Replacing the individual mandate with auto-enrollment, part II

A week ago, I suggested that the wide availability of free bronze plans in 2018 for subsidy-eligible potential ACA marketplace enrollees opens a window for replacing the individual mandate with auto-enrollment of the uninsured, a measure that's popped up in various Republican bills and conservative repeal-and-replace proposals.

That was tongue-in-cheek, since the House and Senate tax cut bills make it obvious that Republicans are not interested in using current federally budgeted dollars to insure more people. They'd rather give the subsidy money to the wealthy via tax cuts.

That said, a fact brought to my attention by Politico's Dan Diamond does boost the case for auto-enrollment. 80% of the 6.7 million households that paid the mandate penalty in 2016 (for tax year 2015) had incomes below $50,000 -- that is, near the subsidy eligibility threshold for a single person, $48,240. Many of those households with incomes over $50,000 are also doubtless subsidy eligible. (On the other hand, a good number of those with incomes in subsidy range may have been disqualified for subsidies by an offer of insurance from an employer. Kaiser estimates that 3.7 million are rendered subsidy-ineligible for this reason.)

IRS tables show that payers of the mandate penalty in tax year 2015 were pretty heavily concentrated at income levels where free bronze plans are common this year:

Who'll go to the mat for the individual mandate?

I fear that the trio of Republican senators who killed "skinny repeal" in late July (Collins, Murkowski, McCain) are going to have a hard time rejecting the tax cut bill in the name of the individual mandate.

Skinny repeal was linked to a (somewhat uncertain) presumption that the bill would be merged in conference with the House bill, which included repeal of enhanced federal funding for the Medicaid expansion and imposition of per-capita caps on federal Medicaid spending. Defense of Medicaid was the heart and soul of the Resistance, as it should have been.

Now, we may well get a partial birth abortion of the ACA - - mandate now, massive cuts to Medicaid (including expansion repeal) later. As Andy Slavitt has warned, that splits the "23 million uninsured" baby.

The individual mandate has always been unpopular -- and frankly, after years of both self-inflicted wounds and sabotage of the ACA marketplace, it has cause to be.  Health economists say that the mandate penalty was too small and too lightly enforced to be fully effective. The counterpoint is that a stricter mandate requires stronger subsidies - e.g., a cap on insurance premiums as a percent of income for all buyers, perhaps one that that matches the "affordability" threshold (currently 9.56% of income for employer-sponsored insurance and 8.05% of income for an ACA-compliant bronze plan).

For many who don't qualify for marketplace subsidies but must look to the individual market for coverage, the mandate is already effectively dead - -and so is the market.  To cite just a couple of cases I've had cause to look up lately:

Tax math for dummies like me

The math is plain as day, and Senate Republicans have seized on it: According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the nonpartisan tax policy counterpart of the Congressional Budget Office, the Senate tax bill cuts taxes on low and middle incomes more sharply than on higher incomes. Right?

Wrong, explains David Kamin, Obama's former Special Assistant to the President for Economic Policy.  The percent cut in your tax rate is very different from the percent increase in your after-tax income. Here is his chart  (with an adjustment at the top end for repeal of the estate tax, which JCT leaves out):

Trump thinks Putin's mind works like his

Trump's walk-back of his avowals that he believes Putin's denials with respect to interfering in US elections is a window into Trump epistemology.

Here's the walk-back:

I believe that he feels that he and Russia did not meddle in the election...I believe very much in our intelligence agencies...what he believes is what he believes.

That, incidentally, does comport with what he said about the Putin:

He said he didn't meddle. He said he didn't meddle. I asked him again. You can only ask so many times...Every time he sees me, he says, 'I didn't do that".. And I believe, I really believe, that when he tells me that, he means it.

Trump actually did not say that Putin didn't meddle. He said Putin "means it" when he say he didn't meddle.

In other words, Trump thinks, or purports to think, that Putin thinks like he does: Whatever he wants to believe is true is true. Or, whatever he finds convenient to affirm is true.

Hey, Republicans: Auto-enrollment is within reach

Put it in Chapter 1 of the Annals of Unintended (though not un-forecast) Consequences: Trump's cutoff of federal funds to reimburse health insurers for Cost Sharing Reduction (CSR) subsidies has made free bronze plans widely available to subsidized buyers in the ACA marketplace*.

So available, in fact, that the Kaiser Family Foundation has calculated that more than half of the 10.7 million people who are uninsured and eligible for marketplace coverage can find free bronze plans in the ACA marketplace, and 70% can access bronze plans for less than the cost of paying the penalty for going without coverage.

That paradoxical effect of cutting off funding for a subsidy suggests a political deal -- a second paradoxical effect.  Recall that ever since Democrats included the individual mandate in the various bills that became the ACA, Republicans have cast the mandate as a mortal threat to freedom -- and seek to this day to repeal (and maybe replace) it.

As a substitute for the mandate, several Republican bills and plan outlines included auto-enrollment of the uninsured in a catastrophic plan that would cost the enrollee nothing, since its premium would equal whatever subsidy the enrollee was eligible for.

For Whom the Bronze Bell Tolls in the ACA Marketplace

My last post looked at the likely impact of the availability of free or very cheap bronze plans for ACA marketplace customers who are eligible for strong Cost Sharing Reduction (CSR), available only with silver plans, in the five largest markets in the country.

In this post, we'll look at current CSR takeup in the five counties in question and consider how it's likely to change. Here are the counties, with their 2017 initial marketplace enrollment totals:

Miami-Dade, FL              387,848
Los Angeles, CA             380,520
Broward, FL                    240,984
Harris, TX (Houston)      240,064
Cook, IL (Chicago)         144,418

While bronze plans generally have deductibles above $6,000, CSR-enhanced silver plans, for enrollees with incomes up to twice the Federal Poverty Level, generally have deductibles in the $0-1,000 range. Silver plan premiums can be hard for CSR-eligible buyers to afford, though. The wider the spread between cheapest bronze and cheapest silver premiums, the more people will choose bronze.

Free bronze or CSR-boosted silver? The choice in 5 top marketplace counties

Trump's cutoff of federal reimbursement to insurers for Cost Sharing Reduction (CSR) subsidies has led to two pricing anomalies in the ACA marketplace that have rightly gotten a lot of attention: gold plans that are cheaper than silver plans (or close to it) in some regions, and bronze plans that are free for large swaths of the subsidy-eligible population.

The gold and bronze discounts* available in many regions of the country are an unmixed blessing for subsidized buyers with incomes above 200% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL), who are eligible either for no CSR or very weak CSR. The blessing is more ambiguous for buyers with incomes below 200% FPL, however, because for them CSR, which is available only with silver plans, remains a major secondary subsidy. For these buyers, silver plans are priced as if they have an actuarial value of 70% (that is, are designed to cover 70% of the average user's medical costs) but, enhanced by CSR, have AVs of 94% (for buyers up to 150% FPL)  or 87% (for those in the 150-200% FPL range). That translates to an average deductible of $255 (for 94% AV) or $809 (for 87% AV), compared to over $6,000 for bronze plans.

That bargain remains in place. But silver plans can be quite expensive for low income enrollees. The premium for a benchmark silver plan ranges from 2% of income for those in the 100-138% FPL income bracket to 6.3% for enrollees at 200% FPL. The benchmark premium at 200% FPL comes to $127 per month in 2018.

Will the outsized bronze plan discounts available in many places this year tempt a lot CSR-eligible buyers into bronze plans?**  In 2017, over 85% of enrollees with incomes up to 200% FPL selected silver plans and accessed CSR in the 38 states that use the HealthCare.gov federal exchange.

To gauge whether discount bronze is likely to take a big bite out of CSR takeup this year, let's look at the choices facing CSR-eligible enrollees in counties with the most marketplace enrollees. In 2017, these were

Miami-Dade, FL              387,848
Los Angeles, CA             380,520
Broward, FL                    240,984
Harris, TX (Houston)      240,064
Cook, IL (Chicago)         144,418

CSR windfall: Will it have bronze or gold cast?

Those of us who have been anticipating the paradoxical effects for subsidized ACA marketplace shoppers of Trump's cutoff of CSR reimbursement have to split our gaze more between shiny objects.

Designed as an add-on benefit, CSR (Cost Sharing Reduction) radically reduces out-of-pocket costs for silver plan enrollees with incomes under 200% of the Federal Poverty Level (and much more modestly for enrollees in the 200-250% FPL range). Until this month, the federal government reimbursed insurers for the extra benefit. In 2018, insurers will price it in.

What excited folks like David Anderson, Charles Gaba and I* (though we're also appalled by the premium hikes for the unsubsidized) was the prospect that in many states and regions, gold plans would be cheaper than silver. That's because 38 states (according to Charles Gaba's tracking) instructed insurers to load the cost of CSR onto silver plans only, since CSR is only available in silver plans.

This has, um, panned out -- as we now know, since prices have been posted for almost all states. The cheapest gold plan is cheaper than the cheapest silver plan in Pennsylvania, Kansas, New Mexico, Wyoming, most of Texas and Wisconsin, much of Michigan and Florida (including Miami, which has the heaviest concentration of marketplace enrollees in the country), much of California, and parts of several other states. In other regions, the price of gold plans is closer to the price of silver plans than it used to be.

Alert: HealthCare.gov "plan preview" tool is malfunctioning [FIXED as 10/28]

UPDATE, 10/28/17: The main glitch identified in this post -- the HealthCare.gov "preview plans" tool's failure to calculate the subsidy accurately for households in which not all members are seeking marketplace insurance - was fixed in the late hours of 10/27.  The second glitch identified below, pertaining to CSR, is unlikely to be fixed.
---------
People concerned with the functioning of the ACA marketplace were pleasantly surprised yesterday when HealthCare.gov's "Preview 2018 Plans & Prices" tool went live a week in advance of the launch of Open Enrollment. And as I noted a couple of weeks ago, the information flow on the site is streamlined and well-designed, routing visitors as appropriate to check their eligibility for a special enrollment period for 2017, preview 2017 plans and prices, prep for 2018 enrollment, or apply for Medicaid if their income and state of residence indicates it. It has seemed so far that Trump administration sabotage of the marketplace has not so far extended to the federal exchange.

There are, however, important glitches in the functioning of the preview tool that are likely to seriously mislead some visitors.

The most important glitch was pointed out to me on Twitter (when I pointed out a somewhat more understandable one described below):

Try a married couple with spouse on Medicare. Subsidy estimate is way too big and every plan is free, even if more expensive than benchmark.

— Brian Setzler (@BrianSetzler) October 26, 2017

Like the Alka Seltzer guy, I tried it, and Mr. Setzler is right. If you enter info for a married couple,  and one has access to other insurance, the estimated subsidy is the same. In Essex County, NJ, for a married couple ages 40 and 38 with an income of $33,000 --- slightly over 200% of the Federal Poverty Level -- the estimated subsidy is $633, whether or not one has outside coverage.

We already have the high deductibles...so would adding HSAs hurt?

In my last post I suggested that among the destructive White House demands to alter the Alexander-Murray ACA stabilization bill, one concept -- encouraging takeup of High Deductible Health Plans linked to HSAs -- might be a reasonable concession for Democrats to consider.

My reasoning boiled down to this: Once you have a deductible higher than the HDHP threshold of $1350 individual/$2700 family  -- as well over half of individual market enrollees do -- it doesn't hurt to add the tax-free HSA to help people cope with the expense.

Today I asked Yevgeniy Feyman, a Manhattan Institute adjunct fellow and senior research assistant at the Harvard School of Public Health, for ways to encourage HDHP/HSA takeup in the ACA marketplace. His suggestions:

• Create a seamless process for establishing an HSA -- so that once you sign up for an HSA eligible HDHP, you would be redirected into a pipeline for creating an HSA.


• Simplify the rules by which a high deductible plan can be eligible for linkage to an HSA. At present, no services except the ACA-mandated free preventive services can be covered until the medical deductible is reached. In a family plan, the full family deductible has to be reached before coverage kicks in. These rules could be loosened. At the far end of easing, "you might end up permitting anyone to have an HSA, and just cap contributions at their deductible or max OOP."

Mulvaney's ACA demands: Give him one out of three?

As David Anderson argued in The New York Times on Saturday, at this point Republicans need an ACA stabilization deal more than Democrats do, so Democrats have no real imperative to accede to Trump's ridiculous demands,

In brief: the damage from CSR uncertainty in 2018 is already done; CSR is priced into premiums; most states have adopted a "silver load" strategy to mitigate the damage (concentrating the premium increases in silver plans, the plans with which CSR is available); and pricing in CSR over the longer term actually produces a fiscally wasteful but genuine boost to subsidies for the more affluent among the subsidy-eligible, who really need extra help (making gold plans available for roughly the cost of silver).

The chief motive for Democrats to push for a deal is to win a measure of Republican buy-in and ownership, and therefore stability. That should keep more insurers in. And an appropriation for federal CSR reimbursement in 2019 should drive premiums down, dramatically, i.e. by almost as much as CSR uncertainty (and then stiffing) drove them up this ear. That's potentially a political win for Republicans. But Democrats are inhibited in their political calculations by a desire to, you know, make good insurance affordable for more people.

Given that desire, Democrats would be crazy to yield on repeal of the individual mandate, which would trigger another premium surge and more adverse selection, or on enabling a parallel market in non-comprehensive and medically underwritten insurance, which would also damage the risk pool for comprehensive plans.

There is, however, one White House ask that Democrats might consider addressing in some form. As reported by Axios' Sam Baker, OMB Director Mulvaney made these demands on Fox News Sunday:

Bronze and gold plan discounts in California, 2018

As I noted recently, Covered California has acted on its plan to shield marketplace enrollees from the effects of Republicans' CSR sabotage.  For 2018, a surcharge averaging 12.4% has been loaded onto silver on-exchange plans only (the only plans with which CSR is available) to cover the cost that until now has been reimbursed by the federal government.

We can now examine the effects of the surcharge, which I've done below.  The effects should theoretically be as follows (more detail here):

1. Off-exchange plan pricing should be unaffected by CSR; price differences between metal levels should remain proportionate to actuarial value at each level.
2. Enrollees with incomes under 200% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL), for whom strong CSR is available, should be unaffected. Subsidies will rise to cover the additional premium, and silver plans will continue to offer outsized value, covering 94% (at incomes up to 150% FPL) or 87% (for incomes from 150-200% FPL) of the average user's costs.
3. Subsidized enrollees in the 200-400% FPL income range will see discounts in bronze and gold plans, since premium subsidies, which are keyed to silver plans, will rise to cover the inflated silver premium.

Let's look at how the expected bronze and gold discounts play out in some of California's 19 rating regions. Because California has standardized plan benefits at each metal level, relatively clean comparisons are possible -- though I would note that last year, relatively expensive PPOs (plans with broader provider networks) were popular in many areas.

Does the Alexander-Murray bill adequately protect vulnerable groups?

The changes to the ACA's Section 1332 state innovation waivers in the Alexander-Murray marketplace stabilization bill  have broad support, having been proposed by multiple HELP Committee hearing participants and endorsed by bipartisan outside advocates including  former acting CMS director Andy Slavitt, one of the ACA's most vocal defenders. These include providing for an expedited waiver process, an emergency waiver process, and the creation of "cookie cutter" waiver templates that multiple states may opt to adopt. (There are dissenters, however, as discussed below.)

Also a matter of broad consensus: easing the terms by which states meet the requirement that a waiver proposal be budget-neutral by 1) allowing states to combine Section 1332 waivers with Medicaid and CHIP waivers and using savings from one to offset extra spending on another, and 2) considering budget impact over the 6-year term of the waiver and a ten-year budget plan.

There is one alteration, though, that gets to the crux of the debate over state flexibility, and was probably a matter of intense negotiation. That is a change to the so-called "guardrails" pertaining to quality and affordability of coverage.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong

Quick, ACA marketwatchers: what's wrong with the headlines below?

Trump didn't end the Cost Sharing Reduction benefit,  of course, He didn't end government funding for CSR, either -- he just redirected it into a less efficient channel that will cost the Treasury hundreds of billions, hurt unsubsidized enrollees in states that don't make insurers price in CSR in the most efficient way, and provide a windfall for many more affluent subsidized enrollees in states that do concentrate the premium hike where it belongs, in on-exchange silver plans.

Those headlines did a real disservice. A lot of people in this country must be under the impression that a major ACA benefit has been stripped away.  The ledes in many cases did not repair the damage.

60% of ACA marketplace enrollees with CSR are in nonexpansion states

In February of this year I noted that the 19 states that refused to implement the ACA Medicaid expansion comprised 38% of the U.S. population but 53% of ACA marketplace enrollment and 60% of enrollees who accessed Cost Sharing Reduction (CSR) subsidies.

That seems relevant now that Trump has abruptly cut off federal funding for CSR, stiffing insurers for the remainder of this year and leaving them to price the benefit into their 2018 premiums. I've pasted the whole of the post below. Enrollment stats are as of March 31, 2016. There's a state-by-state breakout at bottom of population, CSR enrollment and APTC (premium tax credit) enrollment. This year's enrollment breakout would be roughly proportionate: nationwide, the same 57% of enrollees access CSR. As of the end of the first quarter 2017, CMS reported 10.3 million total enrollees (which, per Charles Gaba, may well have been an undercount, leaving out up to a half million late enrollees), compared to 11.1 million at the same point in 2016.

Before getting to the repost below, a few notes:

1. Many observers are drawing a somewhat misleading conclusion from the high concentration of CSR enrollees in red states. They will be hurt by the CSR funding cutoff only insofar as insurers pull out of the market -- and, longer term, by the thinning of the risk pool caused by unsubsidized enrollment dropping off, which will reduce competition and so plan choice. Unsubsidized enrollees bear the brunt of the premium increases driven by the cutoff of federal funding for CSR. And most of the damage on that front is already done, as most insurers in most states filed rates assuming that CSR would not be reimbursed in 2018 (and/or accounting for more general politically induced uncertainty).

Trump is stiffing health insurers for three months in 2017. States can make Treasury eat the cost.

Oregon's last-minute adjustment to enable insurers to cover the cost of Cost Sharing Reduction (CSR) subsidies for ACA marketplace enrollees in 2018 after Trump abruptly cut off federal reimbursement for those subsidies gave me an idea for how states could also make insurers whole for the last quarter of this year.

Trump is cutting off federal reimbursement for the subsidies, which insurers are obliged to provide but until now have not been able to price into their premiums, later this month.  In most states, insurers have been able to or will be able to adjust premiums to cover CSR in 2018. But they have  to eat the cost for the rest of the year. Unless....

Here's how Oregon will make insurers whole in 2018:

In order to ensure carriers can continue to offer coverage in Oregon, DCBS is ordering health insurance companies offering plans on HealthCare.gov to increase their already approved silver metal tier 2018 plan rates by 7.1 percent.

Can blue states protect their health insurance markets from Trump's executive order?

Can a state that wants to preserve ACA consumer protections protect itself from the executive order Trump signed today, which opens paths to segmenting the risk pools in the individual and small group markets? Consider the case of New Jersey, which had guaranteed issue (and, with no individual mandate, sky-high premiums) pre-ACA.

The Trump EO instructs Treasury, DOL and HHS to expand availability of short-term insurance, allowing it "to cover longer periods and be renewed by the consumer."  That's understood to mean allowing coverage for up to a year -- and so, via renewal, indefinitely, though subject to medical underwriting at renewal as well as at first purchase.  Short-term plans are not subject to ACA coverage rules.

At present, plan duration is limited to three months. Since  that rule only went into effect this April, extending the term to up to a year is not a radical shift from the ACA status quo.  But combined with weak enforcement of the individual mandate, and more exemptions from the mandate stemming from rising premiums, temporary plans available continuously are likely to weaken the ACA risk pool.

Temporary plans are subject to state regulation, however, and health law scholar Nicholas Bagley expects that to continue:

13/ The states should still retain authority to regulate short-term plans -- and to require them to adhere to ACA rules.

— Nicholas Bagley (@nicholas_bagley) October 12, 2017

States vary in their responses to CSR uncertainty

By David Anderson, Charles Gaba, Louise Norris, Andrew Sprung

Note: this post is a joint effort with colleagues who have closely tracked the CSR chaos induced by Trump and Republicans in Congress. Dave Anderson is a former health insurance analyst, now a healthcare scholar at Duke, and a blogger at Balloon Juice; Charles Gaba is the fabled chronicler and analyst of ACA enrollment, marketplace pricing, and healthcare policy; Louise Norris is co-owner with her husband Jay of a health insurance brokerage for individual market customers, and a top source of marketplace information and analysis at her own blog (link in byline) as well as at healthinsurance.org and elsewhere.

Note 2 Today, the Maryland and California exchanges opened their plan preview tools for 2018, with premiums listed. California has implemented its planned CSR surcharge, adding 12.4% to the premium of silver on-exchange plans only. In some regions, the cheapest gold plan is cheaper than the cheapest silver.

Update, 10/14: David Anderson has mapped out the choices states have made to cope with CSR uncertainty (and now, CSR cutoff) here, and Charles Gaba is charting them here.

The open enrollment period for the 2018 ACA Marketplace that begins on November 1, 2017 is likely to confront enrollees with more challenges than any open enrollment since the troubled launch of the ACA Marketplace in October 2013. The time period is shorter, the outreach will be far less robust, and the pricing of plans will behave in ways that people do not expect.  Much of the pricing variance will be a result of choices that states and insurers have made in response to the uncertainty over whether the federal government will continue to reimburse insurers for the Cost Sharing Reduction (CSR) subsidies that insurers are legally obligated to provide to qualified exchange enrollees.  

"X" is for ten: An anniversary for xpostfactoid

Over the weekend, it dawned on me that xpostfactoid's tenth anniversary was coming up. I checked, and indeed, I started blogging continuously on October 10, 2007, after a couple of false starts.

The thought made me rather sad, in that the blog started as Obama came into full focus and is tied up with my hopes of political and national renewal that gained steam throughout 2008  -- as first the seeming miracle of Obama's nomination drive came to fulfillment and then the wonder of the United States electing an African American whose rhetoric and thought was imprinted with Lincoln's took hold. And look where we are now -- in danger of turning that legacy, if not the whole world, to ashes after electing a lifelong fraudster and vicious demagogue, someone an emotionally grounded six-year-old would run from screaming.

But the blog's first posts from fall 2007 feel strangely contemporary. Back then, in the Later Bush Era, I wondered whether American democracy had lost its ability to self-correct -- precisely the capability that Obama spent the next nine years spotlighting as the nation's defining virtue. If you'll indulge a pair of early snippets:

Covered California to middle-class enrollees: There (may be) gold in them thar hills

Update (!) Oct. 11, 2017: CoveredCA has gone live with  its 2018 plan preview tool and has implemented the CSR surcharge discussed below -- 12.4% added to silver on-exchange plans only. That makes gold cheaper than silver in some areas, and CoveredCA is indeed in some cases highlighting gold plan offerings ahead of silver.

Back on August 1 Covered California, the California ACA exchange, announced a proactive approach to enable health insurers to cope with the uncertainty over whether the Trump administration (or Congress) would guarantee them continued reimbursement for Cost Sharing Reduction subsidies.

Insurers would file rate requests under the assumption that CSR will continue to be reimbursed. If reimbursement was not guaranteed by a certain date, however, a surcharge (later pegged at 12.4%) would be added to silver plans sold on-exchange. CSR is available to enrollees with qualifying incomes only if they select silver plans, and only if they buy on-exchange. ACA-compliant silver plans sold off-exchange would not include the surcharge. That surcharge is likely to be triggered on or around October 11, CoveredCA tells me (postponed from an original target of Sept. 30).

The likely results have been widely noted (e.g., here). Off-exchange, plan pricing would remain proportionate to the actuarial value offered at each metal level. On-exchange, the only buyers of silver plans should be those with incomes up to 200% of the Federal Poverty Level, for whom CSR raises the value of silver plans roughly to that of platinum.

How well will healthcare.gov function for 2018?

Everyone who follows the fate of the ACA is by now familiar with the Trump administration's multi-pronged sabotage of the individual market: the constant threat to stop CSR reimbursements to insurers, which in itself has likely driven up 2018 premiums by upwards of 20%; the threats not to enforce the individual mandate, which will likely depress enrollment; the radical cutbacks in enrollment outreach and assistance; the propaganda denigrating marketplace offerings; the shortened enrollment period and gratuitous Sunday shutdown; and now, Trump's looming threat to undermine the risk pool, state authority and ACA consumer protections by giving carte blanche to association health plans.

This multi-pronged assault led me to wonder whether healthcare.gov, the federal exchange, will function adequately. I took a look at the website yesterday, and again today. And I must say, what's there is somewhat reassuring. In fact, today new prompts went up to start preparing people for open enrollment. The array of options on the home page is clear and well designed:

It is easy to get to the initial tasks that people in different situations will want to undertake:

The ACA is London after the Blitz

Trump administration sabotage of the ACA has done serious damage and will likely do more. Uncertainty over CSR reimbursement and enforcement of the individual mandate have themselves driven premiums up by over 20% in 2018 (Gaba's estimate) and driven many insurers out of the individual market.

Those premium hikes will probably knock several million unsubsidized buyers out of the individual market.  Weakened mandate enforcement, real or perceived, will probably reduce the numbers of people enrolled not only in the individual market but also in employer-sponsored insurance and Medicaid. An increased percentage of unsubsidized enrollees in the individual market who do stay in will probably be underinsured, pushed into bronze plans and/or overburdened by the combination of rising premiums and out-of-pocket costs. Poor-to-nonexistent outreach from HHS may result in many current marketplace enrollees failing to shop anew and so re-enrolling in a suboptimal plan. Trump's threat to issue an executive order that reportedly would empower association health plans to evade state regulation via ERISA could bleed health enrollees out of the individual market.

Red states, meanwhile, are lining up to accept HHS's invitation to propose work requirements, time limits and more frequent enrollment redeterminations on Medicaid enrollees, which will likely reduce Medicaid takeup.

It's worth keeping in mind, though, that as long as Republicans fail to pass a repeal bill or cap federal Medicaid spending, the damage thus far can be contained, and reversed if and when Democrats regain power -- or, under divided government, Republicans tire of sabotage. Maintaining the ACA's taxes (to fund benefits), the enhanced federal match rate for the Medicaid expansion (and pre-ACA match rates for the rest of Medicaid), the marketplace infrastructure and subsidy structure -- all of that would have been a January dream come true for any ACA advocate.

CSR takeup: Good enough for me* and Emily Gee

Long before the Cost Sharing Reduction (CSR) subsidies accessed by more than half of enrollees in the ACA marketplace became a political battleground zero, I was preoccupied with CSR as the marketplace's primary (and too limited) defense against underinsurance. In dozens of posts, I explored what leads people to accept or reject CSR, i.e. to buy or forego silver plans if they qualify for the benefit (as CSR is available only with silver plans). Among the most basic conclusions:

1. Although a large body of research suggests that health insurance shoppers often make the wrong choice when faced with relatively small tradeoffs between premium and out-of-pocket costs, a large majority of CSR-eligible marketplace enrollees make the right choice That is, they choose not to leave a large subsidy on the table, despite the fact that silver premiums can be a strain on income and bronze plans temptingly cheap. Over 80% of enrollees eligible for strong CSR -- i.e., enrollees with incomes below 201% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) -- choose silver plans.

2. CSR takeup declines in step with the weakening of the benefit at higher income levels, with a sharp drop at 201% FPL, where the benefit weakens almost to insignificance.  Based on data released by CMS in July 2016, the chart below shows the takeup rates in the 38 states that used healthcare.gov in 2016. The rates are inflated by probably about 2 percentage points, for reasons explained in this post. The numbers attached to "Silver" under coverage level are the CSR-enhanced actuarial value of silver at each level.

CSR Takeup: HealthCare.gov states, 2016

Income range	CSR coverage level	Enrollees in income range	Enrollees With CSR	Takeup Percent- age
0-150% FPL	Silver94	3.64m	3.18m	87%
151-200% FPL	Silver87	2.21m	1.83m	83%
201-250% FPL	Silver 73	1.33m	866k	65%

What might moderate Republicans do to the ACA?

From the release of the AHCA on March 4 to Sunday night's amendments to Graham-Cassidy, Republican repeal bills have got ten worse and worse -- more conducive to individual market chaos, more draconian in Medicaid expansion rollback and per capita capping of federal medicaid payments. All of the bills would reduce the ranks of the insured by more than 20 million. Which suggests a question: what would a "good" partial repeal bill look like?

To some extent that's a nonsense question. The ACA embodies a Democratic concession to a core conservative concept: That there's inherent virtue in establishing a competitive insurance market, that doing so will drive down costs and improve healthcare quality (i.e., that insurers can make providers deliver better care more cheaply). The ACA's flaws are in any case all in a conservative direction. Real fixes would include bigger subsidies, including via reinsurance; some means of capping the rates insurers pay providers, as in Medicare Advantage or Medicaid managed care; rules more or less compelling providers to accept the insurance (i.e., if they accept Medicare); and strong incentives for insurers to participate in the market (tied to their eligibility to participate in managed Medicaid or Medicare Advantage markets).

A genuinely moderate Republican would not accept such changes but would seek to amend rather than repeal/replace the ACA -- not just in the short term, as Lamar Alexander has called for, but for the long term, as Susan Collins would probably like to do  There's no shortage of proposed conservative tweaks that might do minimal harm and in some cases perhaps even some good. Yevgeniy Feyman and Paul Howard could write such a bill. Here's my sense of what concessions might be won from Democrats in exchange for CSR and reinsurance funding.

A healthcare homepage chorus screaming STOP at Senate Republicans

Last night I went to the American Medical Association website to retrieve the remarkable joint statement of the AMA, American Academy of Family Physicians, American Hospital
Association, Federation of American Hospitals, America’s Health Insurance Plans, and the
BlueCross BlueShield Association unequivocally calling on the Senate to reject Graham-Cassidy.  .

Though I had already absorbed the statement's stark assertions that the bill would "drastically weaken" individual insurance market, undermine safeguards for those with preexisting conditions, uninsure millions by kicking them off Medicaid, and force on states the "impossible task" of completely transforming their individual markets and Medicaid program in little more than a year, I was nonetheless a bit taken aback by the banner dominating the AMA home page

If bipartisan ACA legislation comes back to the House, remember the Problem Solvers

As hope goes stronger that the Senate will reject the ruinous Graham-Cassidy ACA repeal bill, the back-burnered Senate HELP Committee hearings in pursuit of bipartisan legislation to stabilize the individual insurance market may become relevant again. On Sept. 20, HELP chair Lamar Alexander pulled out of the talks to get on team Scorched Earth.  After John McCain came out against Graham-Cassidy yesterday, Patty Murray, ranking Democrat on the HELP Committee, put out this statement:

I  agree with Senator McCain that the right way to get things done in the Senate—especially on an issue as important to families as their health care—is through regular order and working together to find common ground. I’m still at the table ready to keep working, and I remain confident that we can reach a bipartisan agreement as soon as this latest partisan approach by Republican leaders is finally set aside.

That raises the possibility too that at some point the Problem Solvers, the House caucus formed to seek bipartisan solutions on multiple fronts, could also become relevant. On July 31, the Problem Solvers released a five-point outline for bipartisan market stabilization legislation. As in the HELP Committee, "state flexibility" -- i.e. some easing of the process for states seeking ACA Section 1332 innovation waivers -- was a plank.

On September 5, the day before the first HELP Committee hearing, I participated in a call between BlueWaveNJ and Rep. Josh Gottheimer, Democratic co-chair of the Problem Solvers. It seems another lifetime, as the Graham-Cassidy cancer was still in watchful waiting phase, but we were concerned as to what Democratic Problems Solvers might be prepared to yield on the waiver front. Here's what we learned, as reported on the BlueWaveNJ blog:

My letter to Chris Christie on Graham-Cassidy

Graham-Cassidy's sponsors are relying in large part on support from Republican governors to win senators' votes for the bill. Today, Arizona Governor Doug Ducey came out in favor, notwithstanding that CBPP estimates that Arizona stands to lose $1.6 billion in federal funding in 2026 alone under the bill's redistribution formula.

At BlueWave New Jersey, we are calling on NJ Governor Chris Christie this week to defend the state's Medicaid expansion and coverage gains and come out against Graham-Cassidy. I have a letter in today's print Star-Ledger, but it's not online. Here is the text:

Behold the last and worst of the ACA repeal bills, introduced this week by four Republican U.S. senators.The bill ends the ACA Medicaid expansion, ultimately ends all ACA funding to help people gain health insurance, and guts federal spending on all Medicaid programs, which serve 75 million Americans. 

How could Patty Murray "thread the needle" with Lamar Alexander?

Ever since the Cassidy-Collins bill was introduced in January, I've thought that Democrats should engage with Republicans in Congress who were willing to leave the ACA's taxes and core benefits intact. Cassidy-Collins didn't do that, but I thought it came close enough to be a basis for talks.

Triage was the byword. If a handful of the dozen-odd Republican senators who were then expressing qualms about repeal of the Medicaid expansion in particular could be engaged in compromise negotiations, I thought, that would lessen the chances of passage for a bill that would uninsure tens of millions -- as would the AHCA, the BCRA, and now Cassidy-Graham.

Events have almost proved me wrong. The prevailing Democratic strategy -- we'll talk about fixes when they give up on repeal -- has almost worked. Three repeal bills failed in the Senate. Lamar Alexander, HELP Committee chaired, has held hearings on a bipartisan bill to stabilize the individual market.  And on the other end of the equation, Cassidy -- who seemed like a possible partner since he wanted to preserve ACA taxes and so something like its scale of benefits -- is now a driving force behind a bill that would zero out ACA benefits and lay waste to Medicaid.

Still, ironically, we're at a point again where I'm tempted by similar logic: if Patty Murray and other Democrats engage with Alexander and come up with a compromise stabilization bill, that could blunt the drive toward Cassidy-Collins passage. Would co-sponsors of a stabilization bill, led by Alexander, turn around and vote for Graham-Cassidy?

Synthetic single payer

Here's a healthcare reform bill that fits on a postcard:

The Medicare-for-all Biosimilar Act of 2017

Title 1: Uniform Payment Rate
     Sect. 101. All payers for healthcare services shall pay providers at a rate equal to 120% of current Medicare payment rates. Price schedule will be maintained and updated by CMS, with existing alternative payment programs maintained at the 120% payment ratio. Medicare Advantage benchmarks will be adjusted accordingly.

Title II: Healthcare Budget
     Sect. 201. The Medicare tax will be increased to a level sufficient to fund the government's increased payments in Medicare and Medicaid.

Census: ACA cut uninsured rate in half in Medicaid expansion states by 2016

The Census Bureau released its report on health insurance coverage in the U.S. for 2016 today. One striking trend was flagged by Matt Broaddus at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities: the gap between states that expanded Medicaid and those that refused continues to widen:



To this let me add a sidelight: in expansion states, the uninsured rate has been cut in half since the main ACA programs were implemented in 2014 -- from 12.9% in 2013 to 6.5% in 2016.

Elizabeth Warren is for single payer, sort of. And against healthcare profiteering...sort of.

Elizabeth Warren sent a letter to supporters last week announcing that she's co-sponsoring Bernie Sanders' Medicare for All bill and asking recipients to sign on as "citizen-co-sponsors."

That's interesting, as Warren herself does not sound exactly all-in.   My emphasis below:

I believe it’s time to take a step back and ask: what is the best way to deliver high quality, low cost health care to all Americans? Everything should be on the table – and that’s why I’m co-sponsoring Bernie Sanders’ Medicare for All bill that will be introduced later this month 

Warren is for putting Bernie's bill on the table -- not necessarily for passing it. There's more hedging near the bottom of the letter:

ACA innovation waivers: a need for speed? Not so fast, says Emma Sandoe

For all the relative comity of the Senate HELP Committee hearings on legislation to strengthen the individual market for health insurance (Sept. 6, Sept. 7), a potential battle line of sort was drawn on Tuesday in statements by the chair, Lamar Alexander, and ranking member, Patty Murray. As the Times' Robert Pear reported:

“To get a result,” Mr. Alexander said, “Democrats will have to agree to something — more flexibility for states — that some may be reluctant to support. And Republicans will have to agree to something, additional funding through the Affordable Care Act, that some may be reluctant to support. That is called a compromise.”

The senior Democrat on the panel, Senator Patty Murray of Washington, said: “Threading this needle won’t be easy. But I do believe an agreement that protects patients and families from higher costs and uncertainty, and maintains the guardrails in our current health care system, is possible.”

How to hand the keys to an unfit successor

How do you hand the keys to the Oval Office to a man you've declared in no uncertain terms to be unfit for the presidency?

Obama's handwritten note to Trump, placed before Inauguration Day in the top drawer of the president's desk, is a carefully calibrated document -- a muted "don't be evil" plea on behalf of the nation, with goals distilled to the most basic: justice, security, democracy. Stark in its simplicity, it's generous without warmth, avoiding the hypocrisy of any hint of confidence in the recipient.

It begins with a depersonalized wish:

"Just a little procedural easing"....watch those ACA innovation waiver guardrails!

The Senate HELP Committee's efforts to pass an ACA stabilization bill are likely to hinge on the ACA's Section 1332 innovation waivers, according to Axios' David Nather:

How they'll give states more flexibility: They want to beef up the ACA's "Section 1332" waivers, but Democrats don't want to do anything that undermines the "guardrails" in those waivers — They can't reduce the number of people with health coverage, make insurance less comprehensive or affordable, or increase the deficit.

• Instead, they'll just try to ease the procedural rules, according to a Senate Democratic aide. The question is whether that will be enough for Republicans.

Just a little procedural easing, ladies and gentlemen! Recall, though, that the BCRA nominally left the ACA guardrails in place -- but effectively gave states carte blanche to knock them down "procedurally." Tim Jost explained back in June (my emphasis):

ACA marketplace remake: Iowa leverages Wellmark's warm cooperation

This week the Iowa Insurance Division formally filed an ACA innovation waiver request to radically remake the state's individual market for health insurance.

The plan is cast as an emergency stopgap for a market said to be collapsing -- facing a 53% average requested rate increase for silver plans from its sole remaining insurer. The waiver submission forecasts a loss of 18-22,000 unsubsidized enrollees should the plan not be implemented.

The basic tradeoff in the proposal, dubbed the Iowa Stopgap Plan, seems to be to exchange Cost Sharing Reduction (CSR) subsidies for reinsurance and a more generous premium subsidy structure, which makes subsidies available to enrollees at all income levels and yields lower net premiums to almost all comers. Harsh as the loss of CSR for enrollees under 200% FPL would be, the repurposed dollars seem to yield a disproportionate dividend in premium reduction.

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:

Can Democrats afford to stand pat on the ACA?

A while back, I anticipated that Republicans would demand a steep price for passing legislation that would guarantee federal funding for the ACA marketplace's Cost Sharing Reduction (CSR) subsidies and possibly for a reinsurance program. I asked what Democrats should be willing to give up to secure those obviously necessary measures -- the first simply an end to sabotage, the second an individual market essential that Republicans bestowed liberally in their ACA replacement plans.

David Anderson counters that "this model of leverage is wrong" and that Democrats should be willing to give up...nothing.  The rationale is not "if you break it you own it" (i.e., Republicans will be blamed for market collapse),  but rather that forcing insurers to fund (and price for) the CSR subsidies as of 2018 would hand Democrats "an incredible policy victory."

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).

What price will Republicans extract for CSR funding and reinsurance?

If the current glimmers of bipartisanship in healthcare legislation take on any sustained shine, the primary agenda for Democrats is obvious: appropriate funding for Cost Sharing Reduction payments and for some kind of reinsurance program to replace the program that expired in 2017.

The first is simply a matter of ending sabotage: CSR is integral to the structure of the ACA marketplace and incorporated in its budget baseline. Republicans have simply exploited a drafting error to destabilize the individual market. As for reinsurance, Republicans made its necessity manifest by including generous "stability funding" in the main House and Senate "healthcare" bills -- in fact, overly generous funding designed to compensate for their various disfigurements of the market (e.g., repeal of the individual mandate and measures to reintroduce medical underwriting and non-comprehensive insurance).

To have any real hope of getting these measures passed in a Republican Congress, however, Democrats are going to have to face up to the question: What pound of flesh will they let Republicans extract as payment for these essential, common-sense fixes? It's a foregone conclusion from a progressive point of view that changes Republicans will demand will not improve the market. What concessions might actually win passage and do less harm than the fixes will do good?

Are New York's Essential Plan and Minnesota's MinnesotaCare threatened by CSR fund cutoff?

A question hath arisen on Twitter: if federal Cost Sharing Reduction (CSR) reimbursements to insurers are cut off, either by Trump administration fiat or court ruling, would New York and Minnesota's Basic Health Programs formed under the ACA lose the portion of their federal funding derived from CSR payments?

To review, the ACA gives states the option of establishing a Basic Health Program (BHP) for qualifying residents with incomes between 138% and 200% of the Federal Poverty Level -- the very population eligible for strong CSR in the ACA marketplace in a state with no BHP*.   A BHP is designed to have low premiums and high actuarial value -- though not necessarily higher than that provided by CSR. So far, Minnesota and New York are the only states to have formed BHPs.  New York's BHP, the Essential Plan, has minimal cost sharing and a maximum premium of $20 per month (for those in the 150-200% FPL range). MinnesotaCare premiums top out at $80 per month; the actuarial value is 94%, matching CSR for marketplace enrollees with incomes up to 150% FPL.

Section 1331 of the ACA provides for federal funding of BHPs according to this formula:

The amount determined under this paragraph for any fiscal year is the amount the Secretary determines is equal to 85 percent [amended to 95%] of the premium tax credits under section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and the cost-sharing reductions under section 1402, that would have been provided for the fiscal year to eligible individuals enrolled in standard health plans in the State if such eligible individuals were allowed to enroll in qualified health plans through an Exchange established under this subtitle.

Peter Lee to HHS: Marketing makes the risk pool

Covered California, the golden state's ACA marketplace, released preliminary health plan rates for 2018 today. In a marketplace supported by political stability, the top line would be nothing to write home about -- a 12.5% average weighted increase, discounting a surcharge to be added to silver plans if the Trump administration or Congress does not guarantee CSR payments through 2018. 

But given the "unprecedented uncertainty" generated by active administration sabotage and a seven- month effort to repeal core parts of the ACA, those results are impressive. CoveredCA further claims that "If a consumer shops and switches to the lowest-priced plan in their same metal tier, they can reduce their 2018 rate change to an average increase of less than 3.3 percent." More on that in a bit.

In a telephone press conference, CoveredCA's executive director Peter Lee made a striking claim that speaks not only to the current market uncertainty but to the effects of seven years of unrelenting sabotage of the ACA marketplace by Republican senators, congressional reps, governors, state legislators and insurance commissioners. Asked how central marketing would be to enrollment in the coming year, Lee said (paraphrasing here):

If you don't sell, those who knock on the door are sick people.

Managed Medicaid for all? A compendium

In an illuminating string about what she's learned from ACA enrollees, Sarah Kliff highlights a point that's come sharply into focus in the last year:

Medicaid is *way* more popular than marketplace plans. No deductibles or co-pays! (6/15)

This point has been driven home by enrollee surveys and focus groups as well as by good reporting from many, including Kliff. The negative counterpoint to Medicaid enrollees' satisfaction is Medicaid envy among those forced to pay more than they consider affordable in premiums and out-of-pocket costs -- particularly those on the wrong side of the ACA's deductible cliff.

"Not losing, choosing"? - Avik Roy turns up the gaslight on the BCRA

Two weeks ago, I took on the argument of various BCRA proponents that most of the 22 million people forecast by CBO to lose insurance coverage should the bill become law would be "choosing, not losing." That write-off of legions of uninsured was founded on CBO's assertion that most of the first-year coverage loss of 15 million would occur "primarily because the penalty for not having insurance would be eliminated."  Expect to hear more of this, I forecast.

In brief, I suggested that argument depended on  1) conflating the forecast immediate effect of mandate repeal in 2018 with the ten-year effect; 2) ignoring the extent to which, in CBO's own telling, the mandate interacts with other changes in the marketplace and Medicaid; and 3) pooh-poohing the obvious and stated purpose of the mandate, which is to boost the ranks of the insured and reduce premiums by improving the risk pool -- which CBO clearly assumes it has accomplished in some measure.

Now here cometh Avik Roy, chief healthcare apologist for the Republican establishment, making the "choosing not losing" argument in detail.  Roy's addition to the argument hinges mainly on a rather breathlessly presented look at CBO's unpublished estimate of 10-year coverage losses attributable to mandate repeal under the BCRA (provided to Roy by a Congressional staffer). This estimate closely tracks CBO's published December 2016 analysis of the effects of repeal of the mandate alone, with the ACA left otherwise intact. CBO forecast that straight mandate repeal under the ACA would result in a ten-year coverage loss of 15 million, as compared to CBO's forecast that 22 million will lose coverage under the BCRA. Here's CBO's breakout of the losses under straight mandate repeal:

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.

A pill quite poison from Frelinghuysen

In late June, a subcommittee of the House Committee on Appropriations, chaired by Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ), released a financial services appropriations bill that hamstrings the IRS's ability to police the phony "charities" corrupting our politics; bars the SEC from requiring disclosure of political contributions in SEC filings; and, amid sundry other acts of regulatory sabotage, prohibits the IRS from enforcing the ACA's individual mandate. The Appropriations Committee approved the bill yesterday.

Frelinghuysen, a once-moderate Republican driven relentlessly to the right and now riding the Trump train, was the focus of intense citizen action this spring, and a key last-minute opponent of the first iteration of the House ACA repeal/Medicaid destruction act.  He then flipped, reportedly under pain of losing his Appropriations chair, and supported the version that passed the House, which of course addressed none of his stated concerns (for Medicaid expansion beneficiaries and people with pre-existing conditions) and in fact made the bill's treatment of the latter worse. Now, he's given his blessing to ACA marketplace sabotage in the event Republicans fail to pass a bill still more horrific than the one he supported. In a press release, he praised the bill for "stopping burdensome regulations before they can damage our economy irreparably."

I have an op-ed in NJ Spotlight, a nonprofit state news source calling Frelinghuysen out for this. I signed it as a member of BlueWaveNJ, a local advocacy group based in Montclair, most of whose members are represented by Frelinghuysen. He encapsulates the descent of the Republican party first into right-wing extremism (he voted to defund Planned Parenthood) and then into fascist fellow traveling and even self-Trumpification  (he's been in the spotlight and may be in legal trouble for intimidating a local activist). We want him out.

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.

Those uninsured by the BCRA "not losing, but choosing"? Get ready to hear it more.

Bloomberg reporter Steve Dennis flags a Republican talking point in favor of their latest travesty of a 'healthcare" bill that we're likely to hear more of in the next two weeks:

Frequent GOP talking point in Senate hallways: +22M won't be "losing" health insurance, they'll be "choosing" to go without. https://t.co/o4Anh6DY5i

— Steven Dennis (@StevenTDennis) July 6, 2017

That's in response to:

Not lose, choose. Apparently you believe freedom is optional https://t.co/WIUJz2Mxv7

— JohnCornyn (@JohnCornyn) July 6, 2017

This argument was first voiced byPaul Ryan, defending the first iteration of the House bill, and later by Tom MacArthur*, whose amendment undermining protections for people with pre-existing conditions secured that bill's House passage. As Cornyn, the Senate majority whip, has emerged as gaslighter-in-chief defending the Senate bill (the so-called Better Care Reconciliation Act, or BCRA), we should regard it as a kind of front-line defense. If the cabal now redrafting the BCRA in secret manages to improve the CBO score by throwing a couple hundred billion dollars back in the coverage pot -- reducing the forecast increase in the uninsured to, say, 15 or 12 million --expect to hear a lot more of it.

There is a ghost of truth in the allegation, which can be made to look more substantial by gaslight. so let's shine some stronger light,. A few points:

Info sources for healthcare wars

If I post this, I'll have an easier time finding it myself...an index of fact/stat sources for our current healthcare wars as well as for our current healthcare system. Will update continuously without notification.

Direct effects of BCRA (Senate bill)

CBO on BCRA 2.0 - July 20

CBO on BCRA: June 26 2017

CBO addendum on BCRA: 20-year effects on Medicaid (35% cut)

CAP: BCRA coverage losses by state

AARP: BCRA effects by state

Urban Institute: on BCRA coverage losses by state/age

Kaiser: BCRA premiums/OOP

Healthcare spending cuts, Democrat style. Healthcare spending cuts, Republican style

The cut to federal Medicaid spending that CBO estimates would result from the BCRA -- $750 billion over ten years -- superficially recalls ACA cuts to Medicare spending, estimated by CBO in 2010 at $455 billion. As Democrats raise the alarm about deep damage to Medicaid, so Republicans screamed for years that Democrats were cutting Medicare. But of course there are fundamental differences:

• Democrats cut the growth in Medicare spending and spent the savings to extend health insurance to the uninsured. Republicans want to cut Medicaid to fund tax cuts for the wealthy and for healthcare companies.


• The ACA specifies that the reductions it mandates in spending growth are not to reduce services provided to Medicare beneficiaries, but only payments to providers. The "Medicare guarantee" that has been stable in traditional (fee-for-service) Medicare for decades -- premium-free hospital coverage, 75% premium subsidy for physician services, actuarial value a bit over 80% for these services, and (since 2006), somewhat weaker drug coverage -- remained intact, and in fact strengthened on the drug front. 

The real cost of "benchmark silver" for low income BCRA enrollees

For ACA marketplace enrollees with incomes under 200% FPL -- over half of all enrollees -- benchmark silver plans have an average actuarial value of about 91%, i.e. roughly platinum equivalent. This post accordingly looks at the likely cost of AV 90% plans for low income enrollees under the BCRA. If you want to cut to the chase see the two charts at bottom.

Senate Republicans' bill to eviscerate Medicaid, advertised as an ACA repeal and replace bill, provides for income-based  private market premium subsidies that superficially look something like those of the ACA marketplace, but with these differences:

• Subsidy eligibility begins at zero income, rather than at 100% or 138% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) as in the ACA. Theoretically, these private market subsidies for the poor and near-poor are meant to compensate for repeal of the ACA Medicaid expansion.
• Subsidy eligibility ends at 350% FPL compared to 400% FPL in the ACA.
• The benchmark against which subsidies are calculated is a plan with an actuarial value (AV) of 58%, compared to AV 70% for the ACA's benchmark silver plans. AV refers to the percentage of the average user's medical costs the plan is designed to cover.
• Subsidy size, calculated to leave the enrollee paying a fixed percentage of income for a benchmark plan, varies by age as well as income.
• There are no Cost Sharing Reduction (CSR) subsidies to reduce out-of-pocket expenses (boosting AV) for low income enrollees, as in the ACA.
• "Age-rating" is increased from the ACA's 3:1 to the pre-ACA individual market norm of 5:1, meaning that a 64 year-old's plan will cost five times as much as a 21 year-old's plan rather than three times as much.

Of these, the difference in the value of a benchmark plan (AV 58% vs. 70%) has gotten the most attention, as analysts are at pains to make apples-to-apples comparisons. Both the Brookings Institute and the Kaiser Family Foundation have put out papers highlighting the cost of AV 70% coverage under the Senate bill, the so-called Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA).

These comparisons are appropriate in that insurers price silver plans under the ACA at 70% actuarial value. But Cost Sharing Reduction (CSR) subsidies, tacked on separately and reimbursed separately to insurers, dramatically alter the actual AV accessed by marketplace enrollees. As of April 2016, in the 39 states using the federal marketplace, healthcare.gov, silver plans purchased in-marketplace had an average weighted AV of 85% (see note at bottom here).  Among enrollees with incomes below 200% FPL -- about 60% of all on-marketplace current enrollees -- the average AV for a silver plan is 91% . About 85% of enrollees below that income threshold select silver plans and so access CSR.