Manhattan Institute for Policy Research.
search  
 
Subscribe   Subscribe   MI on Facebook Find us on Twitter Find us on Instagram      
 
 
   
 
     
 

Wall Street Journal Market Watch

 

6 Changes That Would Improve Obamacare

July 12, 2013

By Diana Furchtgott-Roth

PRINTER FRIENDLY

Now that President Obama has delayed the employer penalty for not providing health insurance until 2015, as well as the requirement that people applying for health insurance on the exchanges provide verification of income, Congress should also postpone the individual mandate and other provisions of the bill.

This would give lawmakers the opportunity to consider a technical corrections bill to improve some aspects of the Affordable Care Act.

Obama’s dual delay in the employer penalty and individual income verification — which may not be legal, according to Stanford University Law School professor Michael McConnell — are designed to encourage more people to sign up for insurance on the exchanges, the websites where they can purchase health insurance. But the current system will only create confusion.

Under Obama’s new regulations, firms can eliminate their health insurance programs, or refrain from setting them up, without paying $2,000 per worker. They send their employees to purchase insurance on the exchanges. A firm with a staff of 100 will not have to incur an expense of $140,000 (the first 30 employees are exempt) in 2014. This will encourage some employers to drop health insurance.

When the firm’s employees go to the exchange and sign up for insurance, they will not have to prove their income. This is important because premiums will be costly, especially for younger people, and the level of premiums depends on household income, with a sliding scale of subsidies for those between 133% and 400% of the poverty line — up to $94,000 for a family of four. (Those who earn under 133% of the poverty line will be signed up for Medicaid.) People who understate their incomes will get lower premiums, no questions asked.

Leaving in place the individual mandate also drives people to the exchanges. That is why the administration has not delayed that section of the Act. Since people are required to have insurance or pay a penalty — admittedly a low penalty — they will be more likely to sign up for insurance than if the administration had also waived the individual mandate.

If the exchanges were up and working, then the president’s goal might be achieved — millions of happy customers purchasing health insurance on state exchanges. Exchanges are supposed to be ready by Oct. 1. But only 14 states and the District of Columbia are planning to set up exchanges, and many states are not ready. Neither is the federal government, which has to set up exchanges for remaining states.

Setting up an exchange is not a simple matter. Not only does the website have to display the health insurance plans available for purchase, but the computer software also has to determine whether particular individuals are permitted to purchase the insurance, and their premium — which depends on the level of subsidy.

A June GAO report concluded that “Much progress has been made, but much remains to be accomplished within a relatively short amount of time.”

What would make sense would be to delay the entire plan for a year and make the system more flexible and consumer friendly.

Here are six proposed changes for lawmakers to consider to improve the Act.

Allow all plans on the exchange

The Act mandates a one-size-fits all, overly generous plan, with required free preventive care, mandatory mental health and drug abuse coverage, free contraceptives, and no lifetime maximum. Combined with the requirement that people can sign up anytime, health insurance becomes very expensive, with the young subsidizing the old.

Federal and state exchanges should be allowed to offer multiple health insurance choices, including catastrophic health plans for those who want to pay for routine costs out of pocket and insure only against major medical events. People should be able to buy insurance that does not cover birth control, mental health coverage, or kids covered until age 26, to give a few examples. One model is the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, which offers many types of health plans to federal workers.

Raise individual penalties

The tax penalties for not signing up for insurance — $95 or 1% of adjusted gross income in 2014, $325 per person or 2% of AGI in 2015, and $695 or 2.5% of AGI in 2016 and thereafter — are too low relative to the cost of insurance. People will pay the tax and wait until they get sick to buy the insurance. For the sustainability of the program, the penalties need to rise.

End guaranteed issue

Under the Act, insurance companies have to take anyone in any open enrollment period, so people can wait until they are sick to sign up. This is similar to being able to buy auto insurance after a car crash or home insurance after a fire. Naturally, it raises premiums. People should get a discount if they sign up when they are young and healthy and keep continuous coverage. Conversely, they should be penalized if they sign up after they are uncovered.

Give all Americans refundable tax credits for health insurance purchase.

This amount could be adjusted up or down depending on income. Under the ACA, if people do not qualify for health insurance subsidies on the exchange and their employers do not offer insurance, premiums come from after-tax dollars. So someone in the 25% federal tax bracket with a family premium of $20,000, the cost estimated by the IRS in 2015, would have to earn an additional $26,000 before tax to pay for health insurance — more if he owes state income tax. This would modify the employer advantage to providing health insurance.

Allow plans to compete over state lines

Breaking down barriers to national competition in insurance (which, by act of Congress, is still regulated by states) would enhance competition and give consumers more choices, just as consumers are allowed to buy goods and services from companies in other states.

Prospective purchasers should be told the state of origin so that they can seek information about the vigor of each state’s regulation. A broader choice of health insurance plans would reduce prices by encouraging insurance companies to compete for clients. Now people hear “Call Geico to get a 15-minute quote and cut your auto-insurance premiums.” Soon they could hear “Call Kaiser/Aetna/Blue Cross-Blue Shield for a 15-minute quote and cut your health-insurance premiums.”

State risk pools

About 2 million to 4 million people a year have uninsurable conditions — about 1% to 2% percent of the U.S. population of 313 million. Under the ACA, these individuals are insured with everyone else, raising general insurance costs.

In order to enable insurance companies to offer health insurance with low-cost premiums to the general public, those with severe illness could be given the option of special health insurance programs through the state, known as risk pools. The federal government should be prepared to help states set up risk pools if they request such assistance. This would provide more choice for those who really need extra help with difficult to insure conditions.

Rather than allowing President Obama to use possible extra-legal authority to delay selective provisions of the Act, Congress should postpone the entire law for a year and carefully consider how to make it workable and serve the American public.

Original Source: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/6-changes-that-would-improve-obamacare-2013-07-12

 

 
 
 

The Manhattan Institute, a 501(c)(3), is a think tank whose mission is to develop and disseminate new ideas
that foster greater economic choice and individual responsibility.

Copyright © 2014 Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, Inc. All rights reserved.

52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10017
phone (212) 599-7000 / fax (212) 599-3494