Income Inequality, the State of the Union, and the Affordable Care Act

The President focused on income inequality in his State of the Union speech.  This is an important issue; as the gap widens between those rich and poor.

But income inequality is built into our public policy at so many levels – and even at the lowest ends of the economic spectrum sometimes the “wealthier” individuals receive better benefits than those who may need them even more. 

A case in point is how the insurance subsidies work in the Affordable Care Act in the aftermath of the Supreme Court ruling of 2012.

In these, the poorest individuals and families – those living below poverty level – fare the worst.

This is an inequality that could be repaired easily and immediately.

Here’s how this particular inequality works.  If you are a single person earning $11,375 per year, you pay the highest percentage of your income for insurance as anyone in any income bracket. 

An example:  If you want to buy “silver plan” health insurance on the open market, it will cost you $2,535 per year – or almost one quarter of your annual income.  Or you can purchase a bronze plan for $2,101.  That is still over 18 percent of your income.

In other words, you can’t afford it.

But if you earn just $230 more per year, or $11,605, then the result is almost magical.  The cost of a silver plan goes down to $232 per year – just two percent of your income.  And if you opt for a bronze plan, it will cost you nothing.

It may seem hard to believe, but it’s true.

The reason is that the first person earns just below poverty level (99 percent of poverty) and the second just above (101 percent of poverty).  And insurance subsidies begin at 100 percent of poverty.

Congress was aware that it was building this severe inequity into the law in 2010, but it was not worried about it. 

That was because it also passed a fix.

It mandated the expansion of Medicaid in all fifty states to people earning 138 percent of poverty.  With Medicaid as an option, few people living near the poverty level would need or want private insurance through an exchange.

But then the Supreme Court created a new problem.  Without acknowledging the inequality in the subsidy, it ruled in 2012 that Medicaid expansion was optional, effectively undermining the fix.

In spite of the eighteen months of political chaos that has resulted from this ruling, many states – and we can now say a majority of them – have moved to remedy the inequality in the only way they can. 

They have chosen to expand Medicaid, taking up the federal government on its offer to pay nearly one hundred percent of the cost.  And over the next several years, most of the remaining states will probably follow, but only after they’ve wasted billions of dollars of their own resources during the delay.

But remedying the inequality isn’t the same as eliminating it.  In states like Connecticut, which have embraced expansion – it just covers it over.

And in states like Florida that have not embraced expansion, it still leaves millions of people out in the cold.

There is a solution for everyone, and the federal government could move forward on it – if it is as serious about reducing inequalities as the President is.

Right now, the federal government exempts people living below poverty in states that have not expanded Medicaid from the mandate that they buy insurance.

But there is a better alternative.  It could offer everyone living below poverty the option of “purchasing” a bronze plan at no cost.  In other words, it could extend the same subsidy to them (when they are not otherwise eligible for Medicaid) as is available to those earning just above poverty.  It would probably also have to waive the deductibles in those plans for this group, and there are ways it could do this.

This would cost the federal government no more than paying for Medicaid expansion.  It would get millions more people covered – many of them adults, and many with chronic conditions.  And it would spare us endless debates in reluctant states.

There are legislators in some of these states who have proposed using new federal Medicaid dollars to purchase private insurance for low-income individuals.  That’s an idea, but expanding subsidies would be a simpler solution.

It would cut out the reluctant state middle man, and reduce inequality directly.

Paul Gionfriddo via email: gionfriddopaul@gmail.com.  Twitter: @pgionfriddo.  Facebook: www.facebook.com/paul.gionfriddo.  LinkedIn:  www.linkedin.com/in/paulgionfriddo/

A Billion More Reasons to be Disappointed in this Congress

It was good news when Congress recently agreed on a budget for the first time in forever.  It was the product of compromise, and everyone expected to give at least a little. 

But when the details came out last week, it turned out that some had to give more than others.  And the ones who probably gave up the most were the people who have saved the greatest number of lives over the past century – the public health and prevention community.

Last week, the House introduced the FY2014 Omnibus Labor, Health, Human Services, and Education bill – one of twelve appropriations bills that will implement the FY2014 budget.  As the bill summary noted, the legislation includes $156.8 billion in discretionary federal spending for all these important areas combined. That is a big number, and comes to around $500 per person.  By comparison, Defense– which is often considered to be the other “big” area of discretionary spending – will get around $1500 per person.

But the disappointing number wasn’t the bottom line, which is $100 million below the FY2013 level.

It was that – to get to the bottom line – Congress has proposed to cut $1 billion from already-promised public health and prevention funding.

When the Affordable Care Act was passed in 2010, it had a price tag of around $1 trillion over ten years.  This wasn’t all new spending.  We were going to spend at least that much on health care programs whether the law passed or not.  What ACA did was to re-structure that spending.

Historically, public health and prevention have gotten about 3 percent of our health dollars.  And if ACA had continued to provide that share, then $30 billion would have been dedicated to public health and prevention.

But when the dust settled in 2010, the new Prevention Fund (which was once targeted for as much as $80 billion) was promised only $15 billion, or an average of $1.5 billion per year for ten years.  And even this more modest amount was described by Senator Tom Coburn (a physician) as “a slush fund” within two weeks of its passage. 

Congress has hacked away at this fund ever since.  Two years ago, it slashed $5 billion from it.  As I wrote at the time, this represented 6 percent of total public health spending in 2010, and would cost us over 13,000 lives.

This was beyond disappointing for anyone who cares as much about the health of the population as he or she does about health care.

But it did not stop Congress was disappointing us again this year.  Or from using some of the same hypocritical reasons for cutting prevention programs today as it has in the past.

The bill summary claims that the legislation “seeks to focus tax dollars on programs that are critical to the health and well-being of Americans, including disease prevention and research programs.”  But it appropriates a total of only $160 million of the bill’s $156.8 billion to the Prevention Block Grant.

That represents just one dollar for prevention block grants for every one thousand dollars of omnibus bill spending.

And just two sentences later, it announces that it will reduce “the Prevention and Public Health ‘slush’ Fund by $1 billion.”

The reason it gives for slashing the “slush fund” is “to prevent the Secretary of HHS from raiding these funds for Obamacare exchanges.”  That actually happened in 2013, as Sarah Kliff explained in a terrific Washington Post blog on the shrinking fund last April.

But Congress raided these same prevention funds in 2012 to pay for the so-called “Doc Fix” (i.e., to prevent a sudden 30 percent decrease in Medicare payments to physicians that was caused by an error in a reimbursement formula in place since 2002 that Congress has failed at least a dozen times to fix permanently).

Members of Congress, like everyone, expect to have water that is drinkable, food that is edible, air that is breathable, homes that are safe to live in, and outdoor spaces to relax and exercise in.  If they take care of themselves, they hope to avoid cancers, heart disease, and other chronic conditions.

They understand the connection between these things and public health and prevention funds.  They just choose to ignore it.

If you have been disappointed by this Congress in the past, you probably have your reasons. And if you care about prevention and public health, now you have a billion more.

Paul Gionfriddo via email: gionfriddopaul@gmail.com.  Twitter: @pgionfriddo.  Facebook: www.facebook.com/paul.gionfriddo.  LinkedIn:  www.linkedin.com/in/paulgionfriddo/

Five Fake "Facts" About Obamacare

Last week, I was talking with a new acquaintance about health and mental health policy.

He was a successful businessperson, smart, very well educated, and well-informed about public policy.  Like most of us, he follows the news about Obamacare closely.  And he has strong opinions about it. 

But I realized as we talked that there were things he thought he knew about Obamacare that were not actually true.  But we both had heard them many times before.

So here are five often-repeated “facts” about Obamacare that you, too, have probably heard, and happen to be wrong.

1.  The Affordable Care Act was supposed to reduce health care costs significantly. 

Untrue – when the Affordable Care Act was passed, the Congressional Budget Office projected that it would cost more than $1.2 trillion over ten years.  After the Supreme Court decision in 2012, CBO lowered its projection to under $1.2 trillion.  (When these numbers were updated in 2013, they did not change dramatically.)

The cost of doing nothing was greater – but not by much.  Repealing the Act would cost around $10 billion a year, or less than ten percent more.  So the Affordable Care Act “savings” were always pretty small.

But even those savings were optimistic.  They were based on an assumption that Medicare would cut doctors’ fees by 30 percent – something no one thought would happen.

So the truth is that while some healthcare system costs may be less under the Affordable Care Act, overall the law was intended to be cost neutral.

2.  The Affordable Care Act has failed because it has not lowered large employer-based group health insurance premiums this year.

Untrue – the Affordable Care Act was never intended to lower the sticker price of any insurance premium.  It was only intended to lower the net cost for individual and small group plans by giving tax credits to individuals who (1) earn between 100 percent and 400 percent of poverty and (2) buy their own insurance. 

What ACA did for everyone else was to make sure that they got more for their money by introducing a new set of consumer protections (including minimum loss ratios, coverage for pre-existing conditions, and no cancellations when people get sick) that were not previously guaranteed by federal law or all state regulators.

3.  Under the Affordable Care Act, many working middle-class individuals are still faced with unaffordable health insurance premiums.

My acquaintance talked about the huge burden faced by workers who are paid $35,000 per year – a decent wage, but not an easy one to live on.  He didn’t believe me when I told him that a family of three earning $35,000 could get a “silver” plan – probably comparable to what many large employers offer – for between $100 and $200 per month.

So here’s a link to prove it.  According to the Kaiser Family Foundation’s insurance subsidy calculator, a family of three earning $35,000 per year in my zip code will pay, on average, $156 per month (net) for a silver plan that costs $6641 on the open market.  And if they choose a bronze plan, it will cost them nothing. And in my county there are over one hundred approved plans from which to choose.

4.  The Affordable Care Act was supposed to prevent insurance companies from ever changing or dropping plans again.

Also untrue – but President Obama did famously declare that you could keep your plan if you liked it.  He apparently assumed that people understood that he was making two assumptions here – that the plan met the minimum standards set by the new law, and that the insurance company was still willing to offer it. 

And that leads to the fifth and final “fact” you’ve heard that isn’t true.

5. The Affordable Care Act is at least in part a government takeover of the health care financing and delivery system.

Untrue again – because if it had been, you probably would have been able to keep your existing plan, because the government could have forced your insurer to continue to offer it.

So what is the truth about the Affordable Care Act? 

It is simply this – Obamacare is a balanced approach to reducing the number of uninsured people through a combination of expanded public welfare programs, subsidies to lower and middle class individuals, and private insurance market regulatory reforms.

That’s all.  And that’s a fact.  And its success will be judged ultimately on how well it accomplishes this goal.

And if you want to know how that’s going, click herefor the January 2014 federal report or take a look at the chart accompanying this column.

Paul Gionfriddo via email: gionfriddopaul@gmail.com.  Twitter: @pgionfriddo.  Facebook: www.facebook.com/paul.gionfriddo.  LinkedIn:  www.linkedin.com/in/paulgionfriddo/

In 2014, the Gap Will Widen between the Health and Mental Health "Haves" and "Have Nots"

Let’s open 2014 with four health policy predictions.  Here are the first three:

• Obamacare enrollments will top 5 million.
• Uninsured rates will come down.
• Health inflation will tick up.

Here’s why you can count on these.  

First, 1.1 million people have already enrolled in Obamacare.  The Administration hopes for 7 million by March.  That may be optimistic, but there will be another burst of enrollments in a couple of months.  And there will be another open enrollment period toward the end of the year. 

So at least 5 million enrollments seems reasonable.  And here is a bonus prediction.  If that many sign up, the politics of Obamacare in the half of the states that have embraced it will probably shift during the 2014 election cycle.  Their people will, too.

Second, the number of people who are uninsured will go down.  A 1 or 2 percent decline will be attributable to Obamacare.  The improving economy will also help.  And this means that the numbers will be better even in the states that did not embrace Obamacare.

Third, because more people will be insured and getting care, health inflation will go up again.  Both the Congressional Budget Office and the Administration have been predicting this for 2014 ever since the passage of Obamacare. 

In fact, if it doesn’t happen, this will probably be the health policy news story of the year.

But the fourth prediction may be most significant of all.  The gap will widen between the states with better health and mental health care and those with worse. 

And this has everything to do with Medicaid money.

As of December, the states were literally divided down the middle between those that decided to expand Medicaid in 2014 and those that did not.  If you compare the 26 states (including the District of Columbia) that decided to expand Medicaid to the 25 states that did not, the expanding states already have a decided advantage in supporting health and mental health care.

And with hundreds of billions more dollars flowing into those states over the next few years, that gap will probably widen.

Consider how these Medicaid dollars could widen the gap in just two areas – the number of nationally-ranked hospital specialty programs in a state and mental health spending. 

First, think about the high-quality hospital specialty services we all want and sometimes need.  Hospitals rely on Medicaid dollars for a significant portion of their revenue.

Medicaid-expanding states already have significantly more nationally-ranked hospitals and specialty programs, according to the U.S. News and World Report 2013-2014 rankings, than states that do not.

Seven of the ten states with the greatest numbers of nationally-ranked specialty programs decided to expand Medicaid.  And consider the advantage already enjoyed by California (ranked #1 in number of nationally-ranked specialty programs) and New York (#3) over the two most-populated states that decided not to expand Medicaid – Texas (#6 in number of nationally-ranked specialty programs) and Florida (#11).

California and New York, with 678 hospitals between them, are home to a total of 28 hospitals with at least one nationally-ranked specialty, with a total of 154 nationally-ranked specialties overall.

Texas and Florida, with 895 hospitals between them, are home to a total of 16 hospitals with at least one nationally-ranked specialty, with a total of 70 nationally-ranked specialties overall.

Texas and Florida are leaving as much as $100 billion on the table over the next ten years, much of which would have ended up on hospitals’ bottom lines.

The same point can be made regarding funding for care for people with mental illnesses – on whose behalf many of those Medicaid expansion dollars will be spent. 

The 26 states expanding Medicaid already spend much more on mental health services than those are not.  And the disparity is striking.  According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, the average state spends $120 per capita on mental health agency programs. 

But the states expanding Medicaid spend $139, on average, compared to $116 by states that refused.

And even these spending numbers look artificially close because of high per capita mental health spending in states like Alaska and Maine, which have small populations.  When population size is taken into consideration, as is clear from the pie chart above, the expanding states account for nearly twice as much of the nation’s per capita mental health spending as do the non-expanding states. 

And that gap – like the gap between the “haves” and “have nots” – will only widen in 2014.

Paul Gionfriddo via email: gionfriddopaul@gmail.com.  Twitter: @pgionfriddo.  Facebook: www.facebook.com/paul.gionfriddo.  LinkedIn:  www.linkedin.com/in/paulgionfriddo/