Will Premium Spikes Cause Another Round of Obamacare Bashing?

The health care law’s strong enrollment numbers might not actually mean lower costs for consumers in 2015.

WASHINGTON, DC - OCTOBER 18: Joseph Peterson, 22, Joy Ferguson, 27, and Hugh Surratt, 28, enjoy a leisurely lunch from food trucks at Farragut Square in Washington, DC on October 18, 2013. They said they liked the variety of food and people. 
Washington Post
April 3, 2014, 5 p.m.

Now that Obama­care’s first en­roll­ment win­dow has closed, we know ap­prox­im­ately how many people (at least 7.1 mil­lion) picked an in­sur­ance plan through the law’s new ex­changes. But one thing we still don’t know is wheth­er big premi­um hikes are loom­ing in 2015. The an­swer to that ques­tion — which we won’t be­gin to learn un­til this sum­mer — could go a long way to­ward de­term­in­ing wheth­er Obama­care is suc­cess­ful, not to men­tion in­flu­en­cing the out­come of Novem­ber’s elec­tion. Large spikes, after all, could hand Re­pub­lic­ans a new anti-Obama­care talk­ing point, in the wake of their pre­dic­tions about low over­all en­roll­ment largely fall­ing flat.

So how will next year’s premi­ums be de­cided? One factor will be the fi­nal demo­graph­ic break­down of those who en­rolled in the ex­changes — how many are young and (pre­sum­ably) healthy; how many are older and (pre­sum­ably) more ex­pens­ive to cov­er.

At the end of Feb­ru­ary, young adults con­sti­tuted about 25 per­cent of all sign-ups. That share could eas­ily rise once we see the fi­nal tally — young people were al­ways ex­pec­ted to sign up at the last minute. Even so, the law’s crit­ics have noted re­peatedly that it’s un­likely the mix of young adults will reach the ad­min­is­tra­tion’s ini­tial tar­get of roughly 40 per­cent.

That said, the size of next year’s premi­um in­creases de­pends not on what the ad­min­is­tra­tion pre­dicted, but on what in­sur­ance com­pan­ies pre­dicted. “What really mat­ters is what’s hap­pen­ing on the ground versus what in­surers ex­pec­ted to hap­pen,” says Larry Levitt, seni­or vice pres­id­ent at the Kais­er Fam­ily Found­a­tion. “That’s be­cause in­surers built in some pad­ding, and that pad­ding made premi­ums high­er than they would have been if they had ex­pec­ted a bal­anced risk pool.”

In­surers set their premi­ums for 2014 based on whom they thought would en­roll. If their as­sump­tions were pess­im­ist­ic, that pess­im­ism is already baked in­to the plan’s rates. And there are clear signs that in­surers made much safer bets than the White House did about the mix of young en­rollees.

In­deed, some health care wonks say the White House’s goal for the per­cent­age of young adults in the risk pool was com­pletely un­real­ist­ic. “Forty per­cent was a ri­dicu­lous ex­pect­a­tion,” says Car­oline Pear­son, vice pres­id­ent at con­sult­ing firm Avalere Health. “I don’t think any in­surer in the coun­try priced for that.”

The as­sump­tion among ana­lysts is that the White House got to this num­ber by look­ing at the demo­graph­ics of the over­all un­in­sured pop­u­la­tion. Young adults make up 40 per­cent of all un­in­sured Amer­ic­ans — so, the think­ing ap­par­ently went, they’ll be 40 per­cent of the newly in­sured un­der Obama­care. But the law provides oth­er op­tions ex­clus­ive to young people (such as stay­ing on their par­ents’ plans), and many young adults de­cide they can safely skip the ex­pense of health in­sur­ance (hence the term “young in­vin­cibles”).

All of which ex­plains why in­surers seem to have as­sumed lower turnout by young adults than the White House hoped for. But there’s an­oth­er factor driv­ing health care premi­ums as well. A seni­or ex­ec­ut­ive from Well­Point — the in­surer with the biggest pres­ence in Obama­care’s ex­changes — re­portedly told in­vestors re­cently that the mix of young adults “came in right where we ex­pec­ted it to be,” yet he also raised some eye­brows by say­ing premi­ums would nev­er­the­less in­crease by double di­gits in some mar­kets. The likely cul­prit, health care ana­lysts say, is un­der­ly­ing med­ic­al costs.

In­sur­ance premi­ums re­flect what’s known as “med­ic­al trend” — a met­ric that com­bines the growth in the cost of health care ser­vices with the rate at which people use those ser­vices. Health care spend­ing has been grow­ing at re­cord lows for the past few years, and while the White House has claimed that Obama­care de­serves at least some of the cred­it, the broad­er eco­nom­ic cli­mate is also a big part of the reas­on. The Kais­er Fam­ily Found­a­tion has found that health care spend­ing rises and falls with the eco­nomy, but lags a few years be­hind. That means the eco­nom­ic re­cov­ery might be about to show up in health care — and make premi­ums more ex­pens­ive.

“Based on our mod­el, right about now is when you’d ex­pect the im­prove­ments in the eco­nomy to start put­ting pres­sure on health care costs,” Levitt ex­plains. He says med­ic­al trend will prob­ably pick up by 5 per­cent or 6 per­cent next year. 

On top of that, one of the health care law’s safety-net pro­grams for in­surers be­gins to scale down next year. The law pumped $10 bil­lion in re­in­sur­ance pay­ments in­to the mar­ket this year, to help off­set the risk in­surers shouldered by en­ter­ing a new and un­known mar­ket. Those pay­ments scale down to $6 bil­lion in 2015. Ac­cord­ing to Levitt, that could add an­oth­er 3 or 4 per­cent­age points to premi­ums, on top of med­ic­al costs. “You could get pretty close to 10 per­cent just by those two factors alone,” he says.

Of course, in mar­kets with a lot of com­pet­i­tion, in­surers will have an in­cent­ive to keep their premi­ums low to at­tract as many cus­tom­ers as pos­sible. And Levitt says the demo­graph­ics of Obama­care’s en­rollees — the factor that crit­ics say will cause premi­ums to rise — could ac­tu­ally help keep next year’s costs in check. “If I were an in­surer, I would as­sume that it would get bet­ter. As en­roll­ment grows, you’re more likely to get more young­er and health­i­er people,” he says. “It’s hard to ima­gine the risk pool could pos­sibly get worse in the fu­ture.” But giv­en the oth­er factors in play, that cer­tainly doesn’t rule out spikes in premi­ums.

What We're Following See More »
AVOIDS SHUTDOWN WITH A FEW HOURS TO SPARE
Trump Signs Border Deal
1 days ago
THE LATEST

"President Trump signed a sweeping spending bill Friday afternoon, averting another partial government shutdown. The action came after Trump had declared a national emergency in a move designed to circumvent Congress and build additional barriers at the southern border, where he said the United States faces 'an invasion of our country.'"

Source:
REDIRECTS $8 BILLION
Trump Declares National Emergency
1 days ago
THE DETAILS

"President Donald Trump on Friday declared a state of emergency on the southern border and immediately direct $8 billion to construct or repair as many as 234 miles of a border barrier. The move — which is sure to invite vigorous legal challenges from activists and government officials — comes after Trump failed to get the $5.7 billion he was seeking from lawmakers. Instead, Trump agreed to sign a deal that included just $1.375 for border security."

Source:
COULD SOW DIVISION AMONG REPUBLICANS
House Will Condemn Emergency Declaration
1 days ago
THE DETAILS

"House Democrats are gearing up to pass a joint resolution disapproving of President Trump’s emergency declaration to build his U.S.-Mexico border wall, a move that will force Senate Republicans to vote on a contentious issue that divides their party. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said Thursday evening in an interview with The Washington Post that the House would take up the resolution in the coming days or weeks. The measure is expected to easily clear the Democratic-led House, and because it would be privileged, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) would be forced to put the resolution to a vote that he could lose."

Source:
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, DRUG FORFEITURE FUND
Where Will the Emergency Money Come From?
1 days ago
THE DETAILS

"ABC News has learned the president plans to announce on Friday his intention to spend about $8 billion on the border wall with a mix of spending from Congressional appropriations approved Thursday night, executive action and an emergency declaration. A senior White House official familiar with the plan told ABC News that $1.375 billion would come from the spending bill Congress passed Thursday; $600 million would come from the Treasury Department's drug forfeiture fund; $2.5 billion would come from the Pentagon's drug interdiction program; and through an emergency declaration: $3.5 billion from the Pentagon's military construction budget."

Source:
TRUMP SAYS HE WILL SIGN
House Passes Funding Deal
2 days ago
THE DETAILS

"The House passed a massive border and budget bill that would avert a shutdown and keep the government funded through the end of September. The Senate passed the measure earlier Thursday. The bill provides $1.375 billion for fences, far short of the $5.7 billion President Trump had demanded to fund steel walls. But the president says he will sign the legislation, and instead seek to fund his border wall by declaring a national emergency."

Source:
×
×

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