Think ACA enrollment is complicated? Try Medicare

One of the early and persistent raps against the ACA is that the benefit structure and application process are too complex. There's a lot of questions to answer. It takes a half hour to an hour -- if you're not called on to provide extra verification for your identity or immigration status or income. There are benefit cliffs -- between Medicaid and the marketplace; between marketplace enrollees who qualify for strong Cost Sharing Reduction and those who don't; and, most precipitous (for older enrollees), between those who qualify for premium subsidies and those who don't. As for plan offerings, in some markets a dominant insurer will throw up a half-dozen minutely differentiated plans, sowing confusion.

All this is true. But I'd like to take a first pass here at a myth that I'd like to explore more fully later: that by comparison, Medicare is a blessed zone of simplicity, equity and benefit adequacy.

In 2016, CBO started counting Medicaid enrollment differently

CORRECTION, 6/6/17: Somehow, I missed an email response to my query from CBO (and asked them again twice after receiving the email). In 2016, they did not count partial benefit enrollees in their Medicaid totals; rather, the difference was that they counted people with multiple sources of coverage, including Medicaid, as Medicaid enrolled, whereas in past years they counted only the coverage source deemed primary. I was correct that in 2016 they started counting dual eligibles in both Medicaid and Medicare.

In a US News article by Kimberly Leonard about why the ACA private plan marketplace is not meeting enrollment expectations, while the ACA as a whole is reducing the ranks of the uninsured more or less on schedule, this claim did not compute:

Under Obamacare, states were allowed to expand the program to many more people, but many states have opted not to. Despite that, 16 million people more than expected enrolled in Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Plan, including in states that did not expand the program. Many people, it turns out, realized that they could have qualified for Medicaid even before the passage of the health care law.

Similarly, last March, when the Congressional Budget Office published its latest forecast of the ACA's effects, The New York Times' Robert Pear reported:

What would Simpson-Bowles 2.0 do to Medicare?

Liberals are up in arms about the new Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction framework because, in brief, it calls for about $1.4 trillion less in revenue over ten years than Simpson-Bowles 1.0  (let's call it SB 1) along with roughly another $1.8 trillion in spending cuts, counting interest savings. That's more cuts than those mandated by the looming sequester, but more back-loaded, and with $600 billion coming from Medicare and Medicaid, which the sequester doesn't touch.

The shock comes from the reduction in proposed new revenue compared to the original plan, a change that simply reflects Obama's more limited revenue goals ($1.2 trillion over ten years at last ask, compared to $2.6 in SB 1). Spending cuts remain approximately the same, making the whole package proportionately more cut-heavy.

I want to look for a moment at the $600 billion in savings SB 2 proposes for "health care reforms" -- $200 billion more than SB 1 laid out, but  no more than Obama put forward in his last "grand bargain" offer to Boehner.  Simpson and Bowles envision bending the health care curve in ways that overlap with those envisioned by Obama -- though BS 1 cuts benefits in ways that Obama would not approve, and BS 2 would presumably cut benefits still more. Their rather sketchy new framework takes an "all of the above' approach to reducing healthcare costs -- hitting providers, beneficiaries, and drug companies:

Reduce Medicare and Medicaid spending by improving provider and beneficiary incentives throughout the health care system, reducing provider payments, reforming cost-sharing, increasing premiums for higher earners, adjusting benefits to account for population aging, reducing drug costs, and getting better value for our health care dollars (Feb-Dec 2013)