SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Obamacare Sticker Shock: Not Very Shocking

SAFETY NET JANUARY 29, 2013

Obamacare Sticker Shock: Not Very Shocking

“Death panels” are out. “Sticker shock” is in. For the last few weeks, critics of Obamacare have spent less time on their more hysterical claims and focused, instead, on a practical argument. Because the new health care law mucks up the insurance market with regulations on pricing and benefits, they say, you’re going to pay a lot more for insurance. “Health insurance costs are going up,” Sally Pipes, president of the Pacific Research Institute and one of the law’s most persistent critics, wrote recently in a Forbes column. “And for that, you can thank Obamacare.”

It’s the kind of argument that gives the administration and its political allies night sweats, because it has some basis in fact. Come next year, when the Affordable Care Act takes full effect, some people are going to start paying more for their health insurance than they would otherwise. But notice the key word in the previous sentence: “Some.” The real story about Obamacare, the one the law’s critics don’t emphasize, is that far more people will actually pay less. And while those paying more may not be happy about it, they’ll also be getting something for the extra premium dollars they pay up front.

Who are these people? Before we get to that, let’s talk about who they are not. If you are like most non-elderly Americans with private insurance, you get health benefits from a medium- or large employer. It’s part of your compensation. Obamacare isn’t going to have much effect on your premiums one way or the other—except, hopefully, in the long run, as the law’s efforts to control health care costs gradually reduce the annual increases to which you’ve become accustomed.

No, the real action in the health care law will take place in what’s known as the “non-group” market, which affects far fewer people (a few million) but does so in some pretty profound ways. If you’ve ever tried to buy insurance on your own, then you know what a nightmare it is. Here is where insurers screen carefully for bad medical risks. If carriers decide you are one of these people—maybe you have diabetes or a history of gastro-intestinal problems, or maybe you beat cancer a few years ago—they will charge you higher premiums, withhold benefits for anything related to your pre-existing conditions, or deny you coverage altogether.1

The non-group market is also notoriously unstable. Premiums can jump wildly from year to year, depending on how well your insurer is doing financially and what’s happening to other people in your “block.” (That’s what insurers call a group of people who pay premiums into a common pool, from which insurers take money to pay those beneficiaries’ bills.) Benefits and networks vary enormously, from plan to plan. Even careful, conscientious consumers frequently discover that their insurance leaves them without coverage they expected—or, in cases of outright fraud, without coverage at all.2

One of Obamacare’s primary goals is to fix these problems. To do so, it will set up virtual marketplaces, known as “exchanges.” If that’s how you end up buying insurance—in other words, if you don’t get coverage through an employer or through a government program like Medicaid—you’ll discover that you can buy any policy insurers are selling, at the list price, no matter what your pre-existing medical status. The only variable will be your age and whether you use tobacco, but even for those factors insures will have only limited ability to change prices. You will have different options for coverage, hopefully quite a few, but you’ll also know that every plan includes comprehensive benefits—basically, everything from checkups to cancer care. And depending on your income level, you’ll be eligible for financial assistance on both premiums and future out-of-pocket expenses.

The regulations and subsidies that make this possible will each influence the price you pay, although in different and sometimes contradictory ways. The regulations on benefits, for example, will tend to make insurance more expensive, because today non-group policies are so notoriously spotty. Among the most conspicuous differences will be coverage of maternity care: Individual policies rarely include maternity benefits. Starting next year, they must. But that means insurers are going to be paying a lot more to deliver babies (and deal with the complications at birth, which can be enormously expensive). That will eventually come through as higher premiums. On the other hand, the financial assistance—which is in the form of tax credits—will make insurance less expensive for people who receive it. And those subsidies will get pretty big. For some people, they will amount to several thousand dollars a year.

As you may have guessed by now, what this all means to you personally depends primarily on who you are. As a general rule, the people who suffer the most under the current system will also benefit the most under the new one. If you are older or sicker and have been trying to get coverage in the non-group market, then you’re in luck because insurers won’t be able to jack up your premiums (or reduce or deny you coverage) anymore. If your income is moderate to low—say, less than $50,000 a year for a family of four—you’re also going to be a winner. The subsidies, which are larger for people with less money, will more than offset the higher costs.

But a system that no longer discriminates against some people is, by definition, also a system that no longer discriminates in favor of others. That brings us to the people who really will see higher prices, the ones the Obamacare critics have in mind. They will tend to be younger, healthier, and more affluent—and they will tend to be men. These are the people who, today, benefit from medical underwriting: They pay low premiums, and tolerate tiny doctor networks or skimpy benefits, because they are unlikely to have medical conditions that require extensive medical treatment. These are also the people who, under the new system, will make too much money to qualify for large subsidies, enough to offset the cost of higher insurance.

Exactly how many people fall into these categories? How much more will they pay? It’s difficult to say definitively. Several estimates are circulating, but each has their limitations. They frequently don’t account for geographic variation or the subsidies or the availability of reduced-benefit, “catastrophic” plans available to people 29 and under.3 “If the catastrophic plans are part of a separate insurance pool as proposed, that would largely do away with any rate shock for twenty-something males if they choose to enroll in those plans,” says Larry Levitt, an expert on insurance and senior vice president at the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Many states have been looking to MIT economist Jonathan Gruber to provide estimates, just as the Romney administration in Massachusetts and then the Obama Administration in Washington. Gruber, a reform advocate, tells me that “In most of the states I have looked at, many more people end up better off than worse off.” Levitt, who has been studying the available projections, has a similar take:

"With the cushioning impact of federal premium subsidies, most people buying their own insurance today will end up paying less under reform for equivalent coverage. Premiums for some will go up because of minimum benefit requirements, but that’s a trade of better insurance protection for somewhat higher premiums.4"

That last point is important. If you are one of the young, non-poor, healthy men who will end up paying a few hundred dollars or even over a thousand dollars more for your coverage next year, you might not really care that you’re among a relatively small group.5 You also might not care about the question of obligation—whether, in order to have an insurance system that protects everybody, it’s fair to ask those who have youth, health, and enough money to pay for decent insurance to fork over more than they are now.6

But before you decide Obamacare is a bad deal for you, remember that it’s not just about moral principle. It’s also about your self-interest. Today you are healthy. Tomorrow you may not be. You might have an accident or develop a serious illness—and up facing huge hospital bills. The coverage you get under Obamacare won’t be perfect, but if you’re paying more for it then it’s probably going to offer you more protection than you have now. Yes, you’ll be spending more money—but you’ll be getting something for it, too.

 


 
SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 14 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

14 comments

Of course, when young, healthy men who refuse to buy health insurance have a serious health problem, they'll be demanding free care like it's a human right. But before rights for the able come responsibilities. And young men are many times more likely to be murdered or severely injured than other groups of people. Murder takes care of an asocial young man's health problems. He leaves society to take care of the severe injuries. And the cost to society is enormous. Human nature can be good, but this is an example of the bad, nay, ugly kind.

- magboy47.

January 29, 2013 at 12:00am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

P.S.: Young men are also much more likely than older people to require hospitalization for car accidents, drug overdoses, drug addiction, and bar fights.

- magboy47.

January 29, 2013 at 12:03am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

'for a family of four—you’re also going to be a winner.' In this context, I suggest the word 'winner' is politically toxic. I think Obamacare has to be viewed in terms of a reallocation of resources (in comparison to those countries who spend less with better result) and the measure of its success should not be whether the balance between winners and losers is desireable if it does not mean better efficiency in medical expenditures.

- Nusholtz

January 29, 2013 at 7:18am

No argument here. And I think the efficiency will come, both in the sense of distributing the financial risk of illness more broadly and building a less wasteful delivery system, although the latter will be a slower, longer project.

- Jonathan Cohn

January 29, 2013 at 9:20am

Well, I intend to maintain my health only so I can live to see the lower costs.

- Nusholtz

January 29, 2013 at 10:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHOW ALL 2 RESPONSES

Yes, the changes Cohn describes may result in sticker shock to some insureds, offset in large part by a more equitable distribution of health insurance and health care. But there's another important change taking place that will add to sticker shock that is rarely mentioned: monopoly power. The health care industry has been criticized as inefficient, due in large part to "fragmentation": many small, disconnected providers. It was hoped that ACA would provide incentive for consolidation, or integration, in the industry in order to provide a more efficient delivery of health care. Well, the designers of ACA could not have imagined the pace of consolidation, as hospitals (and hospital companies) merge and acquire physician practices and free-standing health care facilities. Unfortunately, this will result in a big increase in overall health care costs, at least in the short run, as hospitals use their increased leverage over third party payers to negotiate higher reimbursement rates and leverage over physicians to move procedures from free-standing health care facilities to the hospitals, which have significantly higher reimbursement rates for the same procedures; so much higher that the co-pay for the procedure in the hospital often exceeds the entire fee for the same procedure in a free-standing health care facility. Don't be surprised when in the coming months you read that overall health care costs have risen, and risen substantially. The designers of ACA will say that they understood that consolidation would lead to higher costs in the short run, but in the long run, the system will be much more efficient and costs will come down far more than they have risen. Maybe. For the time being, my practice representing physicians has never been busier, as hospitals gobble up free-standing health care facilities and physician practices, and each other. If the designers of ACA wanted less "fragmentation" and more consolidation, they are getting their wish.

- rayward

January 29, 2013 at 7:22am

Rayward- Smart comment. It's not entirely clear (to me) how the provider consolidation is going to affect prices, particularly short term, but definitely something to watch. - Jonathan

- Jonathan Cohn

January 29, 2013 at 9:19am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHOW 1 RESPONSE

Shoot, Insurance rates have risen faster than inflation every year in the past -- except when the industry was trying to defeat Clinton-care, or Obama-care, or Medicare, or whatever the cost-control effort of the day was. With the cap on how much Insurance companies can charge for over-head, and the cost-controls on the Exchanges, I'd expect costs to rise much more slowly than without Obamacare. So before we pay attention to the Chicken-Little's again, let's have some perspective about the situation, like this piece. Good job, Jon.

- AllanL5

January 29, 2013 at 9:38am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

My question: Is this an article? a posting to the Plank? or the launch of a new blog called "Safety Net?" I'm so confused about the architecture of this new site. Isn't it typical to provide some kind of a user's guide when you do a redesign?

- frb631

January 29, 2013 at 1:08pm

This new website isn't doing it for me. In some places the fonts are too big, in other places too small. I have a super wide monitor, and yet the text flows down the middle 20% with massive white space on each side. The comments are hard to read because they don't support paragraphs. Hopefully these all get fixed in the coming weeks.

- seattleeng

January 29, 2013 at 3:13pm

Agreed, FRB, the new layout has its charms but it is like a white labyrinth with clues to its navigation listed only at the very bottom of the page. I for one would not mind a small splash of "clutter: in the enormous white gutters that suggests other places to go, or regular columns to link to, without having to scroll to the very bottom to see what three choices the editors are providing me with. Nonetheless, I am sure with tweaks it will all work out, but then I am a Panglossian progressive at times. (Although I nearly lost it a couple years ago when Obama was far too passive during the debt ceiling crisis, or after the first debate. We Panglosses need a few hints of some kind of movement, at least, to retain our cheery hopes.)

- Atlas-Q

January 29, 2013 at 3:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHOW ALL 2 RESPONSES

JC, you claim that "some" will start paying more, and then claim that far more will actually pay less even though we're adding more to the rolls? How is this possible? You yourself seem a bit suspect on the savings side of things, claiming it will come much later. And yet, absent any savings, how can we insure more for less? We cannot. Adn the numbers in the Forbes article are quite clear there: Aetna sees premiums rising 20 to 50% on average. California insurers have asked for a 20% premium increase. Wisconsin will see 41%. Many of our poor are old, and already have free health care. Most of our working class are squarely in the $80K range, and they get little help to cope with these 20 to 40% increases. The fact is that what was promised will not materialize. You can spin it however you wish. But the "$2500 savings for an average family" was a lie and you were complicit in pushing that forward.

- seattleeng

January 29, 2013 at 3:27pm

seattle, the point is adding 30 million people into paying for insurance premiums and not sticking it to the tax payer via er visits and otherwise lost productivity from unnecessary illnesses increases the total pool therefore lowering costs overall.

- blackton

January 30, 2013 at 12:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHOW 1 RESPONSE

Anyone see that "Obamacare survival guide" or "beating Obamacare" by TNR's own erstwhile Betsy McCaughey? The McCaughey book has a hilarious forward where she asks her readers if they are clueless as to what is in the PPACA. Yes, she writes "clueless", not unsure or curious but clueless. Her winners and losers in the look inside is also quite amusing. It will be interesting to see when the medicaid expansion goes into effect how the states that accept it benefit far more than those that reject it. What happens though to the taxes that will be collected to fund all of it? The money will be there for Texas but if Texas refuses it does it go to the participating states instead or just to lower the deficit?

- blackton

January 30, 2013 at 12:39am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

1

Karen Pollitz and a team of researchers at the Kaiser Foundation once conducted a test: They made up seven fictional people, each with different medical conditions—one had hay fever, one who’d had knee surgery a decade before, one with HIV, one who’d had breast cancer, and so on. Then they had these fictional people submit applications to insurers in markets across the country. The result? Only 10 percent of applications produced a “clean” offer—coverage with full benefits and standard prices. About 60 percent had higher rates, reduced benefits, or some combination of the two. The rest, close to 40 percent, were rejected outright. 

2

One scam victim was a Florida woman named Janice Ramsey, about whom I wrote in my book Sick and later in a New Republic item, which you can read here. Her experience was hardly unusual, as a Commonwealth Fund report by Mila Kofman some years ago detailed.

3

One example of this is a recent analysis from Oliver Wyman, which garnered a lot of attention with its prediction that 80 percent of young people would pay higher premiums. Overall the analysis seems sound, but, as one of the co-authors confirmed to me, the analysis did not take account of the catastrophic plans. 

4

This is entirely consistent with what the Congressional Budget Office predicted while Congress was still debating about how to structure health care reform. 

5

There’s a practical issue here, as well. If young people decide the steep prices make insurance a bad deal, and opt instead to pay the tax penalty for no coverage, that could raise prices for everybody else who has insurance. State regulators worry about this. A lot

6

Many people, including the conservatives writing about this, believe that asking the young and healthy to subsidize the old and sick is fundamentally wrong. I disagree, obviously, but it’s a legitimate philosophical debate. 

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close