One of the major problems with the Affordable Care Act will come with the determination of what set of plans recipients can become eligible for. Under the law, Americans who make up to 133% of the federal poverty line can sign up for Medicaid. From 133%-400%, they are eligible to collect subsidies on a sliding scale by participating in the insurance exchanges. So where people fall along those lines will prove challenging. Sarah Kliff gives an example:
Think of a woman earning $10,000 at a part time job. Under the health reform law, she’d qualify for Medicaid: she’s below the earning threshold (133 percent of the federal poverty line, which works out to over $14,500 for an individual).
Let’s say she adds on another part time job, one that pays $5,000. The woman no longer qualifies for Medicaid; she’s above the $14,500 threshold. She moves to the exchange, where she’ll receive heavily subsidized, private insurance.
Income fluctuation like this is really widespread. Back in February, a Health Affairs study estimated that we’re likely to see “millions of adults and their families between Medicaid and state exchanges, often within months of their initial enrollment.”
There are additional challenges here. Because of the change to the law rolling back a 1099 requirement for small businesses, the government is required to claw back exchange subsidies that are over the guidelines from when an individual signed up. If his or her income changes mid-year, they will have those subsidies returned to the government. So that’s another bookkeeping issue. And, states can create a Basic Health Plan for their residents who make between 133-200% of the federal poverty line. This would look like Medicaid, but then slotting people between those three programs (Medicaid, the Basic Health Plan and the exchanges) while also keeping track of the subsidy levels is going to be a bear. And that doesn’t even include CHIP, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, which has its own eligibility rules for kids.
The somewhat good news here is that the seamless coverage regulations proposed by the Department of Health and Human Services have been widely praised. They are designed to do all those calculations backstage, so that the consumer need only to visit one portal to figure out which program they slot into. And it sets up a process for annual eligibility review, so individuals are not responsible for flagging their increase in income. Individuals who end up making too much for Medicaid will get to keep their coverage until they get a new plan on the exchange.
The somewhat bad news is that because of the new rules, the tax credits just got less affordable.
Under the Affordable Care Act, people between 133 and 400 percent of the federal poverty line and insured individuals who have to spend more than 9.5 percent of their household incomes on their employer sponsored plans qualify for subsidized coverage within the exchanges.
Following passage of the law, the Joint Committee on Taxation issued a memo explaining that an employee could only qualify to receive federal subsidies through the exchange if the cost of their single policies exceeded 9.5 percent of income. Friday’s regulations reiterated this interpretation, despite health groups’ efforts to expand the regulation to include the cost of family coverage in the calculation and allow far more people to qualify for subsidized insurance.
Tim Jost has more. This really impacts those who have to spend too much on their employer plans, not those who cannot get coverage from an employer. But it shows how the success of the exchanges is uniquely tied to affordability, which is just not a slam dunk. Already we’ve seen them clawed back as one pay-for. The trigger from the Catfood Commission II could cut into exchanges more. And this new rule will allow less people to be eligible for subsidized insurance.
There’s a less defined, and certainly less powerful, constituency around exchange subsidies than there is around Medicare or even Medicaid. This is a community of previously uninsured people who are just trying to get themselves covered and get some money for it. I don’t know who speaks up on their behalf as their subsidies get ground down.




30 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Gosh, nobody could have foreseen…
And yet, there was and is a perfectly good idea to just cover, um, everybody! in one single-payer program, that would have avoided all of this tweaking and pulling at threads and tossing real people back and forth….
one way or another, does anyone believe the changes we were promised as an Xmas gift in 2009 are gonna happen?
I have no reason to believe this massive boondoggle will actually work, especially after the SCOTUS gets ahold of it (which they will because 2 Fed courts have contradictory rulings)
Color me jaded after the debt ceiling fiasco, but the simpler solution was to take Medicare and open to all. There could still be markets for private insurance, but Americans would finally have some rights to health care.
Can anyone tell me – if Obama really wanted meaningful healthcare reform, why did he go along with a bill that is not likely to be in place in 2014, proclaiming it an accomplishment.
There are no accomplishments until something happens.
Instead of letting the repugs take over in 2010, this could have been the central issue of the campaign. Obama himself could have run against the blue dogs that undermined his original “vision”.
For what purpose did it serve to kick the can down the road (2014), promise everyone a pony, and not have a real message or agenda to run on in 2010?
The historic losses of that election year really need to be laid at the feet of Obama and dem leadership.
But they blame use – go figure.
It’s like welfare reform. We pretended to poverty didn’t we? I mean you sure won’t see any poor person showing up near a Democrat these days. Now, Democrats will pretend no one goes without healthcare.
At least the Republicans admit what they’re all about. I mean you can at least fight them on these issues. You know what side they are on.
What do you do about the Democrats?
Medicare-For-All wasn’t corporate enough so of course that couldn’t be considered…the constituency that mattered was all the corporate lobbyists who met with Obama behind close doors to make things as expensive as possible while doing more and more cost shifting. Expect to see more cost shifting being falsely called bending the cost curve.
Almost everything about the ACA (with the sole exception being an end to banning pre-existing conditions) was a massive fail. Also, the fact that more people are going without health insurance now than under Bush makes the fail even more massive. The simple fact that Obama and the “supposed” party of FDR and LBJ gave us Bob Dole’s health care plan from 1993 tells us all we need to know about Obama, and the national Democratic Party – DINO’s and closet Repubs, all of them.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-09-17-uninsured17_ST_N.htm
My guess is it will never happen. Just like the economy isn’t coming up in the near future. The idiots are doing the wrong things.
May be in the long run good news for single payer health insurance.
I’m a small business owner and I don’t know if I even qualify for any coverage under ACA. A few years ago I took over as owner of our family business from my mother who was the founder of the business. We did this because she was getting older and didn’t want me to have any trouble from the state (Texas) keeping the business going after she passed away. Right now we are barely paying the bills so my income is basically zero.
Does anyone have a clue whether I’m eligable for any coverage or not?
I asked early on while following the PPACA debate and reading the legislative drafts just how much otherwise actual clinical care would be foregone so we could have yet another endlessly means-testing bureaucracy. The PPACA is largely both “corporate welfare” and regular old “welfare.”
http://bgladd.blogspot.com/2009/08/public-optional.html
http://bgladd.blogspot.com/2009/07/doing-some-basic-health-care-reform.html
I honestly don’t know if you do or don’t Jerry. I would take your income statements to Texas Department of Health and Human Services to get more information. Best of luck.
“There’s a less defined, and certainly less powerful, constituency around exchange subsidies than there is around Medicare or even Medicaid. This is a community of previously uninsured people who are just trying to get themselves covered and get some money for it. I don’t know who speaks up on their behalf at their subsidies get ground down.”
___
Y’see, we don’t want health care, we want umpty-six hundred inscrutable “health care plans“.
It really is important to not let them get away with conflating insurance with medical care. That defining debate never happened with the ACA goings on. When they talk about all these provisions with their various euphemisms the question should be asked what does the mean in health care? and answered.
From my first health policy reform post (May 2009):
http://bgladd.blogspot.com/2009/05/us-health-care-policy-morass.html
If it’s a small business you should be eligible for subsidies today for providing coverage for your employees. If you meet the right parameters, by 2014 you could put your business coverage into the exchanges with a SHOP plan. I would check healthcare.gov for information.
I think ACA will be gone like a fart in a whirlwind relative to what’s on the books now, and regardless of the next election.
I’m a single payer type and conclude society has a right to evolve in what it deems are rights and valid expectations. It will generally move forward in fits and starts that way. ACA’s individual mandate was cooked up as a diversion by the powers, who had to hastily come up with a solution while minimizing accountability. Something is missing, and something else toxic has taken its place.
It seems clear there are problems with ACA as it is on the books now. No doubt more will crop up. The severity got worse last November, and now ACA faces a cranky House which is at scotching the whole thing (or letting it die on the vine) rather than fixing what’s there. That assumes SCOTUS doesn’t scotch ACA first.
Meanwhile, from ACA boosters we continue to hear sanguine assumptions of progress in this regime going forward. Have they been asleep and still think they’re controlling something with shelf life?
For example, those expecting Congress will amend ACA for Vermont’s single payer by 2014 had better tell us how they’re going to take back the House next year with the plurality to make Vermont a nationwide cause celebre. Why doesn’t a really big state or two jump into that fray? I think the answer tells us why it won’t work that way just at the state level despite good intentions.
I think the single payer types, and the fewer single payer / single source types like me, will eventually get some valid version of what we want at the Fed level. It’s going to take a lot longer than we’d like, but what’s there now really stinks.
“Because of the change to the law rolling back a 1099 requirement for small businesses, the government is required to claw back exchange subsidies that are over the guidelines from when an individual signed up. If his or her income changes mid-year, they will have those subsidies returned to the government. So that’s another bookkeeping issue. And, states can create a Basic Health Plan for their residents who make between 133-200% of the federal poverty line. This would look like Medicaid, but then slotting people between those three programs (Medicaid, the Basic Health Plan and the exchanges) while also keeping track of the subsidy levels is going to be a bear. And that doesn’t even include CHIP, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, which has its own eligibility rules for kids.”
___
That is simply fucking crazy.
So how exactly is this going to work for adult children now covered by their parents policy but actively in the work force (until age 25)? This seems like it will be a paperwork and algebraic nightmare since adult children often file separately income taxwise but it seems there income should/ would count just like a spouse’s would for these “subsidies”?
So why not a multi-year rolling average of annual income?
A Byzantine system
Sure more austerity, poverty, and less jobs will help the economy. They told me so at KOS!
While setting us up to make the insurance companies even more profitable, somehow or other this on-going massive fraud in health care that absorbs even more of our money continues:
“According to some shocking new statistics from the nonprofit Taxpayers Against Fraud (TAF) public interest group, the ranks of the admitted federal cheaters are occupied almost entirely by health insurers and the healthcare pharmaceutical industry.
“That’s the clear and thoroughly disturbing conclusion to be found in a revealing TAF study of the “Top 20” fraud lawsuits (ranked by dollar amounts) to have been decided by court judgments or agreed-upon settlements in recent years. Amazingly, the list of penalty awards – as adjudicated under legal procedures mandated by the U.S. False Claims Act – contains no fewer than 19 healthcare or health insurance entities . . . and only a single financial entity who isn’t engaged in the business of health insurance or medical care.
. . .
“The first step on the road to getting healthcare reform right is to understand that we are not on a “level playing field,” and that the health industry will stop at nothing to protect its immense profits, regardless of the needless death and the needless suffering their behavior may cause the rest of us.”
Hey, don’t worry, David, it’s OK. Don’t you know that we have to look forward, not backward? “…that was last year. why talk about it?” I’m looking forward right now…to a banner year for food stamps and home surgeries.
Don’t forget those lower taxes for the rich making the economy grow. From Obama’s mouth just now on the Tee Vee.
My friend in British Columbia, CANADA!, pays 60/month.
If you make nothing, you file a form and based on your pay, you get the help you need.
http://www.health.gov.bc.ca/msp/infoben/premium.html
“Effective January 1, 2011, monthly rates are $60.50 for one person, $109.00 for a family of two and $121.00 for a family of three or more.”
http://www.health.gov.bc.ca/msp/infoben/premium.html#monthly
1st Line = Adjusted Net Income
2nd Line = Subsidy Level
3rd Line = One Person
4th Line = Family of Two
5th Line = Family of Three or More
$0 – $22,000
100% premium assistance
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$22,001 – $24,000
80% premium assistance
$12.10
$21.80
$24.20
$24,001 – $26,000
60% premium assistance
$24.20
$43.60
$48.40
$26001 – $28,000
40% premium assistance
$36.30
$65.40
$72.60
$28,001 – $30,000
20% premium assistance
$48.40
$87.20
$96.80
Over $30,000
Full Rate
$60.50
$109.00
$121.00
——————-
So if you make over 30k/year, then you pay the regular.
The regular for
1 person is 60.50
2 people is 109
3 or more is 121.
SO A FING FAMILY OF 3 OR MORE PAYS 121 PER MONTH. OR $1452 PER YEAR!!!
I paid more than that for a NJ individual plan for myself.
My retirement savings have gone to Aetna. Well, the execs with the big compensation packages….
David,
Can you confirm expanded Medicaid access isn’t subject to any asset test? Because current Medicaid beneficiaries are.
This means even if you have no or very little income, any liquid asset (401K, savings account, IRA, checking account, etc) that adds up to “over the limit” disqualifies you for Medicaid. In my home state of PA, that limit is just $2500.
Scary stuff.
Which is what they want.
I can’t believe that many families are paying what amounts to a mortgage for health insurance, not health care.
Insanity.
What kind of health care does that buy you? Not being snarky. Just a reminder of the difference in care and insurance.
Got there ahead of me.
“Fewer” people, not “less.”