Effect of Eased Restrictions for Aca-Exempt Short-Term Health Plans on Marketplace Premiums and Uninsured Rate: A Difference in Differences Analysis.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) established broad standards for private health insurance in the United States including requiring minimum essential benefits and prohibiting medical underwriting, but the law also permitted some exceptions. This paper examines one type of exempt plan option, Short-Term, Limited Duration Insurance (STLDI) that is not required to fully meet ACA benefit and underwriting standards. Federal rules governing STLDI plans have changed over time, with more permissive rules in the Trump administration allowing individuals to remain covered for longer durations of time relative to the original Obama regulations. Within applicable federal guidelines, states have also varied STLDI rules. Using publicly available data measuring state-level variations in STLDI regulations, ACA benchmark premiums, uninsured rates, and population characteristics for 2014 to 2021, we estimate difference-in-differences models to examine if more permissible STLDI policies are associated with higher premiums in the fully regulated non-group market and, also, lower uninsured rates. We find that longer duration, more permissible STLDI is associated with higher benchmark premiums in ACA exchanges and no difference in state-level uninsured rates. Trump administration regulations permitting longer duration STLDI plans to make available more affordable ACA-exempt health insurance were associated with higher premium costs in the ACA-regulated non-group market but we did not observe measurable impact on state uninsured rates. While longer-duration STLDI plans may result in lower costs for some, they have negative consequences for others requiring comprehensive coverage with no discernible benefit in overall coverage rates. Understanding these tradeoffs can help guide future policies regarding exceptions to ACA plan requirements.

Medicaid Work Requirements In Arkansas: Two-Year Impacts On Coverage, Employment, And Affordability Of Care.

In June 2018 Arkansas became the first US state to implement work requirements in Medicaid, requiring adults ages 30-49 to work twenty hours a week, participate in "community engagement" activities, or qualify for an exemption to maintain coverage. By April 2019, when a federal judge put the policy on hold, 18,000 adults had already lost coverage. We analyze the policy's effects before and after these events, using a telephone survey performed in late 2019 of 2,706 low-income adults in Arkansas and three control states compared with data from 2016 and 2018. We have four main findings. First, most of the Medicaid coverage losses in 2018 were reversed in 2019 after the court order. Second, work requirements did not increase employment over eighteen months of follow-up. Third, people in Arkansas ages 30-49 who had lost Medicaid in the prior year experienced adverse consequences: 50 percent reported serious problems paying off medical debt, 56 percent delayed care because of cost, and 64 percent delayed taking medications because of cost. These rates were significantly higher than among Arkansans who remained in Medicaid all year. Finally, awareness of the work requirements remained poor, with more than 70 percent of Arkansans unsure whether the policy was in effect.

Marketplace Premiums Rise Faster For Tobacco Users Because Of Subsidy Design.

Tobacco users can be charged health insurance Marketplace premiums up to 1.5 times higher than premiums for nonusers of tobacco. Despite being charged higher premiums, low- and middle-income tobacco users receive premium subsidies identical to those received by nonusers and cannot apply the subsidy to pay for any portion of their tobacco surcharge. Premium increases over time have exacerbated the discrepancy in premium prices based on tobacco use.

Costs Are Higher For Marketplace Members Who Enroll During Special Enrollment Periods Compared With Open Enrollment.

More than 20 percent of Affordable Care Act (ACA) exchange market (Marketplace) members insured by a large national insurer in 2015 and 2016 enrolled during a special enrollment period (SEP), defined as any enrollment outside the annual open enrollment period. These members were younger and had approximately 34 percent higher average monthly total costs than members who enrolled during open enrollment. SEP members had 69-114 percent higher inpatient costs and 11-19 percent higher emergency department costs than open enrollment members. Higher costs, especially among a slightly younger population, may suggest potential adverse selection among SEP members, which could contribute to increased premiums and insurer exit from ACA Marketplaces. Although SEP members had a shorter average enrollment length per calendar year, they were more likely than open enrollment members to stay insured through the end of the calendar year and to renew in a Marketplace plan offered by the insurer in the following year. However, renewing SEP and open enrollment members were older, sicker, and costlier than nonrenewing members of both enrollee types, which suggests that healthier members are switching carriers or leaving the market over time. Additional research is urgently needed to inform evidence-based policy regarding Marketplace risk adjustment and SEP eligibility rules and to improve outreach to people who are eligible for SEP enrollment.

Contraceptive Mandate, ACA Final Rules, And COVID-19.

The Supreme Court upheld broad exemptions to the Affordable Care Act contraceptive mandate; new ACA rules were finalized.

Health Insurance Surcharges For Tobacco Use Declined Among Small Employers In 2018.

Use of increased premiums for tobacco users in the small-group market fell to 4.1 percent in 2018 from 17.8 percent in 2017 and 16.2 percent in 2016. This decline, possibly due to increased government oversight, occurred without any significant change in the prevalence of tobacco cessation programs. Thus, fewer workers are subject to tobacco surcharges without being provided cessation resources.

Risk Corridors, COVID-19, And The ACA.

The Supreme Court holds that the government owes insurers the full risk corridors payments due under the Affordable Care Act.

Have the ACA's Exchanges Succeeded? It's Complicated.

The fight over health insurance exchanges epitomizes the rapid evolution of health reform politics in the decade since the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The ACA's drafters did not expect the exchanges to be contentious because they would expand private insurance coverage to low- and middle-income individuals who were increasingly unable to obtain employer-sponsored health insurance. Instead, exchanges became one of the primary fronts in the war over Obamacare. Have the exchanges been successful? The answer is not straightforward and requires a historical perspective through a federalism lens. What the ACA has accomplished has depended largely on whether states were invested in or resistant to implementation, as well as individual decisions by state leaders working with federal officials. Our account demonstrates that the states that have engaged with the ACA most consistently appear to have experienced greater exchange-related success. But each aspect of states' engagement with or resistance to the ACA must be counted to fully paint this picture, with significant variation among states. This variation should give pause to those considering next steps in health reform, because state variation can mean innovation and improvement but also lack of coverage, disparities, and diminished access to care.

The ACA At The Supreme Court And Beyond.

The Supreme Court considers new Affordable Care Act cases, other lawsuits continue, and the Trump administration issues new rules and guidance.

The Ten Years' War: Politics, Partisanship, And The ACA.

After decades of failed efforts to overhaul American health care, the Affordable Care Act's 2010 enactment was the most important health reform achievement since Medicare and Medicaid's passage. But ten years later, ACA politics are more tenuous than triumphal, and the ACA has not escaped the controversy that surrounded its enactment. This article explores why the ACA has been so divisive despite its considerable accomplishments. The ACA contains an array of controversial policies that contravene policy principles and political priorities held by the contemporary Republican party. It also imposes costs on stakeholder groups whose opposition, in many cases, to measures that altered the status quo has never ceased. Moreover, ACA benefits often have been obscured, partly because of the law's complex structure and incoherent programmatic identity. Additionally, the ACA's performance on its central promise-to make health insurance affordable-has been mixed. The law also confers benefits on populations that command less political sympathy than those previously favored with public coverage, and it has surfaced perennial racial/ethnic tensions related to who receives government benefits. I argue that the ACA's turbulent political journey ultimately reflects the larger trends in American politics of growing partisanship and polarization that continue to shape US health policy.

Federalism And The ACA: Lessons For The 2020 Health Policy Debate.

Establishing a balance of power between states and the federal government has defined the American Republic since its inception. This conflict has played out in sharp relief with the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. This article describes the interplay between state and federal governments in the implementation of the act in three areas: the expansion of eligibility for Medicaid, implementation of the insurance Marketplaces, and regulation of insurers. The experience shows that states are intimately involved in health care and that useful policy and fiscal advantages can result from that involvement. However, strong national standards are critical to preventing partisan politics from trumping the health policy process.

The ACA's Effect On The Individual Insurance Market.

The vision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) for a reformed individual health insurance market included requirements and incentives for insurers to manage risk instead of avoiding it, minimum standards for coverage adequacy, income-related subsidies, managed competition through health insurance Marketplaces, and new programs to promote insurer competition. Against this vision, we assessed how insurance markets evolved between 2014 and 2019, using metrics such as premium changes, insurer participation, and enrollment. We also assessed how federal and state policy choices during the implementation of the ACA may have affected market performance. The article closes with an assessment of recent federal-level policy choices and the evidence to date about their effect on insurance markets, together with a discussion of how market experience under the ACA can inform policy makers who seek to further expand consumers' access to affordable, comprehensive coverage.

Closing The Medicaid Coverage Gap: Options For Reform.

Eight years after the US Supreme Court's landmark decision in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, more than two million of the nation's poorest working-age adults continue to feel its effects. These are the people who, because of the decision, remain without a pathway to affordable health insurance coverage because they live in a state that has not expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Closing the coverage gap created by NFIB v. Sebelius represents the ACA's most pressing piece of unfinished business. Several options, which vary in cost and political complexity, exist for closing the gap in ways that respect the ACA's pluralistic approach to insurance coverage while adhering to constitutional principles. These considerations must be balanced against the urgency of the problem and the fact that, constitutionally speaking, Medicaid alone can no longer guarantee a national remedy to the fundamental issue of health insurance inequality for the poorest Americans.

Did The ACA Lower Americans' Financial Barriers To Health Care?

The Affordable Care Act was designed to provide financial protection to Americans in their use of the health care system. This required addressing two intertwined problems: cost barriers to accessing coverage and care, and barriers to comprehensive risk protection provided by insurance. We reviewed the evidence on whether the law was effective in achieving these goals. We found that the Affordable Care Act generated substantial, widespread improvements in protecting Americans against the financial risks of illness. The coverage expansions reduced uninsurance rates, especially relative to earlier forecasts; improved access to care; and lowered out-of-pocket spending. The insurance market reforms also made it easier for people to get and stay enrolled in coverage and ensured that those who were insured had true financial risk protection. But subsequent court decisions and congressional and executive branch actions have left millions uninsured and allowed the risk of inadequate insurance to resurface.

Building On The Gains Of The ACA: Federal Proposals To Improve Coverage And Affordability.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) significantly improved health insurance coverage in the US, but too many Americans remain under- or uninsured. This article examines federal strategies under consideration that build on the ACA to extend comprehensive coverage to all low-income Americans and increase coverage affordability for middle-income Americans. For low-income Americans these policy options include extending the enhanced match rate offered to states that expanded eligibility for Medicaid in the early years of the ACA to states that have not yet expanded Medicaid and increasing Marketplace cost-sharing subsidies. To address the issue of affordability for middle-income Americans, this article considers options for lowering premiums (for example, extending tax credits to people with incomes above the current eligibility threshold, increasing the generosity of tax credits for those currently eligible, and making reinsurance permanent), lowering cost sharing (such as tying premium tax credits to the second-lowest-cost gold plan rather than the equivalent silver plan and extending federal assistance for cost sharing to people with incomes above the current threshold), and establishing a public option.

Health Insurance Coverage: What Comes After The ACA?

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) led to the largest expansion of health insurance in the US in fifty years, bringing the uninsurance rate to its lowest recorded level in 2016. But even at that point, nearly thirty million people lacked health insurance, and millions more still struggled to afford needed medical care. Recent studies also indicate a partial erosion of the ACA's coverage gains since 2017. This article identifies the underlying causes of these problems and evaluates potential policy remedies. Topics include the slow but steady growth of state expansions of eligibility for Medicaid; new waiver approaches in Medicaid, including work requirements; high cost sharing and premium growth in both the Marketplaces and employer coverage; and proposed systemic overhauls such as Medicare for All.

A Pathway To Consumer-Driven Universal Coverage.

Enrollment in the Marketplaces of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has fallen short of original expectations, because the ACA's regulatory changes made coverage costlier for many Americans with incomes above 150 percent of the federal poverty level. There are ways to strengthen and expand the role of the individual market in providing affordable, personalized options to all nonelderly Americans. These include insured people in costly group plans, uninsured people in good health but without affordable options, those with preexisting conditions, and those who live in states that did not expand eligibility for Medicaid. A more robust individual market could expand coverage so that it would be more sustainable than the status quo. Much as the authors of the Affordable Care Act drew on Massachusetts reforms signed into law by Gov. Mitt Romney (R), market-oriented health reformers should learn from the ACA and Medicare's private insurance programs in order to build a personalized, consumer-driven path toward universal coverage.

Changes In Health Insurance Coverage, Access To Care, And Income-Based Disparities Among US Adults, 2011-17.

The Affordable Care Act increased insurance coverage and access to care, according to numerous national studies. However, the administration of President Donald Trump implemented several policies that may have affected the act's effectiveness. It is unknown what effect these changes had on access to care. We used survey data for 2011-17 from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System to assess changes access to care among nonelderly adults from before to after the change in administration in 2017. We found that the proportion of adults who were uninsured or avoided care because of cost increased by 1.2 percentage points and 1.0 percentage points, respectively, during 2017. These changes were greater among respondents who had household incomes below 138 percent of the federal poverty level, resided in states that did not expand eligibility for Medicaid, or both. At the population level, our findings imply that approximately two million additional US adults experienced these outcomes at the end of 2017, compared to the end of 2016.