Will HHS Get Away With A $3.5 Billion Heist?

CMS administrator Andy Slavitt has a $3.5 billion problem. Will Congress and presidential candidates talk about it? [Credit:nextgov]

CMS admin­is­tra­tor Andy Slavitt is plan­ning to short the U.S. Trea­sury $3.5 bil­lion. Will Con­gress and pres­i­den­tial can­di­dates talk about it? [Credit:nextgov]

The Depart­ment of Health and Human Ser­vices (HHS) announced Fri­day night that it was in the process of short­ing the U.S. Trea­sury $3.5 billion.

Well, they didn’t exact­ly announce it.  You had to read between the lines.

The theft of $3.5 bil­lion will help prop up insur­ers that have agreed to sell Oba­macare poli­cies in the indi­vid­ual mar­ket.  Behind all the hap­py talk from Admin­is­tra­tion offi­cials about the program’s suc­cess lies an unpleas­ant truth: insur­ers that par­tic­i­pate in Oba­macare exchanges are bleed­ing money.

Those loss­es are com­ing despite bil­lions of dol­lars in hand­outs the gov­ern­ment is pro­vid­ing the indus­try.  Some of those hand­outs are entire­ly law­ful; oth­ers, not so much.

The so-called “rein­sur­ance” pro­gram falls into the lat­ter cat­e­go­ry.   Under this pro­gram, near­ly every man, woman and child with health insur­ance is qui­et­ly being taxed a total of $107 in 2015 and 2016.  For a fam­i­ly of four, that tax amounts to $428.

The tax isn’t report­ed on your W‑2 because, the gov­ern­ment rea­sons, it is not a tax.  It is a con­tri­bu­tion you’re required to make – or, more accu­rate­ly, that your employ­er or insur­er is oblig­ed to make on your behalf — to help insur­ance com­pa­nies that sell Oba­macare poli­cies keep their heads above water.  The gov­ern­ment has been col­lect­ing the mon­ey from the pre­mi­ums that are sup­posed to pay for your family’s med­ical care with­out both­er­ing to let you know.

Last year, these assess­ments were sup­posed to raise $12 bil­lion.  Of that sum, HHS was required to remit $2 bil­lion to the U.S. Trea­sury, leav­ing $10 bil­lion to be dis­trib­uted to com­pa­nies sell­ing Oba­macare poli­cies.  But the assess­ments you paid only raised a bit less than $10 bil­lion, more than $2 bil­lion short of the total.

What to do?  The Oba­macare statute itself answers that ques­tion plain­ly and unam­bigu­ous­ly: pay Trea­sury its $2 bil­lion first, then dole out the rest to insur­ance com­pa­nies (sec­tion 1341(b)(4)).

But in a remark­able post that appeared last month on the Forbes web­site, Uni­ver­si­ty of Hous­ton pro­fes­sor Seth Chan­dler wrote about the astound­ing deci­sion HHS made: in defi­ance of the Oba­macare statute, it would stiff the U.S. Treasury.

All of the mon­ey would be dis­trib­uted to health insur­ance issuers that sold Oba­macare poli­cies in the indi­vid­ual mar­ket.  The Trea­sury would not receive a dime.  Almost no one – save for Chan­dler – noticed.

Hav­ing got­ten away with the heist last year, CMS dou­bled down.  It announced on Feb­ru­ary 12 that it would filch an addi­tion­al $1.5 bil­lion from the Trea­sury this year, bring­ing the two-year total to $3.5 billion.

And they just might get away with it.  The issue is obscure enough, com­pli­cat­ed enough and impor­tant enough to Obamacare’s sur­vival that the agency will like­ly stand its ground even if Con­gress were to call it out.

None of the obvi­ous reme­dies avail­able to HHS are palat­able.  The agency could reverse course and obey the law, but that would be dis­as­trous for insur­ance com­pa­nies.  This year’s assess­ments are expect­ed to total $6.5 bil­lion, accord­ing to the Feb­ru­ary 12 announce­ment.  Pay­ing Trea­sury the $3.5 bil­lion the law requires would mean short­ing insur­ers by that amount.  Most of those com­pa­nies have been absorb­ing loss­es sell­ing an unap­peal­ing prod­uct, loss­es that are pil­ing up despite bil­lions in gov­ern­ment hand­outs.  If HHS were to pay them less than it has promised, many might decide to stop sell­ing on the exchanges, a polit­i­cal out­come unac­cept­able to the Administration.

Alter­na­tive­ly, they could increase the assess­ments on you.  You haven’t noticed them so far (nei­ther the gov­ern­ment nor your employ­er has told you about them), so would you real­ly notice if HHS were to increase them?  The prob­lem is that orga­nized labor is very much aware of them.  They have long object­ed to the assess­ments, which adverse­ly affect their mem­bers.  They sure­ly would object were HHS to meet its legal oblig­a­tions by hik­ing the amount it takes from group health plans.

The Admin­is­tra­tion is no more like­ly to snub the unions than it is to stint on pay­ments to insur­ance com­pa­nies.  So HHS can be expect­ed to con­tin­ue to defy the law.

Con­gress could, of course, call atten­tion to this heist.  So could pres­i­den­tial can­di­dates.  Mar­co Rubio took a lead­er­ship role in clamp­ing down on a sep­a­rate Oba­macare bailout scheme a few years back.

He and his rivals might want to take a care­ful look at this one as well.

7 thoughts on “Will HHS Get Away With A $3.5 Billion Heist?”

  1. Also impor­tant to remem­ber that HHS end­ed up chang­ing the rules and pay­ing a greater amount then orig­i­nal­ly autho­rized in the law for 2014. The pro­gram struc­ture had all insured peo­ple pay into the pool then HHS would take these funds and pay insur­ers who lost mon­ey with a per­cent­age of high claims between a set limit.

    Orig­i­nal­ly it was sup­posed to cov­er 80% of high claims that insur­ers incurred between $60k to $250k.
    HHS increased the per­cent­age to 100% and low­ered the high claims amount down to $45k while keep­ing the high end at $250k.

    • Very good point. They made the rein­sur­ance pay­ments far more gen­er­ous than orig­i­nal­ly planned and still end­ed up with $1.7 bil­lion in unspent funds for the 2014 ben­e­fit year. The law required that they remit that $1.7 bil­lioon (and $300 mil­lion more) to the Trea­sury. Instead, they will use it to pay insur­ers for the 2015 ben­e­fit year, with the mon­ey to be dis­bursed next month. It real­ly is a fla­grant vio­la­tion of the law.

  2. As a physi­cian on the receiv­ing end of these payments/ expens­es, who cares? In a $4 tril­lion bud­get, this amount is pock­et change. As a busi­ness­man with decades of 7 fig­ure per­son­al busi­ness risk, I’m more than hap­py to take $ from the self serv­ing gov­ern­ment finan­cial ama­teurs facil­i­tat­ing cash flow to my cor­po­ra­tion. It’s a great sys­tem. Print base­less paper mon­ey and dis­trib­ute it to cho­sen win­ners and losers in an attempt to main­tain per­son­al and col­lec­tive pow­er. I’m vot­ing for…___________.!

  3. Inter­est­ing arti­cle that only tips the ice­berg.… As an insur­ance agent that has invest­ed a ton in good faith to licens­ing, edu­ca­tion, train­ing and fees to sell Oba­macare only to receive notice that all poli­cies writ­ten out­side of open enroll­ment will NOT be paid any com­mis­sions. Thank­ful­ly, the state of CA has dis­cov­ered the trav­es­ty and is mak­ing Unit­ed Health­care pay. What say you?

    • The bro­kers are being treat­ed pret­ty shab­bi­ly all around. The Admin­is­tra­tion prob­a­bly hates them more than they hate insur­ers, but they need the insur­ers more … at least at this point. Unit­ed has been pret­ty open about its frus­tra­tions with the Oba­macare mar­ket, although their expo­sure is fair­ly small as a per­cent of their over­all busi­ness­es. I’ve seen var­i­ous arti­cles in some spe­cial­ty pub­li­ca­tions about their ceas­ing to pay com­mis­sions in cer­tain states. I don’t think it’s any­thing per­son­al against agents, they just don’t want to sell more poli­cies. They’re los­ing mon­ey on each one and obvi­ous­ly can’t make it up in vol­ume. Did­n’t know that the Cal­i­for­nia reg­u­la­tors had stepped in. Good for them.

  4. A text­book case of anti-selec­tion and poor under­writ­ing required under fed­er­al law. The con­se­quences were read­i­ly pre­dictable. I find it not at all surprising.

    • Unsur­pris­ing … except for the part about unlaw­ful­ly divert­ing $3.5 bil­lion from the Trea­sury to pri­vate com­pa­nies, right?

Comments are closed.