Jonathan Gruber, the economist paid by the White House to consult on the health care reform law, has put out a paper for the Commonwealth Fund that reaches the conclusion that the law is pretty good. What is interesting is that even this supporter and part architect of the law is forced to admit that sick people who actually need care will find getting that care unaffordable under the new law. From the paper:
The results show that an overwhelming majority of households have room in their budgets for the necessities, health insurance premiums, and moderate levels of out-of-pocket costs established by the Affordable Care Act. Fewer than 10 percent of families above the federal poverty level do not have the resources to pay for premiums and typical out-of-pocket costs, even with the subsidies provided by the health reform law. Affordability remains a concern for some families with high out-of-pocket spending, suggesting that this is the major risk to insurance affordability.
[...]
Using this method, we find that an overwhelming majority of households do have room in their budgets for the necessities, health insurance premiums, and moderate levels of out-of-pocket costs established by the Affordable Care Act.
I have one big problem with this analysis because the study seems to define “affordable” as having enough money to pay for “necessities” plus health insurance and/or care. First, I find this paycheck-to-paycheck, “no room for anything but making ends meet” definition of “affordability” to be somewhere between misleading and Dickensian, especially because we will require families to spend up to 8 percent on just the premiums.
Second, it seems to leave no room for building up savings. Families making three times the federal poverty line should be able to build up a modest amount of savings for emergencies, job loss, paying down debt, or hard times. Given how politicians from both parties are talking about their desire to cut Social Security and raise the retirement age, Americans who don’t save something for retirement are going to be facing a very difficult future. Building a modest financial cushion and retirement is a necessity.
For the time being, let’s leave aside the problems with the study’s generous definition of “affordable.” The paper admits a significant number who actually get very sick will find the care they actually need unaffordable.
These calculations are for 2014, but the problem will only get much worse moving forward. By design, the affordability subsidies get relatively smaller each year to make the law appear cheaper, so more people each year will find care unaffordable.
Problem when you focus on “coverage” and not affordability
Too much of the health care debate was Democrats trying to claim they will “cover” so many millions more Americans while keeping a low CBO score, but too little focused on actually making care affordable for people who needed it. I don’t really care that the law made private insurance, which is a massive ripoff, “affordable” for the very healthy people the government is going to force to buy it. Healthy people that don’t really need care don’t have trouble affording care.
The real concern should be to make sure Americans don’t need to worry about whether or not they can afford to get sick; in that department, even its supporters admit the Affordable Care Act is lacking. We are going to make people buy insurance they can’t afford to use.
The sad irony of all this is that, for the same amount of money, these serious issues of affordability could have been dealt with much better. If instead of using private insurance exchanges these people could be covered with a Medicare-like public program, that would be roughly 20 percent more cost effective. These huge savings could not only have been used to reduce the portion of income people will need to pay to get insurance, but the money also could have been used to put in place a much lower out-of-pocket cap.
Of course, when it comes to a choice between actually making health care affordable for regular people in need or letting the health care industrial complex continue to rip people off, we know who our politicians are looking out for.






27 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL Action
Great post, Jon.
My household is now well above the poverty line and we still can’t afford to buy insurance, let alone use it.
I guess it’s acceptable that 32% of people in high cost-of-living states and earning more than 200% of the federal poverty level can’t afford insurance.
Shorter Jonathan Gruber: “If you get sick, die quickly!”
Excellent post. wrt to whether the premium subsidies keep up with rising health/premium costs, I think the law assumes that some of the cost-cutting measures implemented via the advisory board and other means will trickle down into the private markets too. Maybe some will work, others not. But it’s uncertain how much of a gap, if any, there would be between rising costs and rising premium support, no?
On the other hand, the law doesn’t do anything to deal with continuing consolidation of insurers and providers, and in fact may encourage hospitals etc to merge. I don’t think they’re taking into account the upward price-fixing likely to occur. the whole theory that the private insurance “market” will be competitive, and thus push prices down, is doubtful.
SB-810 here in cal is crawling along, any chance of this being a game changer?
This is the greatest problem that the bill failed to address. There is nothing to prevent private insurers from fixing costs or raising costs collectively.
Sure, they legally have to cover sick kids now. Do they have to make that coverage affordable? Nope.
As California goes, so goes the nation. I think Jerry Brown may actually throw his gubernatorial weight behind SB-810 and the California state legislature has the votes to pass it (I think). However, it’ll be something JB saves for re-election year.
If California passes universal health care the rest of the nation, excluding some southern states of course, will following along over the next decade.
Didn’t Vermont pass universal health care a couple days ago? Anybody have details on that? Was it a good bill or just a bill with a good name?
Even if saves are produced they don’t matter because the amount many people will pay will still be based on the level of subsidies. The subsidies are structured so that after 2014 people below 400 FPL will be expected to pay slightly larger percent of their income each of the next few years. It is a CBO score trick so they could claim the reconciliation bill increased subsidies but in the long run it really didn’t because it had to follow the Byrd Rule.
If you look at the paper itself Gruber talks about it and how it will increase the number for whom insurance is “unaffordable” to a higher level by 2019
Since I dropped my individual policy a few years ago when I heard about the individual mandate, I’ve been feeling fabulous.
I think cost is the single biggest problem with HCR. If we are to make this thing work we need a way to reduce those costs. Competition, aka a public option, is the single best way to do it. That seems out of sight now. Another idea is to lower the medicare age, but in this age of deficit reduction that wont happen either. So it is troubling especially if the republicans continue to gain in congress. at a loss for next steps…..
I don’t know why it is so troubling if the republicans continue to gain in congress. This piece of crap was rammed through by a democrat. Unbelievable. republicans, democrats – all the same to me.
Don’t people get that health insurance and health care aren’t the same thing? Health insurance is NOT health care. I have Medicare, no job, meager savings post 2008: I was considerably better off pre 2008. Medicare coverage still leaves me with co-pays I can’t pay, supposing, that is, I would be so foolish as to go into the HEALTH CARE system to get HEALTH CARE. And let me tell you from personal experience, many people in the HEALTH CARE industry don’t get it, in part because they’re doing well and in part because it’s human nature to not pay attention until the chickens come squawking into your living room.
You’ve hit on the major semantic trick. It’s all about “affording” insurance. As long as they never tell you that this doesn’t mean you can afford care or find a physician, clinic or hospital that accepts your crummy policy, all is swell. (Centrists adore semantic tricks. They won’t privatize Social Security, they won’t slash Medicare — just cut them.)
enforcement?
If you and other Lakers are in Sacramento area, you might want to know that the Greater Sacramento Valley Chapter of Health Care for All is meeting at the Capitol tomorrow at 10-11:30 in the basement dining room to talk about SB 810 – Single Payer bill and the campaign to get it passed. I missed the SB 810 hearing on Wednesday, but I’m planning to attend tomorrow. The group may have had a table at the CA Dem Con last weekend; don’t know. If interested, call 916-424-5316 or email cnetrete@comacast.net to let Carolyn Negrete know of your plans to attend.
I’m really looking forward to attending this event to learn a lot.
Blessings,
with respect, i seriously disagree with this statement. competition in a weakly regulated market is a recipe for adverse selection. as far as i know, it has NEVER worked where ever it’s been. strong regulation is required if private insurance companies are used (not my favorite policy). but if there was strong regulation, a public option wouldn’t be necessary.
market competition does not make for a good outcome in all cases. that’s one of the neoliberal myths we’ve been told but it’s just not so.
in fact, bankster fraud and financial crisis has been a great example of what bill black calls a the grisham dynamic — where competition drives honest business out and fraudulent business thrive.
Great post Jon
Sorta O/T but very much health related. For any of you who have young daughters or granddaughters, nieces, etc., very upsetting (but helpful) article on HP about the extreme rise in the early onset of puberty in girls and what to do about it:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joel-fuhrman-md/girls-early-puberty_b_857167.html
Posted: 05/ 6/11 08:– by Joel Fuhrman, M.D.
Girls’ Early Puberty: What Causes It, And How To Avoid It
Just to give you an idea, here are two excerpts:
and
Jon, Sorry to disagree but there’s NO “irony” in this, only corruption & greed. The more I read (& occasionally reread) your voluminous HCR work, the harder it is for me to understand why it wasn’t considered Pulitzer worthy. I’ve read nothing better, thx.
Although single-payer has chance of passing in California, I’ve read that there’s no funding available to implement it.
While Jerry Brown is playing budget-guy, would be the last time to bring it up.
Vermont House and Senate passed slightly different bills – I do not know the progress on getting agreed wording that will pass House and Senate so it can be signed by the Gov.
The bills are great – the actuary that designed the Taiwan system also designed Vermonts – it will actually control costs! and be affordable.
BUT – there is always a BUT – in this case 2 “BUTs” – BUT the funding decision type of funding and size of funding, is postponed to 2014 (when Obama care actually kicks in)….AND BUT Vermont must get a waiver from the Feds to replace/enhance “exchanges” with single payer, and the bluedogs put in Obamacare the provision that no waiver could be granted until 2017.
I agree – the kids to 26 being an add on of $7000 per year per kid under the Univ of Illinois benefit for the faculty was proof that the Obama “fixes” were pretend because they were not affordable (my sister is now retired but I do not know if retired get the benefit – I don’t think so – but in any case I do not know the pricing this year).
The answer to health care is not in ACA or any of the other machinations being fiddled with. The answer is in the Sherman AntiTrust laws. Doctors, providers, hospitals, pharma, device makers, insurers are all monopolists who need to be reined in. The alleged “free market”, which is at best a “managed market” is not going to do it in our lifetimes. But, if the government establishes direct cost and price controls, through Medicare, Medicaid and whatever this ACA abortion produces, over health care, will we get this under control. A doctor does not need to earn $500K no matter what he did to get though medical school. Hospitals all need to be nonprofits and monitored to keep executive salaries down. Insurers can all go to the junk yard, their function displaced by government single payer insurance at 2-3% of costs vice 30% of costs. Pharma gets it materials and ideas from the government. Tax hell out of them when they get out of line selling us back our own ideas at hundreds and thousands of times the prices. In other words, get an arm around the neck of the beast and strangle it into submission, cut out the cancers and get on with a rational system. We have too many who are willing to adopt the language of the enemies, the Republicans and corporations, who diddle us at ever turn. Stop it, get right, get even. We are in a war with people who know they are, and we dont even acknowledge the fact. Grow up.
Gruber has clearly never been without the benefit of sick pay. After being out of work for over a year, I’m contracting with a company that offers a group plan, but the entire monthly premium comes out of my first check of the month (neatly coinciding with monthly rent, booyah). If I miss more than one day that week, I lose coverage for the month. Living paycheck to paycheck, folks are just one illness, auto repair, or other small unexpected expense away from disaster.
Hoping JB looks at the bottom line and gets behind single-payer for California.
How on earth did they establish what families could afford? After 30 years of falling wages, with rising gas prices, rising utility costs, hugely rising college costs, and little retirement savings and/or pensions, how on earth did they establish this so-called fact of affordability? What a statistical sleight-of-hand that must be! But who needs the complex calculations? Falling wages are well-documented as are rising prices and college costs and pension/retirement values: is Gruber maintaining that all of these facts are in error?
It is not about affordability which is a term that is complex in its meaning. The better phrasing would be: New study confirms that corporations can keep charging high prices for insurance since recent data shows enough families still have a bit of extra cash available during the month that could be tapped by mandatory payment laws. The study was needed as corporations wondered if they had already extracted everything that could be taken. The data shows there is still some money left that could be grabbed by the mandated payment scheme.
I recently lost my job when my private-equity owned employer decided not to pay back the pension fund money it had borrowed to buy the company at an inflated price. I am currently trying to find new health insurance.
If I buy a policy as a small business through Costco/Aetna ($35/$2,500,70%), the cost of that policy for a family of four is around $1,291 per month. Given there are about 20.5 work days per month, at 8 hours per day, that means $7.87 per hour of every paid hour is going for healthcare (and that does not include any doctor visits or prescriptions). Minimum wage in California is $8.00/hour.
I know that no one is going to give a __________ about my situation in terms of paying for healthcare, but we should at least tie the minimum wage to the price of health care, say at 110% of this policy so the poor can pay for insurance and at least pay for FICA — even if they can’t afford food or shelter?
(BTW, this is one reason why people do not like the individual mandate. A family can buy a lot of actual healthcare for $1,300 per month, where the $1,300 only really covers discounts and catastrophe care.)