Bring back the PPACA!

A reader writes: 

It is two years out [from Trump's election] and every major press outlet uses "Obamacare." That just polarizes things.

They should have come up with a better name than Affordable Care Act. That does not even capture modified community ratings – guaranteed issue –essential benefits – private enterprise (the  Republican plan). This is why Medicare for All getting better polling. 

My first thought was, imagine trying to get across "guaranteed issue,"  "modified community ratings" and "essential health benefits" in a bill title. Then a near-forgotten set of syllables popped into my head: the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). "Patient protection," of course, is all about guaranteeing access to comprehensive coverage to all who want it -- including people with pre-existing conditions, who constitute somewhere between a fifth and half the population.

Nancy Pelosi famously/infamously said "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what's in it," and people do understand and like the protections for people with pre-existing conditions. A Kaiser Family Foundation poll released today makes that clear:

Psst, red states, want to destroy your ACA-compliant market? Set strict standards for short-term plans

Most discussion of the Trump administration's finalized rule allowing short-term health plans to be sold for a term of up to one year and renewed for up to three years spotlights not only the likely damage to risk pools in the ACA-compliant market, but also the dangers to enrollees posed by far-from-comprehensive insurance.

The Kaiser Family Foundation, for example, analyzed current short-term offerings available in 45 states. The report emphasized the impact of medical underwriting, exclusions for pre-existing conditions, medical loss ratios averaging 67% (and 50% for the two largest carriers) -- and the holes in coverage:

Of the short-term products offered on eHealth and/or Agile Health Insurance across all states, 43% do not cover mental health services, 62% do not cover services for substance abuse treatment (both alcohol and other drugs), 71% do not cover outpatient prescription drugs, and no plans cover maternity care. In seven states, none of these four benefit categories are covered in the short-term policies offered.

The plans on offer on eHealth.com do look pretty bad. I looked at one that does provide "prescription drug coverage" -- with a relatively low deductible of $1000 -- but with this caveat:

Covered after plan deductible when prescribed on an inpatient basis for a covered Injury or Sickness. Outpatient not covered; discount only.

As for the hospital where you have to get that covered drug prescription: benefits are capped at $1000/day.

When reading about such Swiss-cheese coverage, I've wondered: what if the federal government or a state required these medically underwritten plans to meet ACA standards, or something close to them? -- e.g., cover Essential Health Benefits, offer actuarial value of at least 60%, perhaps meet a minimum MLR of, say 75%? Or: what if insurers decided to take advantage of a new market opportunity and offer ACA-comparable plans in the noncompliant market?  Suppose they offered EHBs and a relatively high actuarial value, but with a yearly benefit cap?

I suspect that the public policy impact might be worse than under current rules, which allow plans to exclude pretty much whatever they want.

Not drowning but waiving: Timothy Jost on how Democrats might compromise responsibly on ACA

There's news today -- good news -- of Democrats in both the House and Senate acknowledging flaws in the ACA and proposing their own fixes (House) or exploring bipartisan fixes with Republicans (Senate).

All reports of such discussions or proposals include a couple of no-brainers: 1) a permanent reinsurance program, such as those included in both the AHCA (the House repeal/replace bill) and the BCRA (the Senate iteration), and 2) permanent assurance that the ACA's Cost Sharing Reduction subsidies will be paid, which isn't a conceptual fix, just an agreed end to Republican sabotage.

There's scarce discussion of what Democrats would give up to get Republicans to drop their deadly assault on the ACA's core features and all Medicaid as well, that is, the assault against 1) the taxes that fund the ACA's extension of health insurance access; 2) the ACA Medicaid expansion; 3) the federal government's open-ended commitment to pay its agreed share to each state for all those who are determined eligible Medicaid; and 4) income-based private market subsidies funded at ACA levels, whether structured differently or not.

One possible field of compromise is in the structure of the ACA's Section 1332 "innovation waivers," which allow states to propose variations on ACA marketplace structure to HHS. Through these waivers, states can propose alterations to almost any ACA Marketplace feature -- including repealing the individual and employer mandates, changing subsidy structure and eligibility, and altering the Essential Health Benefits that every insurance plan is required to offer. The catch is that the state seeking a waiver must demonstrate -- and convince the Medicare actuary -- that its alternative scheme will cover as many people as comprehensively and as affordably as the default structure -- and do so without increasing the deficit. Critics complain that the option effectively boils down to "you can change everything, as long as you don't change anything." That's not true, but the guardrails are pretty tight.

Tom MacArthur's faith-based waiver for the AHCA

Representative Tom MacArthur, R-NJ, has taken the lead in advancing amendments to the AHCA designed to bring both the Freedom Caucus and the moderate Tuesday Group aboard.  For the moderates, MacArthur writes that there will be an additional $160 billion in funding over 10 years to increase tax credits for older buyers and preserve Medicaid coverage for new mothers (was that on the block?!) and addiction treatment. For the conservatives, an amendment has been published  that would allow states to opt out of prohibiting medical underwriting or requiring insurers to cover the ACA's Essential Health Benefits.

Actually, the amendment begins by purporting to restore EHBs, community rating and guaranteed issue, the prohibition on denying coverage or charging more to people with pre-existing conditions. But it then tacks round and enables states to seek "limited waivers" to amend the EHBs, community rating -- and medical underwriting, if the state establishes a high risk pool.

How are those waivers limited? There's the rub. Beginning in 2017, the Affordable Care Act enables states to seek waivers to change the structure of their ACA marketplaces, but requires that the state's alternative plan "provide coverage that is at least as comprehensive and affordable, to at least a comparable number of residents, as this title would provide; and that it will not increase the Federal deficit."

Five under-reported facts about the ACA

It just popped into my head to consolidate a few facts about the ACA that I think I know and that seem to be pretty widely unrecognized. I just delved into the first one today, and I've flogged many or most of them several times, but here goes:

1. Silver plans are usually more than silver: 85% of silver plans sold on ACA exchanges are enhanced by Cost Sharing Reduction subsidies that raise the actuarial value from a baseline of 70% to 73%, 88%, or 94%, depending on the buyer's income. Two thirds of silver plan buyers have the stronger forms of CSR -- AV 87% or 94%.  On the other hand...

2. Half of those buying plans in the individual market are off-exchange, and many of those are doubtless buying silver plans with AV 70% (the metal levels are in use in ACA-compliant plans sold off exchange).

3. Most of those buying off-exchange are paying more than they would have pre-ACA, but perhaps 20-50% of them have a pre-existing condition or have a family member with one. Many of those buyers are paying less than they would have pre-ACA, and some would not have been able to buy or afford insurance at all.

4  ACA coverage rules are not the main reason that the law raised the price of unsubsidized individual market insurance.  Republicans have made the ACA's mandatory Essential Health Benefits their favorite whipping boy, but the real price driver is guaranteed issue -- the prohibition against basing the price of a plan (or eligibility) on the would-be buyer's medical history. And most Republicans profess (rather vaguely) to support that.

Gruber clips inspire powerful condensed defenses of the ACA

On occasion, I've made my case against opinion writers' "paragraph briefs," which make an omnibus case for something by packing disparate and often dubious assertions in comma-separated series.

An often more powerful variant, though still subject to slipping in slugs and ringers, is the link-packed paragraph brief.  These cite an array of evidence in a way that dares the reader not to take the cited authorities on faith -- each of them, maybe a half-dozen, are a click away. Of course, most of us do take most of them on faith most of the time. But the cards are on the table.

The Gruber brouhaha has driven a lot of progressive policy wonks to retrospection -- reviewing the legislative and political history of the ACA while chewing over Gruber's assertions that the process was deceptive and his apparent early impression that federal subsidies to states that built their own exchanges might not be immediately forthcoming.  That process has given rise to what's struck me as two particularly powerful paragraph briefs.

First, Ezra Klein delivers a short legislative history that rebuts the preposterous Halbig/King contention that the ACA's drafters intended to make premium subsidies available only to buyers in state-run exchanges:

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.

Don't deny ACA-driven rate-shock. Do put it in perspective

Most Obamacare horror stories trumpeted by Americans for Prosperity, Fox News et al did not hold up to scrutiny because the protagonists turned out to be eligible for subsidies. The law's enemies wanted real hardship cases, and even modest affluence apparently takes the edge off for propagandists.

That sloppiness has made it relatively easy for some of the law's supporters, including Paul Krugman (see update #7 here), to gloss over the substantial price hikes suffered by those who 1) are in the individual market for a relatively long haul, 2) earn too much to qualify for ACA subsidies, and 3) do not have a pre-existing condition or a family member who has one.

eHealth, the nation's best-known online health insurance broker pre-ACA, has published statistics indicating the extent of  premium price hikes for the unsubsidized under the ACA. The latest snapshot is based on 213,000 insurance applications completed on eHealth during the ACA's first open enrollment period, from October 2013 through March 2014;  a 2013 baseline is published here.   According to eHealth's most recent stats, the average individual plan premium rose from $197 in 2013 to $271 in 2014, a 38% increase. The average family plan rose from $426 to $667, a 57% hike.

The larger jump in family plan premiums is partly explained by a larger reduction in average deductibles, which shrank from $10,568 in 2013 to $7,771 in 2014 (that's for the whole family; each individual would have a smaller deducible). The average individual plan deductible fell less dramatically, from $4,900 to $4,164.  As open season wore on, eHealth customer trended toward lower premiums and higher deductibles.

In which Ezra Klein makes Avik Roy acknowledge why U.S. healthcare costs are so high

Avik Roy and Ezra Klein had a long --very long -- conversation about Roy's beefs with the Affordable Care Act. They covered "rate shock,"  minimum coverage standards, and Roy's dreams of a more fundamental system overhaul that would push everyone onto healthcare exchanges by privatizing Medicaid and Medicare and ending the employer tax deduction for health care benefit provision. 

Roy has been a relentless critic of the ACA. Having read some of his writings about it but by no means all, I was surprised to learn, as Klein probed his reaction to feature after feature, that he "do[esn't] have* a problem with standardizing benefits" and that "guaranteed issue [no refusals or cost bumps for preexisting conditions]is fine." His objections really boiled down to three: 1) he objects strenuously to "community rating," i.e., the ACA's limiting of the price differential between the youngest and oldest age cohorts to 3-to-1, as opposed to the roughly 6-to-1 ratio that Roy says the market would dictate.  2) He would like the exchanges to offer plans that cover even less than the lowest cost plans in the current design -- plans covering, say, 40% of a member's average yearly costs rather than the 60% that the exchange's lowest-run "bronze" plans are designed to cover. 3) As mentioned above, he would like more radical reform -- health exchanges for everyone.

As Klein eventually made Roy implicitly acknowledge, though, none of his favored solutions get at the root of the United States' disproportionate healthcare inflation.