Should states pursue reinsurance for their ACA marketplaces?

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

While sabotaging the ACA marketplace on multiple fronts, the Trump administration has from the beginning supported one means of keeping premiums down: encouraging states to submit waiver proposals seeking federal funding for reinsurance programs.

These programs partially reimburse insurers for costs incurred by individual enrollees that cross a certain threshold. In New Jersey for example, the program pays 60% of an enrollee's costs exceeding $40,000 per year, up to a threshold of $250,000. To date, CMS has approved 12 state reinsurance waiver proposals, 7 of them implemented by 2019.

The ACA marketplace began life with a national federally funded reinsurance program, but it sunset after three years (2014-2016). Not coincidentally, premiums nationwide rose by about 25% in that year -- a year of correction, in which insurers also recognized that they had significantly underpriced coverage in the ACA's first three years. They recovered profitability in 2017.

By reducing premiums, reinsurance also reduces premium subsidies. Trump's HHS has proved willing to pass much of the savings through to the states, providing tens-to-hundreds of millions of dollars annually to the approved programs.

The case against reinsurance

Some progressives, however, have concluded that reinsurance is a poor use of state resources. The ACA benefit structure subjects these programs to a Catch-22: Reducing base premiums tends to raise premiums for subsidized enrollees.

Looks like New Jersey's reinsurance trade-off paid off

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

New Jersey's Department of Banking and Insurance has published second quarter enrollment numbers for the state's individual market for health insurance. Some upside surprises:

New Jersey Individual Market Enrollment, Second Quarter 2018 to Second Quarter 2019

Venue	Q2 2019	Q2 2018	# change	% change
On-exchange	220,217	222,696	(2,479)	-1.1%
Off-exchange	92,798	85,361	7,437	+8.7%
Total	313,015	308,057	4,958	+1.6%

• Off-exchange enrollment is up from the first quarter -- unusual, because anyone enrolling after December 15, 2018 would have to qualify for a Special Enrollment Period. In Q1, off-exchange enrollment was up 2.98% year-over-year. In Q2, it's up 8.7% over Q2  2018, to 92,798. 


• On-exchange enrollment, which was down a disappointing 7.1% as of the end of Open Enrollment, has had much lighter attrition than in previous years. It's down just 1.6% since Q1, compared to an average Q1-to-Q2 drop of  6.8% in the three previous years. Accordingly, it's down just 1.1% from Q2 2018.


• Total individual market enrollment is up 1.6% compared to Q2 2018.  That's all in ACA-compliant plans, as New Jersey bans the lightly regulated, medically underwritten short-term plans promoted by the Trump administration.

New Jersey's 2019 experience is something of a case study for what you might call the reinsurance tradeoff.

Silver loading 2020 update: The sky isn't falling

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

Last week I noted that the discounts for subsidized ACA marketplace enrollees generated by silver loading (see explanation at bottom)* are likely to be somewhat reduced in 2020, given that a) average unsubsidized premiums are down 3-4%, b) and average premiums for the benchmark silver plan are down more sharply (-4%) than average premiums for the cheapest plan at each metal level (-3%).

Let's see how price spreads and discounts at each metal level have changed in the counties with the highest marketplace enrollment nationwide. Together, these 9 counties hold 16% of all on-exchange ACA marketplace enrollment.

Oscar throws a wild card into the 2020 ACA marketplace

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

Re the premise of my prior post -- that discounts in bronze and gold plans will be weaker in the 2020 ACA marketplace:  I've stumbled on a wild card, and it's pretty wild. Let's start where we did yesterday:

CMS has published ACA marketplace premiums for 2020.  The top-line news is that premiums have dropped 3-4%.  The key point for subsidized enrollees (69% of the ACA-compliant market) is that silver loading has gone into reverse -- and consequently there will be fewer discounted plans available. That's because benchmark silver plan premiums -- the second-cheapest silver plan in each market, which determines subsidy size -- have dropped more sharply (-4%)  than average premiums for the cheapest plan at each metal level (-3%).

Okay, so discounts stemming from silver loading* may be reduced on average, and in particular, discounts in cheapest silver may be the most impaired. Now for the wild card: Oscar is offering a $0 deductible bronze plan in Florida and Texas (and maybe elsewhere, but those two states account for a quarter of all ACA marketplace enrollment). In Miami, for a 40 year-old at an income of $17,300 -- about 140% FPL -- it's zero premium too; at $24,900 income (just below 200% FPL) it's $79/month.

Silver loading goes into reverse in 2020

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

CMS has published ACA marketplace premiums for 2020.  The top-line news is that premiums have dropped 3-4%.  The key point for subsidized enrollees (69% of the ACA-compliant market) is that silver loading has gone into reverse -- and consequently there will be fewer discounted plans available. That's because benchmark silver plan premiums -- the second-cheapest silver plan in each market, which determines subsidy size -- have dropped more sharply (-4%)  than average premiums for the cheapest plan at each metal level (-3%).

Silver loading, recall, is the byproduct of Trump's October 2017 cutoff of direct federal reimbursement to insurers for the Cost Sharing Reduction (CSR) subsidies they are required to provide to low income marketplace enrollees who select silver plans. Faced with the cutoff at the brink of open enrollment for 2018, most state insurance departments allowed or encouraged insurers to price CSR into silver premiums only. Since premium subsidies, designed so that the enrollee pays a fixed percentage of income, are set to a silver plan benchmark (the second cheapest silver plan), inflated silver premiums create discounts for subsidized buyers in bronze and gold plans.

What is Elizabeth Warren cooking up?

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

Quick, what's the difference in the way the Des Moines Register and the New York Times quoted Elizabeth Warren's recent I'll-have-a-plan promise?

Des Moines:

"Right now, the cost estimates on Medicare for All vary by trillions and trillions of dollars. And the different revenue streams for how to fund it — there are a lot of them," she said to a crowd of about 475 at Simpson College. "So this is something I’ve been working on for months and months and it’s got just a little more work until it's finished."

New York:

“I plan over the next few weeks to put out a plan that talks about, specifically, the cost of Medicare for all and, specifically, how we pay for it,” she told the crowd at the event, held at Simpson College.

On Trump's fight to uninsure people

Up now on healthinsurance.org:
Courts resist Trump's assault on benefits for immigrants and the poor - so far

Rule of law, for now

It is contingently heartening that Trump administration's most egregious and damaging attempts to restrict government-supported access to healthcare for immigrants and low income people have so far been slapped down by the courts.  That is, Medicaid work requirements in Kentucky and Arkansas, and the public charge rule, stayed nationally for now.

The counterpoints are many: these stays were all imposed by Clinton and Obama appointees; the Supreme Court could overturn all; the stayed public charge rule is still having a chilling effect, inducing immigrants to forgo vital services for their children as well as themselves; and an ideologically blinkered 5th Circuit may be on the brink of striking down or impairing the ACA - in which case its fate may depend on aged liberal justices surviving through next June.  Our institutional resilience is the sound of one hand clapping.

I have a post in progress for healthinsurance.org to this effect -- this one's a placeholder.  [update, 10/22: here it is].

Privatizing Medicare: Paul Ryan's soul goes marching on

ICYM the prior post on Trump's executive order aiming to advance the privatization of Medicare on multiple fronts, I've had the chance to refine it twice, on BlueWaveNJ and at medicareresources.org (hence the blogging drought here).

The short version (from the medicareresources.org post):

Issued on October 3, Trump’s order instructs the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to take steps aiming to

• “Voucherize” Medicare in the manner proposed by Paul Ryan – that is, let private Medicare Advantage plans set prices for traditional Medicare, rather than vice versa as at present.

• Create a private insurance market outside of Medicare for wealthy seniors that would likely lure doctors away from participation in Medicare.

• Subject Medicare enrollees to the joys of “balance billing” – getting billed by providers for amount in excess of their normal share of the Medicare bill.

Trump's bid to destroy Medicare

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

It's clear that Trump is working to destroy U.S. democracy -- selling U.S. aid and favors to countries in exchange for pursuing trumped-up charges against his political opponents.

Now he's following up via executive order with a bid to destroy Medicare.

In the runaway train that is U.S. healthcare costs, Medicare (and Medicaid) is the only substantial brake, in that the government sets prices paid to providers, albeit with outsized provider input. Medicare hospital rates are about half* those paid on average by commercial insurers. Rates paid to physicians average about 78% of commercial rates -- and in high-demand specialties and regions with few providers, commercial insurers often pay four, five and six times Medicare rates.

In countries that successfully offer universal coverage, the government either serves as the sole payer, sets rates for all payers, or oversees all-payer negotiations. The U.S. alone leaves commercial insurers to be divided and conquered by payers. That's the main reason U.S. healthcare costs average about double the OECD average.

In an executive order that begins with a deranged preamble slandering Medicare for All proposals, Trump orders the Department of Health and Human Services to prepare the ground for ending Medicare rate-setting:

The logic underpinning Medicare for all who want it

Blog as sketchpad: as employer-sponsored insurance continues to slowly, steadily bleed Americans white, I think the case for a strong public option that anyone can buy into on an affordable, income-adjusted basis boils down to a few simple propositions:

1. Employer insurance is deteriorating because employers (through insurance intermediaries) lack pricing power. Every year, premium and OOP increases exceed inflation and wage growth.

2. The competition needed to endow them with that power is a strong public option paying providers Medicare rates or some variant.

3. Once such a public option establishes all-payer rates, either de facto or by fiat**, we will have space to determine whether private insurance adds any value

4. Under those revamped market conditions, we can afford to be agnostic as to whether private insurance survives or dies.

---

FN - This little credo started life as a postscript to a slightly longer version of the argument.

* The Medicare for America bill, which establishes a strong public option paying modified Medicare rates (110% Medicare, with adjustments for primary care, mental health and underserved areas), stipulates that providers who accept the public plan must accept the same payment rates from commercial insurers. Competition from a strong public option could more slowly have the same effect.

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

Just how big a bite does healthcare cost growth take out of earnings?

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

The Kaiser Family Foundation's Employer Health Benefits Survey for 2019, released this week, shows a continued upward march in premiums and out-of-pocket costs. While costs have risen more slowly in the past five years than in the previous five, and in the last ten years (2009-2019) than in the previous ten (1999-2009), they continue to outpace inflation and wage growth. 

To get a feel for how much wage growth is eaten by health costs, let's look at some broad averages: the average increase in premiums and deductibles set against the average increase in the mean wage. Jeffrey Young's overview of the survey results at HuffPost provides a useful starting point:

In the past 10 years, the average premium for job-based health insurance that covers a family has risen 54%, to $20,756. Moreover, the amount of that premium workers pay for family coverage has increased 71%, to $6,015.

Employer-sponsored insurance as we know it is unsustainable. Now what?

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

Kaiser's 2019 Employer Health Benefits Survey, released yesterday, highlights a basic I noted a month ago (based on a Kaiser precursor report): employer-sponsored health insurance is deteriorating. Average family plan premiums have topped $20,000; average deductibles have topped $1,600. Family premiums have increased 54% over ten years. That's actually down from the previous ten years, when rates more than doubled. But the climb in excess of inflation has been relentless.

The system most consistently fails low income workers -- many of whom would be better off if the employer offered no insurance, rendering them eligible for ACA marketplace subsidies. KFF president Drew Altman lays out the basics:

• Roughly 36 million American workers earn $25,000 per year or less — retail workers, personal care attendants, warehouse workers and many more.
• Just 33% of workers at lower-wage firms offering health benefits are covered by their employer’s health benefits, well below the 63% share at other firms offering coverage.
• These low-wage workers pay an average of $7,000 per year just toward the premium for a family plan.
• Workers in low-wage firms also face much higher deductibles: a $2,679 annual single deductible, while at other firms, the average is $1,610.

My takeaways:

Unsubsidized? Buy bronze (probably)

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

In a post yesterday, David Anderson clarified something I understood only vaguely: once a health plan enrollee meets her deductible, her incurred costs will reach the plan's annual out-of-pocket (OOP) maximum much more slowly in a plan with a high actuarial value (say, a plan covering 80% of costs) than in a low-AV plan (covering 60% of costs).

The ACA requires plans to cap enrollees' annual OOP costs at no more than $7,900. Most plans at all metal levels have OOP caps over $5,000, with the exception of silver plans enhanced by strong Cost Sharing Reduction CSR) subsidies available to low income enrollees.  By the standards of the U.S.'s peer countries, that's a grotesque amount of risk for an average person to assume, but that's the world we Americans have made ourselves.

Anderson plots the rate at which an enrollee's total incurred medical costs will hit the maximum allowable OOP max in  bronze, silver, and gold plans with these features:

Elizabeth Warren's healthcare toggle switch: A two-year review

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

An hour ago I stumbled on a two year old post teasing out Elizabeth Warren's ambivalence about Bernie Sanders' Medicare for All bill, as expressed on the occasion of her co-sponsoring it. That's led me to reflect on the apparent cross-currents in Warren's mind drawing her alternately toward and away from fast-track hard-core single payer.

Here are some longstanding key points in Warren's healthcare stance, fleshed out in the links provided at bottom.

1. Warren's entire political outlook and diagnosis of the U.S.'s economic and political woes is founded on her understanding of the impact of medical debt and other costs of illness (e.g., lost wages) on ordinary Americans.

2. Warren's outrage against banks and other financial institutions that she views as helping Americans "drown in debt,"  taken up several notches in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, transfers easily to outrage against health insurers -- which are, after all, financial institutions of a sort.

What's so great about Medicare?

Kaiser Family Foundation polling indicates that when a majority of Americans say they're in favor of Medicare for all, most are thinking of the program as it currently exists, not as Bernie Sanders re-imagines it.*

Which raises the question: Why is Medicare's brand so strong?  I've explored the question over at medicareresources.org, companion site to healthinsurance.org.

Personally I would rate Medicare somewhere along the lines of a review advertised by a Cleveland restaurant long ago: Not great, but more than adequate when you consider the alternatives. For all its gaps and flaws, Americans exhale when they hit age 65. Hope you'll click through for a bit more detail.
--

* Most apparently are also thinking that everyone should be able to opt in, not that everyone should be auto-enrolled with no alternatives.

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

Buttigieg goes first! -- Decries predatory hospital pricing and proposes to do something about it

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

I have been part of a chorus of healthcare writers complaining that when Democratic presidential candidates excoriate profiteering by health insurers and pharma, they always give providers a pass. Relatedly, my last post salutes three hard-hitting stories published this year -- two of them in the last week -- that spotlight predatory billing or collections by hospitals and private equity-owned physician staffing companies.

While no candidate participating in the September 12 CNN debate took Kaiser Health News editor-in-chief Elizabeth Rosenthal's pre-debate invitation...

Will any of the candidates take on HOSPITALS' PRICING AND BILLING policies at tonight's #democraticdebate? They should and why they might not...in my latest for the @NYTimesOpEd. https://t.co/e808tYGdLe

— Elisabeth Rosenthal (@RosenthalHealth) September 12, 2019

one candidate caught the cue this week. Today, Pete Buttigieg is out with a "Medicare for all who want it" plan (rather like Biden's, FWIW). In a statement, as reported by HuffPost's Jonathan Cohn, Buttigieg rounded up the usual healthcare suspects -- plus one (my emphasis):

“For years, Washington politicians have allowed the pharmaceutical industry, giant insurance companies, and powerful hospital systems to profit off of people when they are at their sickest and most vulnerable,” Buttigieg said in a prepared statement. “My ‘Medicare for All Who Want It’ plan will create a health care system that puts power in the hands of each American.”

Healthcare regulation by exposé

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

It's been said that shaming by journalists doth not a regulatory regime make. But in 2019, national healthcare reporters are giving it a go.

Back in January, Sarah Kliff, then at Vox (now at the NYT), reported that Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital, a go-to destination for trauma victims, did not accept any private insurance plans. Every private who enters the hospital gets balance billed (or did at the time of writing) -- often for tens of thousands of dollars. The stories were vivid and egregious.

The next shoe dropped in April:

Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital announced Tuesday it has overhauled its billing policies, a move that comes three months after a Vox story drew national attention to the hospital’s abnormal and aggressive billing tactics.

Uninsurance goes upscale: The Census's Health Insurance Coverage Update for 2018

Yesterday the Census Bureau* released its health insurance estimates for 2018. The top line showed a rise in the uninsured population of 1.9 million, or 0.5% -- the first increase since the ACA's main programs launched.

Disturbingly, the number of uninsured children increased by 425,000, or 0.6%, raising children's uninsured rate to 5.5%. That spike would appear to be due mainly to a drop in Medicaid coverage, given that  Medicaid and CHIP coverage for children was down 1.2%; and the overall percentage of children with public health insurance dropped 0.8%, while the percentage of children with private health insurance ticked up 0.2%. There was also, however, a sharp spike in the uninsured rate among children in households with incomes over 400% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL), from 1.9% in 2017 to 2.6% in 2018 -- accounting for almost half of the increase in uninsured children.

Folks at Georgetown University and the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities will probably dive  into the spike in uninsured children, as they have been doing for at least a year. Here I just want to throw some sidelights on the Census numbers generally.

1. Affluent uninsured population spikes. Notwithstanding a drop of 2 million  (0.7%) in Medicaid enrollment, the sharpest increases in the uninsured were at high incomes. At 300-399% FPL, the insured rate dropped a full percentage point, from 92.9% to 91.9%, and at over 400% FPL, the rate dropped 0.8%, from 97.3% to 96.6%. Together, these two income groups account for 55% of the population. Particularly striking, the number of uninsured at incomes over 300% FPL increased 23.8% (from 6.631 million in 2017 to 8.215 million in 2018).  The spike in uninsured children at high income levels seems congruent with this drop.

When silver loading discounts trump strong CSR (the nonexpansion state "advantage," take 5)

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

This post picks up where the last one left off, further examining potential partial explanations for why ACA marketplace enrollment declines on HealthCare.gov in 2019 were much sharper in states that have expanded Medicaid than in states that have refused the expansion. I raised a question in that post, bolded in the excerpt below.

Enrollment changes by income, HealthCare.gov states
2019 enrollment as a percentage of 2018, as of the end of OE in each year

State group	Total enrollment	100-150% FPL	150-200% FPL	100-200%  FPL	200-400% FPL	Unsubsidized
Expansion*	93%	93%	91%	92%	95%	88%
Nonexpansion	99%	100%	98%	100%	102%	82%

* Excluding Virginia and Maine   Source: CMS state-level public use files 

The enrollment performance gaps at 100-200% FPL and 200-400% FPL are comparable. I would be tempted to suggest that the gap at 100-150% FPL is due to the concentration of low income enrollees in the nonexpansion states (those at 100-138% FPL, who pay less for top-level CSR silver plans than do those at 138-150% FPL), and that the gap at 200-400% FPL is due to stronger silver loading in the non-expansion states. But the large performance gap at 150-200% FPL kind of belies that -- unless, perhaps, silver loading at that income level is pulling more prospective enrollees into free or ultra-cheap bronze plans in the nonexpansion states. In the silver loading era, silver plan selection at 150-200% FPL has dropped from 83% in 2017 (pre silver loading) to 76% in 2019 in HealthCare.gov states. The lure is bronze coverage that is often free at that income level, while benchmark (second cheapest) silver costs about $130/month at 200% FPL. I guess I need to test whether bronze selection in this income band has risen faster in nonexpansion states.