Health Reform Expert: Here’s What HR Needs to Know About GOP Repeal Bill Passing
The House of Repersentives has just passed the American Health Care Act (AHCA), new legislation to begin the repeal process of the ACA. Check out this great article from HR Morning and take a look how this new legislation will affect HR by Jared Bilski.
Virtually every major news outlet is covering the passage of the American Health Care Act (AHCA) by the House. But amidst all the coverage, it’s tough to find an answer to a question that’s near and dear to HR: What does this GOP victory mean for employers?
The AHCA bill, which passed in the House with 217 votes, is extremely close to the original version of the legislation that was introduced in March but pulled just before a vote could take place due to lack of support.
While the so-called “repeal-and-replace” bill would kill many of the ACA’s taxes (except the Cadillac Tax), much of the popular health-related provisions of Obamacare would remain intact.
Pre-existing conditions, essential benefits
However, the new bill does allow states to waive certain key requirements under the ACA. One of the major amendments centers on pre-existing conditions.
Under the ACA, health plans can’t base premium rates on health status factors, or pre-existing conditions; premiums had to be based on coverage tier, community rating, age (as long as the rates don’t vary by more than 3 to 1) and tobacco use. In other words, plans can’t charge participants with pre-existing conditions more than “healthy” individuals are charged.
Under the AHCA, individual states can apply for waivers to be exempt from this ACA provision and base premiums on health status factors.
Bottom line: Under this version of the AHCA, insurers would still be required to cover individuals with pre-existing conditions — but they’d be allowed to charge astronomical amounts for coverage.
To compensate for the individuals with prior health conditions who may not be able to afford insurance, applying states would have to establish high-risk pools that are federally funded. Critics argue these pools won’t be able to offer nearly as much coverage for individuals as the ACA did.
Under the AHCA, states could also apply for a waiver to receive an exemption — dubbed the “MacArthur amendment” — to ACA requirement on essential health benefits and create their own definition of these benefits.
Implications for HR
So what does all this mean for HR pros? HR Morning spoke to healthcare reform implementation and employee benefits attorney Garrett Fenton of Miller & Chevalier and asked him what’s next for the AHCA as well as what employers should do in response. Here’s a sampling of the Q&A:
HR Morning: What’s next for the AHCA?
Garrett Fenton: The Senate, which largely has stayed out of the ACA repeal and replacement process until now, will begin its process to develop, amend, and ultimately vote on a bill … many Republican Senators have publicly voiced concerns, and even opposition, to the version of the AHCA that passed the House.
One major bone of contention – even within the GOP – was that the House passed the bill without waiting for a forthcoming updated report from the Congressional Budget Office. That report will take into account the latest amendments to the AHCA, and provide estimates of the legislation’s cost to the federal government and impact on the number of uninsured individuals …
… assuming the Senate does not simply rubber stamp the House bill, but rather passes its own ACA repeal and replacement legislation, either the Senate’s bill will need to go back to the House for another vote, or the House and Senate will “conference,” reconcile the differences between their respective bills, and produce a compromise piece of legislation that both chambers will then vote on.
Ultimately the same bill will need to pass both the House and Senate before going to the President for his signature. In light of the House’s struggles to advance the AHCA, and the razor-thin margin by which it ultimately passed, it appears that we’re still in for a long road ahead.
HR Morning: What should employers be doing now?
Garrett Fenton: At this point, employers would be well-advised to stay the course on ACA compliance. The House’s passage of the AHCA is merely the first step in the legislative process, with the bill likely to undergo significant changes and an uncertain future in the Senate. The last few months have taught us nothing if not the impossibility of predicting precisely how and when the Republicans’ ACA repeal and replacement effort ultimately will unfold. To be sure, the AHCA would have a potentially significant impact on employer-sponsored coverage.
However, any employer efforts to implement large-scale changes in reliance on the AHCA certainly would be premature at this stage. The ACA remains the law of the land for the time being, and there’s still a long way to go toward even a partial repeal and replacement. Employers certainly should stay on top of the legislative developments, and in the meantime, be on the lookout for possible changes to the current guidance at the regulatory level.
HR Morning: Specifically, how should employers proceed with their ACA compliance obligations in light of the House passage of the AHCA?Garrett Fenton: Again, employers should stay the course for the time being, and not assume that the AHCA’s provisions impacting employer-sponsored plans ultimately will be enacted. The ACA remains the law of the land for now. However, a number of ACA-related changes are likely to be made at the regulatory and “sub-regulatory” level – regardless of the legislative repeal and replacement efforts – thereby underscoring the importance of staying on top of the ever-changing guidance and landscape under the Trump administration.
Fenton also touched on how the “MacArthur amendment” and the direct impact it could have on employers by stating it:
“… could impact large group and self-funded employer plans, which separately are prohibited from imposing annual and lifetime dollar limits on those same essential health benefits. So in theory, for example, a large group or self-funded employer plan might be able to use a “waiver” state’s definition of essential health benefits – which could be significantly more limited than the current federal definition, and exclude items like maternity, mental health, or substance abuse coverage – for purposes of the annual and lifetime limit rules. Employers thus effectively could be permitted to begin imposing dollar caps on certain benefits that currently would be prohibited under the ACA.”
See the original article Here.
Source:
Bilski J. (2017 May 5). Health reform expert: here's what HR needs to know about GOP repeal bill passing [Web blog post]. Retrieved from address https://www.hrmorning.com/health-reform-expert-heres-what-hr-needs-to-know-about-gop-repeal-bill-passing/
Data Note: Medicaid’s Role in Providing Access to Preventive Care for Adults
Medicaid has played a large role in the life of many Americans. By using federal money low-income Americans are able to receive healthcare. Take a look at this article by Kaiser Family Foundation and see how Medicaid's dollars are spent to help provide low-income Americans with healthcare.
Medicaid, the nation’s public health insurance program for people with low income, covers 74 million Americans today, including millions of low-income adults. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) expanded Medicaid to nonelderly adults with income up to 138% of the federal poverty level (FPL), and, in the 32 states (including DC) that implemented the expansion, more than 11 million adults have gained Medicaid as a result. Chronic illness is prevalent in the adult Medicaid population. Preventive care, including immunizations and regular screenings that permit early detection and treatment of chronic conditions, improves the prospects for better health outcomes. This Data Note focuses on Medicaid’s role in providing access to preventive care for low-income adults.
WHY IS PREVENTIVE CARE FOR ADULT MEDICAID ENROLLEES IMPORTANT?
Adults in Medicaid have high rates of preventable and controllable conditions. Nearly one-third (30%) of non-elderly adult Medicaid beneficiaries report that they are in only fair or poor health – roughly double the percentage of low-income privately insured and uninsured adults who report fair or poor health (Figure 1). Medicaid adults also have significantly higher rates of chronic conditions and risky health behaviors that may be amenable to preventive care. One in 10 adult enrollees has a diagnosed mental illness; 7 in 10 are overweight or obese, and almost 1 in 3 smoke tobacco.
Preventive care can reduce disease and avoidable use of high-cost services. Increased access to screening for diabetes, cancer, depression, and o ther chronic conditions, and counseling to address behavioral risk factors, have the potential to reduce disease and prevent exacerbations of conditions that can be medically managed. Improved health may reduce the use of avoidable hospital and other high-cost care, and reduce Medicaid spending. For example, smoking can cause heart disease and other chronic illnesses that one study estimated may be responsible for more than $75 billion in Medicaid costs. Medicaid coverage of smoking cessation services, including quit lines and medications, has the potential to mitigate both the health and cost impacts of smoking. Obesity, a major driver of preventable chronic illness and health care costs, affects about two-thirds of low-income adults. Findings from one study indicate that severe obesity in adults cost state Medicaid programs almost $8 billion in 2013, suggesting that “effective treatment for severe obesity should be part of each state’s strategy to mitigate rising obesity-related costs.”
WHAT PREVENTIVE SERVICES DOES MEDICAID COVER FOR ADULTS?
Coverage of most adult preventive services has historically been optional for states. Medicaid coverage of preventive services for children has long been strong, as states must cover comprehensive preventive services at no cost for children in Medicaid under the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic and Treatment (EPSDT) benefit. In contrast, historically, coverage of adult preventive care has been largely optional for states, with some exceptions – states must cover pregnancy-related care and family planning services without cost-sharing. In addition, within federal guidelines, states can charge adults cost-sharing for preventive services.
The ACA expanded coverage of adult preventive care. An important thrust of the ACA was an emphasis on preventive care. In particular, the ACA included recommended preventive services without patient cost-sharing as one of the 10 “essential health benefits” (EHBs) that most health plans are now required to cover. The required preventive services are based on the recommendations of independent, expert clinical panels and include, for adults: 1) screening and counseling services (e.g., cancer screening, diet counseling); 2) routine immunizations; and 3) preventive services for women. The EHB requirement applies to Medicaid benefits for adults who are newly eligible due to the ACA expansion, but not “traditional” Medicaid adults, for whom most preventive services are optional for states and can require cost-sharing within federal guidelines. To incentivize states to cover the EHB preventive services for all Medicaid adults, the ACA provided for a one percentage point increase in the federal Medicaid match rate for these services in states that opt to cover all of them without cost-sharing.
Selected EHB-required preventive services for adults:
All adults
- Immunizations
- Cancer screening
- Diabetes screening
- Depression screening
- Obesity screening and counseling
- Tobacco screening and smoking cessation services
Women
- Well-woman visits to get recommended services for women
- Breast and cervical cancer screening
- Domestic and interpersonal violence screening and counseling
- Osteoporosis screening
- Breastfeeding support, counseling, and supplies for pregnant and nursing women
- Expanded tobacco intervention for pregnant women
Most state Medicaid programs covered many adult preventive services before the ACA took effect. A 2014 study found that most state Medicaid programs covered all EHB-required adult preventive services in 2013, although some had cost-sharing charges. At the same time, another study found that documented state coverage policies in effect prior to the ACA did not always correspond precisely with the EHB requirements for preventive care, indicating there was room for improvement. Eight states – California, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, and West Virginia – have opted to cover the recommended adult preventive services without cost-sharing for all Medicaid adults. Seven of these states implemented the Medicaid expansion to low-income adults.
HOW DO ADULTS WITH MEDICAID FARE IN ACCESSING PREVENTIVE CARE?
Nearly all adults with Medicaid have a usual place where they get routine or preventive care. One measure of Medicaid’s effectiveness is the extent to which beneficiaries have a usual source of care, which opens the door to the health care system, including preventive care. Over 90% of adults with Medicaid report having a usual place of care – the same as the percentage of low-income privately insured adults with a usual place, and significantly exceeding the share of low-income uninsured adults who do (Figure 2). Adults with Medicaid are also significantly more likely than adults in the other two groups to have had a primary care visit and a mental health visit in the past year. Research shows that people with a usual source of care have better outcomes and that having a primary care physician as the usual source of care increases the likelihood of receiving appropriate care.
Medicaid is as effective as private insurance at connecting low-income adults with recommended clinical preventive services. The percentage of Medicaid adults who report receiving recommended clinical preventive services is at least as high as the percentage of low-income privately insured adults receiving these services (Figure 3). In fact, Medicaid adults are significantly more likely than the privately insured to report a blood pressure check (84% versus 79%) and a cholesterol check (60% versus 56%). Medicaid adults do significantly better than the uninsured on every measure of preventive care. Notably, the share of low-income adults who report receiving recommended cancer screenings is no more than about half, pointing to a need for increased investment and effort to improve access to these services as well as public education about their importance.
The major health risks and costs posed by overweight/obesity and smoking point to a need for more focus on patient counseling, including in Medicaid. As mentioned earlier, 70% of Medicaid adults are overweight or obese and nearly one-third smoke, somewhat higher rates than those for low-income privately insured adults (65% and 18% respectively). Both obesity and smoking are risk factors for preventable chronic diseases, including cancer, that increase morbidity and mortality as well as health care costs. The share of overweight/obese adults and adult smokers in Medicaid who report being counseled by their provider on diet (38%) or smoking (63%), while similar to the share for privately insured adults, highlights an important gap in preventive care and a need for more investment and effort (Figure 4).
WHAT IMPACT HAS THE MEDICAID EXPANSION HAD ON ACCESS TO PREVENTIVE CARE FOR LOW-INCOME ADULTS?
A large and growing body of studies demonstrate that Medicaid eligibility expansions can improve access to primary and preventive care. Research shows that Medicaid expansion is associated with increased visits to primary care providers and increased diagnosis of diabetes and high cholesterol, as well as increased screening for diabetes, and reduced rates of skipped medication due to cost. The Oregon Health Insurance Experiment provides strong evidence of increases in screening and medication use for depression and declines in self-reported and clinically observed depression among previously uninsured adults who randomly won a limited number of Medicaid “slots” through a state lottery. The expansion also led to increases in diabetes screening and medication use among the adults who gained Medicaid compared to those who remained uninsured. A focused study of health center patients in Oregon found increases in screening for obesity, blood pressure, smoking, and chlamydia, as well as increased rates of mammograms, Pap tests, and lipid testing for adults in the Medicaid group. The pre-ACA expansion of Medicaid in Massachusetts was associated with an increase in hospital utilization, as would be expected, but hospitalizations for preventable conditions fell.
LOOKING AHEAD
Because Medicaid plays a large role in covering low-income adults and adult Medicaid enrollees are at elevated risk for preventable or treatable chronic conditions, ensuring access to preventive care and boosting utilization of these services among Medicaid adults is important to the national goal of improving population health while lowering health care costs. Medicaid expansion states have put preventive care within affordable reach of millions of previously low-income adults. State coverage of recommended preventive services without cost-sharing for all Medicaid adults would lower financial barriers to these services for many more of the nation’s poorest and sickest adults, increasing early detection and treatment of health conditions and risky behaviors, a necessary step to improve health outcomes and long-term trends in Medicaid costs. The House-passed American Health Care Act (AHCA) would both terminate enhanced federal funding for the Medicaid expansion to low-income adults and repeal the federal EHB requirements for Medicaid adults, threatening large losses of Medicaid coverage for adults as well as retrenchment in covered benefits, including preventive care for adults.
See the original article Here.
Source:
Ku L., Paradise J., Thompson V. (2017 May 17). Data note: medicaid's role in providing access to preventive care for adults [Web blog post]. Retrieved from address https://www.kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/data-note-medicaids-role-in-providing-access-to-preventive-care-for-adults/?utm_campaign=KFF-2016-The-Latest&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=52163695&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_gq9UyDH_SyF_QUp6ExHuNpYp6ykLD7jGDmfelAPRlt4oaEFavzA8qUl9kjpfPDmmJd0VguBWPyhfkRGAzAiJl9iQmcA&_hsmi=52163695
Workers Might See Employer Health Coverage Disappear Under New GOP AHCA
Do you receive your healthcare through an employer? Then take a look at this article from Benefits Pro about how the passing of the AHCA will affect employees who get their healthcare through an employer by Marlene Y. Satter.
It’s not just individuals without employer health coverage who could lose big under the newly revised version of the Republicans’ American Health Care Act.
People who get health coverage from their jobs could be left swinging in the wind, too—in fact, as many as half of all such employees could be affected.
That’s according to an Alternet report that says an amendment added to the bill currently being considered by the House of Representatives would allow insurers in states that get waivers from regulations put in place by the Affordable Care Act to deny coverage for 10 types of health services—including maternity care, prescription drugs, mental health treatment and hospitalization.
An MSNBC report points out that “because the Republican-led House is scrambling to pass a bill without scrutiny or serious consideration,” the last-minute amendment’s full effects aren’t even known, since “[t]his is precisely the sort of detail that would’ve come to light much sooner if Republicans were following the American legislative process. In fact, this may not even be the intended goal of the GOP policy.”
While the ACA prohibits employer-based plans from imposing annual limits on coverage and bare lifetime caps on 10 essential benefits, the Obama administration did loosen those restrictions back in 2011, saying that employers could instead choose to follow another state’s required benefits.
What the new Republican take on the AHCA does is push that further—a lot further—by allowing large employers to pick the benefit requirements for any state. That would let them limit coverage on such costly types of care as mental health and substance abuse services.
In a Wall Street Journal report, Andy Slavitt, former acting administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services under President Barack Obama, is quoted saying, “It’s huge. They’re creating a backdoor way to gut employer plans, too.”
The changes to employer-based plans would hit anyone not insured by Medicare or by small-business plans, because the bill includes cuts to Medicaid and changes to the individual market as well.
A report from the Brookings Institution points out that “One of the core functions of health insurance is to protect people against financial ruin and ensure that they get the care they need if they get seriously ill.” The ACA pushed insurance plans to meet that standard, it says, by requiring them to “limit enrollees’ annual out-of-pocket spending and [bar] plans from placing annual or lifetime limits on the total amount of care they would cover.”
However, while those protections against catastrophic costs “apply to almost all private insurance plans, including the plans held by the roughly 156 million people who get their coverage through an employer,” the Brookings report says, the amendment to the Republican bill “could jeopardize those protections—not just for people with individual market plans, but also for those with employer coverage.”
How? By modifying “the ‘essential health benefit’ standards that govern what types of services must be covered by individual and small group market insurance plans. The intent of the amendment is reportedly to eliminate the federal benefit standards that currently exist and instead allow each state to define its own list of essential health benefits.”
And then, with employers allowed to pick and choose which state’s regulations they’d like to follow, a loophole the size of the Capitol building would not only allow “states will set essential health benefit standards that are considerably laxer than those that are in place under the ACA,” says the report, but “large employers may have the option to pick which state’s essential health benefits requirements they wish to abide by for the purposes of these provisions.”
The result? “[T]his would likely have the effect of virtually eliminating the catastrophic protections with respect to large employers since employers could choose to pick whichever state set the laxest standards. The same outcome would be likely to occur for all private insurance policies,” the report continues, “if insurers were permitted to sell plans across state lines, as the Administration has suggested enacting through separate legislation.”
While the actual effect of the amendment is unclear, the Brookings report concludes, “there is strong reason to believe that, in practice, the definition of essential health benefits that applied to the catastrophic protections would be far weaker under the House proposal than under current law, seriously undermining these protections. These potential adverse effects on people with employer coverage, in addition to the potentially damaging effects of such changes on the individual health insurance market, are thus an important reason that policymakers should be wary of the House proposal with respect to essential health benefits.”
See the original article Here.
Source:
Satter M. (2017 May 4). Workers might see employer health coverage disappear under new GOP AHCA [Web blog post]. Retrieved from address https://www.benefitspro.com/2017/05/04/workers-might-see-employer-health-coverage-disappe?page_all=1
3 Aspects of the GOP Healthcare Plan that Demand Employers’ Attention
The House of Representatives last week passed the American Health Care Act (AHCA) bill to begin the process of repealing the ACA. Find out what this new legislation means for employers in the great article from Employee Benefits Adviser by Daniel N. Kuperstein.
The extremely emotional journey to repeal (more appropriately, to “change”) the Affordable Care Act reached a significant milestone this week: The Republican-led House of Representatives passed an updated version of the American Health Care Act. While more than 75% of the provisions of the ACA remain intact, the AHCA gutted or delayed several of the ACA’s taxes on employers, insurers and individuals.
So what does this mean for employers?
First off, it’s important to remember that this new bill is not law just yet. The House version of the bill now heads to the Senate, where there’s no guarantee that it will pass in its current form; the margin for victory is much slimmer there. Only three “no” votes by Senate Republicans could defeat the bill, and both moderate and conservative Republican lawmakers in the Senate have expressed concerns about the bill. In other words, employers don’t have to do anything just yet, but it’s still beneficial to understand the major changes that could be coming down the pike.
As employers know from working over the last seven years to implement provisions of the ACA, there will be a million tiny details to work through if the AHCA becomes law.
But for now, we see three major aspects that demand employers’ attention.
There will be more emphasis on health savings accounts
Under the AHCA, health savings accounts will likely become far more popular — and more useful. The HSA contribution limits for employers and individuals are essentially doubled. Additionally, HSAs will be able to reimburse over-the-counter medications and allow spouses to make catch-up contributions to the same HSA. Of course, with this added flexibility comes increased responsibility — there will be a greater need for employees to understand their insurance.
There will be more flexibility in choosing a benchmark plan
For larger employers not in the small group market, the AHCA creates an opportunity to choose a benchmark plan that offers a significantly lower level of benefits to employees.
Currently, the ACA provides that employer-sponsored self-insured health plans, fully-insured large group health plans, and grandfathered health plans are not required to offer EHBs. However, these plans are prohibited from imposing annual and lifetime dollar limits on any EHBs they do offer. For purposes of determining which benefits are EHBs subject to the annual and lifetime dollar limits, the ACA currently permits employers sponsoring these types of plans to define their EHBs using any state benchmark plan. In other words, employers are not bound by the essential health benefits mandated by their state and can pick from another state’s list of required benefits.
Under the AHCA, we may see a big change to how the rules on annual and lifetime limits work. Notably, nothing in the AHCA would prohibit employers from choosing a state benchmark plan from a state that had obtained an AHCA waiver, which would allow the state to put annual and lifetime limits on its EHBs. This means that, if one state decides to waive these EHB requirements, many employers could decide to use that lower-standard plan as their benchmark plan. Of course, while choosing such a benchmark plan may benefit an organization by lowering its costs, such a move may have a negative impact on its ability to recruit and retain the best talent.
There will be a greater need to help employees make smart benefits decisions
The most important aspect of this for employers is to understand the trend in health insurance, which is undeniably moving in the direction of consumerism.
The driving philosophy behind this new Republican plan is to place more responsibility on individuals. However, this doesn’t mean employers can throw a party and simply wish their workers “good luck” — employers need to think at a macro level about what’s good for business. In a tightening labor market in which so many talented people consider themselves free agents, smart employers will focus on helping employees to make smart decisions about their health insurance.
See the original article Here.
Source:
Kuperstein D. (2017 May 5). 3 aspects of the GOP healthcare plan that demand employers attention [Web blog post]. Retrieved from address https://www.employeebenefitadviser.com/opinion/3-aspects-of-the-gop-healthcare-plan-that-demand-employers-attention
House Passes Obamacare Repeal
Find out more about the passing of the AHCA in this article from The Hill by Peter Sullivan.
House Republicans on Thursday passed legislation aimed at repealing and replacing ObamaCare, taking a major step toward a long-held goal and setting in motion an overhaul of the nation’s health system.
The narrow 217-213 vote is a victory for GOP leaders, who faced a tumultuous path to getting the bill to the floor. The measure had to be pulled in March because of a lack of votes, but a series of deals since then brought on board the conservative Freedom Caucus and then wavering moderates.
The bill, known as the American Health Care Act, repeals the core elements of ObamaCare, including its subsidies to help people get coverage, expansion of Medicaid, taxes and mandates for people to get coverage.
In its place, the bill provides a new tax credit aimed at helping people buy insurance, though it would provide less help than ObamaCare to low-income people.
The Congressional Budget Office found that 24 million more people will become uninsured over the next decade because of the bill. While some of that loss is because of people choosing not to get coverage when the mandate is repealed, much of it would come from Medicaid cuts and the smaller tax credit as well.
Republicans brought the measure to a vote without an analysis from the Congressional Budget Office on the updated bill, meaning lawmakers did not have the full nonpartisan analysis of what the bill would do.
In addition, while Republicans have long argued that Democrats rammed through ObamaCare in 2010, the final changes to the Republican bill were only released the night before the vote.
Republicans’ main argument is that ObamaCare is failing and needs to be replaced. They point to insurers pulling out of certain markets, while Democrats counter that uncertainty from Republican efforts to weaken the law are to blame.
“It’s been a winding road to this point but we’re here today to fulfill the promise that we made to the American people,” said Rep. Diane Black (R-Tenn.) who led GOP floor debate on the measure.
“Under ObamaCare, the situation is getting worse every day,” she said. “We can’t wait a moment longer than necessary to provide relief for the American people by repealing and replacing ObamaCare.”
House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), meanwhile, called the measure a “very sad, deadly joke.”
Pointing to the hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts, she said the bill “will have the biggest transfer of wealth in the history of our country — Robin Hood in reverse.”
The measure has deep cuts to Medicaid, the government healthcare program for low income people, including putting a new cap on payments and ending ObamaCare’s expansion of the program after 2020.
The bill was a tough vote for some electorally vulnerable members of Congress. Many remained publicly undecided until the last moment as leaders furiously whipped lawmakers over the last several days.
Rep. Mike Coffman (R-Colo.), for example, came out as a “no” hours before the vote. He cited the lack of a CBO analysis as well as weakening protections for people with pre-existing conditions.
The key move to bring the Freedom Caucus on board was an amendment that allows states to repeal one of ObamaCare’s key protections for people with pre-existing conditions, known as community rating. If that were repealed in a state, insurers could go back to charging exorbitant premiums to sick people, which could put coverage out of reach for many.
Republicans counter by pointing to money for high risk pools. A last-minute addition of $8 billion more in funding for people with pre-existing conditions was key to winning over several wavering moderates, though many experts doubt whether that will be close to enough funding.
The measure is expected to undergo a major overhaul in the Senate, especially on the Medicaid front, where several Republican senators from states that accepted the expansion are wary of cutting it off.
The path in the Senate is also even tougher, given that Republicans can lose only two votes and still pass the bill.
See the original article Here.
Source:
Sullivan P. (2017 May 4). House passes obamacare repeal [Web blog post]. Retrieved from address https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/331937-house-passes-obamacare-repeal
Employers Want Lawmakers to Curb Rising Pharma Costs
Has the cost of pharmaceuticals caused an increase in your health care costs? Find out how other employers are trying to combat rising costs in the great article from Employee Benefits News by Nick Otto.
A majority of employers say they were relieved to see the GOP’s repeal and replace plan fizzle out last month, and instead have their own ideas on how to best reform healthcare and how to rein in costs.
In a poll conducted by Mercer days following the crumbling of the American Health Care Act, more than half who invest in employer-sponsored healthcare said they were happy to see the GOP plan fail.
Nearly a quarter (24%) of employers told the consulting firm they “very relieved” of the legislation’s failure, while 32% said they were “relieved.”
Meanwhile, 16% said they were disappointed the legislation didn’t pass, 5% were “very disappointed” it didn’t pass, and the remainder of employers had no opinion. A planned vote on the ACHA was scrapped in late March at President Donald Trump’s request after a number of Republicans said they opposed the bill.
With more than 61% of covered Americans getting health coverage through employer plans, Mercer says businesses should help play a key role in recognizing and addressing the underlying cost concerns plaguing the healthcare market.
“Cost-shifting does not address the underlying causes of healthcare cost growth, and increasing burdens on employers will simply make it harder for them to provide affordable coverage to their employees,” Mercer says.
So what do employers say are the top issues lawmakers should address?
Topping the employer wish list, according to the Mercer poll, is help with controlling the climbing cost of pharmaceuticals with a score of 4.4/5 (employers ranked policymaker priorities 1-5, 5 being “top priority).
The following improvements also made the list of employer desires: improving price transparency (4.1), stabilizing the individual markets (4), maintaining Medicaid funding (4) and investing more in population health and education (3.7).
While neither the ACA nor the AHCA had any significant impact to how employers offer healthcare, there are aspects of both legislations that would still influence some employer plans.
Maintaining Medicaid funding and having a stabilized individual market will lower hikes to private payers by allowing people not in employer-sponsored plans have access to affordable coverage and avoid a rise in the number of uninsured.
See the original article Here.
Source:
Otto N. (2017 April 9). Employers want lawmakers to curb rising pharma costs [Web blog post]. Retrieved from address https://www.benefitnews.com/news/employers-want-lawmakers-to-curb-rising-pharma-costs?brief=00000152-14a7-d1cc-a5fa-7cffccf00000
How Employers Should Proceed After the AHCA’s Collapse
Take a look at the great article from Employee Benefits Advisor on what employers need to know about healthcare with the collapse of the AHCA by Alden J. Bianchi and Edward A. Lenz.
The stunning failure of the U.S. House of Representatives to pass the American Health Care Act has political and policy implications that cannot be forecasted. Nor is it clear whether or when the Trump administration and Congress will make another effort to repeal and replace, or whether Republicans will seek Democratic support in an effort to “repair,” the Affordable Care Act. Similarly, we were unable to predict whether and to what extent the AHCA’s provisions can be achieved through executive rulemaking or policy guidance.
Here are some ways the AHCA’s failure could impact employers in the near term.
Immediate impact on employers
Employers were not a major focus of the architects of the ACA, nor were they a major focus of those who crafted the AHCA. This is not surprising. These laws address healthcare systems and structures, especially healthcare financing. Rightly or wrongly, employers have not been viewed by policymakers as major stakeholders on those issues.
In a blog post published at the end of 2014, we made the following observations:
The ACA sits atop a major tectonic plate of the U.S. economy, nearly 18% of which is healthcare-related. Healthcare providers, commercial insurance carriers, and the vast Medicare/Medicaid complex are the law’s primary stakeholders. They, and their local communities, have much to lose or gain depending on how healthcare financing is regulated. The ACA is the way it is largely because of them. Far more than any other circumstance, including which political party controls which branch of government, it is the interests of the ACA’s major stakeholders that determine the law’s future. And there is no indication whatsoever that, from the perspective of these entities, the calculus that drove the ACA’s enactment has changed. U.S. employers, even the largest employers among them, are bit players in this drama. They have little leverage, so they are relegated to complying and grumbling (not necessarily in that order).
With the AHCA’s collapse, the ACA remains the law of the land for the foreseeable future. The AHCA would have zeroed out the penalties on “applicable large” employers that fail to make qualified offers of health coverage, but the bill’s failure leaves the ACA’s “play or pay” rules in full force and effect. The ACA’s reporting rules, which the AHCA would not have changed, also remain in effect. This means, among other things, that many employers, especially those with large numbers of part-time, seasonal, and temporary workers that face unique compliance challenges, will continue to be in the position of “complying and grumbling.”
This does not mean that nothing has changed. The leadership of the Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor and Treasury has changed, and these agencies are now likely to be more employer-friendly. Thus, even though the ACA is still the law, the regulatory tone and tenor may well be different. For example, although the current complex employer reporting rules will remain in effect, the Treasury and IRS might find administrative ways to simplify them. Similarly, any regulations issued under the ACA’s non-discrimination provisions applicable to insured health plans (assuming they are issued at all) likely will be more favorable to employers than those issued under the previous administration.
There are also unanticipated consequences of the AHCA’s failure that employers might applaud. We can think of at least two.
1. Stemming the anticipated tide of new state “play or pay” laws
The continuation of the ACA’s employer mandate likely will put on hold consideration by state and local governments of their own “play or pay” laws.
In anticipation of the repeal of the ACA’s employer mandate, the Governor of Massachusetts recently introduced a budget proposal that would reinstate mandated employer contributions to help cover the costs of increased enrollment in the Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program, known as MassHealth. Under the proposal, employers with 11 or more full-time equivalent employees would have to offer full-time employees a minimum of $4,950 toward the cost of an employer group health plan, or make an annual contribution in lieu of coverage of $2,000 per full-time equivalent employee. While the Governor’s proposal is not explicitly conditioned on repeal of the ACA’s employer mandate, the ACA’s survival may prompt a reconsideration of that approach.
California lawmakers were also considering ACA replacement proposals, including a single-payer bill introduced last month by Democratic state senators Ricardo Lara and Toni Atkins. Had the ACA’s employer mandate been repealed, those proposals were likely just the tip of an iceberg. When the ACA was enacted in 2010, Hawaii, Massachusetts, and San Francisco were the only jurisdictions with their own healthcare mandates on the books. But in the prior two-year period, before President Obama was elected and made healthcare reform his top domestic priority, more than two dozen states had introduced various “fair share” health care reform bills aimed at employers.
Most of the state and local “play or pay” proposals would have required employers to pay a specified percentage of their payroll, or a specified dollar amount, for health care coverage. Some required employers to pay employees a supplemental hourly “health care” wage in addition to their regular wages or provide health benefits of at least equal value. California, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin considered single-payer proposals.
To be sure, any state or local “play or pay” mandates would be subject to challenge based on Federal preemption under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). While some previous “play or pay” laws were invalidated under ERISA (e.g., Maryland), others (i.e., San Francisco) were not. In sum, given the failure of the AHCA, there would appear to be no rationale, at least for now, for any new state or local “play or pay” laws to go forward.
2. Avoiding upward pressure on employer premiums as a result of Medicaid reforms
The AHCA proposed to reform Medicaid by giving greater power to the states to administer the Medicaid program. Under an approach that caps Medicaid spending, the law would have provided for “per capita allotments” and “block grants.” Under either approach, the Congressional Budget Office, in its scoring of the AHCA, predicted that far fewer individuals would be eligible for Medicaid.
According to the CBO: CBO and JCT estimate that enacting the legislation would reduce federal deficits by $337 billion over the 2017 to 2026 periods. That total consists of $323 billion in on-budget savings and $13 billion in off-budget savings. Outlays would be reduced by $1.2 trillion over the period, and revenues would be reduced by $0.9 trillion. The largest savings would come from reductions in outlays for Medicaid and from the elimination of the ACA’s subsidies for non-group health insurance.
While employers rarely pay attention to Medicaid, the AHCA gave them a reason to do so. Fewer Medicaid-eligible individuals would mean more uncompensated care — a significant portion of the costs of which would likely be passed on to employers in the form of higher premiums. As long as the ACA’s expanded Medicaid coverage provisions remain in place, premium pressure on employers will to that extent be avoided.
Long-term impact on employers
As we conceded at the beginning, it’s not clear how the Republican Congress and the Administration will react to the AHCA’s failure. If the elected representatives of both political parties are inclined to try to make the current system work, however, we can think of no better place that the prescriptions contained in a report by the American Academy of Actuaries, entitled “An Evaluation of the Individual Health Insurance Market and Implications of Potential Changes.”
The actuaries’ report does not address, much less resolve, the major policy differences between the ACA and the AHCA over the role of government — in particular, the extent to which taxpayers should be called on to fund the health care costs of low-and moderate-income individuals, and whether U.S. citizens should be required to maintain health coverage or pay a penalty. And even if lawmakers can reach consensus on those contentious issues, they still would have to agree on the proper implementing mechanisms.
But whatever the outcome, employers are unlikely to play a major role.
See the original article Here.
Source:
Bianchi A. & Lenz E. (2017 April 6). How employers should proceed after the AHCA's collapse [Web blog post]. Retrieved from address https://www.employeebenefitadviser.com/opinion/how-employers-should-proceed-after-the-ahcas-collapse
HSAs to see explosive growth
Are you using HSAs to help save money on your healthcare cost? Find out from this article by Employee Benefit News on how the market for HSAs is set to grow exponentially over the next few years by Kathryn Mayer.
It’s about time for health savings accounts to take the spotlight. And that’s going to be a good thing for employees, industry experts say: Not only will HSAs help workers with their healthcare expenses, but the savings vehicles also will put them on a better track for retirement planning.
“The market is going to blow up,” American Retirement Association CEO Brian Graff said this week during the NAPA 401k Summit in Las Vegas, citing new healthcare reform proposals — including the GOP’s American Health Care Act — as well as a better understand of HSAs as reasons for the predicted growth.
The ACHA, which doubles HSA contributions, “dramatically increases the incentive for employers to offer high-deductible health plans,” he said. The GOP plan expands the allowable size of healthcare savings accounts that can be coupled with high-deductible insurance plans, up to $6,550 for an individual or $13,100 for a family. It also expands qualifying expenses to include health insurance premiums, over-the-counter medications and preventive health costs.
By 2018, there will be 27 million HSA accounts and more than $50 billion in HSA assets, according to estimates from the Kaiser Family Foundation cited by Graff. Currently, there are 18 million accounts and $34.7 billion in assets.
Those statistics — and proposed healthcare reforms — are catching the eye of the retirement industry: The accounts have the potential to become “more compelling than a 401(k),” due to tax-deductible and tax-deferred incentives, Graff said.
“We have to think about what this means for our industry,” he said.
In a live poll during a conference keynote, three-quarters of retirement advisers noted they do not offer HSA advisory services. That number, Graff predicts, will change radically over the next two years.
Current proposals are positioning HSAs a hybrid of medical and retirement savings, Graff said. “It’s not just a health account, it’s a savings account.” Healthcare expenses are a major concern for retirees and often cause employees to push back plans for retirement. If HSA funds are not needed for medical expenses, the money can be withdrawn after age 65 and taxed as ordinary income.
Graff says plan sponsors and retirement advisers should encourage employees to first max out their HSAs and then match their 401(k)s.
The HSA is “the nexus between healthcare and retirement,” Daniel Bryant, an advisor with Sheridan Road, said during a standing-room only panel on HSAs Monday.
Meanwhile, added panelist Ryan Tiernan, a national accounts manager with American Funds, “it’s the biggest jump ball no one has cared to jump to. HSAs are probably the most efficient way to save and invest for your biggest expense in retirement.”
See the original article Here.
Late Move To Dump ‘Essential’ Benefits Could Strand Chronically Ill
Are you worried about your health benefits will change with the passing of the AHCA? Take a look at this article by Jay Hancock from Kaiser Health News and find out how your 'essential' benefits could be cut with the passing of the AHCA.
A last-minute attempt by conservative Republicans to dump standards for health benefitsin plans sold to individuals would probably lower the average consumer’s upfront insurance costs, such as premiums and deductibles, said experts on both sides of the debate to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act.
But, they add, it will likely also induce insurers to offer much skimpier plans, potentially excluding the gravely ill, and putting consumers at greater financial risk if they need care.
For example, a woman who had elected not to have maternity coverage could face financial ruin from an unintended pregnancy. A healthy young man who didn’t buy drug coverage could be bankrupted if diagnosed with cancer requiring expensive prescription medicine. Someone needing emergency treatment at a non-network hospital might not be covered.
What might be desirable for business would leave patients vulnerable.
“What you don’t want if you’re an insurer is only sick people buying whatever product you have,” said Christopher Koller, president of the Milbank Memorial Fund and a former Rhode Island insurance commissioner. “So the way to get healthy people is to offer cheaper products designed for the healthy people.”
Such a change could give carriers wide room to do that by eliminating or shrinking “essential health benefits” including hospitalization, prescription drugs, mental health treatment and lab services from plan requirements — especially if state regulators don’t step in to fill the void, analysts said.
As part of the push by House GOP leaders to gain more support for their plan, they amended the bill Thursday to allow states to decide, starting next year, what if any benefits insurers must provide on the individual market, rather than requiring health plans to include the law’s essential health benefits, according to House Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady (R-Texas).
The Affordable Care Act requires companies selling coverage to individuals and families through online marketplaces to offer 10 essential benefits, which also include maternity, wellness and preventive services — plus emergency room treatment at all hospitals. Small-group plans offered by many small employers also must carry such benefits.
Conservative House Republicans want to exclude the rule from any replacement, arguing it drives up cost and stifles consumer choice.
On Thursday, President Donald Trump agreed after meeting with members of the conservative Freedom Caucus to leave it out of the measure under consideration, said White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer. “Part of the reason that premiums have spiked out of control is because under Obamacare, there were these mandated services that had to be included,” Spicer told reporters.
Pushed by Trump, House Republican leaders agreed late Thursday to a Friday vote on the bill but were still trying to line up support. “Tomorrow we will show the American people that we will repeal and replace this broken law because it’s collapsing and it’s failing families,” said House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.). “And tomorrow we’re proceeding.” When asked if he had the votes, Ryan didn’t answer and walked briskly away from the press corps.
But axing essential benefits could bring back the pre-ACA days when insurers avoided expensive patients by excluding services they needed, said Gary Claxton, a vice president and insurance expert at the Kaiser Family Foundation. (Kaiser Health News is an editorially independent program of the foundation.)
“They’re not going to offer benefits that attract people with chronic illness if they can help it,” said Claxton, whose collection of old insurance policies shows what the market looked like before.
One Aetna plan didn’t cover most mental health or addiction services — important to moderate Republicans as well as Democrats concerned about fighting the opioid crisis. Another Aetna plan didn’t cover any mental health treatment. A HealthNet plan didn’t cover outpatient rehabilitative services.
Before the ACA most individual plans didn’t include maternity coverage, either.
The House replacement bill could make individual coverage for the chronically ill even more scarce than a few years ago because it retains an ACA rule that forces plans to accept members with preexisting illness, analysts said.
Before President Barack Obama’s health overhaul, insurers could reject sick applicants or charge them higher premiums.
Lacking that ability under a Republican law but newly able to shrink benefits, insurers might be more tempted than ever to avoid covering expensive conditions. That way the sickest consumers wouldn’t even bother to apply.
“You could see even worse holes in the insurance package” than before the ACA, said Sabrina Corlette, a research professor at the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University. “If we’re going into a world where a carrier is going to have to accept all comers and they can’t charge them based on their health status, the benefit design becomes a much bigger deal” in how insurers keep the sick out of their plans, she said.
Michael Cannon, an analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute and a longtime Obamacare opponent, also believes dumping essential benefits while forcing insurers to accept all applicants at one “community” price would weaken coverage for chronically ill people.
“Getting rid of the essential health benefits in a community-rated market would cause coverage for the sick to get even worse than it is under current law,” he said. Republicans “are shooting themselves in the foot if they the offer this proposal.”
Cannon favors full repeal of the ACA, allowing insurers to charge higher premiums for more expensive patients and helping consumers pay for plans with tax-favored health savings accounts.
In an absence of federal requirements for benefits, existing state standards would become more important. Some states might move to upgrade required benefits in line with the ACA rules but others probably won’t, according to analysts.
“You’re going to have a lot of insurers in states trying to understand what existing laws they have in place,” Koller said. “It’s going to be really critical to see how quickly the states react. There are going to be some states that will not.”
See the original article Here.
Source:
Hancok J. (2017 March 24). Late move to dump 'essential' benefits could strand chronically ill [Web blog post]. Retrieved from address https://khn.org/news/late-move-to-dump-essential-benefits-could-strand-chronically-ill/
How Affordable Care Act Repeal and Replace Plans Might Shift Health Insurance Tax Credits
Find out how your health insurance tax credits will be impacted with the repeal of the ACA in this great article by Kaiser Family Foundation.
An important part of the repeal and replacement discussions around the Affordable Care Act (ACA) will involve the type and amount of subsidies that people get to help them afford health insurance. This is particularly important for lower and moderate income individuals who do not have access to coverage at work and must purchase coverage directly.
The ACA provides three types of financial assistance to help people afford health coverage: Medicaid expansion for those with incomes below 138% of poverty (the Supreme Court later ruled this to be at state option); refundable premium tax credits for people with incomes from 100% to 400% of the poverty level who purchase coverage through federal or state marketplaces; cost-sharing subsidies for people with incomes from 100% to 250% of poverty to provide lower deductibles and copays when purchasing silver plans in a marketplace.
This analysis focuses on alternative ways to provide premium assistance for people purchasing individual market coverage, explaining how they work, providing examples of how they’re calculated, and presenting estimates of how assistance overall would change for current ACA marketplace enrollees. Issues relating to changing Medicaid or methods of subsidizing cost-sharing will be addressed in other analyses.
Premium Tax Credits Under the ACA and Current Replacement Proposals
The ACA and leading replacement proposals rely on refundable tax credits to help individual market enrollees pay for premiums, although the credit amounts are set quite differently. The House Leadership proposal released on March 6, the American Health Care Act, proposes refundable tax credits which vary with age (with a phase-out for high-income enrollees) and grow annually with inflation. The tax credits under the ACA vary with family income and the cost of insurance where people live, as well as age, and grow annually if premiums increase.
These various tax credit approaches can have quite different implications for different groups of individual market purchasers. For example, the tax credits under the ACA are higher for people with lower incomes than for people with higher incomes, and no credit is provided for individuals with incomes over 400% of poverty. The current replacement proposal, in contrast, is flat for incomes up to $75,000 for an individual and $150,000 for a married couple, and so would provide relatively more assistance to people with upper-middle incomes. Similarly, the ACA tax credits are relatively higher in areas with higher premiums (like many rural areas), while the replacement proposal credits do not vary by location. If premiums grow more rapidly than inflation over time (which they generally have), the replacement proposal tax credits will grow more slowly than those provided under the ACA.
What is a Tax Credit, and How is it Different from a Deduction?
A tax credit is an amount by which a taxpayer can reduce the amount they owe in federal income tax; for example, if a person had a federal tax bill of $2,500 and a tax credit of $1,000, their tax liability would be reduced to $1,500. A refundable tax credit means that if the amount of the tax credit is greater than the amount of taxes owed, the taxpayer receives a refund of the difference; for example, if a person had a federal tax bill of $1000 and a tax credit of $1,500, they would receive a refund of $500. Making the credit refundable is important if a goal is to assist lower-income families, many of whom may not owe federal income tax. An advanceable tax credit is made available at the time a premium payment is owed (which similarly benefits lower-income families so that they can receive the financial assistance upfront). The ACA and a number of replacement proposals allow for advance payment of credits.
A tax credit is different from a tax deduction. A deduction reduces the amount of income that is taxed, while a credit reduces the amount of tax itself. For example, if a person has taxable income of $30,000, a $500 deduction reduces the amount of taxable income to $29,500. If the person’s marginal tax rate is 15%, the deduction reduces the person’s taxes by 15% of $500, or $75. Because people with lower incomes have lower marginal tax rates than people with higher incomes – and, typically don’t itemize their deductions – tax credits are generally more beneficial to lower income people than deductions.
The next section describes the differing tax credit approaches in more detail and draws out some of the implications for different types of purchasers.
How the Different Tax Credits Are Calculated
The ACA provides tax credits for individuals with family incomes from 100% to 400% of poverty ($11,880 to $47,520 for a single individual in 2017) if they are not eligible for employer-provided or public coverage and if they purchase individual market coverage in the federal or a state marketplace. The tax credit amounts are calculated based on the family income of eligible individuals and the cost of coverage in the area where the live. More specifically, the ACA tax credit for an eligible individual is the difference between a specified percentage of his or her income (Table 1) and the premium of the second-lowest-cost silver plan (referred to as the benchmark premium) available in the area in which they live. There is no tax credit available if the benchmark premium is less than the specified percentage of premium (which can occur for younger purchasers with relatively higher incomes) or if family income falls outside of the 100% to 400% of poverty range. For families, the premiums for family members are added together (including up to 3 children) and compared to specified income percentages. ACA tax credits are made available in advance, based on income information provided to the marketplace, and reconciled based on actual income when a person files income taxes the following.
Take, for example, a person age 40 with income of $30,000, which is 253% of poverty. At this income, the person’s specified percentage of income is 8.28% in 2017, which means that the person receives a tax credit if he or she has to pay more than 8.28% of income (or $2,485 annually) for the second-lowest-cost silver premium where he or she lives. If we assume a premium of $4,328 (the national average benchmark premium for a person age 40 in 2017), the person’s tax credit would be the difference between the benchmark premium and the specified percentage of income, or $4,328 – $2,485 = $1,843 (or $154 per month).
The American Health Care Act takes a simpler approach and specifies the actual dollar amounts for a new refundable tax credit that could be used to purchase individual market coverage. The amounts vary only with age up until an income of $75,000 for a single individual, at which point they begin to phase out. Tax credits range from $2,000 for people under age 30, to $2,500 for people ages 30 to 39, $3,000 for people age 40 to 49, $3,500 for people age 50 to 59, and $4,000 for people age 60 and over starting in 2020. Eligibility for the tax credit phases out starting at income above $75,000 for single individuals (the credit is reduced, but not below zero, by 10 cents for every dollar of income above this threshold, reaching zero at an income of $95,000 for single individuals up to age 29 or $115,000 for individuals age 60 and older). For joint filers, credits begin to phase out at an income of $150,000 (the tax credit is reduced to zero at an income of $190,000 for couples up to age 29; it is reduced to zero at income $230,000 for couples age 60 or older; and it is reduced to zero at income of $290,000 for couples claiming the maximum family credit amount). People who sign up for public programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, public employee health benefit programs, would not be eligible for a tax credit. The proposal further limits eligibility for tax credits to people who do not have an offer available for employer-provided health benefits.
Table 2 shows how projected ACA tax credits in 2020 compare to what would be provided under the American Health Care Act for people at various incomes, ages, and geographic areas. To show the ACA amounts in 2020, we inflated all 2017 premiums based on projections for direct purchase spending per enrollee from the National Health Expenditure Accounts. This method applies the same premium growth across all ages and geographic locations. Note that the table does not include cost-sharing assistance under the ACA that lowers deductibles and copayments for low-income marketplace enrollees. For example, in 2016, people making between 100 – 150% of poverty enrolled in a silver plan on healthcare.gov received cost-sharing assistance worth $1,440; those with incomes between 150 – 200% of poverty received $1,068 on average; and those with incomes between 200 – 250% of poverty received $144 on average.
Under the ACA in 2020, we project that a typical 40-year-old making $20,000 per year would be eligible for $4,143 in premium tax credits (not including the additional cost-sharing subsidies to lower his or her deductibles and copayments), while under the American Health Care Act, this person would be eligible $3,000. For context, we project that the average ACA premium for a 40-year-old in 2020 would be $5,101 annually (meaning the tax credit in the ACA would cover 81% of the total premium) for a benchmark silver plan with comprehensive benefits and reduced cost-sharing. A $3,000 tax credit for this same individual under the American Health Care Act would represent 59% of the average 40-year-old benchmark silver premium under the ACA.
Generally, the ACA has higher tax credit amounts than the replacement plan for lower-income people – especially for those who are older and live in higher-cost areas – and lower credits for those with higher incomes. Unlike the ACA, the replacement plan provides tax credits to people over 400% percent of the poverty level (phasing out around 900% of poverty for a single person), as well as to people current buying individual market coverage outside of the marketplaces (not included in this analysis).
While replacement plan tax credits vary by age – by a factor of 2 to 1 for older adults relative to younger ones – the variation is substantially less than under the ACA. The big differences in ACA tax credits at different ages is due to the fact that premiums for older adults can be three times the level of premiums for younger adults under the ACA, but all people at a given income level are expected to pay the same percentage of their income towards a benchmark plan. The tax credit fills in the difference, and this amount is much higher for older adults. These differences by age would be even further magnified under the American Health Care Act (which permits premiums to vary by a factor of 5 to 1 due to age). Before the ACA, premiums for older adults were typically four or five times the premiums charged to younger adults.
The tax credits in the ACA vary significantly with premium costs in an area (see Table 2 and Figure 2). At a given income level and age, people receive bigger tax credits in a higher premium area like Mobile, Alabama and smaller tax credits in a lower premium area like Reno, Nevada. Under the ACA in 2017, premiums in Mobile, Alabama and Reno, Nevada approximately represent the 75th and 25th percentile, respectively.
The disparities between the ACA tax credits and those in the American Health Care Act will therefore vary noticeably across the country. For more on geographic differences between the ACA and the replacement plan, see Tax Credits under the Affordable Care Act vs. the American Health Care Act: An Interactive Map.
The same general pattern can be seen for families as individuals, with lower-income families – and particularly lower-income families in higher-cost areas – receiving larger tax credits under the ACA, while middle-income families in lower-cost areas would receive larger tax credits under the American Health Care Act (Figure 3).
Figure 4 below shows how tax credits under the ACA differ from those in the American Health Care Act for a couple in their 60’s with no children. In this scenario, because premiums for older adults are higher and the ACA ties tax credits to the cost of premiums, a 60-year-old couple would receive larger tax credits under the ACA than the American Health Care Act at lower and middle incomes, but would receive a larger tax credit under the American Health Care Act at higher incomes.
Estimates of Tax Credits Under the ACA and the American Health Care Act Over Time
We estimated the average tax credits that current ACA marketplace enrollees are receiving under the ACA and what they would qualify for if the American Health Care Act were in place.
The average estimated tax credit received by ACA marketplace enrollees in 2017 is $3,617 on an annual basis, and that this amount will rise to $4,615 by 2020 based on projected growth rates from the Congressional Budget Office. This includes the 81% who receive premium subsidies as well as the 19% who do not.
We estimate – based on the age distribution of marketplace enrollees – that current enrollees would receive an average tax credit under the American Health Care Act of $2,957 in 2020, or 36% less than under the ACA (see Table 3 and Figure 3). While many people would receive lower tax credits under the Affordable Health Care Act, some would receive more assistance, notably the 19% of current marketplace enrollees who do not qualify for ACA subsidies.
While ACA tax credits grow as premiums increase over time, the tax credits in the American Health Care Act are indexed to inflation plus 1 percentage point. Based on CBO’s projections of ACA tax credit increases and inflation, the disparity between the average credits under the ACA and the two replacement plans would widen over time. The average tax credit current marketplace enrollees would receive under the American Health Care Act would be 41% lower than under the ACA in 2022 and 44% lower in 2027.
Discussion
Like the ACA itself, the American Health Care Act includes refundable tax credits to help make premiums more affordable for people buying their own insurance. This might seem like an area where a replacement plan could preserve a key element of the ACA. However, the tax credits are, in fact, structured quite differently, with important implications for affordability and which groups may be winners or losers if the ACA is repealed and replaced.
For current marketplace enrollees, the American Health Care Act would provide substantially lower tax credits overall than the ACA on average. People who are lower income, older, or live in high premium areas would be particularly disadvantaged under the American Health Care Act. People with incomes over 400% of the poverty level – including those buying individual market insurance outside of the marketplaces – do not get any financial assistance under the ACA but many would receive tax credits under the replacement proposal.
The underlying details of health reform proposals, such as the size and structure of health insurance tax credits, matter crucially in determining who benefits and who is disadvantaged
See the original article Here.
Source:
Cox C., Claxton G., Levitt L. (2017 March 10). How affordable care act repeal and replace plans might shift health insurance tax credits [Web blog post]. Retrieved from address https://www.kff.org/health-reform/issue-brief/how-affordable-care-act-repeal-and-replace-plans-might-shift-health-insurance-tax-credits/