The Obamacare ‘Fix’ Most Likely To Pass This Congress

There are rumblings that legislation changing the law’s small-group market rules could move.

President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell could find some common ground on Obamacare.
MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty Images
Aug. 31, 2015, 5 a.m.

Le­gis­la­tion over­turn­ing the Af­ford­able Care Act’s ex­pan­sion of the small-group in­sur­ance mar­ket is likely to get a look this fall, ac­cord­ing to mul­tiple sources on and off Cap­it­ol Hill, and it may be the Obama­care “fix” with the best chance of be­com­ing law.

All the usu­al caveats ap­ply: Re­pub­lic­ans would have to con­vince the rank-and-file to ac­cept a smal­ler-scale change to the law while wait­ing for full re­peal. Demo­crats must be will­ing to agree to any change at all. Noth­ing in­volving Obama­care comes easy.

But of all the “fix” bills float­ing around the Cap­it­ol, the small-group pro­vi­sion might have the most work­ing in its fa­vor: It has bi­par­tis­an sup­port, costs little to noth­ing to change, and even some Obama­care sup­port­ers say the law could func­tion fine with the al­ter­a­tion.

There is also a loom­ing dead­line, as the ACA’s man­date that states in­crease the defin­i­tion of their small-group mar­ket from em­ploy­ers with 50 or few­er em­ploy­ees to 100 or few­er will start to take ef­fect in some states on Jan. 1. Bills in the House and the Sen­ate would nix that re­quire­ment, in­stead leav­ing the defin­i­tion at the his­tor­ic­al norm of 50 while al­low­ing states to set it high­er if they choose.

Mul­tiple sources said Sen­ate Re­pub­lic­an lead­er­ship has be­gun tak­ing its caucus’s tem­per­at­ure on the meas­ure for ac­tion in the fall. Noth­ing has been set yet, however. “The Lead­er hasn’t made any schedul­ing an­nounce­ments on that,” Don Stew­art, a spokes­man for Sen­ate Ma­jor­ity Lead­er Mitch Mc­Con­nell, said in an email.

The Sen­ate bill, in­tro­duced by Re­pub­lic­an Sen. Tim Scott and Demo­crat­ic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, has 27 co­spon­sors, in­clud­ing prom­in­ent mem­bers such as Sen­ate Fin­ance Chair­man Or­rin Hatch and the No. 3 Demo­crat, Sen. Chuck Schu­mer. The House’s ver­sion, in­tro­duced by GOP Rep. Brett Gu­thrie, has 207 co­spon­sors. Six Demo­crats have signed onto the Sen­ate’s bill, enough to over­come a fili­buster if all the Re­pub­lic­ans are also on board, and 39 have joined the House’s.

“It is prob­ably one of the most real­ist­ic changes at this point that we can see,” said Katie Ma­honey, the U.S. Cham­ber of Com­merce’s ex­ec­ut­ive dir­ect­or for health policy. The Cham­ber has formed a co­ali­tion with oth­er big lob­by­ing groups, such as the Na­tion­al Res­taur­ant As­so­ci­ation and the Na­tion­al As­so­ci­ation of Man­u­fac­tur­ers, to push for the change. The Cham­ber is ex­plor­ing me­dia buys to con­tin­ue el­ev­at­ing the is­sue in the fall.

If the meas­ure clears Con­gress with sub­stan­tial ma­jor­it­ies, many think Pres­id­ent Obama would be amen­able to this kind of change to his sig­na­ture law. His ad­min­is­tra­tion has re­peatedly said that it is open to tweaks, with the pres­id­ent him­self say­ing, “let’s fig­ure out how to make it bet­ter.”

“It just strikes me that this is pretty much a no-brain­er,” said Tim Jost, a health law pro­fess­or at Wash­ing­ton and Lee Uni­versity who gen­er­ally sup­ports Obama­care. “I’d be very sur­prised if the pres­id­ent would veto this un­less it comes glommed up with all kinds of oth­er stuff.”

So, if ax­ing the 100-em­ploy­ee defin­i­tion is a no-brain­er, why was it in­cluded in the law in the first place? Jost said the mo­tiv­a­tion was to im­prove the small-group, 50-and-un­der mar­ket, which has his­tor­ic­ally had more volat­ile costs. By adding busi­nesses with up to 100 em­ploy­ees, the think­ing was it would make the mar­ket more stable and more at­tract­ive to in­surers.

But a few prob­lems would likely arise, Jost said. First, while prices might go down for the 50-and-un­der busi­nesses as their mar­ket grew, the 51-to-100 busi­nesses would al­most cer­tainly see their prices go up. They would be mov­ing from the more stable and typ­ic­ally less ex­pens­ive large-group plans to the small-group set­ting. The small-group mar­ket is also sub­ject to some Obama­care rules, such as cov­er­ing cer­tain es­sen­tial health be­ne­fits, that the large-group mar­ket is not. Some es­tim­ates have pro­jec­ted that costs would ac­tu­ally in­crease for every­body.

Second, many of those same em­ploy­ers could lose their cur­rent plans be­cause their in­surer doesn’t op­er­ate in the small-group mar­ket. Jost said he would ex­pect “a big dis­rup­tion” if the change took ef­fect, one made par­tic­u­larly acute by the con­tro­versy over people los­ing their health plans in 2013 be­fore Obama­care’s in­sur­ance mar­ket­places opened.

Lastly, for the reas­ons above, busi­nesses with young­er and health­i­er work­forces might then de­cide to switch to self-in­sur­ance. That’s already a risk for Obama­care more gen­er­ally, be­cause it would ad­versely af­fect the mar­ket if it happened on a broad scale, and the chan­ging small-group defin­i­tion ex­acer­bates that risk.

“You may just have healthy groups ex­it­ing the mar­ket al­to­geth­er,” Jost said.

But even giv­en all that, it’s far from cer­tain that the ‘fix’ will be en­acted. The biggest ques­tion is wheth­er the Re­pub­lic­an caucuses as a whole will ac­cept it, without at­tach­ing any pois­on pills that would make it un­ten­able for Demo­crats and Obama.

One lob­by­ist ad­voc­at­ing for the le­gis­la­tion ar­gued that it should be an easy sell to con­ser­vat­ives: It re­peals an Obama­care pro­vi­sion, would pre­vent some people from los­ing their cur­rent health cov­er­age, and re­turns power to the states. But for at least a hand­ful of Re­pub­lic­ans, any­thing less than full ACA re­peal is tan­tamount to sur­render. To ad­vance the meas­ure, con­gres­sion­al lead­ers will need to keep that sen­ti­ment con­tained to a small minor­ity of far-right con­ser­vat­ives.

There are also sure to be some Obama­care sup­port­ers who won’t go along with the change. Sen­ate Minor­ity Whip Dick Durbin, an Illinois Demo­crat, was a pro­ponent of in­creas­ing the small-group mar­ket back in 2009. Small Busi­ness Ma­jor­ity, a pro-ACA group that has of­ten served as a coun­ter­weight to the Cham­ber and the Na­tion­al Fed­er­a­tion of In­de­pend­ent Busi­nesses, would op­pose the bills, ac­cord­ing to its pres­id­ent, John Arens­mey­er.

He ar­gued that the law’s op­pon­ents have been wrong be­fore about al­leged ill ef­fects that the ACA would have, and he thought they would be wrong again about the neg­at­ive im­pact for some em­ploy­ers if the new small-group defin­i­tion were im­ple­men­ted.

“We feel that ul­ti­mately there needs to be a lar­ger pool, that’s go­ing to be a stronger pool, more com­pan­ies in it, more lives in it. Right now, small busi­nesses be­low 50 are be­ing dis­ad­vant­aged by the fact that the mar­ket above 50 doesn’t have to play by the same rules,” he said. “Pretty much con­sist­ently to date, all of the voices of doom and gloom, the Chick­en Little voices out there, have been proved wrong.”

What We're Following See More »
BY 180 DAYS
Trump Delays Tariffs on Japanese and European Cars
3 days ago
THE LATEST
WOULD PRIORITIZE SKILLS OVER FAMILY TIES
Trump Unveils New Immigration Proposal
3 days ago
THE LATEST
HE WILL SIT FOR AN INTERVIEW IN MID-JUNE
Trump Jr. Agrees to Testify in the Senate
5 days ago
THE DETAILS

"Donald Trump Jr. has struck a last minute deal to comply with a subpoena from the Senate Intelligence Committee ... Trump Jr. will sit for an interview some time in mid-June for between two and four hours, with the scope limited to five or six topics pertaining to his communications with Russian officials. This will be the last time Trump Jr. has to testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee, according to the terms of the deal."

Source:
STOCKS, DOLLAR FALL IN RESPONSE
China Hits Back with Tariffs on $60B in U.S. Goods
6 days ago
THE LATEST
IN RETALIATION
China Raising Tariffs
1 weeks ago
THE LATEST
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login