Today, the Wall Street Journal has yet another story highlighting the rate shock that awaits many Americans when Obamacare’s subsidized health insurance exchanges become fully operational on October 1, 2013. After looking at insurance rates in eight states, the Journal’s Louise Radnofsky finds that, while older and sicker Americans will have access to a better deal than they used to, young and healthy Americans may be up for a serious rate shock. She writes:
For much more, you can read this piece by Avik Roy over at Forbes. Roy offers his own rate-shock calculations. He also explains that, unlike what we often hear (including in Radnofsky’s piece), it is possible that the more expensive bronze plan that one will be able to get after the exchanges are implemented may not actually provide significantly better coverage. He writes:
Healthy consumers could see insurance rates double or even triple when they look for individual coverage under the federal health law later this year, while the premiums paid by sicker people are set to become more affordable, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of coverage to be sold on the law’s new exchanges.She has a chart summing up her findings here. In addition, she details how things may play out in Virginia, one of the eight states examined in her study, “for a 40-year-old single nonsmoker—in the middle of the age range eligible for exchanges” buying a “bronze” plan, which generally covers about 60% of medical costs. Here is what she finds:
The exchanges, the centerpiece of President Barack Obama’s health-care law, look likely to offer few if any of the cut-rate policies that healthy people can now buy, according to the Journal’s analysis. At the same time, the top prices look to be within reach for many people who previously faced sky-high premiums because of chronic illnesses or who couldn’t buy insurance at all.
In Richmond, a 40-year-old male nonsmoker logging on to the eHealthInsurance comparison-shopping website today would see a plan that costs $63 a month from Anthem, a unit of WellPoint Inc. WLP -0.13% That plan has a $5,000 deductible and covers half of medical costs.Now, the question is whether or not, under these conditions, younger and healthier Americans will get insurance rather than opt out and pay the penalty. If they don’t, Obamacare will be in jeopardy.
By comparison, the least-expensive plan on the exchange for a 40-year-old nonsmoker in Richmond, also from Anthem, will likely cost $193 a month, according to filings submitted by carriers.
The law is likely to offer a benefit to those who have difficulty getting insurance now or are pushed out of the market because they have had illnesses. Under the current system, the rate on the $63-a-month plan could be revised higher if a consumer indicates prior health problems in a medical questionnaire that must be filled out before buying the plan. The application also could be rejected entirely based on specific answers given.
Under the new health exchanges, plans are available regardless of health status, and a price can’t change once it is offered. Top-of-the-line plans on the exchanges that cover 80% of medical costs and have a wider network of doctors and hospitals are likely to be available for about $400 a month for a 40-year-old single person.
That is a lot of money for the lower-to-middle-income Americans who are expected to be the main customers on exchanges, but it could be less than some people currently encounter after a carrier considers their medical history.
For much more, you can read this piece by Avik Roy over at Forbes. Roy offers his own rate-shock calculations. He also explains that, unlike what we often hear (including in Radnofsky’s piece), it is possible that the more expensive bronze plan that one will be able to get after the exchanges are implemented may not actually provide significantly better coverage. He writes:
“If a person in 2013 has a choice of buying a Chevrolet or a Cadillac health plan, and in 2014, they can only buy a Cadillac…are they going to be upset?” asks insurance consultant Bob Laszewski. “I think the answer is, yes.”He concludes with a broader observation about the current “rate shock” debate:
But that’s not exactly right, because as Sam Richardson has shown, Obamacare Bronze plans aren’t that different from what you can buy today on the individual market in terms of co-pays, deductibles, and actuarial value. Richardson found two nearly-identical plans sponsored by Kaiser in Sacramento, with identical networks of hospitals and doctors.
As Richardson’s table to the right illustrates, the Obamacare plan had a higher out-of-pocket maximum and the same actuarial value as the 2013 Kaiser plan. Today’s plan costs $100 a month; the Obamacare version costs $205.
Obamacare’s advocates argue that it’s acceptable for healthy people to pay double or triple for individually-purchased health insurance, because the sick will benefit, and because the poor will be protected from the hikes (due to the subsidies). That seems optimistic to me—but we’ll find out soon enough.Yes, we will.
Every one of these "rate shock" scenarios focuses like a laser on healthy, young people buying on the individual market. None of these articles you post ever mention the fact that young people can receive insurance on their parents' plan up to age 26, and the vast majority of those parents' plans are employer plans, not individuals out there trying to purchase insurance on the high-priced individual market.
ReplyDeleteThey also make a false comparison with their $63 figure. Then they try to correct it by saying…
"Under the current system, the rate on the $63-a-month plan could be revised higher if a consumer indicates prior health problems in a medical questionnaire that must be filled out before buying the plan. The application also could be rejected entirely based on specific answers given."
No kidding!
--David
Children under 26 is a moot question if they are on their parents insurance, however, if they are not, their rates will also skyrocket. However, since this group is not clear cut, that is why the issue is not addressed.
ReplyDeleteThe issue that most are missing on ObamaCrapCare, everyone will be covered, however, what the cost might be will be different. For example a 30 year old with health issues could be significantly higher than someone who is healthy. therefore any comparison can only evaluate the healthy person because otherwise there are too many variables.
The point about <26 is not moot statistically, since all who can get insurance on parents' plans will not have to buy on the individual market. If the writer of these kinds of articles wants to give a full picture of the impact of Obamacare on young, healthy people, he should mention this point. He should also mention that the large majority of young people in this country are now earning well under 400% FPL and will qualify for subsidies. Most of these "rate shock" articles fail to mention that, either.
ReplyDelete"For example a 30 year old with health issues could be significantly higher than someone who is healthy."
That is true, and it is why sick 30-yr. old will pay substantially LESS in premiums under Obamacare because the for-profit insurance companies cannot discriminate on the basis of pre-existing conditions. Conversely, the healthy 30-yr. old is going to to have a HIGHER premium, since the sick 30-yr. old is now included in the pool. This is, for most, offset by the subsidy to reduce his cost. Even supporters of ACA (like me) will freely acknowledge that SOME sub-categories are disadvantaged by ACA compared to their previous policy, but we look at the overall system compared to what we have before ACA to evaluate the program. The critics of ACA focus exclusively on the extremes where some healthy, young people are buying insurance on the individual market and getting a policy with significantly better benefits than the UHC bare-bones policy with a $10,000 deductible (or whatever) that they had formerly. So, in those circumstance, their rates could be 88% higher. No program is going to be optimal for everyone.
--David
The sick person WILL pay signficantly more than a healthy person of the same age. The companies cannot deny coverage but they can charge a much higher premium! These people then will not be able to afford the coverage and will go without and pay the penalty. What has been accomplished?
ReplyDeleteNo, they will not. The insurance companies must provide them the same rate as everyone else in their pool. The only health status increases allowed to premiums are the 3x age (instead of old 5x) and the smoker penalty. That's all. We have been through this enough times, now that I sometimes think you are playing dumb to confuse your blog readers. Sorry, but I find it hard to believe that you still don't know basic facts about ACA. Do you need for me to quote you the law?
ReplyDelete--David
For your readers...
ReplyDelete"In a second phase, from 2014 on, all health plans will be prohibited from restricting coverage of preexisting conditions or charging higher premiums to individuals with health problems."
http://www.healthaffairs.org/healthpolicybriefs/brief.php?brief_id=34
And here is some really bad news for you..
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/17/health/health-plan-cost-for-new-yorkers-set-to-fall-50.html?hp&_r=0
In states where the state is making a serious effort to implement ACA, it is working fine (California, New York, Oregon, Washington, etc.).
Unfortunately, in states like Texas where the governors are more interested in politics than the health of their citizens or the costs of healthcare to their states, it's a different story. Eventually, the Rick Perry types will be forced by public pressure to expand Medicaid, etc., but in the meantime, a lot of Texans are going to suffer needlessly. It is shameful.
The other political issue is that, unlike the rollout of Medicare in the 1960s, the Congress can't tweak changes in Obamacare 1.0 to make it work better. That's because Republicans don't WANT it to work better. They just want to sabotage it by any means possible.
--David
Here's a guy who says exactly what I have been saying, and exposes the dishonest way Ohio governor's office reports on Obamacare...
ReplyDeletehttp://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/02/confusing-the-public-on-the-affordable-care-act/
--David