According to consultants from Oliver Wyman who wrote on the issue in the January issue of Contingencies, the magazine of the American Academy of Actuaries, around six million of the 19 million people with individual health policies are going to have to pay more—and this even after accounting for the government subsidies offered under the law. For example, single adults age 21-29 earning 300% to 400% of the federal poverty level will be hit with an increase of 46% even after premium assistance from tax credits.
Obamacare is designed to destroy the insurance market. Markets do not function without prices, and Obamacare ensures that prices will not be allowed to emerge. There is a medical price associated with smoking, but the District of Columbia has decided to suppress that price by law. Pretending that smoking has no relationship with health-care costs does not make it so — it is only a way to push costs around in a way that is agreeable to the likes of Barack Obama, converting a system that prices risk into a system of entitlements.
This article provides an analysis and critique of tax penalties affecting employers and individuals in the Affordable Care Act. After an overview of the Act and its intended role in addressing problems in the health insurance system, the article turns to examine the employer and individual mandates, along with the requirement of minimum essential coverage. It argues that behavioral effects of these provisions are unlikely to achieve the desired policy outcomes. Moreover, the failure to accommodate conscience exemptions for employers and citizens with objections to contraceptive coverage likewise erects a barrier to achieving the desired policy goal of expanded coverage. Finally, the article briefly touches on the problems associated with state exchanges and their implications for employers and citizens seeking health insurance coverage. An appendix shows hypothetical computations affecting an employer decision to shift employees to exchanges rather than to continue employer-provided coverage.
This study is the first to offer a detailed look at medical spending burden levels, defined as total family medical out-of-pocket spending as a proportion of income, for each state. It further investigates which states have greater shares of individuals with high burden levels and no Medicaid coverage, but would be Medicaid eligible under the 2014 rules of the Affordable Care Act should their state choose to participate in the expansion. This work suggests which states have the largest populations likely to benefit, in terms of lowering medical spending burden, from participating in the 2014 adult Medicaid expansions.
Vermont on Monday became the first state to signal how much insurers are seeking to charge when the federal law kicks in.
But because benefits in the state’s plans are already relatively close to meeting most of the law’s requirements, insurers didn’t need to make major changes to the relatively costly policies they already offer.
In contrast, the federal law’s requirements that insurers must enroll all customers regardless of their medical history or claims, limit what they pay out of pocket for care, and cover a wide range of benefits could boost insurance costs in other states that have had less stringent rules in place. Subsidies would offset part of potential increases for lower-income consumers.
A study commissioned by the State of California says that the new federal health care law will drive up individual insurance premiums, but that subsidies will offset most of the increase for low-income people.
The study, issued Thursday in the midst of a growing national debate over the impact of the law, is significant because California is far ahead of most states in setting up a competitive marketplace, or exchange, where people can buy insurance this fall.
Premiums could increase by an average of 30 percent for higher-income people in California who are now insured and do not qualify for federal insurance subsidies, the study said.
However, it said, people in this group will benefit from new limits on their out-of-pocket medical expenses, so their total cost of care will increase by 20 percent, on average.
Three Years of Obamacare: $31 Billion in Regulation Costs, 71.5 Million Hours in Compliance – By Andrew Stiles – The Corner – National Review OnlineMarch 25, 2013
President Obama’s signature health-care law, which turned three over the weekend, has already accounted for $31.3 billion in regulatory costs and liabilities, as well as 71.5 million hours of paperwork, according to a study from the American Action Forum (AAF) released Monday.
A picture is worth a thousand words, and, Lord knows, we’ve written thousands – actually, hundreds of thousands – of words about ObamaCare. So on this third anniversary of the passage of this destructive law, we have put together links to resources to help explain the bureaucratic scale of ObamaCare in another way.
Aetna Inc., AET +0.42% in a presentation last fall to its national broker advisory council, suggested rates on individual plans not being grandfathered under the law could go up 55%, on average, and gave a figure of 29% for small business rates. Both numbers included 10 percentage points tied to medical-cost inflation, not the law. An Aetna spokesman said the numbers are “still generally in line with what we’ve been estimating,” and represented the average impact in a typical state.
An official with Blue Cross & Blue Shield of North Carolina told a gathering of brokers last week that individual premiums could go up by as much as 40% to 50%, according to brokers who were present. A spokeswoman for the insurer said “we don’t have final numbers” yet on premiums.
Health Insurance Coverage and Use of Family Planning Services among Current and Former Foster Youth: Implications of the Health Care Reform LawMarch 21, 2013
This research uses data from a longitudinal study to examine how two provisions in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act could affect health insurance coverage among young women who have aged out of foster care. It also explores how allowing young people to remain in foster care until age twenty-one affects their health insurance coverage, use of family planning services, and information about birth control. We find that young women are more likely to have health insurance if they remain in foster care until their twenty-first birthday and that having health insurance is associated with an increase in the likelihood of receiving family planning services. Our results also suggest that many young women who would otherwise lack health insurance after aging out of foster care will be eligible for Medicaid under the health care reform law. Because having health insurance is associated with use of family planning services, this increase in Medicaid eligibility may result in fewer unintended pregnancies among this high-risk population.