• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

This is all too absurd to be reality, right?

Accused of treason; bitches about the ratings. I am in awe.

Trump is going to draw a dick on that dog with a sharpie, isn’t he?

Call the National Guard if your insurrection lasts more than four hours.

Something seems odd about that, but i have been drinking.

False Scribes! False Scribes!

It’s always darkest before the other shoe drops.

The house always wins.

Let me eat cake. The rest of you could stand to lose some weight, frankly.

It’s the corruption, stupid.

We are aware of all internet traditions.

Not all heroes wear capes.

Good luck with your asparagus.

Almost as fun as hiking the Appalachian Trail

Women: they get shit done

If you tweet it in all caps, that makes it true!

Deploy the moving finger of emphasisity!

Let’s delete this post and never speak of this again.

Tick tock motherfuckers! Tick fucking tock!

Shallow, uninformed, and lacking identity

Too inconsequential to be sued

All your base are belong to Tunch.

Naturally gregarious and alpha

No offense, but this thread hasn’t been about you for quite a while.

Mobile Menu

  • Look Forward & Back
  • Balloon Juice 2021 Pet Calendar
  • Site Feedback
  • All 2020 Fundraising
  • I Voted!
  • Take Action: Things We Can Do
  • Team Claire, and Family
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • BJ PayPal Donations
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • Nature & Respite
  • Information As Power
  • COVID-19 Coronavirus
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • On The Road
  • Garden Chats
  • Nature & Respite
  • Look Forward & Back
You are here: Home / Anderson On Health Insurance / Public Option and its trade-offs

Public Option and its trade-offs

by David Anderson|  May 29, 20207:21 am| 5 Comments

This post is in: Anderson On Health Insurance

Facebook0Tweet0Email0

Researchers at Rand, including Jodi Liu who I’ve written with before, have a new analysis of a variety of public option plans.  Two variants that increase subsidies have more people better off.  Two variants that merely low index premium levels have more people worse off.  The Public Option Institute has a good summary:

 

Public Option and its trade-offs

 

The public option at this time is a solution in search of several different problems.  Lower price levels are good for individuals who are not receiving subsidies.  Lower price levels are bad for the affordability of coverage on the ACA exchanges for people who get subsidies and purchase plans that are priced below the benchmark.

Last year, I cowrote a Health Affairs blog with Billy Wynne of the Public Option Institute laying out the mechanics of net of subsidy pricing in Colorado:

We found a strong contrast between the affordability impact of the single public option plan and multiple public option plan scenarios. Our analysis suggests that introduction of a single public option plan in each rating area of Colorado would reduce the contribution a sample subsidized consumer would need to make to the premium of the lowest-cost plan in each metallic tier by 40.0 percent to 73.4 percent. Introduction of multiple public option plans in each rating area would, by contrast, decrease net premium contributions by 6.5 percent for the lowest-cost gold plan while increasing the contribution required for bronze and silver plans by 15.7 and 0.7 percent, respectively.

The fact that Colorado’s 2019 market currently has limited spreads between the least expensive silver plan and benchmark plan contribute to this disparity of impact between the single public option and multiple public option scenarios. Currently, for a single 27-year-old, the difference in premium between the least expensive silver and the benchmark ranges from $1.00 to $18.00, with an average difference of $8.44 and a median difference of $6.00. A uniform reduction of 20 percent in premium would shrink the absolute difference in premiums between the less expensive plan and the benchmark if two or more public option plans were to be introduced. Lower spreads yield higher net premiums for subsidized buyers who purchase plans priced below the benchmark, which is what we have modeled here. These findings are consistent with the work of Coleman Drake and Jean Abraham who have demonstrated how insurer competition in the market reduces premiums but also compresses silver premium spreads, which reduces the value of the APTC as premiums converge over time.

Emma Sandoe and I wrote that policy makers need to understand their objectives in regards to proposals for Medicaid buy-in.  I think that same warning applies to public option proposals as well”

The policy should be judged based on how the programs serve the policy maker’s intended goals. Medicaid buy-in proposals can achieve multiple goals. Each advocate may lay out their goals of this policy differently, but whether the details of their plan meet their stated goals can be determined using the criteria outlined in this post…

Medicaid buy-in proposals still need significant development to become a viable policy. At this stage, proposals should outline their intended objectives and clearly articulate the policy choices aimed at addressing these goals….

The critical questions for a public option program at this time is what problem is it trying to solve, and how does it interact with the ACA price linked subsidy formula as it attempts to solve the stated problem. The RAND analysis shows that there are significant trade-offs with meaningful distributional impacts.
 

Facebook0Tweet0Email0
Previous Post: « Friday Morning Open Thread: One Step At A Time
Next Post: ‘Remember, you get what you pay for…’ »

Reader Interactions

5Comments

  1. 1.

    Uncle Cosmo

    May 29, 2020 at 10:13 am

    Nothing like a wonky David Anderson health policy thread to bring commenting on BJ to a screeching halt. /grouch

    I do have one substantive comment, though: IMO that 2×2 table up top is waaaaaay too coarse-grained to facilitate any sort of reasonable analysis. What’s “better off/worse off”? Cheaper/pricier? By how much? What’s the distribution of savings/cost by (say) disposable income?

    The question is, how much “better off/worse off” do people need to be before it’s noticeable? Which sorts of people? And what is the weighted gain/pain? And (unfortunately) how many “very much worse off” outliers could the anti-health-insurance types dig up & splash across their pet media as examples of the horror of soshulized medsin?

    (Maybe – probably – this is addressed in your paper, David, but I’m really of no mind to go digging around in the weeds to flush it out. I’m only saying that IMO what you present, to the level you present it here, is not all that informative for policy considerations.)

  2. 2.

    negative 1

    May 29, 2020 at 10:31 am

    I admit I’m WAAAYYYY too dumb to understand this, so maybe someone can help me out.  Keeping the public option ‘off of the exchange’ helps the most because the ‘advanced premium tax credit’ decreases if the premium price goes down.

    Why is this a problem?  I get RAND’s analysis, like they have to analyze an idea placed into existing conditions.  But why couldn’t you just increase the amount of the subsidy until at the very least people are held harmless?  Or, put another way, lets say plan B was $1,000 and you were subsidized $400.  In comes Public Option at $700.  This decreases the subsidy to $350.  Now, I understand that you are stuck — you still can’t afford Public Option at $700, but your subsidized coverage is still net $650 vs. $600.  Why can’t you just run the subsidy as if the public option doesn’t exist, so that the net still remains at $600?  Or, why isn’t the Public Option capable of being subsidized?  I am not saying ‘gee I’m so smart look I solved it’ I genuinely don’t understand what it is I don’t understand.

  3. 3.

    David Anderson

    May 29, 2020 at 11:22 am

    @Uncle Cosmo: Truth — and it felt damn good to write a non-COVID thing this morning.

    RAND analyzed 4 scenarios.  2 of the scenarios they had any differential in benchmark levels and thus premium tax credits funnelled back to beneficiaries in the form of higher subsidies.  RAND defined Better off as being able to afford the same or higher AV coverage for the same or lower premium.  Worse Off is  defined as paying a higher premium for the same or worse coverage.

     

    And I agree a 2×2 table is reductive but useful in first level communication.  I’m acknowledging that I’ve become an academic as I get way too excited about the tables in Appendix B rather than the actual paper.

    There was a sensitivity analysis of a paper in 2019 that had a null result that I am trying to figure out how to get 2 or 3 years worth of funding to really run down in exhaustive detail.

  4. 4.

    ronno2018

    May 29, 2020 at 11:44 am

    I have a news alert for Washington State Cascade Care which is under development.  I really would like to hear from the staff attempting to develop it.  If we can get a Biden presidency and control of the Senate, they need to coordinate with whatever adjustments to ACA happen at the federal level.

  5. 5.

    Yutsano

    May 29, 2020 at 2:57 pm

    @ronno2018: I was curious, so I did some research. I found this PDF with some interesting information. Maybe our long lost Mr. Mayhew can pour over it when he gets an opportunity.

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

Biden-Harris Inauguration

Biden-Harris Inauguration Website
Watch Inauguration events above ⬆

Kakistocracy
I believe In My Fellow Americans
Defeat Them
Turning Bystanders Into Activists
UFOs and Officers
First Up, COVID
Idiots and Maniacs
Our National Illness
Libraries
You Have One Job

Do Something!

Call Your Senators & Representatives
Directory of US Senators
Directory of US Representatives
Letter to Elected Officials – Albatrossity
Letter to Elected Officials – Martin

I Got the Shot!

🎈Ways to Support Our Site

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal
Shop Amazon via this link to support Balloon Juice ⬇  

Recent Comments

  • 🐾BillinGlendaleCA on Open Thread (Jan 23, 2021 @ 12:37am)
  • No name on Guest Post: Our National Illness (Jan 23, 2021 @ 12:34am)
  • Kent on Open Thread (Jan 23, 2021 @ 12:32am)
  • Kent on Open Thread (Jan 23, 2021 @ 12:28am)
  • Ivan X on Open Thread (Jan 23, 2021 @ 12:28am)

Team Claire, and Family

Help for David’s Niece Claire
Claire Updates
Claire update for the holidays 12/23

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year

Featuring

John Cole
Silverman on Security
COVID-19 Coronavirus
Medium Cool with BGinCHI
Information Is Power

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Submit Photos to On the Road
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Meetups: Proof of Life
2021 Pets of Balloon Juice Calendar

Culture: Books, Film, TV, Music, Games, Podcasts

Noir: Favorites in Film, Books, TV
Book Recommendations & Indy Recs
Mystery Recommendations
Medium Cool: What If (Books & Films)
Netflix Favorites
Amazon Prime Favorites
Netflix Suggestions in July
Fun Music Thread
Longmire & Netflix Suggestions
Medium Cool: Places!
Medium Cool: Games!
Medium Cool: Watch or Read Again

Twitter

John Cole’s Twitter

[custom-twitter-feeds]

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2021 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!