Search articles from thousands of Examiners
Write for us
Jackson Politics Healthcare Reform Examiner
Healthcare Reform Examiner

Insurance industry fails fact check

October 15, 9:46 AMHealthcare Reform ExaminerChuck Miller
Comment Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe


Get alerts when there is a new article from the Healthcare Reform Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.
Email Address


  Include other special offers from Examiner.com
Terms of Use

The Washington Post fact checks two reports sponsored by the insurance industry that predict up to $4,000 per year could be added to premiums if healthcare reform is enacted. The WP fact checkers say the estimates are inaccurate and misleading. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/factchecker15.html?hpid=topnews)"

2. New Regulations on Insurance Plans

Both reports argue that new insurance requirements would also push up premiums. Insurers would no longer be able to deny coverage based on preexisting conditions, would have to limit how much they charge based on age, and would have to meet minimum standards for the quality of the coverage offered.

Analysis: There is no question that consumers in loosely regulated states now buy bare-bones policies that would not meet the new standards. But the reports underestimate the pricing power that individuals without employer-based coverage and small businesses would enjoy as a result of being pooled together for coverage, instead of buying on their own in highly uncompetitive markets, as they do today. In addition, small businesses already enjoy protection against denial of coverage, so that rule would not represent a change for them.


3. Soaring Cost in Particular States

The Blues report argues that premiums for those without employer-based coverage would soar most in certain parts of the country, where states loosely regulate the kind of plans that insurers can offer different sorts of consumers. Premiums, it predicts, would increase the least in the Northeast and the most in the South, Mountain West and Southwest.

Analysis: The bill would affect some states more than others, but consumers in those states could find that, as premiums for some go up, many others' would decline. The reason: Lightly regulated states also tend to have higher rates of uninsured and underinsured people, which leads to more people going to the emergency room and higher premiums for those who are insured. Requiring insurance for all may reduce those costs, creating a downward pressure on premiums.


4. New Tax on Costly Employer-Based Plans

The AHIP report argues that a proposed tax on high-cost insurance plans -- the main new revenue source in the Finance Committee bill -- would eventually hit many more plans than expected, making more and more people subject to the tax. The report also argues that, while the tax is to be assessed on insurers and employers, it would be passed on to customers through higher premiums.

Analysis: The report overlooks the likelihood that insurers, employers and employees would shift to less costly plans to avoid the tax. This would happen to such an extent, congressional auditors predict, that much of the new tax revenue would actually come in the form of income taxes -- on the higher wages that employers would give in the place of top-shelf health benefits. The report's authors themselves note that a shift to less costly plans would likely occur, but say that they would nonetheless base their estimate on the tax being fully applied.

 

Add a Comment

Name:


Comments:
characters left

NOTE: Do Not Alter These Fields:

Holiday Guide
Examiners spread the seasonal cheer with the Examiner.com Holiday Guide.

Recent Articles

Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Ezra Klein on washingtonpost.com reviews the CBO report on the cost of reform and says it clearly shows premium costs will go down. …
Monday, November 30, 2009
Kaiser Health News has listed several items that have gotten little attention in the media, but could mean significant changes to parts of the …