Friday, October 25, 2013

The Coverage Gap: The Real Failure of Obamacare

Right now, the corporate media are focused like a laser on the “scandal” of the malfunctioning of the national health insurance exchange website. Although these glitches reflect negatively on the Obama administration, they are technical problems that will be fixed. They have nothing to do with the substance of the law. A more important failure is the number of people, particularly poor people, who will remain uninsured after the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is implemented. This is not the fault of the act as written, but is the result of the Supreme Court decision on its constitutionality and intractable opposition from Republican politicians.

An October study by the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) estimates that 5.2 million non-elderly adults living below the federal poverty level (FPL) will remain uninsured in 2014 because they live in the 26 states that—at the time of the study—had declined to participate in the Medicaid expansion. These states are concentrated in the South and West and are controlled largely by Republican governors and legislatures. About half of Americans, but 58% of America's uninsured working poor, live in those states. Pennsylvania is among them. Our Medicaid expansion status is uncertain, but even if the Corbett administration reaches agreement with the federal government on an expansion plan, it is unlikely to be implemented in 2014.

To review, of the approximately 30 million people who were expected to be insured for the first time under the ACA, fully half of them—the poorest half—were to be insured through Medicaid expansion. Traditional Medicaid is jointly administered by the state and federal governments. Federal law requires that all children be covered if their family makes less than the FPL. Children under six are covered up to 133% of FPL. The eligibility rules for adults are determined by the states. In most states, adults without children don't qualify no matter how poor they are. The income level at which parents with dependent children qualify for Medicaid varies from a low of about 20% of FPL in the least generous states to a high of 133% is the most generous states. (In Pennsylvania, it is 46%.)

The ACA expanded Medicaid by making everyone—children and adults—eligible for Medicaid if their family income is 138% of FPL or less. Since this is expensive, the feds agreed to pay most of the cost: 100% in 2014, dropping to 95% in 2017 and 90% in 2020. The ACA required states to implement Medicaid expansion. If they refused, the federal government threatened to withhold its contribution to traditional Medicare—about 57% of the cost. However, this clashed with the conservative majority of the Supreme Court's long-term goal of rolling back federal regulation of the states. In National Federation of Independent Business v. Sibeliusthe Supremes decided that the Medicaid expansion rules were coercive and that states may opt out. This denies medical care to many of the Americans who need it most, people who fall into the coverage gap.

The ACA provides subsidies, on a sliding scale, for people individuals and families whose income is between 100% and 400% of FPL. The coverage gap consists of those people, living in states that do not expand Medicaid, who are not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid in their state, but whose income is below 100% of FPL, the level at which the subsidies kick in. This is illustrated in the chart below.

As noted, poor and uninsured Americans tend to be concentrated in the “red states” that are not expanding Medicaid. Twenty percent of the people in the coverage gap live in Texas, and another 15% live in Florida, followed by Georgia with 8% and North Carolina with 6%. At present, 6.8% of the residents of states that are participating Medicaid expansion are poor and uninsured, but 9.1% of the residents of the refusing states are poor and uninsured. The chart below shows the breakdown of the poor and uninsured by race, and shows that Medicaid expansion has a discriminatory impact.
Live in States Expanding
Live in States Not Expanding
White
40%
60%
Black
32%
68%
Hispanic
51%
49%
Asian
70%
30%
Total
42%
58%
These are America's working poor. By occupation, the folks most likely to be poor and uninsured are (1) cashiers, (2) construction laborers, (3) housekeepers, (4) cooks, and (5) waiters and waitresses.

At the time the ACA was passed, single payer advocates noted that the ACA provided less than universal coverage. The largest excluded group is undocumented immigrants, but the ACA also excludes native Americans and people who are incarcerated, have a religious objection, or can prove financial hardship. To that we must now add 5.2 million working poor Americans, a target group that the ACA was clearly intended to help. These people are being left to die for lack of health care. It will be interesting to see whether they respond at the ballot box when they realize what their state politicians have done to them.

Single payer health insurance is needed now more than ever.

You may also be interested in reading:



Saturday, October 19, 2013

Save Dollars. Save Lives: An evening with Dr. Gerald Friedman



Save Dollars. Save Lives. 

The Economic “Cents” Behind Single-Payer Health Care Reform 
An evening with Dr. Gerald Friedman 
Tuesday, November 19th from 7-9 PM 
First Unitarian Church of Pittsburgh 
605 Morewood Ave. 
Pittsburgh, PA 15213 

This event is brought to you by Health Care 4 All Pa, The University of Pittsburgh School of Social Work and the First Unitarian Church of Pittsburgh. Dr. Friedman earned a PhD in Economics from Harvard University. He is a Professor of Economics at the University of Massachusetts - Amherst, and the author of “The Pennsylvania Health Care Plan: Impact and Implementation”


Come learn more about: Key features of the Pennsylvania Health Care Plan (Established by SB 400, introduced to State Senate by primary sponsor Jim Ferlo) The findings of Dr. Friedman’s Economic Impact Study & current developments in health care reform Please bring your questions! For more information contact Bob Mason: bmasona@gmail.com Or visit healthcare4allpa.org

PUSH now on PayPal

You can now donate to Healthcare for All PA/PUSH at the PayPal button on the right.  You can donate online securely.  You can also decide to make the donation either one time or recurring.  All donations go to local support PUSH activities.

Thursday, October 3, 2013

The Affordable Care Act in Effect So Far

Follow my blog with Bloglovin

In my post:


The Affordable Care Act (ACA) having little effect on

 PA's Uninsured Rate So Far


I received several comments on Facebook like this one:

"It has had little effect on Pennsylvania's uninsured because 1. the state insurance exchanges don't open until Oct. 1, and 2. because Corbett and the GOP Legislature refused to expand Medicaid coverage in Pennsylvania"

The commenters points were correct at the time.  The exchange is running regardless of the Ted Cruz inspired shutdown.  Pennsylvania has a federal exchange due to Corbett's refusal to set one up for the state.  The Gov. has proposed a modified medicaid expansion which Lloyd Stires has critiqued and has to be approved by the federal government.  Aaron Carroll and John Green (both of whom have videos posted on thos blog and have voiced support for single payer in the past) have posted a YouTube video discussing the Affordable Care Act. 47 million were still uninsured in 2012



I was going to look at how the act has impacted the uninsured in other states so far according to the Census Bureau but alas their website is down due to the shutdown.  It will be at least a year before we will know the full impact of the ACA's implementation.  Massachusetts, which has had it's version of the Act since 2006, has run at around 5% uninsured which is not cause for celebration in our book.  I will look at the other states when Census website is up.  Whenever that is.
**Update**



Democracy Now has a good discussion on the Affordable Care Act and the budget shutdown.

**Related Posts**

Thursday, September 26, 2013

Ted Cruz Does a Reach Around on the Affordable Care Act


Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) launched a 21 hour pseudofilibuster on a bill with a provision which he voted for to defund the Affordable Care Act which Jon Stewart beautifully lampoons above.  He claimed that the act would increase premiums for everyone and for small businesses while denying care.  The White House came out with data projecting what premiums will be for each state including Pennsylvania which looks cheaper that what I'm paying now.  The full report can be read here.  The proof will be in the pudding when the exchanges start operating Oct. 1 on the cost and adequacy of care.  Ted Cruz's state has 25.7% uninsured.

As an aside, Healthcare for All PA has been featured in The Huffington Post in an article by Linda Bergthold.  The Economic Impact Study, The Healthy Artists Project, and The State Single Payer bills are discussed.


**Related Posts**



A Statistical Profile of the Uninsured in Washington, DC, New Mexico, and Texas


Wednesday, September 18, 2013

A Clouded Vision, Part 2: The Carrot

Please read Part 1 of this post.

The Carrot

If the Obama administration agrees to the Medicaid "reforms" described in Part 1, then Pennsylvania will accept its gift of virtually free money. However, there is an important catch. People who make up to 133% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) will be given this money to purchase private insurance policies through the national health insurance exchange. (Corbett refused to establish a PA exchange, so Pennsylvanians will be using the national exchange.) This means that people who would have been eligible for Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) will now be exposed to all the disadvantages associated with the private insurance market, including copayments that are likely to be considerably higher than PA Medicaid's current copayments. An exception is made for people in this income group deemed to be “medically frail,” who will be allowed to enroll in PA Medicaid.

Moreover, there is ambiguity in the meaning of this proposal. Most of you probably know that private health insurance offering comparable coverage is significantly more expensive than Medicaid—about $3000 more per person per year, according to the Congressional Budget Office. It is possible that Corbett is asking the federal government to pay the full cost of these private policies, in which case it will be paying more for Medicaid expansion in PA than in other states. The other possibility is that Pennsylvanians will be given a sum of money comparable to the cost of Medicaid, and they will either have to pay part of the premium themselves or accept less comprehensive coverage. A similar plan proposed by Arkansas asks the federal government to pay the full cost of Arkansans' private insurance, but it's not certain if this is legal. If this is what Corbett is proposing, people from other states are being asked to pick up part of the tab for PA's more expensive private health insurance! Since conservatives claim to be concerned about the high cost of providing health care to poor people, this seems like an odd stance for them to be taking.

Not mentioned is the fact that adding so many low income people to the exchanges will almost certainly drive up the cost of insurance premiums for everyone, since they are likely to be in poorer health than the general population.

There is no timetable for when Corbett's plan will take effect, but since it was not submitted to the Obama administration until now, it's unlikely to be available in January 2014.

People who are committed to health care for all Pennsylvanians will find obvious drawbacks to Corbett's Medicaid “reform” package. It significantly weakens the Medicaid program. It increases costs and reduces benefits for the poorest Pennsylvanians, and is almost certain to result in less actual health care being received. The job search requirements are unnecessarily punitive in an economy that falls far short of providing full employment and seem designed to force Pennsylvanians to accept jobs that fail to provide a living wage.

The “expansion” component of the package is likely to drive a wedge between progressive groups. On the one hand, it's just more corporate welfare for the private health insurance companies, corporations that are almost certainly among Corbett's and the Republicans' more generous contributors. On the other hand, if the proposal is accepted, 500,000 to 700,000 working class Pennsylvanians who are presently uninsured will receive some health care. It won't be as good as what they would have received under the ACA, but many progressives will argue that something is better than nothing.

Compared to Medicaid expansion under the ACA, The two parts of Corbett's plan  represent a significant transfer of wealth from PA's poor and working class citizens to some of its largest and most profitable corporations.

Single-payer health care advocates are faced with a similar conflict to the one they faced with the ACA. Is half a loaf better than none? As the loaf gets progressively smaller, at what point do we withdraw our support and say, “No more!”?

Whether Corbett's plan will be implemented depends on whether it is accepted by the Obama administration. How “flexible” is the President willing to be? Similar plans have been advanced by Arkansas and Iowa, but Health and Human Services has not yet announced whether they will be approved. One feature of Corbett's plan that is unprecedented is the job search requirement as a condition of receiving Medicaid. Some states charge monthly premiums for Medicaid, but only for people with incomes above 100% of FPL. Are there any health care principles that Obama will not compromise? Having already moved pretty far to the right, Corbett's plan may seem to the White House to be just a baby step further.

Watch this space. Further details of the plan and data describing its financial impact are likely to become available soon. I will update this report as soon as they do.

You may also be interested in reading: