798 billion.

On their own these are important goals, but using major political fights like these to cobble together funding for Medicare for All is a fairly good tell that Warren’s plan is not designed to be implemented anytime soon. This is further evidenced by the language in Warren’s Medium post about her plan: she describes Medicare for All as a “long-term” goal seven times, while couching the rest of the post in similar language (such as saying she wants to move to a Medicare for All system “eventually”).

That's absolutely right. And in fact, near the end of her Medium piece introducing her M4A funding plan, Warren makes it explicit that she won't be fighting to enact BernieCare from day 1, 2021:

Of course, moving to this kind of system will not be easy and will not happen overnight. This is why every serious proposal for Medicare for All contemplates a significant transition period.

Triage: A moderate healthcare reform proposal

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

Prescript (8/7/19): it occurs to me that this rather kludgy patch to our current system boils down to a simple rule: no one pays more than 8% of income for less than 80% AV insurance.  Paid for in part by expanding the footprint of Medicare payment rates.

*          *          *

I want to float here a path to healthcare system reform that starts a gear shift or two below the Medicare for America bill, which creates a strong public option that anyone can buy into at an income-adjusted price. I am mindful of David Anderson's warning that a Democratic president who goes for sweeping healthcare reform (assuming at best a narrow Senate majority and abolishment of the filibuster) will have bandwidth for little else -- and I think other imperatives, like attacking global warming, should come first.

First, a set of working assumptions (and background on current bills) that undergird where I land (skip to the subhead, where the proposal starts, if you're so inclined).

1. The U.S. healthcare system is outrageously expensive, unjust, and inefficient, distorted by two related structural flaws:

Should the U.S. ditch private insurance?

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

Elizabeth Warren has gotten tight with Ady Barkan, a brave ALS patient and advocate for Medicare for All. In the July 30 debate, she told his tale:

The guy who has ALS, this isn’t this is somebody who has health insurance and dying. Every month he has about $9,000 in medical bills that his insurance company won’t cover. His wife Rachel is on the phone for hours and hours and hours begging the insurance company please cover what the doctors say he needs.

Barkan, in his turn, tweeted during the next night's debate: 

Every candidate on stage who doesn’t want to get rid of private insurance should have to explain what a company like Aetna adds to our health care system. How do they make patients’ lives better? #DemDebate

— Ady Barkan🔥🌹 (@AdyBarkan) August 1, 2019

Fair enough. Whether to preserve private insurance, and how to reform it if so, are the questions that divide Democratic candidates' approaches to healthcare reform, at least theoretically (what each of them would truly aim to accomplish via legislation introduced in 2021, and how they would balance their healthcare goals with other priorities, are questions they should be asked). 

In any case, let's look at the rap sheet against insurance companies -- and set it against their claims to add value to our healthcare system.

The raps

• Divided and conquered: All but uniquely among wealthy countries, the U.S. leaves private insurers to each separately negotiate payment rates with healthcare providers. The fragmented payer universe gives providers outsized bargaining leverage, particularly in areas with dominant hospital systems or provider shortages.  Accordingly, commercial insurers pay hospitals about 189% of Medicare rates, according to a Congressional Budget Office estimate, and 241% Medicare according to a more recent RAND study. Commercial rates for doctors are about 128% Medicare, according to MEDPAC. 

New colors in the spectrum of Democratic healthcare reform plans

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

For some time, Democratic next-gen healthcare reform proposals have fallen on a spectrum  that I've thought as anchored by three main proposal types. Here they are, in ascending order of cost and degree of system change:

• ACA 2.0 - Improve the ACA mainly by a) bulking up the subsidies and extending them farther up the income scale, and/or b) introducing a national public option within the ACA marketplace framework. Chief exemplars: Elizabeth Warren's ACA 2.0 bill; Senators Bennet and Kaine's Medicare-X. 


• Medicare for all who want it: Introduce a strong public option that anyone can buy into on an income-adjusted basis, even if they have access to other affordable insurance, e.g., insurance offered by an employer. Chief current exemplars: The Center for American Progress's Medicare Extra, which is the basis of Reps. DeLauro and Schakowsky's Medicare for America bill.


• Medicare for All (that covers everything for everyone at no cost to anyone except via taxes). Private insurance essentially ends. Chief exemplars: - Bernie Sander's Medicare for All bill, and Rep. Jayapal's House variant.

Biden Plan: An ACA 2.0/Medicare for America hybrid

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

Joe Biden released a healthcare reform plan outline today. It looks like a cross between the Medicare for America bill, which would create a strong national public option, and various "ACA 2.0" bills, which would bolster ACA premium subsidies and reduce enrollees' out-of-pocket costs.

In brief, here are the core features of these antecedents:

• ACA 2.0 bills and plans, including Elizabeth Warren's, are generally variants on an ACA enhancement plan published in August 2015 by Urban Institute scholars Linda Blumberg and John Holahan.  The core is simply to increase ACA premium subsidies and extend them to more people. Blumberg and Holahan proposed raising the ACA benchmark, against which subsidies are calculated, from "silver" to "gold" - -that is, from an actuarial value of 70% (paying that percentage of the average user's annual medical costs) to 80%. They further proposed raising AV higher than that income levels up to 300% FPL, improving the ACA's Cost Sharing Reduction subsidies at lower income levels; reducing the percentage of income paid for the benchmark at every income level; and capping premiums as a percentage of income at 8.5% for anyone at any income level who lacks access to employer insurance or other insurance -- removing the ACA's 400% FPL income cap on subsidies. At bottom, I've posted Blumberg and Holahan's proposed premium and AV schedule.


• The Medicare for America Act of 2019 would create a revamped Medicare available to people at all income levels, paying Medicare rates (adjusted modestly) to providers, and costing no one more than 8% of income. All Americans would be eligible for income-based premium subsidies, even if their employers offer affordable coverage. The plan would be free -- with no cost-sharing -- to people with incomes below 200% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL). Newborns would be auto-enrolled. Employers could "buy in" by paying a payroll tax, or continue to offer coverage. Existing Medicare and Medicaid would be integrated into the new program, which would include long-term care insurance. Medicare would negotiate drug prices, and a price review board would be empowered to crack down on price gouging.

Ambiguity on key points

Biden's plan would establish "a public health insurance option like Medicare" that, "like Medicare...will reduce costs for patients by negotiating lower prices from hospitals and other health care providers."  Note that it's not entirely clear whether this option will simply adopt Medicare prices or negotiate separately -- in fact, the language implies the latter. The plan will be available to anyone, including those with access to employer insurance -- but here too the language is ambiguous; it's not clear whether those with access to employer insurance would be eligible for subsidies.

Voters understand Medicare-for-all better than Bernie does

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

I would think long and hard about contradicting Larry Levitt (of the Kaiser Family Foundation) and Jonathan Cohn (of HuffPost) together on anything but semantic grounds.  But on semantic grounds...I don't think their framing of the results of a Kaiser poll voters' understanding of "Medicare-for-all" is quite right.

Kaiser asked some 1200 voters what the healthcare system would look like "under a national health plan, sometimes called Medicare-for-all." Majorities, varying moderately by partisan affiliation, assumed:

• Taxes for most people would increase 
• People would continue to pay premiums, deductibles and copays for medical services
• People with private insurance would be able to keep their plans
• Private health insurance companies would not be the primary way Americans can get health coverage*
• All U.S. residents would have health insurance coverage

On Twitter, Larry Levitt alluded to "how confused the public is about Medicare-for-all based on our new poll." Jonathan Cohn, who wrote about the results, tweeted, "Voters like Medicare for All, but there's a catch: They don't understand what it'd do."

I don't think the survey respondents and focus group participants were collectively confused, though they're not informed about current bill specifics. I think they're realistic about the furthest likely extent of next-gen Democratic healthcare reform. Their responses lack coherence only to the extent that "Medicare-for-all" can't be understood to encompass "Medicare access for all," particular in the refracted context of a "a national health plan, sometimes called Medicare-for-all."

Michael Bennet misrepresented his Medicare-X bill on CNN

Colorado Senator Michael Bennet, who entered the presidential race on May 2, made headlines yesterday for taking on Bernie Sanders' Medicare for All plan in a CNN Town Hall yesterday. Bennet claimed that it's impracticable to take employer-sponsored insurance away from "180 million people" currently insured through their employers ( a high estimate), especially from millions whose unions have negotiated good benefits.

It's a familiar line of attack. More noteworthy was the fact that Bennet misrepresented his own ACA reform bill, the Medicare-X Choice Act, which introduces a national public option into the ACA exchanges. Here's what Bennet said (my transcript and emphasis):

What we would be much better off doing to get to universal healthcare quickly is to finish the job we started with the Affordable Care Act and have a true public option...The one that I have designed would be administered by Medicare and it would give all of you the chance to choose what's right for you and your family. If you want a public option then you can have it. Basically it's Medicare for all if you want it. But if you to keep the insurance you have, which many people do, you'd be able to do that as well.

This is not literally untrue. As of the fifth year after enactment, anyone could buy into Medicare-X, which would be offered in all counties nationwide alongside private plans in the ACA marketplace. But only a limited number of people could buy in on a subsidized basis. Most people whose employers offer insurance would not be subsidy-eligible.

Medicare for all who want it: Potential and pitfalls

I have suspected for some time that the longest-lasting Democratic presidential candidates may converge on health care reform plans that enable any American to buy into a strong public option (probably deemed "Medicare") at an affordable price. That would include people whose employers offer coverage -- they would be subsidy-eligible if they opt into the public plan.

The existing bill that fits this description is the Medicare for America Act -- a bill that takes such an open-to-all public plan to its logical conclusion by phasing out Medicaid and revamping the Medicare currently available to seniors and the disabled -- and, crucially, adding long-term care insurance. The bill is rich in promise and not free from pitfalls, which I've been more or less live-blogging over the past couple of weeks. I thought I'd take some space here to index those posts, a step toward making something of a coherent whole of them (including some earlier posts). Here goes, then.

The plan that lets anyone buy into Medicare (3/21/19)
This overview at healthinsurance.org starts with my core question: Can Democrats bite off as much healthcare reform as Medicare for America encompasses? Might they pare it back to its core -- a public option buy-in for anyone who wants/needs it?

Medicare for America might let private insurance thrive (3/22/19)
The key condition is that healthcare providers would have to accept "Medicare" payment rates from commercial insurers.

"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."

Folding Medicaid into Medicare for America: Will states pay their share?

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

One of the many sweeping transformations of U.S. healthcare mandated by the Medicare for America Act is the absorption of all Medicaid programs -- currently serving some 72 million Americans -- into a revamped Medicare serving all ages. That would occur six years after enactment.

Medicare for America would be available to Americans of all ages and incomes -- and free to everyone in a household with an income below 200% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL). That's far above the eligibility threshold for Medicaid programs -- with the exception CHIP in some states, for which children in families with incomes as high as 400% FPL may be eligible. Families with incomes between 200% and 400% FPL would have to pay a percentage of income -- probably not higher than 4% -- to insure the whole family. The new program would include comprehensive disability services and 100% coverage for the medically frail and for chronic disease treatment, as well as dental, vision and hearing services.

State governments -- many of them sure to be deeply hostile -- would be subject to two major requirements: 1)  cede control of service for their Medicaid populations, and 2) reimburse the federal government with "maintenance of effort" payments equivalent to their current Medicaid responsibilities, adjusted annually for inflation. Those requirements are certain to be challenged in court, as was the ACA Medicaid expansion.

Seniors' costs under Medicare for America, continued

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

In my last post I noted that while the revamped and expanded Medicare available to all under the Medicare for America Act of 2019 would serve most Americans very well, some people who turn 65 after full enactment would pay more in premium than they would today for traditional Medicare Parts B and D, or comparably priced Medicare Advantage.

They would get far more for the money -- most notably, long-term care insurance, dental, visual and hearing coverage, and 100% coverage for a host of vital services like chronic disease management, addiction and mental health treatment, and care for the medically frail. Still, higher premiums for seniors with incomes above about $50,000 for an individual or $80,000 for a couple is a political problem that needs to be thought out.  Here, I have a bit more data to sketch in.

If Medicare for America passes, some seniors would pay more (and get more) than at present

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

Medicare for America,  the bill that would allow anyone at any age to buy into a revamped Medicare at an income-adjusted price (e.g., $0 for the bottom 30% of the income distribution), would be a clear benefit to anyone under 65. Even for those who continue to get insured through their employers, it would offer the true freedom from job-lock that the ACA promised and largely failed to deliver.

Most seniors who turn 65 after the new program would come into full effect (2023 were it to pass this year) would be gainers too (those enrolled in current Medicare before the new program launches would have the option of continuing to pay their then-current premiums). A fair number of new enrollees, however, would pay far more in premium than they would for existing fee-for-service Medicare or a Medicare Advantage plan. They would get more for their money. But the expectation that when you turn 65 you can get reliable insurance for under $200 per month is pretty hard-wired into Americans, I suspect. Violating that expectation for a substantial subset of the 3-4 million people who age into Medicare in year one (and every year following) is a political problem to be reckoned with.

Would Medicare for America phase out employer-sponsored insurance?

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

It's often regarded as an open question whether the Medicare for America Act, were it to become law, would lead to a phase-out of private insurance. The bill makes a revamped Medicare available to anyone of any age who wants or needs it, with premiums adjusted by income even if the enrollee has access to employer-sponsored insurance.

The revamped "Medicare" is free to anyone whose household income is below 200% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) -- about 30% of the population. For those with incomes over 600% FPL, the premium is 8% of income. Those in the 200-600% FPL range will pay a sliding scale, topping out at 8%. Newborns are auto-enrolled, as are the uninsured. Employers can either pay an 8% payroll tax and direct their employees to the public program, or continue to offer their own health plans. Medicare Advantage continues alongside the public program.

I do not think the bill would kill of employer-sponsored insurance, though it would likely shrink the market to a kind of blue-chip perk for well compensated employees. ESI is likely to persist for several reasons:

• The bill stipulates that medical providers have to accept "Medicare" payment rates (not identical to current rates, but based on them) from private insurers.


• The employer tax exemption for health benefits persists. In fact, the ACA's "Cadillac Tax" on especially generous plan (long postponed) is repealed.


• Most importantly, the 8% of income that affluent people would pay for the revamped "Medicare" is considerably more than many pay out-of-pocket for employer-sponsored insurance.

The average premium for family coverage in ESI was $19,616 in 2018, according the Kaiser Family Foundation's Employer Health Benefits Survey, with the employee footing $5,547, or 28%.  For a couple with one child earning $125,000 -- a shade over 600% FPL -- that's 4% of income.

A major fix in Medicare for America 2.0

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

Medicare for America, the sweeping healthcare reform bill that allows anyone to buy into a revamped Medicare at an income-adjusted premium, has the potential to transform U.S. healthcare into either an all-payer or a single-payer system.

The bill, first introduced by Reps Rosa DeLauro and Jean Schakowsky in December 2018 and reintroduced on May 1 this year, allows both Medicare Advantage and employer-sponsored insurance to continue, and stipulates that healthcare providers must accept (revised) Medicare payment rates from those private programs.  But because employees can opt into "Medicare" on an income-adjusted basis even if their employers offer compliant private insurance, private insurance will have to establish a real competitive advantage if it's to survive alongside the generous public program.

The headline change in the reintroduced bill is elimination of deductibles, which were modest enough in the original bill (topping out at $350 individual/$500 family). But a more significant change improves the bill's financing and provides ballast for the competition between public and private sectors.

What if a candidate took voters' stated healthcare priorities literally?

In its low-key way, the Kaiser Family Foundation has been warning Democrats for some time that the electorate is not strongly demanding Medicare for All, or sweeping healthcare system change generally.

With about 90% of the population insured (and perhaps a third underinsured), Drew Altman noted a month ago that voters' main overall healthcare priority is lowering their own out-of-pocket costs. The latest Kaiser tracking poll, conducted this month, fleshes this out:

Drug costs. Surprise bills. Access to affordable insurance if you get sick (e.g., if you lose your job). Underlying these concerns, Altman pointed out, is the poll finding that half of people who are sick have trouble paying their medical bills. With deductibles soaring, 43% said it was hard to pay their medical bills before the deductible kicks in.

Secondarily, there is broad support for expanding financial help to more people who need to buy health insurance in the individual market. There's majority support, in theory, for Medicare for All, but Kaiser's January tracking poll found that that support collapses collapses from 56% to 37% when people are asked if they would support a program that raises most people's taxes or eliminates private health insurance companies.

Meeting voters where they are on healthcare

These responses raise the question: what would a healthcare platform that aims to give voters what they say they want look like?  Addressing voters' stated wishes piecemeal may not be optimal policy: systemic change might be needed to address core concerns. Most fundamentally, reducing individuals' out-of-pocket costs requires bringing down the underlying cost of care, if the cost is not simply to be shifted to the tax burden.

At the same time, a candidate who floats a plan that would leave the current core elements of our health insurance sources intact -- preserving employer-sponsored insurance, existing Medicare, Medicaid and the ACA marketplace -- might have some running room to impose reforms that pinch healthcare industry revenues.

Providers would fight a strong balance billing ban and a strong public option in the ACA marketplace -- but they might ultimately  settle for these reforms that don't radically shrink the employer insurance cash cow. Ditto for insurers. They will fight a public option in the ACA marketplace -- but it's less of a threat than Medicare for All, or a public option that's affordably open to pretty much anyone. As for pharma...let's assume for the sake of argument here that it's possible to take on one healthcare industry head-on if you're not taking on all at once.

So, here's the hypothetical platform:

Strong balance billing protection. Balance billing is the one form of abuse in the U.S. healthcare system that's so egregious, even Americans may not stand for it much longer -- hence the bipartisan draft legislation introduced in the Senate to provide relief. Vox and Kaiser Health News have been doing God's work exposing shocking-but-routine instances of price-gouging. As cited in a Brookings analysis, some 20% of emergency room episodes, 9% of scheduled procedures and 50% of ambulance services result in out-of-network bills for patients

A strong solution would ban balance billing for a) people brought to an out-of-network ED in an emergency, b) people who get emergency care at an in-network facility, and c) people who schedule a procedure with an in-network primary provider at an in-network facility. A viable solution should also not drive up the cost of care by requiring insurers to pay billed costs at huge multiples of Medicare rates, as do some proposals and state bills that mandate arbitration, or use billed costs as a benchmark..

A strong solution put forward in the Brookings analysis would a) cap all out-of-network billing at 125% Medicare and b)  ban independent billing for targeted specialties, e.g.,  emergency, ancillary clinician, hospitalist, and neonatology services delivered at an in-network facility.  That puts the onus on hospitals to negotiate rates acceptable to those specialists.

Prescription drug relief. Medicare should negotiate rates not only for Medicare Part D but for the whole nation -- joining virtually every other wealthy country in having the national government negotiate uniform rates for prescription drugs for all payers. Medicare should also be empowered to create a formulary, i.e. not cover every drug, i.e. have the power to walk away when there's a viable alternative.  This is not going to happen. But in the proposal phase, go big here to balance the moderation of the overall package. Fallbacks might include a) empowering Medicare to negotiate for Part D plans only; b) creation of a drug oversight board empowered to flag and punish or roll back price-gouging as defined by statute; and c) various current bipartisan initiatives to encourage generic production and competition.

Augmented ACA.  Improvements to the ACA should a) make individual market coverage affordable, including via affordable out-of-pocket costs, for anyone at any income level who lacks affordable access to other insurance (e.g., affordable employer insurance or Medicaid); and b) control underlying costs, so that the improved subsidies required by a) are affordable to the Treasury.

A bill that might fit the, um, bill would

a) Raise the benchmark plan in the ACA marketplace, for which enrollees pay a fixed/sliding percentage of income, from 70% actuarial value to 80% AV, i.e. from silver level to gold in the current marketplace scheme. 80% AV is near the average for employer-sponsored insurance.

b) Erase the current subsidy cliff, which renders coverage extremely expensive for many who are just beyond the income threshold for subsidies (400% of the Federal Poverty Level, or roughly $49,000 for an individual/$100,000 for a family of four). Cap premiums for the benchmark plan at 8.5% of income for anyone otherwise eligible with an income over 400% FPL.

c) Improve premium and cost sharing subsidies at incomes below 400% FPL, requiring a lower percentage of income to pay the benchmark premium and providing higher AV for benchmark plans.

d) Create a strong public option, paying Medicare rates to providers (with some adjustments for rural hospitals and primary care) and requiring providers who accept Medicare to accept the public plan. This would also push down the rates that commercial marketplace insurers pay providers, and remove providers' incentive to refuse to accept the commercial marketplace plans, most of which would probably pay more than the public option.

e) Enable people whose employers offer insurance to access subsidies for marketplace coverage if the employer plan a) costs more than 8.5% of income, including for family coverage if the employee has a family, and/or b) offers less than 80% AV coverage.

Point e) does not open the sluice gates to the public plan as wide as does the Medicare for America bill, soon to be reintroduced by Reps Rosa De Lauro and Jan Schakowsky, which allows anyone to buy into the public plan at no more than 10% of income (and much less at lower incomes, including $0 for people with incomes up to 200% FPL).  Because the public option in Medicare for America is free to people with incomes up  200% FPL (with zero out-of-pocket costs as well), it also entails folding Medicaid into the new public plan -- and existing Medicare, with long-term-care added. It also auto-enrolls newborns as of 2022 (or probably 2023 in the upcoming update).

Medicare for America opens a plausible path either to Medicare for All (albeit with out-of-pocket costs for most enrollees) or to a de facto all-payer system, since the bill stipulates that providers must accept the public plan's payment rates from commercial insurers (in employer insurance and Medicare Advantage). It's a coherent set of measures for major system transformation.

The plan above is much more limited. It's also a much lighter lift. But it does cram an awful lot of systemic reform into the Overton Window  opened by Medicare for All and Medicare for America -- while leaving a candidate like Elizabeth Warren free to propose spending trillions on education, childcare and other priorities .

Medicare at Will

I have posited repeatedly (here, here, here) that the gateway to real healthcare system transformation (and cost control) is a buy-in to a strong public option that's open to employees as well as employers. A strong public option is one that pays providers at Medicare rates or some adjusted variation, and that all providers who accept Medicare are required to accept.

The public plan must set premiums and out-of-pocket costs at affordable levels for all comers and must be truly available to all, including those whose employers offer private insurance. It should be the baseline against which private coverage must compete, setting a de facto all-payer rate (unless those offering and buying top-drawer coverage want to pay above that baseline).

The Medicare for America bill does all this and also a great deal more -- transforming existing Medicare, including long-term care, folding in Medicaid, auto-enrolling all newborns four years after enactment. I'm not sure the U.S. political system can handle all that mandated transformation at once: in my view the buy-in for employers and employees is the essential core.

This kind of public option, which dates back to the early 2000s in basic concept, has a branding problem. "Medicare for All" has been a dominant watchword and battlecry since 2016, courtesy of Bernie Sanders. "Medicare for America" does not differentiate itself conceptually.  "Medicare for All Who Want or Need It" is...ugh.  Articles such as this one put the buy-in concept under the rubric of Medicare for All, where it doesn't fit.

So I'm here today just to float a name and creed: Medicare at Will. The public plan should  be an affordable option that anyone can choose, with premiums and OOP adjusted to income even if other insurance is available.  Medicare at will is in syllabic balance with Medicare for All. It incorporates the "if you like your plan you can keep it" meme without making any unsustainable promises. In fact it's all about a promise kept: Medicare is always there if you want it or need it.

#MedicareAtWill, friends.

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

Which Democratic healthcare reform bills offer the most affordable coverage to the most people?

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

Drew Altman, president and CEO of the Kaiser Family Foundation, has a message for elected officials and candidates. With regard to healthcare policy

it’s the candidates who can connect their plans and messages to voters’ worries about out of pocket costs who will reach beyond the activists in their base. And the candidates aren’t speaking to that much, at least so far.   

That claim is based mainly on Kaiser polling, which finds that 48 percent of voters worry about paying their health care bills, and half of people who are sick have trouble paying their medical bills.

The extent to which various Democratic bills to improve or replace the ACA address the demand for affordability can be viewed in two dimensions. First is the degree to which they make coverage more affordable and reduce out-of-pocket costs for the ACA's original intended beneficiaries: those who lack access to other affordable insurance, mainly employer-sponsored insurance (ESI). Second is the degree to which they impact affordability for the 150-plus million current ESI enrollees (roughly 56% of the population under age 65).

The bills affect the affordability of ESI in three ways.