• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Affordable Care Act At Fifteen: Policy Surprises And Lessons

Greenbeard

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2013
Messages
25,450
Reaction score
32,400
Location
Cambridge, MA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
With the Affordable Care Act's 15th birthday coming up on Sunday (my, how time flies!), lots of retrospective pieces are starting to pop up.

Despite plenty of unfinished business, the basic facts are worthy of celebration. Uninsurance plummeted, hitting an all-time low in 2023, with 45 million Americans insured directly under options created by the ACA last year. Health care cost growth since the ACA passed has been the lowest on record--the only sustained period of bending the cost curve ever. And the demonstrable positive impacts on quality and people's health outcomes have been quite exciting.

But the implementation has been a rocky experience, with lots of twists and turns. What have we learned? Three potential takeaways:

The Affordable Care Act At Fifteen: Policy Surprises And Lessons
The Individual Mandate Was Not Essential After All
Few parts of the ACA were more controversial than the “individual mandate.” During the 2008 Democratic primary, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama clashed over the necessity of requiring individuals to buy health coverage if they could afford it. First introduced by Republicans in 1993, most experts and virtually all insurers viewed the mandate as essential to simultaneously requiring equal access to coverage for people with pre-existing conditions. Yet, it caused staunch allies to blanch during the 2009 Congressional debate and was subject to Constitutional challenges decided twice by the Supreme Court. Ultimately, the tax linked to the individual mandate was repealed as part of the massive Tax Cut and Jobs Act of 2017. Even though discerning its impact amidst other changes is challenging, the foretold implosion of the individual market without the individual mandate did not occur.
Premium Tax Credits Have Been Extra Important
A second surprise has been the unexpectedly effective role of health insurance marketplace premium tax credits. At passage, these tax credits were viewed as important, although limited in value and constrained by eligibility floors and ceilings at 100 percent and 400 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL). When the Trump administration ceased payments for cost sharing reductions in 2017, despite the ongoing requirement that insurers lower cost sharing for enrollees with income below 250 percent of FPL, the premium tax credits were able to absorb the cost through “silver loading.” Moreover, modifications to the tax credits in the 2021 American Rescue Plan, continued by the Inflation Reduction Act through 2025, contributed to a doubling of marketplace enrollment. This helped prevent major coverage loss after the COVID-19 pandemic, defying expectations, and achieve the original projected marketplace enrollment goal of 24 million. Congress must continue these tax credit changes in the coming months to prevent lower enrollment, higher premiums, and more uninsured Americans.
Fixing Rather Than Adding Programs Was More Effective
[...]While the limited impact of the high-risk pool program was not a total surprise, the massive amount of work for small gains was unexpected—as was the repeat across the ACA of changes to existing programs outperforming new programs. Other examples include the enduring benefit of consumer regulations in private insurance (e.g., medical loss ratios) versus the new consumer-run plan, COOPs, whose funding was repealed; and the greater impact of the statutory Medicare accountable care organizations versus the models added by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation. Part of the success in improving coverage, costs, and outcomes of the ACA’s Medicaid expansion is that it extended the existing program.

I agree with those, though the third one is kind of nuanced. But if Dems had known how much health care cost growth would plummet and how much more important more generous subsidies were than an individual mandate, the last 15 years could have been quite different politically.

Lots more learnings one could add to the list, but for me it's the perhaps underappreciated overriding importance of income inequality. Despite the ACA being perhaps the biggest inequality reducing piece of legislation in decades, something upstream of it still seems broken. If you had told me 15 years ago that the cost curve would bend (something I didn't think would happen until the 2020s) and that per capita health care costs would fall as a portion of disposable per capita income, I would have imagined most people would feel that. But it doesn't seem to have registered, which suggests that the 'real' problem is potentially one of inequality, if arresting (or even reversing on a per capita income basis) health cost growth still leaves people feeling left behind. Still musing on that one.
 
I note that it is no longer referred to as Obamacare. Thank you Barack. And John McCain.
 
You only celebrate spending money if you got a good deal.
 
You only celebrate spending money if you got a good deal.

Luckily we did.

 
@Greenbeard
"The Individual Mandate Was Not Essential After All"

Bullshit.
 
@Greenbeard
"The Individual Mandate Was Not Essential After All"

Bullshit.

There's a lot of extenuating factors but I think the evidence suggests the reality is:

Original ACA Subsidies w/o Individual Mandate < Original ACA Subsidies w/ Individual Mandate < Biden-era ACA Subsidies w/o Individual Mandate

Which is to say, the individual mandate was somewhat useful, but not nearly as useful as simply making the ACA's premium subsidies more generous and available even to middle and upper middle class families.

We saw uninsurance fall precipitously under Obama when the ACA went into effect, then start to tick up under Trump for various reasons, and then fall to all-time lows under Biden (even without the individual mandate). The ACA marketplaces basically doubled in size under Biden, all without the mandate. Given the political headaches the individual mandate caused, it seems clear in retrospect we should have just done more generous subsidies from the start and avoided the whole controversy.

Picture1_ce9359.png

Picture3_ae0e6a.png
 
Medicare for all in some form would end this useless discussion. Or perhaps when we annex Canada we’ll come to our senses and do what they do.
 
Some of the funniest videos I've ever seen are Republicans on the street who say that they like the ACA but they hate Obamacare.

🤣🤣🤣🤣
 
Some of the funniest videos I've ever seen are Republicans on the street who say that they like the ACA but they hate Obamacare.

🤣🤣🤣🤣
No mystery there. That’s actually the official GOP position. Support the program but don’t acknowledge its origin and your previous opposition. Sort of like Reagan and Medicare. Ronnie condemned it as a threat to freedom, but then did nothing to harm it when in office.
 
Which is to say, the individual mandate was somewhat useful, but not nearly as useful as simply making the ACA's premium subsidies more generous and available even to middle and upper middle class families.

Wrong.

The money not put in did not miraculously appear from nowhere.
 
From the individual mandate.

The point of the mandate wasn’t to bring in money, it was to bring in people, mostly to the new marketplaces. That is, it was intended to offset the bad incentives for adverse selection created by eliminating preexisting condition exclusions.

But in the end better subsidies have produced twice as much marketplace enrollment as the individual mandate ever did.
 
And this money magically appears?

It came from the same place as it has since the marketplaces opened in 2014, the Treasury.

The thing is, making the ACA subsidies more generous and expanding the number of people eligible for them hasn't actually raised the cost. At least not relative to what was expected/budgeted under the ACA's original structure.

Years ago, under the original skimpier ACA structure for the subsidies, the CBO projected that in 2024 the marketplace subsidies would cost $132 billion at an average of $7,170 per subsidized enrollee.

In reality, with Biden's more generous subsidies available to more people, marketplace subsidies cost $122 billion with an average cost of $6,432 per subsidized enrollee. (And, needless to say, the projections from over a decade ago didn't account for the unexpected post-pandemic spurt of inflation that has reset costs upward economy-wide so the degree to which marketplace subsidy costs last year were under the original expectations is a bit understated).

It's not something that could have been predicted 15 years ago (no one would have believed it!) but it's still unfortunate that the more generous subsidy structure wasn't built in from the start.
 
With less coming in because the mandate was repealed.

The individual mandate was bringing in ~$3-3.5 billion in revenue a year. ACA marketplace subsidies alone last year were $10 billion cheaper with the more generous subsidies than they were projected to be with the original less generous subsidies.
 
The individual mandate was bringing in ~$3-3.5 billion in revenue a year. ACA marketplace subsidies alone last year were $10 billion cheaper with the more generous subsidies than they were projected to be with the original less generous subsidies.

HELLO! where the **** did the subsidies magically appear from ?
 
And, again, where do they come from?

Does the money magically fall from the sky ?
Nobody is suggesting that it did. It was budgeted from the beginning. @Greenbeard has said as much several times. What point are you really trying to make?
 
Nobody is suggesting that it did. It was budgeted from the beginning. @Greenbeard has said as much several times. What point are you really trying to make?

So, we are using tax money we would not need to if the mandate was not lifted. Why can't you admit this ?
 
The money budgeted has not changed because the mandate was lifted. What is there for me to admit? I really do not understand what you are getting at.
 
So, we are using tax money we would not need to if the mandate was not lifted. Why can't you admit this ?

No, the subsidies cost less last year with the beefed-up Biden subsidies and no individual mandate than they were projected to with the original Obama subsidies and an individual mandate. We're spending less tax money, not more. That's the point.
 
the subsidies cost less last year with the beefed-up Biden subsidies and no individual mandate than they were projected to with the original Obama subsidies and an individual mandate
This is of no relevance.

Without the mandate we take in less hence have to use other monies to pay.

That the project was off is not relevant.

Be honest.

Thanks
 
Back
Top Bottom