Competition, not higher premiums, is biggest threat to Obamacare buyers

April 14, 2014
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

There have been lots of news reports, including some from me, about insurers raising premiums 10 percent or more on the Obamacare exchanges next year.

But for most people who bought health coverage in the Obamacare exchanges, that’s not really a concern.

That’s because the vast majority of Obamacare buyers so far have received tax credits to reduce the cost of that coverage.

Those subsidies, rather than being flat dollar amounts, fluctuate so customers never pay more than a certain percentage of their incomes on insurance.

In other words, if premiums rise next year like WellPoint Inc. has predicted, subsidies also will rise to keep the net cost to consumers at the same percentage of their income.

So rising premiums aren’t a problem for consumers, unless their income rises so much that it reduces the size of their subsidy.

"If all insurers increase their rates by 10 percent, that might not have a dramatic shift in the market," said Paul Houchens, a consulting actuary at the Indianapolis health practice of Milliman Inc. "Most of that premium increase is going to be absorbed by the federal government."

(Rising federal spending could also be a problem for Obamacare--not to mention taxpayers--but that's not my focus today. Also, Houchens noted, Obamacare's premiums are not scheduled to rise in line with premiums forever, but will be indexed to income growth and inflation.)

But for 2015, what could cause the biggest problem for Obamacare consumers, Houchens pointed out to me last week, is if an insurer reduces its premiums. Or if a new competitor enters the market in 2015 with lower premiums than insurers were offering in 2014.

If that idea makes your head spin, welcome to Obamacare, where up is down and down is up—at least compared to how health insurance used to work. It’s what I’ve taken to calling “the weightlessness of Obamacare”.

Here’s how low-cost competition actually could be worse for Obamacare consumers:

Obamacare requires insurers to offer a variety of health insurance plans whose benefits are valued at one of four levels: bronze, silver, gold and platinum.

The subsidies for all of those kinds of plans, however, are calculated so the second-lowest-cost silver plan will only cost consumers that pre-set percentage of their incomes. Those subsidy amounts are then applied to any plan a consumer may purchase.

Here’s an example using the plans available on HealthCare.gov in Marion County:

If a family of four headed by two adults in their mid-30s is making $59,625 per year, the Obamacare subsidies will make it so the second-lowest-cost silver plan costs no more than 8.15 percent of its income, or $4,860.

In Marion County, the two cheapest silver plans are sold by Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield. The cheapest plan costs $7,700 a year and the second-cheapest costs $8,040.

To make that second-cheapest plan cost only $4,860, Obamacare applies a tax credit of $3,180. So that is the subsidy available for any family of four making $59,625—NO MATTER WHICH HEALTH PLAN that family purchases in the Obamacare exchange. It can be a bronze plan or a gold plan. It can be more or less expensive. No matter, that family will receive a subsidy equal to $3,180.

But what happens if another insurer—such as UnitedHealthcare, which sat on the sidelines this year, or MDwise Inc., offers a silver plan in 2015 that’s just a little bit cheaper than the cheapest Anthem plan, say, for $7,500 per year?

In that situation, Anthem’s cheapest silver plan would then become the benchmark for the subsidies. To make a $7,700 plan only cost a family of four $4,860, the tax subsidies would need to be only $2,840 per year--$340 less than they were before.

Now, the family of four could shift plans to that cheaper Anthem plan, and pay no more in premiums.

But if that family doesn’t want to change health plans—and with the narrow networks in these exchange plans greatly restricting patients’ choice of doctors and hospitals, that’s a very real possibility—the family will have to cover the $340 themselves.

That’s an extra $28 a month, or 7 percent more—for exactly the same coverage.

So, the key to affordability next year in the Obamacare exchanges—at least for those receiving subsidies—is whether the insurers try to undercut one another on price in the silver category.

Such competition will lead to more choices and better prices—but it will either require consumers to switch plans or pay higher premiums.
 

ADVERTISEMENT
  • Pelosi-ed
    Remember- we have to pass the bill to find out what's in it! Until this disaster is repealed and replaced, we will be paying dearly for this for years to come. Decades from now, Obamacare will be recalled with the same ridicule as the Edsel, New Coke, and the 1962 Mets. One part of it that has proved popular and does work actually makes no sense. Keeping "kids" on their parents plans until age 26 is ridiculous. Why 26? Why not 24, or 28? How dumb is it to have a married couple, both 25, to still be on Mommy and Daddy's insurance, and two different plans, no less?
  • Not Sure Steve Gets It
    Steve - Your comments suggest some immaturity on your part with respect to insurance coverage and children's situations as they get older. In addition, you sound like another person repeating the Fox television channel of offering only criticism and nothing constructive.
  • Response to Jim
    OK Jim, answer this. Other than young adults still in school, what possible reason is there for those under the age of 27 to still be on their parents health insurance plan? On the assumption that you come up with an acceptable answer, who pays for this extra coverage? The parents? The employer? The insurance company? Do they (whoever pays) pay an additional premium for each extra "child", or is it a "family" plan? If a "family" coverage premium, how is that fair to those with one "child" as opposed to a family with two or three? Looking forward to your answers. Seriously.
  • Competition
    Competition is the biggest threat to any government program, and is the reason why the HHS rules have attempted to eliminate competition from the insurance market to support Obamacare
  • Uh..duh...um.. i got nothing....so i'll just blame FOX
    @JIM - thanks for reciting the usual LIB comment....basically nothing of substance and then blame FOX. Instead of supporting Obama and his policies with actual fact and reality of successes (which is impossible because progressive policy is never followed by success, progressives only ever support Obama by blaming Fox or Bush. The only thing you forgot to do was yell racist.
  • Cost of HealthCare
    J.K., per your statement above: "In other words, if premiums rise next year like WellPoint Inc. has predicted, subsidies also will rise to keep the net cost to consumers at the same percentage of their income." So, costs are not really reduced, as the government provides a parachute of reducing costs with Tax Credits for these selected customers, which means logically I believe, that someone else's taxes will go up to cover the tax credits. Correct?
    • To Mike
      That is correct. Rising amounts of premiums that are offset by tax subsidies means a rising tax bill for the government, which is funded by all other taxpayers.

    Post a comment to this blog

    COMMENTS POLICY
    We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
     
    You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
     
    Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
     
    No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
     
    We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
     

    Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

    Sponsored by
    ADVERTISEMENT
    1. Apologies for the wall of text. I promise I had this nicely formatted in paragraphs in Notepad before pasting here.

    2. I believe that is incorrect Sir, the people's tax-dollars are NOT paying for the companies investment. Without the tax-break the company would be paying an ADDITIONAL $11.1 million in taxes ON TOP of their $22.5 Million investment (Building + IT), for a total of $33.6M or a 50% tax rate. Also, the article does not specify what the total taxes were BEFORE the break. Usually such a corporate tax-break is a 'discount' not a 100% wavier of tax obligations. For sake of example lets say the original taxes added up to $30M over 10 years. $12.5M, New Building $10.0M, IT infrastructure $30.0M, Total Taxes (Example Number) == $52.5M ININ's Cost - $1.8M /10 years, Tax Break (Building) - $0.75M /10 years, Tax Break (IT Infrastructure) - $8.6M /2 years, Tax Breaks (against Hiring Commitment: 430 new jobs /2 years) == 11.5M Possible tax breaks. ININ TOTAL COST: $41M Even if you assume a 100% break, change the '30.0M' to '11.5M' and you can see the Company will be paying a minimum of $22.5, out-of-pocket for their capital-investment - NOT the tax-payers. Also note, much of this money is being spent locally in Indiana and it is creating 430 jobs in your city. I admit I'm a little unclear which tax-breaks are allocated to exactly which expenses. Clearly this is all oversimplified but I think we have both made our points! :) Sorry for the long post.

    3. Clearly, there is a lack of a basic understanding of economics. It is not up to the company to decide what to pay its workers. If companies were able to decide how much to pay their workers then why wouldn't they pay everyone minimum wage? Why choose to pay $10 or $14 when they could pay $7? The answer is that companies DO NOT decide how much to pay workers. It is the market that dictates what a worker is worth and how much they should get paid. If Lowe's chooses to pay a call center worker $7 an hour it will not be able to hire anyone for the job, because all those people will work for someone else paying the market rate of $10-$14 an hour. This forces Lowes to pay its workers that much. Not because it wants to pay them that much out of the goodness of their heart, but because it has to pay them that much in order to stay competitive and attract good workers.

    4. GOOD DAY to you I am Mr Howell Henry, a Reputable, Legitimate & an accredited money Lender. I loan money out to individuals in need of financial assistance. Do you have a bad credit or are you in need of money to pay bills? i want to use this medium to inform you that i render reliable beneficiary assistance as I'll be glad to offer you a loan at 2% interest rate to reliable individuals. Services Rendered include: *Refinance *Home Improvement *Inventor Loans *Auto Loans *Debt Consolidation *Horse Loans *Line of Credit *Second Mortgage *Business Loans *Personal Loans *International Loans. Please write back if interested. Upon Response, you'll be mailed a Loan application form to fill. (No social security and no credit check, 100% Guaranteed!) I Look forward permitting me to be of service to you. You can contact me via e-mail howellhenryloanfirm@gmail.com Yours Sincerely MR Howell Henry(MD)

    5. It is sad to see these races not have a full attendance. The Indy Car races are so much more exciting than Nascar. It seems to me the commenters here are still a little upset with Tony George from a move he made 20 years ago. It was his decision to make, not yours. He lost his position over it. But I believe the problem in all pro sports is the escalating price of admission. In todays economy, people have to pay much more for food and gas. The average fan cannot attend many events anymore. It's gotten priced out of most peoples budgets.

    ADVERTISEMENT