Take Two Aspirin and Blame Everything on Obamacare

How the health care law became the scapegoat for everything.

A goat eats weeds at the Urban Renaissance Agency condominium complex in Machida in western Tokyo on November 14, 2013. A Japanese condominium complex has decided to ditch noisy lawnmowers and their paid pushers for a more natural option: goats.   
National Journal
Sam Baker
Dec. 12, 2013, 2:13 p.m.

Wel­come to the Obama­care era.

The healthy are sub­sid­iz­ing the sick. In­sur­ance com­pan­ies are tight­en­ing ac­cess to doc­tors. Plans with low premi­ums have high de­duct­ibles. Some­times it rains, Nick­el­back is still a band, and people con­tin­ue to die lit­er­ally every day.

But just be­cause something is hap­pen­ing and Obama­care ex­ists doesn’t mean it’s hap­pen­ing be­cause Obama­care ex­ists — even in health care.

Don’t tell that to the law’s crit­ics: The Af­ford­able Care Act has be­come the go-to scape­goat for just about everything people don’t like about health care, if not in the eco­nomy over­all. The law is be­ing blamed for trends, eco­nom­ic in­cent­ives, and ba­sic real­it­ies that it did not cre­ate and that were part of the health care sys­tem long be­fore Pres­id­ent Obama was even elec­ted.

There’s not a big dif­fer­ence between “how Obama­care works” and “how health in­sur­ance works” — and that, health ex­perts said, is what makes the law such a con­veni­ent tar­get.

Un­der Obama­care, if you like your doc­tor, you can’t al­ways keep her.

Con­sider the com­plaint du jour about the Af­ford­able Care Act: You might not be able to keep your doc­tor. There’s some truth to this charge, be­cause many plans sold through the law’s in­sur­ance ex­changes have set re­l­at­ively nar­row net­works of doc­tors and oth­er pro­viders. There’s no ques­tion that nar­row net­works are com­mon in Obama­care ex­change plans — but they were com­mon be­fore, too.

“Nar­row net­works were hap­pen­ing already. There has been kind of a re­sur­gent in­terest in nar­row net­works,” Kais­er Fam­ily Found­a­tion Pres­id­ent Drew Alt­man said.

Nar­row net­works are one of the tools in­surers use to keep premi­ums low. Doc­tors want to be paid as much as pos­sible, while in­surers want to keep their costs down so they can charge a lower premi­um and at­tract more healthy cus­tom­ers. To get there, in­surers will some­times ex­clude ex­pens­ive pro­viders, un­less those doc­tors are so pop­u­lar that people are will­ing to pay more for a plan that in­cludes them.

“Where you have had a choice, people have made trade-offs,” said Sab­rina Cor­lette, a seni­or re­search fel­low at the Geor­getown Uni­versity Health Policy In­sti­tute.

By cre­at­ing new mar­ket­places where mil­lions of people are sud­denly shop­ping for in­sur­ance — and by cut­ting off oth­er levers in­surers could use in the past (like re­fus­ing to cov­er sick people) — Obama­care has “ac­cel­er­ated” the shift to nar­row­er net­works, Alt­man said. But he said the pen­du­lum already seemed to be swinging in that dir­ec­tion.

In­surers tried to nar­row their pro­vider net­works in the ‘90s us­ing HMOs, and con­sumers hated the plans so much that in­surers ul­ti­mately backed away. That could hap­pen again this time — the Af­ford­able Care Act doesn’t re­quire nar­row net­works and it doesn’t dic­tate how much in­surers pay doc­tors.

“No one has ever heard of an HMO? Net­works have been around forever,” said Aaron Car­roll, dir­ect­or of the Cen­ter for Health Policy and Pro­fes­sion­al­ism Re­search at In­di­ana Uni­versity. “The idea of net­works as some­how new or gov­ern­ment-cre­ated is strange…. I un­der­stand why people don’t like it. They nev­er have. But it’s not the fault of the Af­ford­able Care Act. It’s the fault of try­ing to keep spend­ing to a min­im­um.”

Un­der Obama­care, de­duct­ibles are rising.

A sim­il­ar dy­nam­ic is play­ing out with Obama­care’s next big scare: rising de­duct­ibles. Re­pub­lic­ans have trum­peted re­ports about high de­duct­ibles to ar­gue that the plans aren’t ac­tu­ally af­ford­able. And many plans sold through the ex­changes do have high de­duct­ibles — of­ten right up to the max­im­um al­lowed by law.

But de­duct­ibles were already on the rise, pre-Obama­care. In the mar­ket for em­ploy­er cov­er­age, which Obama­care barely touches, de­duct­ibles have been grow­ing stead­ily. In 2006, ac­cord­ing to the Kais­er Fam­ily Found­a­tion, 10 per­cent of work­ers covered by an em­ploy­er plan had an an­nu­al de­duct­ible of $1,000 or more. By 2010, the year the Af­ford­able Care Act passed, it was up to 27 per­cent. By last year it had reached 38 per­cent.

Shift­ing costs to in­di­vidu­als is an­oth­er tool to keep costs and premi­ums low, and an­oth­er area where the law has “ac­cel­er­ated” an ex­ist­ing trend but not caused it, Alt­man said.

The Af­ford­able Care Act will res­ult in a surge in the num­ber of people with high-de­duct­ible plans, as well as in the num­ber of plans with nar­row net­works — be­cause that’s where the mar­ket has pushed private in­sur­ance, and cheap plans in par­tic­u­lar.

And, for what it’s worth, high-de­duct­ible plans have long been a ten­et of con­ser­vat­ives’ health care plans. They’ve called for more “skin in the game,” mean­ing more out-of-pock­et spend­ing and looser be­ne­fit man­dates.

“While con­ser­vat­ives feel they’ve been los­ing big-time with Obama­care and they don’t like it at all, the plans in the ex­changes rep­res­ent just the kind of skin-in-the-game sys­tem that con­ser­vat­ives have al­ways sup­por­ted,” Alt­man said.

Em­ploy­ers are cut­ting be­ne­fits.

Em­ploy­er plans aren’t sub­ject to some of the law’s most ex­pens­ive re­quire­ments — they don’t have to cov­er “es­sen­tial” be­ne­fits, for ex­ample, par­tially be­cause most of them already do. But that hasn’t stopped private-sec­tor em­ploy­ers from cit­ing the health care law when they have cut health be­ne­fits. UPS, for ex­ample, said the law was part of the reas­on it would not of­fer its health plan to em­ploy­ees’ spouses who had their own of­fer of em­ploy­er-based cov­er­age.

Health care ex­perts aren’t so sure the law is re­spons­ible.

On av­er­age, em­ploy­ers’ health care costs are grow­ing at near-re­cord lows — about 4 per­cent per year, ac­cord­ing to Kais­er’s an­nu­al sur­vey of em­ploy­er plans. That’s par­tially be­cause health care costs have slowed over­all, but also be­cause em­ploy­ers have gradu­ally taken steps like UPS’ — shift­ing more costs to em­ploy­ees, adding or in­creas­ing de­duct­ibles, and scal­ing back be­ne­fits.

“I think in the broad­er em­ploy­er mar­ket we’re see­ing a lot of things that were hap­pen­ing any­way be­ing blamed on the law be­cause it’s a con­veni­ent scape­goat for changes they wanted to make any­way,” Alt­man said.

Obama­care makes healthy people sub­sid­ize sick ones.

“Par­tic­u­larly harmed are young people try­ing to climb the eco­nom­ic lad­der…. Obama­care de­pends on young, healthy people be­ing forced to pay high­er premi­ums in or­der to sub­sid­ize the premi­ums of older, less healthy people,” Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said in a re­cent op-ed.

Every private health care plan de­pends on healthy people sub­sid­iz­ing un­healthy people. Safe drivers sub­sid­ize bad drivers, homes that don’t burn down sub­sid­ize those that do, and people who don’t file health care claims sub­sid­ize those who file a lot of them.

“That is every risk pool in the world — that’s how health in­sur­ance works,” Car­roll said.

The law only al­lows in­sur­ance com­pan­ies to charge older con­sumers three times more be­cause of their age, while some states al­lowed them to charge five times more. So the sub­sidy from young to old might be a little big­ger, but it’s not new.

So, what does Obama­care do?

For the most part, Obama­care has simply turned up the volume on ex­ist­ing mar­ket forces. But there are still plenty of con­crete trade-offs that did really start with the Af­ford­able Care Act.

It truly did force in­sur­ance com­pan­ies to can­cel mil­lions of health care plans, for ex­ample. As much as the White House tried to paint that as in­surers’ busi­ness de­cision, the law cre­ates new stand­ards for in­sur­ance plans and makes a con­cer­ted ef­fort to push people in­to those plans. Wheth­er those stand­ards are a good or bad thing for con­sumers is a mat­ter of opin­ion, but there’s no ques­tion the Af­ford­able Care Act made it im­possible for mil­lions of people to stay on the plans they had.

That might have been a smal­ler polit­ic­al prob­lem if Obama hadn’t prom­ised that people could keep their plans. And even with trends the law didn’t cause, his sales pitches could still come back to bite him. Obama also prom­ised that you could keep your doc­tor — something he couldn’t guar­an­tee with or without Obama­care.

The Af­ford­able Care Act makes a com­plic­ated series of trade-offs to make health care more ac­cess­ible, and some people will get a worse deal as a res­ult. But many trade-offs that seem like Obama­care are really just the health care sys­tem.

“Obama­care gets the blame for much of the bad stuff hap­pen­ing any­way in the health care sys­tem, and also little of the cred­it for the good things it’s do­ing,” Alt­man said.

{{ BIZOBJ (video: 4623) }}

Under Obamacare, if you like your doctor, you can't always keep her.

Con­sider the com­plaint du jour about the Af­ford­able Care Act: You might not be able to keep your doc­tor. There’s some truth to this charge, be­cause many plans sold through the law’s in­sur­ance ex­changes have set re­l­at­ively nar­row net­works of doc­tors and oth­er pro­viders. There’s no ques­tion that nar­row net­works are com­mon in Obama­care ex­change plans — but they were com­mon be­fore, too.

“Nar­row net­works were hap­pen­ing already. There has been kind of a re­sur­gent in­terest in nar­row net­works,” Kais­er Fam­ily Found­a­tion Pres­id­ent Drew Alt­man said.

Nar­row net­works are one of the tools in­surers use to keep premi­ums low. Doc­tors want to be paid as much as pos­sible, while in­surers want to keep their costs down so they can charge a lower premi­um and at­tract more healthy cus­tom­ers. To get there, in­surers will some­times ex­clude ex­pens­ive pro­viders, un­less those doc­tors are so pop­u­lar that people are will­ing to pay more for a plan that in­cludes them.

“Where you have had a choice, people have made trade-offs,” said Sab­rina Cor­lette, a seni­or re­search fel­low at the Geor­getown Uni­versity Health Policy In­sti­tute.

By cre­at­ing new mar­ket­places where mil­lions of people are sud­denly shop­ping for in­sur­ance — and by cut­ting off oth­er levers in­surers could use in the past (like re­fus­ing to cov­er sick people) — Obama­care has “ac­cel­er­ated” the shift to nar­row­er net­works, Alt­man said. But he said the pen­du­lum already seemed to be swinging in that dir­ec­tion.

In­surers tried to nar­row their pro­vider net­works in the ‘90s us­ing HMOs, and con­sumers hated the plans so much that in­surers ul­ti­mately backed away. That could hap­pen again this time — the Af­ford­able Care Act doesn’t re­quire nar­row net­works and it doesn’t dic­tate how much in­surers pay doc­tors.

“No one has ever heard of an HMO? Net­works have been around forever,” said Aaron Car­roll, dir­ect­or of the Cen­ter for Health Policy and Pro­fes­sion­al­ism Re­search at In­di­ana Uni­versity. “The idea of net­works as some­how new or gov­ern­ment-cre­ated is strange…. I un­der­stand why people don’t like it. They nev­er have. But it’s not the fault of the Af­ford­able Care Act. It’s the fault of try­ing to keep spend­ing to a min­im­um.”

Under Obamacare, deductibles are rising.

A sim­il­ar dy­nam­ic is play­ing out with Obama­care’s next big scare: rising de­duct­ibles. Re­pub­lic­ans have trum­peted re­ports about high de­duct­ibles to ar­gue that the plans aren’t ac­tu­ally af­ford­able. And many plans sold through the ex­changes do have high de­duct­ibles — of­ten right up to the max­im­um al­lowed by law.

But de­duct­ibles were already on the rise, pre-Obama­care. In the mar­ket for em­ploy­er cov­er­age, which Obama­care barely touches, de­duct­ibles have been grow­ing stead­ily. In 2006, ac­cord­ing to the Kais­er Fam­ily Found­a­tion, 10 per­cent of work­ers covered by an em­ploy­er plan had an an­nu­al de­duct­ible of $1,000 or more. By 2010, the year the Af­ford­able Care Act passed, it was up to 27 per­cent. By last year it had reached 38 per­cent.

Shift­ing costs to in­di­vidu­als is an­oth­er tool to keep costs and premi­ums low, and an­oth­er area where the law has “ac­cel­er­ated” an ex­ist­ing trend but not caused it, Alt­man said.

The Af­ford­able Care Act will res­ult in a surge in the num­ber of people with high-de­duct­ible plans, as well as in the num­ber of plans with nar­row net­works — be­cause that’s where the mar­ket has pushed private in­sur­ance, and cheap plans in par­tic­u­lar.

And, for what it’s worth, high-de­duct­ible plans have long been a ten­et of con­ser­vat­ives’ health care plans. They’ve called for more “skin in the game,” mean­ing more out-of-pock­et spend­ing and looser be­ne­fit man­dates.

“While con­ser­vat­ives feel they’ve been los­ing big-time with Obama­care and they don’t like it at all, the plans in the ex­changes rep­res­ent just the kind of skin-in-the-game sys­tem that con­ser­vat­ives have al­ways sup­por­ted,” Alt­man said.

Employers are cutting benefits.

Em­ploy­er plans aren’t sub­ject to some of the law’s most ex­pens­ive re­quire­ments — they don’t have to cov­er “es­sen­tial” be­ne­fits, for ex­ample, par­tially be­cause most of them already do. But that hasn’t stopped private-sec­tor em­ploy­ers from cit­ing the health care law when they have cut health be­ne­fits. UPS, for ex­ample, said the law was part of the reas­on it would not of­fer its health plan to em­ploy­ees’ spouses who had their own of­fer of em­ploy­er-based cov­er­age.

Health care ex­perts aren’t so sure the law is re­spons­ible.

On av­er­age, em­ploy­ers’ health care costs are grow­ing at near-re­cord lows — about 4 per­cent per year, ac­cord­ing to Kais­er’s an­nu­al sur­vey of em­ploy­er plans. That’s par­tially be­cause health care costs have slowed over­all, but also be­cause em­ploy­ers have gradu­ally taken steps like UPS’ — shift­ing more costs to em­ploy­ees, adding or in­creas­ing de­duct­ibles, and scal­ing back be­ne­fits.

“I think in the broad­er em­ploy­er mar­ket we’re see­ing a lot of things that were hap­pen­ing any­way be­ing blamed on the law be­cause it’s a con­veni­ent scape­goat for changes they wanted to make any­way,” Alt­man said.

Obamacare makes healthy people subsidize sick ones.

“Par­tic­u­larly harmed are young people try­ing to climb the eco­nom­ic lad­der…. Obama­care de­pends on young, healthy people be­ing forced to pay high­er premi­ums in or­der to sub­sid­ize the premi­ums of older, less healthy people,” Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said in a re­cent op-ed.

Every private health care plan de­pends on healthy people sub­sid­iz­ing un­healthy people. Safe drivers sub­sid­ize bad drivers, homes that don’t burn down sub­sid­ize those that do, and people who don’t file health care claims sub­sid­ize those who file a lot of them.

“That is every risk pool in the world — that’s how health in­sur­ance works,” Car­roll said.

The law only al­lows in­sur­ance com­pan­ies to charge older con­sumers three times more be­cause of their age, while some states al­lowed them to charge five times more. So the sub­sidy from young to old might be a little big­ger, but it’s not new.

So, what does Obamacare do?

For the most part, Obama­care has simply turned up the volume on ex­ist­ing mar­ket forces. But there are still plenty of con­crete trade-offs that did really start with the Af­ford­able Care Act.

It truly did force in­sur­ance com­pan­ies to can­cel mil­lions of health care plans, for ex­ample. As much as the White House tried to paint that as in­surers’ busi­ness de­cision, the law cre­ates new stand­ards for in­sur­ance plans and makes a con­cer­ted ef­fort to push people in­to those plans. Wheth­er those stand­ards are a good or bad thing for con­sumers is a mat­ter of opin­ion, but there’s no ques­tion the Af­ford­able Care Act made it im­possible for mil­lions of people to stay on the plans they had.

That might have been a smal­ler polit­ic­al prob­lem if Obama hadn’t prom­ised that people could keep their plans. And even with trends the law didn’t cause, his sales pitches could still come back to bite him. Obama also prom­ised that you could keep your doc­tor — something he couldn’t guar­an­tee with or without Obama­care.

The Af­ford­able Care Act makes a com­plic­ated series of trade-offs to make health care more ac­cess­ible, and some people will get a worse deal as a res­ult. But many trade-offs that seem like Obama­care are really just the health care sys­tem.

“Obama­care gets the blame for much of the bad stuff hap­pen­ing any­way in the health care sys­tem, and also little of the cred­it for the good things it’s do­ing,” Alt­man said.

{{ BIZOBJ (video: 4623) }}

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
These (Supposed) Iowa and NH Escorts Tell All
35 minutes ago
NATIONAL JOURNAL AFTER DARK

Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:

  • Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
  • Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
  • They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
  • One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
Source:
STATE VS. FEDERAL
Restoring Some Sanity to Encryption
35 minutes ago
WHY WE CARE

No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
35 minutes ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Hillary Is Running Against the Bill of 1992
35 minutes ago
WHY WE CARE

The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Trevor Noah Needs to Find His Voice. And Fast.
1 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”

Source:
×