We stand watch at Obamacare’s bedside, filled with uncertainty about the timing of its demise and what will follow. There are good deaths and bad deaths—good ones are peaceful and offer time for reflection and fond farewells. Bad deaths are filled with misery and leave behind discord, estrangement and confusion.
Born of compromise
Although the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act passed without Republican support, it did not emerge full grown from the head of Obama. Unlike the Clinton health care reform, the Obama administration consulted with and received the support (mostly) of the American Hospital Association, the American Medical Society, America’s Health Insurance Plans, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, Consumers Union, and many other interested parties. The Obama administration did not want to resurrect the AHIP-funded Harry and Louise ads that doomed the 1993 Clinton plan. Born of compromise, ACA was a frail child.
Each of the interested parties got something in exchange for its political support. AHIP won the personal and employer coverage mandate and dodged the “Medicare for All” public option. AHA, courtesy of the “out of pocket maximum,” hoped for fewer bankruptcy-driven write-offs. PhRMA escaped negotiated drug prices. AMA’s support bought a long list of free preventive services, like annual physicals and screenings. Consumers advocates won community rating coupled with an end to pre-existing condition exclusions.
Do you have another view on this issue? We are looking for a wide range of opinions to foster discussion and debate. If you’d like to be a contributor, send us your idea.
Rejecting the single-payer models of the United Kingdom and Canada, the ACA retained private insurance and provider markets, imitating the health care systems of many of our trading partners including Germany, France, Japan and Switzerland. While private, the payers and providers in these countries are subject to comprehensive price regulation.
Obama’s goal: increase health insurance coverage
The deal cut with interest groups secured the top priority of the Obama administration and its allies in Congress, an expansion of health care coverage. Before passage of the ACA, two groups found health care insurance inaccessible: the very poor in states with limited Medicaid coverage and the near poor without employer coverage.
The number of uninsured fell from about 49 million in 2010 to 29 million in 2017. The Commonwealth Fund’s tracking survey reports that 14 percent of working-age Americans were without health insurance at the end of 2017, down from 20 percent in the third quarter of 2013.
But who pays the bill?
The $64 trillion question: How would the ACA pay for the simultaneous improvement and expansion of coverage?
Part of the cost would be paid by new taxes. President Barack Obama widely claimed that the law “would not add one penny to the deficit.” His careful wording meant only that new revenue would equal new cost, not that the plan would not cost more.
The second source of revenue is other rate payers.
Consider the out-of-pocket maximum: It has been widely claimed (and debated that unpaid medical bills were the single most common cause of personal bankruptcy prior to the ACA. The out-of-pocket maximum, currently $7,350 for an individual and $14,700 for a family, makes this much less likely. Take coronary angioplasty—one of the 10 most common medical procedures in America. The average cost in the U.S. is over $35,000 ($47,000 in New York), according to Guroo.com, a site that gathers and reports health care claims data. The difference ($28,000 for an individual) is “paid by the insurance company”—which is the rest of us. Consumer Reports observes that personal bankruptcies dropped by half since the ACA was fully implemented (although, again, the ACA connection is disputed).
Mandating preventive services also adds cost. We would like to believe that “a stitch in time saves nine.” But that is not what the research tells us. Prevention improves quality of life but does not actually reduce overall spending. The “insurance company”—the rest of us, remember—is obliged to pay the difference.
And, of course, insurance companies may no longer keep rates down by excluding expensive patients or by charging them more. They cannot say, “You’ve had cancer? Sorry, try another company.” By bringing individuals with costly conditions back into the insured pool and charging them no more than people of the same age without the risky history, the sum “paid by the insurance company”—which is the rest of us—simply had to rise.
Premiums rise for many
A case study offers insight into the cost impact for ratepayers without costly conditions. One of my wife’s cousins is self-employed and was happily enrolled in an ACA marketplace plan in 2016. Changes in his Pennsylvania market spurred an 80 percent increase in his monthly premium, which includes his wife and two young children. Instead of paying the $2,600 monthly premium, he sought out a religiously-based medical cost sharing arrangement.For 2018, the price of his former plan went up again to $3,200 a month.
The sharing plan costs $646 per month. He has no guarantee of coverage—this is not insurance—although the fund has been paying claims regularly for 25 years. Pre-existing conditions are initially excluded: Coverage up to $100,000 is offered after 3 years and up to $500,000 after 5 years. The nonprofit also limits the pool by not enrolling smokers or individuals who participate in a list of other “risky behaviors.” In other words, this sharing plan looks a lot like many health insurance plans made illegal by Obamacare. Competitive market forces also play a role in this pricing comparison, of course, but that is another post. This particular group has quadrupled in size since 2014, although total enrollees still totals only 400,000.
The official statistics confirm the anecdote directionally, although rate growth varies dramatically by individual market. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services reports that while inflation-adjusted health insurance cost per enrollee rose a modest 12 percent overall from 2010 to 2016, the cost of insurance for “direct purchase” enrollees (like my wife’s cousin) rose 63 percent. And that’s just the figure to 2016.
ACA marketplace plans, a subset of the direct purchase plans, also saw premiums soar. Silver plan premiums rose 64 percent from 2015 to 2018, 38 percent from 2017 to 2018 alone.
CMS also reports that the inflation-adjusted net cost of health insurance—defined as premiums less the cost of services received—rose by 20 percent, adjusted for inflation. This tells us that while the extra spending bought more benefits, the cost of coverage rose more.
Mergers reduce competition
The ACA also spurred a flurry of mergers across the health sector and has included hospitals, physician practices and insurers. The consultancy Kaufman Hall reports that the number of 2017 mergers was the highest since it began keeping track in 2000. The average annual number of mergers in the seven years since passage of the ACA (101) is a 71 percent increase over the number recorded for the seven years ending in 2010 (59). Competition cannot solve every problem, but the lack of it typically drives up prices.
Not the plan
These cost impacts are driven by the ACA design and were, to a degree, anticipated. The bill’s architects hoped that by adding reasonably healthy and previously uninsured individuals to the pool (through the individual and business mandates) and by ramping up cost-reduction initiatives, the increase in premiums would be mitigated. Where unanticipated cost increases threatened the viability of insurers (and higher premiums as a buffer), the federal government was to provide funding to bridge the gap, playing a kind of reinsurance role.
While the arithmetic was tenuous under continued Democratic control, Republican opposition removed these mitigating influences—the individual mandate was rendered toothless and the “reinsurance” payments to insurers were ended.
We are left with a health care system that is far better for some and far worse for others. Courtesy of state opposition to Medicaid expansion, many below the poverty line lack any coverage at all while neighbors who are “near poor” qualify for robust marketplace subsidies.
Low- to middle-income individuals and families who qualify for a small or zero subsidy are stuck with plans offering high deductibles and high premiums, both a reflection of the higher cost of ACA’s improved coverage and access. Without an effective coverage mandate and faced with high deductibles, a decision to forgo insurance is tempting to many and may be economically rational for those who have little to lose from bankruptcy.
What about the Rochester-Finger Lakes region?
State insurance law already embraced much of what is in the ACA. New York in 1992 required individual market insurers to accept all applicants regardless of pre-existing conditions and charge the same premiums regardless of an applicant’s age. As a result, the transition to Obamacare was less significant here.
Yet prior law in New York did not require that individuals purchase health insurance. The cost of individual plans was prohibitive as a result and few enrolled. With the ACA’s individual mandate defanged by Congress and the White House, New York health care may be a rerun of “Back to the Future” (but without the cool DeLorean).
Rochester also has been insulated from some of the market chaos by the delicate bilateral power sharing between insurers (Excellus and MVP) and hospital systems (UR Medicine and Rochester Regional).
What might replace Obamacare? Activists on the left are supporting something like Bernie Sanders’ “Medicare for All.” Conservatives seek to restore bare-bones health insurance, turning the clock back to an earlier era.
In a subsequent post I’ll assess the strengths and weaknesses of a “single payer” plan proposed for New York by New York City Assemblyman Richard Gottfried. We’ll also include pieces on single payer from Christine Wagner, longtime director of St. Joseph’s Neighborhood Center, and David Klein, retired CEO of Excellus Blue Cross Blue Shield.
I agree with anyof the points made here. As is the case with so many things these days, politics carries more weight than facts. Steffie Woolhander and David Himmelstein with Physicians for a National HealthProgram, among others, have made the case for a single-payer program, to little avail. Our hypocritical national politicians like their federal health insurance, But they just don’t think the rest of us should have it—even though it would reducethe costif healthcare. We spend more on healthcare per capita and get less for our dollar than citizens in the other developed countries.
From the standpoint of many of my friends, Obamacare was only good. Those friends, living much of their early adult life without health insurance and without regular doctor visits, took care of ongoing health problems and saw dramatic improvements in their health and life in general.
My friends had little concern about the flaws of Obamacare. But are now filled with worry over what comes next.