Ten Years Later: Reflections on Critics' Worst-Case Scenarios for the Affordable Care Act.

The primary goals of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) were to increase the availability and affordability of health insurance coverage and thereby improve access to needed health care services. Numerous studies have overwhelmingly confirmed that the law has reduced uninsurance and improved affordability of coverage and care for millions of Americans. Not everyone believed that the ACA would lead to positive outcomes, however. Critics raised numerous concerns in the years leading up to the law's passage and full implementation, including about its consequences for national health spending, labor supply, employer health insurance markets, provider capacity, and overall population health. This article considers five frequently heard worst-case scenarios related to the ACA and provides research evidence that these fears did not come to pass.

The North Carolina State Health Plan for Teachers and State Employees: Strategies in Creating Financial Stability While Improving Member Health.

The North Carolina State Health Plan provides health care coverage to more than 700,000 members, including teachers, state employees, retirees, current and former lawmakers, state university and community college personnel, and their dependents. The State Health Plan is a division of the North Carolina Department of State Treasurer, self-insured, and exempt from the Employee Retirement Income Security Act as a government-sponsored plan. With health care costs rising at rates greater than funding, the Plan must take measures to stem cost growth while ensuring access to quality health care. The Plan anticipates focusing on strategic initiatives that drive results and cost savings while improving member health to protect the Plan's financial future.

The Tax Exclusion for Employer-Sponsored Insurance Is Not Regressive-But What Is It?

Conventional wisdom says that the tax exclusion for employer-sponsored health insurance (ESI) is "regressive and therefore unfair." Yet, by the standard definition of regressive tax policy, the conventional view is almost certainly false. It confuses the absolute size of the tax exclusion with its proportional effect on income. The error results from paying attention only to the marginal tax rate applied to ESI benefits as a portion of income and ignoring the fact that benefits are normally a much larger share of income for people with lower wages. This article explains the difference and then considers other distributional effects of ESI. It suggests that ESI-for those who receive it-further redistributes toward those with lesser means or greater need. The most evident effect is by need, favoring employees with families over those without. Yet there is good reason to believe there is also a redistribution by income, with the package of wages plus benefits being less unequal than wages alone would be. Therefore reformers should be much more careful before criticizing either ESI or its subsidy through the tax code as "unfair," especially as the likelihood of enacting something better in the United States seems quite low.

Door Is Open for HRAs to Make a Comeback.

For four years, businesses that wanted to reimburse employees for their health insurance premiums rather than buying their coverage for them were told that that was no longer allowed under the ACA. But the health reimbursement arrangement (HRA) is back, brought back to life by provisions tucked into last year's 21st Century Cure Act.

The "Cadillac Tax" on Health Benefits in the United States Will Hit the Middle Class Hardest: Refuting the Myth That Health Benefit Tax Subsidies Are Regressive.

U.S. employment-based health benefits are exempt from income and payroll taxes, an exemption that provided tax subsidies of $326.2 billion in 2015. Both liberal and conservative economists have denounced these subsidies as "regressive" and lauded a provision of the Affordable Care Act­the Cadillac Tax­that would curtail them. The claim that the subsidies are regressive rests on estimates showing that the affluent receive the largest subsidies in absolute dollars. But this claim ignores the standard definition of regressivity, which is based on the share of income paid by the wealthy versus the poor, rather than on dollar amounts. In this study, we calculate the value of tax subsidies in 2009 as a share of income for each income quintile and for the wealthiest Americans. In absolute dollars, tax subsidies were highest for families between the 80th and 95th percentiles of family income and lowest for the poorest 20%. However, as shares of income, subsidies were largest for the middle and fourth income quintiles and smallest for the wealthiest 0.5% of Americans. We conclude that the tax subsidy to employment-based insurance is neither markedly regressive, nor progressive. The Cadillac Tax will disproportionately harm families with (2009) incomes between $38,550 and $100,000, while sparing the wealthy.

The ACA's Cost-Sharing Reduction Plans: A Key to Affordable Health Coverage for Millions of U.S. Workers.

Issue: Without the cost-sharing reductions (CSRs) made available by the Affordable Care Act, health plans sold in the marketplaces may be unaffordable for many low-income people. CSRs are available to households earning between 100 percent and 250 percent of the federal poverty level that choose a silver-level marketplace plan. In 2016, about 7 million people received cost-sharing reductions that substantially lowered their deductibles, copayments, coinsurance, and out-of-pocket limits. Goal: To examine variations in consumer cost-sharing reductions between silver-level plans with CSRs to traditional marketplace plans and to employer-based insurance. Methods: Data analysis of 1,209 CSR-eligible plans sold in individual marketplaces in all 50 states and Washington, D.C. Key findings and conclusions: Cost-sharing amounts in silver plans with CSRs are much less than those in non-CSR base silver plans; silver plans with CSRs generally offer far better financial protection than those without. General annual deductibles range from $246 for CSR silver plans with a platinum-level actuarial value (94%) to as much as $3,063 for non-CSR silver plans. Out-of-pocket limits vary from $6,223 in base silver plans to $1,102 in silver plans with CSRs and a platinum-level actuarial level.

Looking Under the Hood of the Cadillac Tax.

One effect of the Affordable Care Act's "Cadillac tax" (now delayed until 2020) is to undo part of the existing federal tax preference for employer-sponsored insurance. The specific features of this tax on high-cost health plans--notably, the inclusion of tax-favored savings vehicles such as health savings accounts (HSAs) in the formula for determining who is subject to the tax--are designed primarily to maximize revenue and minimize coverage disruptions, not to reduce health spending. Thus, at least initially, these savings accounts, rather than enrollee cost-sharing or other plan features, are likely to be affected most by the tax as employers act to limit their HSA contributions. Because high earners are the ones benefiting most from tax-preferred accounts, the high-cost plan tax will probably be more progressive than prior analyses have suggested, while having only a modest impact on total health spending.

Maybe the ACA Is Here To Stay, But Employers Wish That Cadillac Tax Would Go Away.

Clinton has come out against the Cadillac tax, but what will replace the revenue? If the ACA is repealed, House Republicans have proposed capping the tax exemption for health benefits as a way to curb the appetite for expensive health care benefits.

The HSA in Your Future: Defined Contribution Retiree Medical Coverage.

In 2004, when evaluating health savings account (HSA) business opportunities, I predicted: "Twenty-five years ago, no one had ever heard of 401(k); 25 years from now, everyone will have an HSA." Twelve years later, growth in HSA eligibility, participation, contributions and asset accumulations suggests we just might achieve that prediction. This article shares one plan sponsor's journey to help employees accumulate assets to fund medical costs-while employed and after retirement, It documents a 30-plus-year retiree health insurance transition from a defined benefit to a defined dollar structure and culminating in a full-replacement defined contribution structure using HSA-qualifying high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) and then redeploying/repurposing the HSA to incorporate a savings incentive for retiree medical costs.

Rethinking the Affordable Care Act's "Cadillac tax": A More Equitable Way to Encourage "Chevy" Consumption.

The Affordable Care Act's "Cadillac tax" will apply a 40 percent excise tax on total employer health insurance premiums in excess of $10,200 for single coverage and $27,500 for family coverage, starting in 2018. Employer spending on premiums is currently excluded from income and payroll taxes. Economists argue that this encourages overconsumption of health care, favors high-income workers, and reduces federal revenue. This issue brief suggests that the Cadillac tax is a "blunt instrument" for addressing these concerns because it will affect workers on a rolling timetable, does relatively little to address the regressive nature of the current exclusion, and may penalize firms and workers for cost variation that is outside their control. Replacing the current exclusion with tax credits for employer coverage that scale inversely with income might allow for regional adjustments in health care costs and eliminate aspects of the tax exclusion that favor high-income over low-income workers.

State trends in the cost of employer health insurance coverage, 2003-2013.

From 2010 to 2013--the years following the implementation of the Affordable Care Act--there has been a marked slowdown in premium growth in 31 states and the District of Columbia. Yet, the costs employees and their families pay out-of-pocket for deductibles and their share of premiums continued to rise, consuming a greater share of incomes across the country. In all but a handful of states, average deductibles more than doubled over the past decade for employees working in large and small firms. Workers are paying more but getting less protective benefits. Costs are particularly high, compared with median income, in Southern and South Central states, where incomes are below the national average. Based on recent forecasts that predict an uptick in private insurance growth rates starting in 2015, securing slow cost growth for workers, families, and employers will likely require action to address rising costs of medical care services.

Individual vs. Employer-Based Health Care: Changing Solutions for Discrete Populations.

The Affordable Care Act has served as a catalyst for the changes currently underway in the U.S. health care system and accelerated change underway over the past two decades. Employers are striving to make sense of an evolving health environment while meeting the needs of an increasingly diverse workforce. The health care landscape has shifted from the "Era of the Health Plan" to the "Era of the Person," where employers must pay heed to the distinct needs of each discrete population. To achieve optimal business performance, employers must adopt differentiated solutions that make health care local, personal and specific.

Shared responsibility for employers regarding health coverage. Final regulations.

This document contains final regulations providing guidance to employers that are subject to the shared responsibility provisions regarding employee health coverage under section 4980H of the Internal Revenue Code (Code), enacted by the Affordable Care Act. These regulations affect employers referred to as applicable large employers (generally meaning, for each year, employers that had 50 or more full-time employees, including full-time equivalent employees, during the prior year). Generally, under section 4980H an applicable large employer that, for a calendar month, fails to offer to its full-time employees health coverage that is affordable and provides minimum value may be subject to an assessable payment if a full-time employee enrolls for that month in a qualified health plan for which the employee receives a premium tax credit.