Premium and Cost-Sharing Subsidies under Premium and Cost Sharing Subsidies under

advertisement
Premium and Cost
Cost-Sharing
Sharing Subsidies under
Health Reform: Implications for Coverage,
Costs and Affordability - Update
Costs,
Bowen Garrett ([email protected])
( g
@
g)
Lisa Clemans-Cope
Matthew Buettgens
2009 report: http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=411992
Academy Health
Boston, MA, June 29, 2010
This research was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
URBAN INSTITUTE
Research Questions
• What are the coverage, cost, and affordability
implications of the premium and cost-sharing
subsidies in the Affordable Care Act (ACA)?
–B
Benefits
fit off providing
idi affordable
ff d bl options
ti
mustt be
b
balanced against costs to government
–G
Greater affordability
ff d bili iincreases compliance
li
with
i h the
h
individual mandate
– High compliance is needed for broad risk pools
• What if subsidies were further enhanced?
URBAN INSTITUTE
Will Premium and Cost-Sharing
g Subsidies
be Adequate?
• Burdens for some families can be high
under ACA
– e.g., 20% or more
• States could enhance federal subsidies
with their own funds
• Fed or states could target further
subsidies to reduce financial burdens of
premiums and cost
cost-sharing
sharing for specific
groups
URBAN INSTITUTE
Maax premium as %
% of inco
ome
Premium Subsidy Levels
9.5%
10.0%
9.5%
9.5%
8.05%
9.0%
8.0%
8.0%
6.3%
7.0%
6 0%
6.0%
5.0%
4.0%
4.0%
3.0%
3.0%
2.0%
1.0%
0.0%
100%
0.0%
150%
200%
250%
300%
350%
Income as a % of FPL
ACA
URBAN INSTITUTE
Enhanced
400%
Acctuarial vvalues w
with subsidy
Cost-Sharing Subsidy Levels Result in
these Actuarial Values
100%
9 %
95%
90%
85%
80%
75%
70%
65%
100%
150%
200%
250%
300%
350%
Income as a % of FPL
ACA Law
ACA Law
Enhanced
URBAN INSTITUTE
400%
Health Insurance Policy Simulation Model (HIPSM)
• Detailed microsimulation model of the health care
system
• Estimates the cost and coverage effects of proposed
h lth care policy
health
li options
ti
• Developed by researchers at the Urban Institute, a
nonprofit nonpartisan policy research organization
nonprofit,
• Predecessor model used to provide a roadmap for
the 2006 legislation in Massachusetts
• Recent work modeled reform options for New York,
national reform options, and gave technical
assistance to officials of the Obama administration
URBAN INSTITUTE
HIPSM Simulates Coverage Decisions of
Employers, Families, and Individuals
• Uses CPS matched with several national data sets
• Simulates state Medicaid eligibility and enrollment
• Adjusts
Adj
for
f CPS Medicaid
M di id undercount
d
• “Synthetic” firms simulate the preferences of
employees
l
• Premiums for employer and non-group health
insurance risk pools are computed iteratively based
on medical expenses, administrative load, and
subsidies
URBAN INSTITUTE
Behavioral Effects in HIPSM
• Utility-based
y
approach
pp
– Individuals choose the available option that provides them the
highest utility
– Firms offer based on preference of median worker
– The utility-based approach can better estimate effects of
reforms that are well outside historical experience
• Total utility = Specified utility + Latent utility (error term)
• Key to HIPSM’s mechanics are the imputed error terms
that:
– Ensure baseline coverage is optimal
– Yield premium elasticity and take-up rates consistent with
assumed targets
URBAN INSTITUTE
In HIPSM,
HIPSM Dollar
Dollar-Valued
Valued Specified Utility for
Each Coverage Option Depends on
• Expected out-of-pocket health care
expenses
• Variance of out-of-pocket health care
expenses
• Value of health care consumed
• Out-of-pocket premiums
• Tax incentives
• Expected out-of-pocket expenses / income
URBAN INSTITUTE
What is modeled here?
• The major
j coverage
g p
provisions of the Affordable Care
Act
– Medicaid expansion to 133% FPL
– Premium rating rules
– ESI and nongroup exchanges
– Premium and cost-sharing subsidies
– Small group tax credits
– Employer assessments
– Individual mandate
• As if fully implemented in 2010; single year estimates
URBAN INSTITUTE
Nu
umber of Nonelderlyy
Estimated Reduction in Uninsured Due to
ACA
60m
50.0
50m
40
40m
30m
20m
21.1
10m
0m
Remaining uninsured
g
(in millions)
All figures preliminary
URBAN INSTITUTE
Baseline
ACA
Effects of ACA on Health Insurance
Coverage
300m
Nu
umber of N
Nonelderly
250m
200m
150m
50.0
21.1
8.7
Uninsured
87
8.7
60.4
Other (incl Medicare)
43.1
14 8
14.8
Medicaid/Public
41 6
41.6
12.4
100m
151.3
50m
123.6
Exchange
Nongroup (Excl
g )
Exchange)
Employer (Excl
Exchange)
All fi
figures preliminary
li i
0m
URBAN INSTITUTE
Baseline
ACA
Effects of ACA on Health Care Spending
$120b
$100b
$ Billions
$80b
$
$60b
Aggregate Change in Spending $53.8 Billion $
$11.7
$8.6
Household
$34.5
Employer
Uncompensated Care
$40b
$20b
$0b
$50.2
‐$14.3
‐$20b
‐$40b
Exchange Subsidies
g
Medicaid/Public
‐$36.9
ACA
URBAN INSTITUTE
Other Net Govt
All figures preliminary
Enhanced Subsidies Would Further
R d
Reduce
N
Number
b off U
Uninsured,
i
d M
Modestly
d tl
Nu
umber o
of Nonelderly
60m
50.0
Baseline
50m
40m
30m
20m
21 1
21.1
19.7
ACA
10
10m
0m
Remaining uninsured
(in millions)
URBAN INSTITUTE
All figures preliminary
Enhanced
Subsidies
N
Number of None
elderly
Enhanced Subsidies Would Increase Nongroup
Enrollment in Exchange
45m
40m
35m
30m
25m
20m
0m
15m
10m
5
5m
0m
URBAN INSTITUTE
41.6m
42.7m
15.2
16.6
26.4
26.1
ACA
C
Enhanced
h
d
Subsidies
All figures preliminary
Exchange
g
Nongroup
Exchange
Employer
Enhanced Subsidies Would Raise Overall Costs
Somewhat
$120b
Aggregate Change in Spending
$53.8 $55.8 Medicaid/Public
$100b
$80b
$50.9
$50.2
Employer
$ Billlions
$60b
$5.0
$8.6
$40b
$34.5
$45.1
$11.7
‐$14.3
$14 3
$8.6
‐$14.4
$14 4
Exchange Subsidies
Exchange Subsidies
‐$36.9
‐$39.4
Household
Other Net Gvt
$20b
$0b
Uncompensated
Care
‐$20b
‐$40b
‐$60b
ACA
URBAN INSTITUTE
Enhanced Subsidies
All figures preliminary
He
ealth Care Costs a
as Percent of Inccome
Median Health Care Cost Burdens for
Nongroup Exchange Coverage
30%
25%
ACA
20%
14.1%13.8%
15%
10.3%
10%
10.9%11.1%
300– 399%
FPL
400– 499% 500% FPL or
FPL
more
6.8%
6.3%
5%
11.1%
9.7%
2.8%
0%
133– 199%
FPL
URBAN INSTITUTE
200– 299%
FPL
All figures preliminary
Enhanced
Subsidies
He
ealth Carre Costs a
as a Perccent of In
ncome
90th Percentile Health Care Cost Burdens for
g p Exchange
g Coverage
g
Nongroup
30%
24.3% 24.0%
25%
10%
20.6% 20.5%
19.2%
20%
15%
ACA
22.4%
21.3%
14.9%
Enhanced
Subsidies
14.4%
8.0%
5%
0%
133– 199%
FPL
URBAN INSTITUTE
200– 299%
FPL
300– 399%
FPL
400– 499%
FPL
All figures preliminary
500% FPL or
more
Summary
y and Discussion
• Premium and cost-sharing subsidies under ACA will
make coverage affordable for millions
• Health care cost burdens will remain high for many,
esp middle income families with
esp.
ith high medical need
• Enhanced premium subsidies would
– Raise coverage a modest amount (1.4m) relative to subsidy
cost ($10.6b)
– Substantially
S b t ti ll reduce
d
fifinancial
i lb
burdens
d
off ttargeted
t d groups
• Affordability likely to drive public support for reforms
URBAN INSTITUTE
Extra Slides
URBAN INSTITUTE
The Nongroup
g p Exchange:
g Median Health
Care Costs
$25 000
$25,000
$20,000
ACA
$15,000
13,618 13,598
9,272 9,281
$10,000
6,117
$5 000
$5,000
5,375
3 675
3,675
1,325
2,497
575
$0
133– 199%
FPL
URBAN INSTITUTE
200– 299%
FPL
300– 399%
FPL
400– 499% 500% FPL or
FPL
more
Enhanced
Subsidies
The Nongroup
g p Exchange:
g 90th Percentile
of Health Care Costs
URBAN INSTITUTE
Download