As much as I wanted to put the word unintended before consequence in my title, I had a hard time believing that what I’m about to write about was unintended.
As many of you are aware, the Affordable Care Act a.k.a. “Obamacare” is the law passed that requires, among other things, that everyone carry health insurance, subject to some specific exclusions. What I want to talk about is how this affected my insurance specifically and likely affected the insurance of many others.
Before the Act was passed my family and I enjoyed health insurance through our HSA. A health savings account allows a person or family to have a high deductible health insurance plan while also making tax deductible contributions to an account that can amass funds for medical expenses. Funds from the account that pay for qualified medical expenses are tax free. Self-employed individuals can also deduct their health insurance premiums as an above the line deduction.
This plan worked for us and still does, but some things have changed – mainly the cost of the plan.
In a nutshell, our monthly premiums increased from about $350 per month before the Act to now over $750 per month after the Act was passed. There are a number of different reasons why the price increased but the main reason was this: adverse selection.
If you’re not familiar with the term adverse selection is a term used for insurance underwriting. Whether an underwriter is working on a life, auto, home or health policy their main job is to manage adverse selection. Adverse selection is the tendency for those who have a hard time getting insurance or not being able to get insurance at all to want to coverage. An example is a recently convicted drunk driver that has to have insurance before he or she is allowed behind the wheel again or an individual with a term life policy about to expire but can’t get a new policy due to health reasons.
In both of these cases, the underwriter will raise the premiums. For the driver, since the underwriter knows the risk is high and recidivism is a possibility, they adjust the premiums upward accordingly. For the term policy holder, their only option may be to renew their current policy which will increase their monthly premiums astronomically. Why? Because the insurance company knows that it’s very likely that anyone that renews can’t get insurance elsewhere since renewals don’t require providing evidence of insurability. Thus they respond by increasing the premium.
Another example is auto insurance underwriting. Most insurance companies know that there’s a direct correlation between claims and credit. Generally the lower the credit rating for an individual the more likely they are to have at-fault claims. This is why many companies require a credit check before offering their best rate to clients. Thus, the higher risks with low credit are in a different risk pool and are charged higher rates while the lower risk, higher credit folks are in a different pool with lower rates.
Some states, however, such as California prohibit such credit checks. How do insurance companies compensate? You guessed it. They raise everyone’s rate.
This is where my examples tie into the Affordable Care Act. Now that the law requires everyone to have insurance or pay a penalty as well as underwriting being much less restrictive; the insurance companies have no choice but to raise everyone’s rates in order to compensate for others’ health issues.
This is why the Act may have been an intended consequence. It was touted as “affordable” coverage for most individuals; however this is one individual that could have gone without a 114% increase in his family’s premiums. Keep in mind this is for a family plan with a $10,000 deductible!
While I am certainly not above helping individuals in need and those who cannot truly afford health insurance, I have a hard time subsidizing poor health decisions – such as eating poorly, not exercising, smoking, drinking, etc. (yes – these are all choices).
Since the Act limits the amount of underwriting that can be done, just like the auto insurance example – everyone’s rate increases. If not for the penalties (tax) we would face for not having coverage, for my wife and I it would be cheaper to simply self-insure as our doctor visits do not even come close to $9,000 in premiums annually. And this is not including any contributions we make to our HSA account.
This is why I have a hard time with unintended consequence. Perhaps the Act should be renamed the Affordable for Some Care Act as it is blatantly obvious that in order to have affordable coverage for all, many are paying more.
One of the many problems with Obamacare is that it burdens a very small segment of the population — self-employed individuals and small businesses — with the costs of those deemed uninsurable by the insurance companies. This is grossly unfair. If we wanted to help those unable to get insurance because of illness, the burden should have been put on the broader population. Those with large employer insurance are not contributing anything while the self-employed have seen their insurance coverage deteriorate and their premiums escalate.
You say your premiums increased. But lets flip the scenario. If you had cancer, you could not find “affordable” insurance before. Now you can. So there you go. The affordable care in the name ACA does not refer to all people or insurance premiums. It refers to/targets people who need care. I hope you get the point. “Credit check” example of California is so lame. Having credit or a credit history is a choice. Basing your car insurance on it is wrong because it engenders selection bias. I hope you could have mentioned that too.
I appreciate your response. I also need to reiterate that as per the article I am NOT above helping people who need the coverage, for example your cancer scenario. What I do have a problem with is what if your person with cancer obtained it through smoking or a poor lifestyle? As per your words, that is a choice. A choice that consumers are now paying for. As far as the car insurance example, the example is spot on with the concept of adverse selection. Adverse selection is a statistically sound principle that every insurance company uses. And in this case every health insurer is using it to guard against those now who could not get coverage before due to health issues or poor choices. The concept being that as you add more and more people who are unhealthy and cannot get insurance the premiums have to increase because it places a burden on the system because those are the people that are more likely to need coverage and more likely to use the services that you and I are paying for through the act.
Think of it this way, should you be responsible for somebody who’s been pulled over for drunk driving multiple times and their car insurance rates increase? Would it be fair for your premiums to increase because of that persons poor choices? I think you would agree the answer is No.
Is it lame to say that now I have to pay for coverage that I don’t need myself such as maternity or birth control? Both of those scenarios are choices as well but unfortunately myself as well as millions of other people are paying for other people’s choices. Again, that’s adverse selection. If now those coverages which are choices are mandatory my premiums go up to cover those as does everyone elses.
Even people who were not paying for health insurance before that are required to get coverage, although it might be affordable, they still have to pay for it and are paying for something that they didn’t want or need before – or else they are penalized via the tax.
I cannot think of an example where I have had somebody actually show me their premiums have decreased. The other unintended consequence that I did not mention is that many employers have laid off or reduced employee’s hours so that they don’t have to comply with the Act. Now you’re looking at folks who had health insurance who can’t afford it because their employers reduced their working hours because it was too much of a burden on the employers.
What makes matters worse, is that now you have people with full time jobs reduced to working less than 30 hours per week. Explain to me how that is affordable. Thank you again for your reply.
So I guess Medicare does not begin until one gets their SSA retirement benefits…I think people who live a healthy lifestyle should get “a tax deduction”; just my 2c ! @
One qualifies to receive Medicare benefits at 65 regardless of if they’re receiving Social Security benefits or not.
Exactly!