Insurers Up in Arms Over GOP’s New Obamacare Attack

The largest firms sat quietly through umpteen repeal votes — so why are they flipping out now?

Risk corridor: GOP bugaboo. 
National Journal
Sam Baker
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
Sam Baker
Feb. 10, 2014, midnight

While Re­pub­lic­ans spent years go­ing for Obama- care’s jug­u­lar, in­sur­ance com­pan­ies kept calm and car­ried on. Through dozens of re­peal votes in the House, in­clud­ing sev­er­al that would have un­done parts of the law the in­dustry de­pends on, the largest firms stood on the side­lines. Throughout the nearly four years of post-Obama­care polit­ic­al mael­strom, their power­ful lob­by­ing op­er­a­tions let polit­ics run their course. So why now — just as Re­pub­lic­ans are chan­ging their tack to take on a wonky, low-pro­file part of the law — is the in­dustry alarmed?

Be­cause this wonky, low-pro­file part of the law, per­haps more than any oth­er, provides a safety net that in­sur­ance com­pan­ies con­sider es­sen­tial. And the at­tack on it has some large car­ri­ers on the verge of apo­plexy, in part be­cause Re­pub­lic­ans have sup­por­ted nearly identic­al pro­grams in the past.

At is­sue are the Af­ford­able Care Act’s “risk cor­ridors” — part of a three-pronged safety net de­signed to sta­bil­ize the in­sur­ance mar­ket in case ACA en­roll­ment works out dif­fer­ently than ex­pec­ted. Through risk cor­ridors, the gov­ern­ment helps soften un­ex­pec­ted losses and shares in un­ex­pec­ted gains.

Re­pub­lic­ans, however, con­tend the pro­gram is an “in­surer bail­out” be­cause it puts the gov­ern­ment on the hook for some of in­surers’ losses — and Re­pub­lic­ans in­sist that losses are in­ev­it­able. Cer­tain con­ser­vat­ives, led by Sen. Marco Ru­bio, want to re­peal the Af­ford­able Care Act’s risk cor­ridors, per­haps as part of a deal to raise the debt ceil­ing.

Re­peal­ing the risk cor­ridors would be ter­rible for in­sur­ance com­pan­ies — and for Obama- care. Premi­ums would rise, and some plans might de­cide to leave the law’s new mar­ket­places al­to­geth­er. But the same could be said about plenty of anti-Obama­care bills. Had Re­pub­lic­ans suc­ceeded in their push to re­peal the law’s in­di­vidu­al man­date, in­surers would have be­come cus­todi­ans of an im­possible in­dustry. Pro­pos­als to un-can­cel cer­tain in­sur­ance policies threatened Obama­care’s mar­kets. Elim­in­at­ing sub­sidies to buy in­sur­ance would drain in­surers’ new cus­tom­er base.

In­surers made their ar­gu­ments against those meas­ures, sure, but they didn’t get es­pe­cially riled up over them. They de­clined to openly break with their Re­pub­lic­an al­lies, and they could count on the Demo­crat­ic Sen­ate and the White House to kill any­thing that would ac­tu­ally destabil­ize the law. Giv­en that the same polit­ic­al dy­nam­ic ap­plies to risk cor­ridors, why the sud­den pan­ic? (A sample: The Blue Cross Blue Shield As­so­ci­ation, in talk­ing points, re­cently said re­peal­ing risk cor­ridors could be a gate­way to a single-pay­er sys­tem.)

For starters, some health care ex­perts said, the charge of a “bail­out for in­sur­ance com­pan­ies” sounds a lot more like an at­tack on in­surers than an at­tack on Obama­care. Second, this de­bate is new. By the time the House voted to re­peal the in­di­vidu­al man­date, the mer­its of that is­sue had been lit­ig­ated for years. But hardly any­one un­der­stands the eco­nom­ics be­hind the cor­ridors, so in­dustry of­fi­cials say they have to make sure the “bail­out” la­bel doesn’t stick. “There’s a fair amount of mis­un­der­stand­ing about what these pro­grams are.”¦ These are really ar­cane pro­grams,” says one in­dustry of­fi­cial who asked for an­onym­ity to com­ment on pro­pos­als from the GOP, which is nor­mally an ally.

Third, in­surers know they need risk cor­ridors — and they know Re­pub­lic­ans have re­cog­nized that need in the past. “Be­cause we are not sure that the private sec­tor will get enough money in the gov­ern­ment re­im­burse­ments to the plan,” Re­pub­lic­an Sen. Jon Kyl said in 2003, talk­ing about cre­at­ing Medi­care Part D, “we’ll need to cre­ate some risk cor­ridors. We need to cre­ate a sta­bil­iz­a­tion fund.” Mark Mc­Cle­l­lan, serving at the time as Pres­id­ent Bush’s Medi­care ad­min­is­trat­or, said in 2004 that “risk cor­ridors will al­low the gov­ern­ment to share in any un­ex­pec­ted gains or losses that the plans in­cur and help plans in the early years of the re­gion­al plan pro­gram while they gain ex­per­i­ence.”

Obama­care’s risk cor­ridors work a lot like Medi­care Part D’s. When in­sur­ance com­pan­ies’ costs are high­er than ex­pec­ted, the gov­ern­ment helps cov­er some of the unanti­cip­ated spend­ing. When in­surers’ real-world costs are lower than ex­pec­ted, they pay in­to the same fund. It’s pos­sible, there­fore, for the gov­ern­ment to pay out tax dol­lars to in­sur­ance com­pan­ies if their ex­per­i­ence is es­pe­cially bad.

But the Con­gres­sion­al Budget Of­fice said this week that it doesn’t ex­pect that to hap­pen. It es­tim­ated that the Af­ford­able Care Act’s risk cor­ridors will ac­tu­ally save the gov­ern­ment money. In­surers will pay in about $8 bil­lion more than they take out, CBO said. Ru­bio’s of­fice calls this an in­com­plete ana­lys­is. CBO didn’t base its es­tim­ate on who has en­rolled so far in Af­ford­able Care Act plans, and, based on cur­rent demo­graph­ics, “it’s all but guar­an­teed that tax­pay­ers will be bail­ing out the in­sur­ance com­pan­ies for Obama­care, which is what we’re try­ing to stop,” a Ru­bio spokes­man says.

The goal was to coax in­surers in­to new mar­ket­places, where they would, by defin­i­tion, have to make their best guess about who their new cus­tom­ers would be. Risk cor­ridors, along with risk ad­just­ment and re­in­sur­ance, are de­signed to smooth that trans­ition. “The same pro­grams [have been] used for over 20 years in gov­ern­ment to en­cour­age private in­surers to part­ner in fed­er­al-private part­ner­ships when you don’t know the risk you’re tak­ing on in the early years of a pro­gram,” the in­dustry of­fi­cial says.

What We're Following See More »
CANNOT “IN GOOD CONSCIENCE” VOTE FOR BILL
McCain Won’t Support Graham-Cassidy Bill
2 hours ago
THE LATEST

In a statement Friday, Sen. John McCain wrote, "I cannot in good conscience vote for the Graham-Cassidy proposal. I believe we could do better working together, Republicans and Democrats, and have not yet really tried. Nor could I support it without knowing how much it will cost, how it will effect insurance premiums, and how many people will be helped or hurt by it. Without a full CBO score, which won't be available by the end of the month, we won't have reliable answers to any of those questions." His "no" vote makes it much less likely Republicans will repeal and replace Obamacare by Sept. 30.

Source:
NEW DIRECTIVES ISSUED
DeVos Officially Replaces Obama-era Sexual Assault Guidelines
3 hours ago
THE LATEST

As anticipated, the Department of Education today withdrew the controversial Obama-era "Dear Colleague" letter on campus sexual assault, replacing it with new interim guidance. Most notably, the new guidance permits colleges to use a “clear and convincing” standard of evidence, rather than the preponderance of evidence standard that the 2011 letter seemed to mandate. "The new guidance also states that colleges may facilitate informal resolutions, including mediation, if all parties agree to participate in that process."

Source:
EXPECTED TO TAKE EFFECT BY SUNDAY
Country-Specific Rules to Replace Travel Ban
4 hours ago
THE LATEST

"The Trump administration will unveil more tailored restrictions on travelers from certain countries as a replacement to the controversial travel ban, according to a senior administration official. The new restrictions will vary by country. They could include a ban on travel to the United States, or new restrictions on obtaining a visa for citizens of particular countries." They are expected to be unveiled by Sunday.

Source:
MORE TRANSPARENCY THAN FEC REQUIRES
Facebook Enhances Disclosure for Political Ads
5 hours ago
THE DETAILS

In a live-streamed address from Silicon Valley, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg announced a nine-point plan that the tech giant is rolling out over coming months to respond to "efforts by nation-states and private actors to use the social media platform to influence U.S. elections." Most importantly, the company will force all advertisers to disclose what ads they're running to all audiences. “When someone buys political ads on TV or other media, they’re required by law to disclose who paid for them,” Zuckerberg said. “But you still don’t know if you’re seeing the same messages as everyone else. So we’re going to bring Facebook to an even higher standard of transparency. Not only will you have to disclose which page paid for an ad, but we will also make it so you can visit an advertiser’s page and see the ads they’re currently running to any audience on Facebook.”

Source:
TRUMP ADMIN CRACKING DOWN ON LEAKS
Mandatory Training EPA Employees on Leaking
6 hours ago
THE DETAILS

As "part of a broader Trump administration order for anti-leaks training at all executive branch agencies," Environmental Protection Agency employees "are attending mandatory training sessions this week to reinforce their compliance with laws and rules against leaking classified or sensitive government information ... Relatively few EPA employees deal with classified files, but the new training also reinforces requirements to keep 'Controlled Unclassified Information' from unauthorized disclosure."

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