What We Know And Don’t Know About Obamacare, Part I

Obamacare's third open enrollment season launched yesterday. Here are six things we know about the program. (Tomorrow: four things we still don't know.) Credit:americanlegislator.org

Oba­macare’s third open enroll­ment sea­son launched yes­ter­day. Here are six things we know about the pro­gram. (Tomor­row: four things we still don’t know.) Credit:americanlegislator.org

Obamacare’s third open enroll­ment sea­son has kicked off, begin­ning the next chap­ter in its tur­bu­lent his­to­ry.  Today’s post dis­cuss­es what we know about Oba­macare.  Tomorrow’s will dis­cuss what we still don’t know.

What We Know

Few­er peo­ple are unin­sured. How many few­er is a mat­ter of dis­pute, but the improve­ment is sub­stan­tial by any mea­sure.  HHS Sec­re­tary Sylvia Bur­well cred­its Oba­macare with reduc­ing the num­ber of unin­sured peo­ple by 17.6 mil­lion since 2010.   And though you’ll like­ly hear this num­ber repeat­ed (and often round­ed up to 18 mil­lion), it’s almost cer­tain­ly exag­ger­at­ed.  

The Cen­sus Bureau esti­mates that 47.2 mil­lion peo­ple were unin­sured in 2010; that num­ber had fall­en to just below 36.7 mil­lion in 2014, a dif­fer­ence of 10.5 mil­lion.  That’s a lot, but an awful lot less than the 17.6 mil­lion fig­ure the Admin­is­tra­tion touts.  Some of that decrease occurred dur­ing the economy’s fit­ful emer­gence from the worst reces­sion since the 1930s.  By 2013, the year before Oba­macare ful­ly kicked in, the num­ber of unin­sured already had fall­en by two mil­lion from its 2010 peak.

That said, Obamacare’s imple­men­ta­tion can fair­ly be cred­it­ed with reduc­ing the num­ber of unin­sured by 8.5 mil­lion in 2014.  And though that’s only about half the Administration’s inflat­ed num­ber, it is a sig­nif­i­cant achieve­ment.  When the final fig­ures for 2015 are in, we can expect that num­ber to look bet­ter still.

Most new­ly insured peo­ple have gained cov­er­age through Med­ic­aid, not through the exchanges. The impres­sive decline in the num­ber of unin­sured is almost entire­ly the result of Med­ic­aid expan­sion in 31 states and the Dis­trict of Colum­bia accord­ing to a recent report by Ed Haislmaier of the Her­itage Foundation.

Rely­ing on insur­ance com­pa­ny reg­u­la­to­ry fil­ings com­piled by Mark Far­rah Asso­ciates and gov­ern­ment data on Med­ic­aid enroll­ments, the report found that more than 9.2 mil­lion peo­ple gained cov­er­age in 2014.  [That fig­ure is con­sis­tent with an 8.5 mil­lion reduc­tion in the num­ber of unin­sured, due to pop­u­la­tion growth.]

While the num­ber of peo­ple enrolled in indi­vid­ual pri­vate cov­er­age increased by 4.8 mil­lion, near­ly 4.5 mil­lion peo­ple lost employ­er spon­sored insur­ance, for a net increase in pri­vate cov­er­age of just under 260,000.  Things were dif­fer­ent on the Med­ic­aid side, where the rolls increased by near­ly nine mil­lion, 8.3 mil­lion of those in states that expand­ed their program.

In all, 97 per­cent of the net increase in new­ly insured peo­ple was accom­plished by Med­ic­aid, not pri­vate health insur­ance cov­er­age, accord­ing to the study.

Oba­macare is a good deal for unin­sured peo­ple with pre-exist­ing con­di­tions and those with incomes below 200 per­cent of FPL. Oba­macare is a god­send for peo­ple who expect to incur med­ical costs that exceed their pre­mi­ums.  It is also a pret­ty good deal for many low-income people.

Some low-income peo­ple who don’t qual­i­fy for Med­ic­aid (either because they earn too much or live in a state that hasn’t expand­ed its pro­gram) have found that exchanges offer an attrac­tive option.  Such poli­cies are most pop­u­lar among those with incomes below 200 per­cent of the Fed­er­al Pover­ty Lev­el ($23,540 in 2015 for an indi­vid­ual, $40,180 for a fam­i­ly of three).

A study pub­lished ear­li­er this year by health con­sul­tan­cy Avalere found that more than three-fourths of unin­sured peo­ple earn­ing less than 150 per­cent of pover­ty had obtained cov­er­age either through Med­ic­aid or the exchanges.  For those in the 151–200 per­cent of FPL range, the num­ber fell to 41 per­cent, not over­whelm­ing but still quite respectable.

There is good rea­son for Obamacare’s rel­a­tive pop­u­lar­i­ty in those income brack­ets.  In addi­tion to pre­mi­um sub­si­dies, those with low­er incomes also receive what’s called “cost-shar­ing assis­tance.”  This requires insur­ers to keep deductibles and coin­sur­ance amounts very low.  A 30-year-old earn­ing $17,500 is pay­ing less than $60 per month in 2015 for cov­er­age (thanks to pre­mi­um assis­tance) with a deductible gen­er­al­ly around $250 (thanks to cost-shar­ing sub­si­dies).  The cost-shar­ing sub­si­dies, how­ev­er, drop in cliffs.  They become less gen­er­ous at 151 per­cent of pover­ty, vir­tu­al­ly worth­less at 201 per­cent of pover­ty, and dis­ap­pear entire­ly at 251 per­cent of pover­ty.  Oba­macare poli­cies haven’t attract­ed many peo­ple who don’t qual­i­fy for mean­ing­ful cost-shar­ing sub­si­dies.  More on that below.

Sub­si­dies can land you in trou­ble with the gov­ern­ment. Sub­si­dies (espe­cial­ly cost-shar­ing sub­si­dies) are clear­ly ben­e­fi­cial, but they can be com­pli­cat­ed – both for con­sumers and for the government.

Since pre­mi­um sub­si­dies vary with income, an addi­tion­al $1,000 in earn­ings means hav­ing to pay, on aver­age, $150 more for health insur­ance.   Earn­ings for peo­ple in the low­est income brack­ets can fluc­tu­ate much more than for those with high­er incomes.   Since sub­si­dies are based on an enrollee’s best guess about his or her wages, errors are frequent.

A Kaiser Fam­i­ly Foun­da­tion study pub­lished last spring found that 45 per­cent of sub­sidy recip­i­ents had received less from the gov­ern­ment than they were enti­tled to, while 50 per­cent had received too much.  That’s a 95 per­cent error rate, bad even by gov­ern­ment standards.

Those who receive too much must pay the IRS back with inter­est and may also be sub­ject to penal­ties.  And every­one who receives a sub­sidy has to file fed­er­al income tax­es, some­thing low-income peo­ple are unac­cus­tomed to doing, since the gov­ern­ment levies no income tax on their wages.  They also have to file an addi­tion­al form to deter­mine whether the sub­si­dies they received were too large or too small.  The New York Times reports that near­ly 1.5 mil­lion peo­ple who received sub­si­dies last year failed to file one or the oth­er form.

They are in for a nasty sur­prise: the law cuts off their sub­si­dies, effec­tive January

Oba­macare is a bad deal for most unin­sured peo­ple with incomes greater than 200 per­cent of FPL. As sticky as things can get for peo­ple who receive gov­ern­ment sub­si­dies, life is worse for those who fall off the cost-shar­ing sub­sidy cliff.  Pre­mi­ums and deductibles are much high­er than for those with low­er incomes.  That com­bi­na­tion of pre­mi­um and deductibles can be daunt­ing, in some cas­es amount­ing to 20 per­cent or more of their income.

It is lit­tle won­der that four out of five unin­sured peo­ple with incomes between 251 and 300 per­cent of FPL have so far pre­ferred to remain unin­sured.  Avalere esti­mates that 98 per­cent of unin­sured peo­ple with incomes over 400 per­cent of FPL spurned Oba­macare coverage.

A study by Mark Pauly of the Uni­ver­si­ty of Pennsylvania’s Whar­ton School con­clud­ed that mid­dle income peo­ple who choose to remain unin­sured are mak­ing an eco­nom­i­cal­ly ratio­nal choice.   “The minor­i­ty of high risks among the mid­dle class unin­sured may gain,” he wrote, “but most unin­sured will lose and, accord­ing to our esti­mates, will pre­fer to remain unin­sured at the cur­rent penal­ty lev­els for vio­lat­ing the indi­vid­ual mandate.”

Pre­mi­ums are going up. If Oba­macare poli­cies were unap­peal­ing to unin­sured peo­ple with incomes exceed­ing 200 per­cent of FPL this year and last, they will be even less appeal­ing in 2016.

How much pre­mi­ums will rise depends on where you live and which plan you’re enrolled in now.

Health insur­ance indus­try vet­er­an Robert Laszews­ki report­ed ear­li­er this year, for exam­ple, that Care First Blue Cross of Mary­land, which has an 80 per­cent mar­ket share, sought a 34 per­cent rate hike.  The Blue Cross plan in Ten­nessee, which con­trols 70 per­cent of the mar­ket, asked reg­u­la­tors to approve an increase of more than 36 percent.

So why did HHS recent­ly announce that pre­mi­ums for bench­mark plans will rise by an aver­age of “only” 7.5 per­cent?  Because some of the insur­ers who raised their pre­mi­ums the most no longer will qual­i­fy as bench­mark plans (the sec­ond cheap­est pol­i­cy on the Sil­ver tier).  Since the all-impor­tant sub­si­dies are based on bench­mark plan pre­mi­ums, most peo­ple will like­ly switch to new bench­mark plans to avoid the big pre­mi­um increases.

Most plans have nar­row provider net­works, mean­ing that many who change insur­ers will also have to change doc­tors.  But there is a sil­ver lin­ing: so long as their incomes haven’t risen, tax­pay­ers will pick up the entire cost of the pre­mi­um hike.

Those who don’t qual­i­fy for sub­si­dies, of course, will have to pay the high­er pre­mi­ums out of their own pock­ets.  But, then again, very few exchange par­tic­i­pants are unsub­si­dized.  Only 14 per­cent of those who enrolled through the healthcare.gov web­site are pay­ing their own pre­mi­ums with­out gov­ern­ment help.

The next post dis­cuss­es what we still don’t know about Obamacare.

An ear­li­er ver­sion of this post also appeared on the web­site of the Galen Institute.