Hospitals Begin Subsidizing Exchange Premiums via Third Parties

Hospitals are concerned the carrot of advance premium tax credit subsidies for individual coverage offered in the state health benefit exchange marketplace and the stick of a tax penalty for being medically uninsured may not be enough incentive to ensure every patient coming through their doors is insured. Particularly for households earning between 100 and 150 percent of federal poverty, even though they pay no more than 2 to 4 percent of their incomes for an exchange qualified health plan and are eligible for cost sharing subsidies for plans with 70 percent actuarial value.

Cheryl Clark of Health Leaders Media reports hospitals in Wisconsin and Florida are teaming up with charities to supplement the exchange premium subsidies and have received approval from the federal Health and Human Services Department to do so. Click here for the story.

Apparently the hospitals’ economic calculation is it’s a better deal to get a tax write off to contribute to the charities to help cover premiums for exchange coverage than to run the risk some patients will allow their exchange coverage to lapse. That in turn increases the risk hospitals will have to retain collection agencies to dun patients for charges arising from uninsured care or write them off.

While it’s still early going with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s individual market reforms, this development shows hospitals — a primary beneficiary of expanding coverage to reduce those lacking health coverage — aren’t completely confident in the law’s ability to achieve this goal. Some observers note that while the Affordable Care Act provides low income people access to health insurance, many have never had coverage and have habitually sought care in hospital emergency rooms where federal law requires their medical condition be assessed and stabilized if necessary regardless of ability to pay for services.

Jump in Medi-Cal enrollment will consume most of California’s tax windfall » Ventura County Star

Jump in Medi-Cal enrollment will consume most of state’s tax windfall » Ventura County Star.

The Ventura County Star’s Timm Herdt reports the majority of higher than projected tax receipts is being directed by the administration of Gov. Jerry Brown to cover also higher than expected enrollment in the state’s Medicaid program, Medi-Cal.

One year ago, Brown delayed approving legislation that expanded Medicaid eligibility under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, concerned over the fiscal impact of a program the prior administration of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger deemed a budget buster during the recession.

With a staggering 3 in 10 Californians reliant on the public health insurance program, Medi-Cal continues to be a budget threat. Only this time, a revenue windfall staved off a shortfall for upcoming fiscal year that begins July 1.

Shift away from employer coverage would provide triple fiscal benefit to federal government

As a candidate in the 2008 presidential election, President Obama initially favored shifting to a single payer (government paid) system of universal health coverage but later altered his stance. Instead, Obama favored what he described as a less disruptive brand of health care reform that retains the current system of private insurance sponsored by employers that covers the vast majority of working age Americans.

Ironically, Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act could have the opposite effect, according to one of the chief drafters of the law. Ezekiel Emanuel, former Obama administration official, foresees a shift away from employer-based coverage over the next decade, with few private employers offering health coverage by 2025. Amplifying Emanuel’s prediction was a Kaiser Health News report last week on a new paper by the Urban Institute strongly suggesting that one of the linchpins of the ACA to ensure the continuance of employer-sponsored coverage – the mandate that employers of 50 or more offer coverage to most of their workers – ultimately won’t have much of an impact in terms of expanding coverage and keeping people medically insured.

The reason: Adam Smith’s law of rational economic self-interest could trump any penalties these employers will face starting in 2015 if they don’t offer coverage. Some large employers could conclude it will cost them less to pay the penalty than provide coverage through a group health plan or self-insuring employee medical costs. Not only that, the Affordable Care Act ironically cuts against employer sponsored coverage by imposing a large excise tax beginning in 2018 on employers who sponsor overly generous plans.

Even without this tax on so-called “Cadillac” plans, the federal government stands to reap a triple fiscal benefit from increased revenues from any major shift away from employer-sponsored coverage. First, employers not offering coverage would of course be unable to take an income tax deduction for offering coverage. Second, any additional amount of money they provide employees as higher compensation or stipends to purchase individual coverage would generate higher individual tax revenues since they would be taxable to employees. Third, the large employer mandate penalties plus increased individual employee tax liability could also benefit the federal government by offsetting advance tax credit subsidies for plans sold in the public exchange marketplace to workers with household incomes below 400 percent of federal poverty.

High out of pocket costs for major medical care warrant policy scrutiny

The cruel paradox of those with health insurance seeking bankruptcy protection from high medical bills could grow despite the policy intent of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to expand the safety net of individual health insurance.

It’s most likely to occur in the case of hospitalizations where multiple health care practitioners attend to an insured patient and only some of them are in the patient’s health plan provider network. The patient is then placed in the situation where his or her insurance plan isn’t subject to the calendar year out of pocket maximums ($6,350 for individuals; $12,700 for family coverage) that apply only for care rendered by providers in the plan’s provider network, potentially exposing patients to significantly higher bills. Emily Bazar of the California HealthCare Foundation (CHCF) details one such instance involving a plan purchased through California’s health benefit exchange marketplace, Covered California, in her Sacramento Bee column.

This circumstance warrants study by the CHCF and other policy research organizations since it could occur nationwide. If such incidents increase, it could lead to calls for policy changes that make available all inclusive major medical coverage for hospital stays and other types of high cost care. Limited provider networks may be able to work fine for routine care like physician visits and exams, but can potentially leave major gaps for catastrophic care.