A Comprehensive Assessment of Four Options for Financing Health Care Delivery in Oregon.

This article describes four options for financing health care for residents of the state of Oregon and compares the projected impacts and feasibility of each option. The Single Payer option and the Health Care Ingenuity Plan would achieve universal coverage, while the Public Option would add a state-sponsored plan to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) Marketplace. Under the Status Quo option, Oregon would maintain its expansion of Medicaid and subsidies for nongroup coverage through the ACA Marketplace. The state could cover all residents under the Single Payer option with little change in overall health care costs, but doing so would require cuts to provider payment rates that could worsen access to care, and implementation hurdles may be insurmountable. The Health Care Ingenuity Plan, a state-managed plan featuring competition among private plans, would also achieve universal coverage and would sever the employer-health insurance link, but the provider payment rates would likely be set too high, so health care costs would increase. The Public Option would be the easiest of the three options to implement, but because it would not affect many people, it would be an incremental improvement to the Status Quo. Policymakers will need to weigh these options against their desire for change to balance the benefits with the trade-offs.

Modeling Dr. Dynasaur 2.0 Coverage and Finance Proposals: Effects of the Expansion of Vermont's Dr. Dynasaur Program to All Individuals Through Age 25.

The authors assessed an expansion of Vermont's Dr. Dynasaur program that would cover all residents age 25 and younger. The current Dr. Dynasaur program combines Vermont's Medicaid program and Child Health Insurance Program for children ages 0 through 18 to provide a seamless insurance program for those with family incomes below 317 percent of the federal poverty level. The authors used RAND's COMPARE-VT microsimulation model with Vermont-specific demographic, economic, and actuarial data to estimate the effects on health insurance coverage, costs, and premiums. They also identified the new revenues required to fund the program expansion and explored three alternative financing strategies to raise those funds: (1) an increase in the Vermont income tax, (2) a Vermont payroll tax, and (3) a Vermont business enterprise tax. The authors found that enrollment would increase by more than 260 percent under the 100-percent enrollment scenario and by nearly 200 percent under the 70-percent enrollment scenario by 2019. Not surprisingly, the children and young adults who move off employer-sponsored insurance (ESI) and into Dr. Dynasaur 2.0 have considerably lower expected health care costs than those who remain on ESI, increasing the per-person premiums by nearly $1,000 for those remaining enrolled in ESI. Annual health care expenditures per person for children and young adults in 2019 are estimated at $4,325 with Medicare prices. The combination of increased reimbursement rates, large increases in enrollment, and relatively low Dr. Dynasaur premiums (no more than $720 per year) will require significant new tax revenues to meet program obligations.

For states that opt out of Medicaid expansion: 3.6 million fewer insured and $8.4 billion less in federal payments.

The US Supreme Court's ruling on the Affordable Care Act in 2012 allowed states to opt out of the health reform law's Medicaid expansion. Since that ruling, fourteen governors have announced that their states will not expand their Medicaid programs. We used the RAND COMPARE microsimulation to analyze how opting out of Medicaid expansion would affect coverage and spending, and whether alternative policy options-such as partial expansion of Medicaid-could cover as many people at lower costs to states. With fourteen states opting out, we estimate that 3.6 million fewer people would be insured, federal transfer payments to those states could fall by $8.4 billion, and state spending on uncompensated care could increase by $1 billion in 2016, compared to what would be expected if all states participated in the expansion. These effects were only partially mitigated by alternative options we considered. We conclude that in terms of coverage, cost, and federal payments, states would do best to expand Medicaid.

The Economic Impact of the Affordable Care Act on Arkansas.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) will increase coverage through the expansion of Medicaid and the creation of a Health Insurance Exchange with subsidies. RAND researchers analyzed the ACA's economic impact on the state of Arkansas and found that by 2016, about 400,000 people will be newly insured, net federal payments to the state will amount to $430 million annually, and the total gross domestic product will see a net increase of $550 million.

The Economic Impact of Medicaid Expansion on Pennsylvania.

The Affordable Care Act is a substantial reform of the U.S. health care insurance system. Using the RAND COMPARE model, researchers assessed the act's potential economic effects on Pennsylvania, factoring in an optional expansion of Medicaid, and found the state would enjoy significant net benefits. With or without the expansion of Medicaid, the act will increase insurance coverage to hundreds of thousands of Pennsylvanians, but the COMPARE model estimates that the expansion of Medicaid eligibility would cover an additional 350,000 people and bring more than $2 billion in federal spending into the state annually than if the state did not expand. Should the state expand Medicaid, the additional spending will add more than $3 billion a year to the state's GDP and support 35,000 jobs. But Medicaid expansion is not without cost for the state; the estimated cumulative effect on Pennsylvania's Medicaid spending will be $180 million higher with the expansion than without between 2014 and 2020. Substantial reductions in uncompensated care costs for hospitals are possible even without expansion, but savings to hospitals for uncompensated care funding are even larger with the Medicaid expansion, amounting to $550 million or more each year.

Delaying the Employer Mandate: Small Change in the Short Term, Big Cost in the Long Run.

In July 2013, the Obama administration announced a one-year delay in enforcement of the Affordable Care Act's (ACA) penalty on large employers that do not offer affordable health insurance coverage. To help policymakers understand the implications of this decision, RAND analysts employed the COMPARE microsimulation model to gauge the impact of the one-year delay of the so-called employer mandate. They found that the delay will not have a large impact on insurance coverage: Because relatively few firms and employees are affected, only 300,000 fewer people, or 0.2% of the population, will have access to insurance from their employer, and nearly all of these will get insurance from another source. However, a one-year delay in implementation of the mandate will result in $11 billion dollars less in federal inflows from employer penalties for that year. A full repeal of the employer mandate would cause revenue to fall by $149 billion over the next ten years (10% of the ACA's spending offsets), providing substantially less money to pay for other components of the law. The bottom line: The one-year delay in the employer mandate will have relatively few consequences, primarily resulting in a relatively small one-year drop in revenue; however, a complete elimination of the mandate would have a large cumulative net cost, potentially removing a nontrivial revenue source that in turn funds the coverage provisions in the ACA.

Small firms' actions in two areas, and exchange premium and enrollment impact.

The Affordable Care Act changed the regulations governing small firms' health insurance premiums. However, small businesses can avoid many of the new regulations by self-insuring or maintaining grandfathered plans. If small firms with healthy and lower-cost enrollees avoid the regulations, premiums for coverage sold through insurance exchanges could be unaffordable. In this analysis we used the RAND Comprehensive Assessment of Reform Efforts microsimulation model to predict the effects of self-insurance and grandfathering exemptions on coverage and premiums available through the exchanges. We estimate that Affordable Care Act regulations restricting employers' ability to offer grandfathered plans will result in lower premiums on plans available through the exchanges and will have small negative effects on enrollment in the exchanges. Our results suggest that these regulations are essential to keeping premiums on the Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP) exchanges affordable. Our analysis also found that Affordable Care Act regulations limiting self-insurance will reduce enrollment in the exchanges somewhat, without substantially affecting exchange premiums.