By Michael Tanner
Monday, November 18, 2013
In politics today, the terms “lie” and “liar” tend to be
used far too casually. If a politician makes a mistake, says something that
later turns out to be incorrect, or even says something we disagree with, we
all too quickly break out the “L” word. But President Obama’s promise that “if
you like your health-care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health-care
plan,period” really does amount to deliberate dishonesty.
The president has now apologized —sort of — for
misleading people. But such protestations would be far more credible if the
president and his administration didn’t continue saying things that are, let us
generously say, inaccurate. For example:
It’s the insurance companies’ fault.
The Obama administration continues to suggest that it’s
not the health-care law that is causing people to lose their current plan, but
rather unscrupulous insurance companies, which are canceling plans for reasons
unrelated to Obamacare.
That’s nonsense. The genesis of the cancellations start
with the law’s individual and employer mandates. If the government is going to
require you to buy or provide insurance, then it must define what is and is not
insurance. This is only logical. If a person could theoretically pay $1 for an
insurance plan with a $10 million deductible, it would defeat the whole purpose
of the mandate.
Many of the benefits that Obamacare requires are already
included in nearly all insurance plans, such as outpatient care, emergency-room
treatment, hospitalization, and laboratory tests. Others, however, are less
common: maternity and newborn care, mental-health and substance-abuse
treatment, prescription drugs, rehabilitative and habilitative services, a wide
variety of preventative and wellness services, chronic-disease management,
pediatric services, and dental and vision care for children.
It is true that, as the president says, those individuals
and businesses who had insurance prior to March 23, 2010, are “grandfathered
in,” meaning they theoretically do not have to change their current insurance
to meet the new minimum benefit. However, if there has been any “substantial
change,” whether instigated by insurers by or the purchaser, to the plan after
March 2010, or there is any such change in the future, the plan loses its
grandfathered status and can no longer be sold by the insurer.
The law did not specify what would be considered a
substantial change, but the Department of Health and Human Services
subsequently issued regulations defining substantial change as cutting or
reducing benefits, raising co-pays by more than $5 (or the rate of medical
inflation), increasing deductibles over a certain threshold, lowering employer
contributions, or raising coinsurance charges.
Such minor changes are a normal part of the
insurance-renewal process. Previously, they would have gone essentially unnoticed
by consumers. Today, they force a wholesale redesign of the policy. Insurers
may be technically responsible for the cancellations, but their hands are
forced by the law.
Moreover, in some localities — notably California, Idaho,
Kentucky, Vermont, Virginia, and the District of Columbia — insurance companies
were actually prohibited from participating in the state insurance exchanges
unless they agreed to immediately cancel all non-ACA-compliant insurance plans
sold in the state. As a spokesman for California’s Anthem Blue Cross explained,
“In order to participate in Covered California as a qualified health plan, the
contract required us to cancel non-ACA-compliant plans on December 31.”
The cancellations will affect only a small number of
people, those who buy individual policies.
In making this claim, the president focuses on the
individual market, which he accurately notes covers about 5 percent of
Americans. Still, that is about 14 to 15 million people. So far, as of mid
November, roughly 4.8 million individual insurance plans have been canceled,
with most estimates suggesting that as many as 10 million will eventually lose
their current coverage.
But the same conditions that are causing the cancellation
of individual policies will eventually result in the cancellation of millions of
employment-based policies as well. The only reason that hasn’t happened yet is
that the employer mandate was postponed for a year, so employer plans don’t yet
have to be ACA-compliant. But they will. Even the Congressional Budget Office
estimates that as many as 20 million workers will lose their current
employer-sponsored plans. Combine that with those losing individual plans, and
more than 30 million Americans cannot keep their current insurance.
It could be far more. As Avik Roy of the Manhattan
Institute points out, some 51 percent of the employer-based insurance market
will lose grandfathered status and need to make changes to comply with
Obamacare provisions. That could mean that, in total, as many as 93 million will
lose their insurance. That’s not exactly “a few.”
The policies being canceled are “substandard,” offering
few if any real benefits.
No doubt some of the canceled policies really did offer
few benefits. For example, the roughly 106,000 mini-med policies discontinued
in New Jersey did not provide coverage for outpatient drugs, prenatal care, or
ambulance services, and covered only $700 per year for doctor visits. But there
is no evidence that most canceled plans offered so little protection.
According to HealthPocket, a health-insurance consulting
firm, fewer than 2 percent of individual plans on offer today meet all ACA
requirements. The most frequent reason for noncompliance was not a failure to
cover hospitalization, as the administration has suggested, but not providing
pediatric care, including vision and dental care for children. A worthwhile
benefit, perhaps, but if you are childless, it’s hard to see how lacking such a
benefit makes your policy subpar.
As for employer plans, mini-med plans such as those in
New Jersey make up less than 1 percent of plans. Most employer plans fail
Obamacare compliance simply because they do not offer one or more of the
ACA-specified benefits, such as maternity care or alcohol rehabilitation.
There may well be actuarial and “pooling” arguments for
why such benefits should be part of insurance plans, but that doesn’t mean
teetotalers forced to change plans because their current policy does not cover
alcohol-rehabilitation services found their plan inadequate.
You will get a better and cheaper plan instead.
Having reluctantly admitted that some people will not be
able to keep their current plans, the administration fell back to claim that
customers will get even better plans to replace them — not just better, but cheaper
too. (No doubt they will also throw in a set of Ginsu steak knives.)
Of course “better” is a subjective term. Certainly many
of the new plans will be more comprehensive, offering benefits that were not
included in the canceled plans — but if those benefits are useless to the
customer, it’s a stretch.
People also might not consider a plan better if it no
longer provides coverage for their current doctor. Changing insurance plans,
even at the same employer, means a new network of covered providers; not every
plan includes every doctor. But the problem is more pronounced for those forced
to buy a new plan through an exchange. Insurance plans available on the
exchanges — and in most states the number of insurers providing them is
extremely limited — have been rapidly dropping doctors and hospitals from their
networks.
As for “cheaper,” that’s even more debatable. Additional
benefits generally come with a higher cost. For those receiving their insurance
through work, some of the increased cost may be passed along directly to the
employees in the form of higher premium contributions. Other costs may be
initially borne by the employers but offset through lower wages.
Those who must buy insurance through exchanges will, of
course, have some of the increased cost shifted to taxpayers through federal
subsidies. However, even with those subsidies many, especially middle- and
upper-income earners, may find themselves paying more. (Subsidies begin to
phase out rapidly above 250 percent of the poverty line.)
So not quite cheaper and better after all.
He meant it when he said it.
Somehow the president continues to insist that he really
was telling the truth when he promised that you could keep your plan — dozens
of times — and is just as shocked as anyone else to find out that you can’t.
This, despite the fact that his aides debated, both publicly and privately,
about whether or not he should say something so demonstrably untrue. When you
start lying about your lies, there really is a problem.
No comments:
Post a Comment