Incomplete coverage vs. unexpected costs: Economists point out dilemma in Affordable Care Act

Sep 27, 2011

A paper by economists at the Indiana University School of Public and Environmental Affairs and the Cornell University College of Human Ecology points to the difficult policy trade-offs that the U.S. faces as it implements the health-care reform legislation approved in December 2009.

Focusing on the largely overlooked question of what, exactly, counts as "affordable" in the Act, the paper shows that, if one method of defining affordability is used, millions of dependents of low- and moderate-income will be left in "no man's land," still lacking affordable coverage.

But if affordability is calculated by a different method -- and especially if employers respond to the law by increasing employee contributions to health-care premiums -- the government could face significant unanticipated costs.

"What we're pointing out is that there are trade-offs in the ," said Kosali Simon, professor in SPEA at Indiana University and co-author with Cornell professor Richard Burkhauser and Ph.D. candidate Sean Lyons. "We have to face the fact that, if we're going to have health care available, we have to pay for it. There's a big question about how much we're willing to pay."

The paper, "The Importance of the Meaning and Measurement of 'Affordable' in the Affordable Care Act," has been submitted for publication and is available as a working paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), where Simon and Burkhauser are research associates.

The Affordable Care Act seeks to expand access to health insurance using four primary strategies: an expansion of Medicaid; subsidies for low- and moderate-income employees; fines for employers and individuals who do not obtain coverage; and market reforms to create state insurance exchanges.

To prevent "crowd-out" -- employees moving from employer-sponsored insurance to subsidized insurance purchased on the exchanges -- the law says employees are eligible for subsidies only if they do not have access to affordable employer-sponsored insurance. Insurance is defined as affordable if the employee's cost is less than 9.5 percent of his or her family income.

The law is vague, however, on whether it refers to the cost of individual coverage or of family coverage. And while the issue has received little public attention, the distinction matters. The average cost of individual coverage in the U.S. is $4,386, while the average cost of family coverage is $12,298. So for many employees, single coverage is affordable, but family coverage isn't.

"This one question can have major implications for the cost and the number of people in the exchanges, and for how many people will be induced to drop out of employer-sponsored insurance and move into the exchanges," Burkhauser said.

The paper shows that the question will matter even more if employees contribute an increasing share of the cost their employer-sponsored insurance. Currently, employees pay an average of 20 percent of the cost of single coverage and 27 percent of the cost of family coverage.

At current employee contribution levels, using family coverage rather than single coverage to determine affordability would cause an additional 1.3 million employees to qualify for subsidies.

But if employees had to pay 50 percent of their insurance costs, using family coverage rather than single coverage would cause an additional 6 million employees to qualify for subsidies, potentially boosting government costs by tens of billions of dollars.

On the other hand, using the single-coverage definition of affordability creates a different problem.

More employees would be deemed to have affordable coverage through their jobs, because the cost of single coverage would be less than 9.5 percent of their family income; but they could afford coverage only for themselves. They and their families would not qualify for subsidies, and their dependents would be in a "no man's land" without access to affordable coverage.

At current employee contribution levels, almost 4 million dependents would be in that no man's land. But if employees had to pay 50 percent of their cost of coverage, the number of dependents without access to affordable coverage would rise to almost 13 million.

On Aug. 12, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services issued a proposed rule that the definition refers to single coverage, not family coverage. Hearings on the rule are set for Nov. 17. The Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation used the single-coverage definition of affordable to calculate their estimates of the cost of the legislation.

While some economists have argued that many employers will drop insurance coverage, Simon, Burkhauser and Lyons assume for purposes of their calculations that that won't happen.

However, they point out that the law creates incentives for increasing employee contributions to insurance costs. If the employee share rose to 50 percent, for example, higher-income employees could still afford employer-sponsored . But the cost would become unaffordable for low- and moderate-income employees, who would then qualify for government-subsidized coverage.

The $3,000 fine that employers could be charged for dropping employees from affordable coverage, the paper says, isn't enough to offset the potential benefit of the subsidies -- more than $11,000 for low-income employees.

Explore further: Study finds Illinois is most critical hub in food distribution network

More information: The paper, which is based on data from the Current Population Survey, the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey and the Kaiser Family Foundation, is available online at www.nber.org/papers/w17279

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

San Francisco to insure uninsured

Jul 27, 2006

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors has voted unanimously in favor of a plan to provide universal health insurance for San Franciscans.

5.7 million Californians lack access to job-based coverage

Nov 30, 2010

Most Americans receive health insurance coverage through their employer, or through an employed family member's dependent coverage. Yet having a job is no guarantee of coverage, according to a new policy brief from the UCLA ...

Report: Employers to see 2011 medical costs jump

Jun 14, 2010

(AP) -- Companies that offer employee health insurance expect another steep jump in medical costs next year, and more will ask workers to share a bigger chunk of the expense, according to a new PricewaterhouseCoopers report.

Recommended for you

Ancient clay seals may shed light on biblical era

Dec 20, 2014

Impressions from ancient clay seals found at a small site in Israel east of Gaza are signs of government in an area thought to be entirely rural during the 10th century B.C., says Mississippi State University archaeologist ...

Digging up the 'Spanish Vikings'

Dec 19, 2014

The fearsome reputation of the Vikings has made them the subject of countless exhibitions, books and films - however, surprisingly little is known about their more southerly exploits in Spain.

User comments : 0

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.