Women’s Health Quiz: Health Coverage and the Affordable Care Act

Published: May 9, 2013

Health insurance coverage is a critical factor in making health care accessible to women—women with health coverage are more likely to obtain needed preventive, primary, and specialty care services. Test your knowledge of women’s health coverage and the effect of the Affordable Care Act on women with our ten-question quiz.

Step 1 of 10

What share of women between the ages of 18 and 64 in the U.S. are uninsured?(Required)

Testimony: Wellness Programs and Nondiscrimination Under Employer-Sponsored Group Health Plans

Author: Karen Pollitz
Published: May 8, 2013

On May 8, 2013, Karen Pollitz, a Foundation Senior Fellow, testified about wellness programs and nondiscrimination under employer-sponsored group health plans before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,  Her prepared testimony included background on wellness programs, wellness incentives and nondiscrimination since 1996, and questions and issues related to proposed regulations governing the design and application of wellness programs offered in conjunction with employer-sponsored group health plans.

News Release

Kaiser Family Foundation Launches All New Kff.org

Published: May 6, 2013

Website Features New Search, Integration of Content by Key Topics, Design for Mobile Devices

Menlo Park, CA – The Kaiser Family Foundation today announced the launch of an all new kff.org, the Foundation’s popular web destination for its health policy information. The new kff.org has been designed to fit the way people currently access and consume online information, and is built on an open-source platform that can rapidly evolve to incorporate the latest advances in online communication.

In redesigning kff.org, the Foundation consolidated five websites and gateways developed over the last decade to provide a single point of entry to the Foundation’s diverse information resources.  (The foundation will maintain a separate site for Kaiser Health News (KHN), its nonprofit health news service.) The new kff.org will provide a streamlined experience centered around 10 major health policy topics, with content continually updated on the home page, topic pages and throughout the site to reflect both current health policy issues as well as the Foundation’s latest resources.  All content on a topic – whether a fact sheet, poll, slide, data table, video or infographic or KHN news report – will be integrated for one-stop viewing.

Developed in partnership with WordPress.com VIP, the website showcases a new faceted search engine, developed specifically for kff.org, which provides a shopping-like experience to users who can refine searches by attributes like date, topics, tags, and type of content.  The site also utilizes the latest techniques to optimize viewing on tablets and smartphones.  Users of the new website will be able to access graphics, information and data from the newest Kaiser reports more easily thanks to a newly designed format no longer constrained by PDFs that is easy to read and interact with on all devices.

“The Kaiser Family Foundation always strives to provide the best information on health policy issues,” said KFF President and Chief Executive Officer Drew Altman.  “The new kff.org puts our online information together in a much simpler and more engaging way for the many audiences who rely on us every day.”

“We’re very excited to have the Kaiser Family Foundation’s newly redesigned site on WordPress.com VIP, delivering a great experience on the desktop web, tablet, and mobile.  Kff.org breaks new ground in bringing faceted search to a WordPress site, powered by VIP-hosted Elasticsearch.  I’m impressed with KFF’s commitments and contributions to open source, and looking forward to their continued involvement with these communities,” said Raanan Bar-Cohen, Senior Vice President at Automattic.

Using an innovative custom plug-in for WordPress, kff.org users can now interact with state and global data tables, maps, and trend graphs on health issues (previously found on statehealthfacts.org and globalhealthfacts.org) alongside related fact sheets, briefs and reports, rather than needing to visit separate Foundation sites to find different types of information on the same topic.

Many existing resources have been refreshed for the new platform, including quizzes, timelines, slides and other interactive tools.  Slideshows and chartpacks from new Kaiser polls have gone social and can be shared using an embeddable viewer from Slideshare, providing a wider audience with easy access to the Foundation’s resources.

###

The Kaiser Family Foundation, a leader in health policy analysis, health journalism and communication, is dedicated to filling the need for trusted, independent information on the major health issues facing our nation and its people. The Foundation is a non-profit private operating foundation, based in Menlo Park, California.

Automattic offers a network of web services for online publishers including WordPress.com, VIP hosting and support, VaultPress, Akismet, VideoPress, Jetpack, Simplenote,  Gravatar, and more. The Automattic network attracts over 650 million worldwide unique visitors every month.

What Difference Does Medicaid Make? Assessing Cost Effectiveness, Access, and Financial Protection under Medicaid for Low-Income Adults

Published: May 3, 2013

This brief examines the cost and use of health care among low-income nonelderly adults who are covered by Medicaid relative to their expected service use and costs if they instead had employer-sponsored insurance (ESI) coverage or were uninsured. The analysis controls for a wide array of factors that also influence utilization and spending in an effort to isolate the specific effects of Medicaid coverage. Consistent with previous research, the analysis underscores how Medicaid facilitates access to care for program beneficiaries.

Issue Brief (.pdf)

Poll Finding

Kaiser Health Tracking Poll: April 2013

Published: Apr 30, 2013

As government officials, community organizations and advocates gear up the consumer information and assistance efforts that will surround this fall’s open enrollment for the health insurance exchanges created under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), much of the public remains confused about the status of the health law, according to the April Kaiser Health Tracking Poll. Four in ten Americans (42 percent) are unaware that the ACA is still the law of the land, including 12 percent who believe the law has been repealed by Congress, 7 percent who believe it has been overturned by the Supreme Court and 23 percent who don’t know whether or not the ACA remains law. And about half the public says they do not have enough information about the health reform law to understand how it will impact their own family, a share that rises among the uninsured and low-income households. When it comes to where they are getting information about the law, Americans most commonly cite friends and family, “newspapers, radio news or other online news sources”, and cable news. About one in ten report getting information from a health insurer, their doctor, an employer, or a non-profit organization. Similar shares say they have gotten information from “federal agencies such as the Department of Health and Human Services” or “state agencies such as your state Medicaid office”.

Heading Into Open Enrollment: Personal Conversations, News Media Have Been Main Sources Of Public’s ACA Info Thus Far

As the federal government, state governments and other stakeholders gear up for public information campaigns tied to the October start of open enrollment in the ACA’s health insurance exchanges, Americans report that thus far they have been relying most heavily on their own personal networks and the news media for information about a law that continues to be only dimly understood by many. The most commonly cited sources of information in Kaiser’s April Health Tracking Poll are friends and family (named by 40 percent), “newspapers, radio or other online news” (36 percent), and cable news (30 percent).

Thus far, about one in ten Americans report getting any information from a health insurance company, their doctor, an employer, or a non-profit, and few name any of these as their most important source of information. About the same share (9 percent) report having gotten information from “federal agencies such as the Department of Health and Human Services,” with little difference across demographic groups. Eight percent say they have gotten some ACA information from “state agencies such as your state Medicaid office or health department,” a share which doubles among African Americans (17 percent). The poll provides a rough baseline before more intensive public information and consumer assistance begins.

Figure 1

At this point, uninsured Americans and those with lower incomes are less likely to report having gotten information about the ACA across a wide variety of sources. 1  For example, 30 percent of those with lower incomes say they have learned something about the ACA from newspapers, radio, or online sources, compared to 48 percent of those with incomes upward of $90,000. Similar gaps are seen between the insured and the uninsured: 46 percent of the insured have chatted with family members or friends about the law, compared to 32 percent of the uninsured.

Despite the fact that the uninsured and lower income are less likely to have learned about the ACA from friends or the news media when compared to higher income, insured Americans, personal conversations along with the news media still remain the most commonly reported sources of information among these groups.

FIGURE 2: ACROSS A VARIETY OF SOURCES, LOWER INCOME, UNINSURED LESS LIKELY TO HAVE GOTTEN ACA INFO
Percent who say they have gotten any information about the health care law from each of the following in the past 30 daysBY ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOMEBY INSURANCE STATUS
TotalLess than $40,000$40,000-$89,999$90,000 and higherInsured (under 65)Uninsured (under 65)
Conversations with friends and family40%34%47%*52%*46%+32%
Newspapers, radio, online363040*48*39+28
Cable TV30253139*32+21
National broadcast24202531*27+14
Local TV191919212015
Health insurance company119121111+6
Employer1181216*14+7
Doctor1181115*12+7
Federal agencies91099107
State agencies8105895
Non-profit or community organization86811*95
*indicates statistically significant difference from lower income+indicates statistically significant difference from the uninsuredNOTE: Question wording abbreviated. For full question wording see topline (http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/8439.cfm).

Asked whether they had heard mostly good things, mostly bad things or a mix of the two from their primary information source, most Americans said they had gleaned a bit of both. To the extent that the information did tilt one way or the other, more said they had heard negative things about the law than positive, whether their main source of information was cable news, other news sources, or their friends and family.What about people who don’t approve of the Affordable Care Act: are they getting their information about the law from the same sources as the law’s supporters? This month’s survey finds those with unfavorable views of the law for the most part are getting their information from the same sources in the same shares as those with favorable views, though they are somewhat more likely to report getting information from friends and family (50 percent compared to 40 percent) and from cable news (37 percent compared to 29 percent). They are also nearly three times as likely to report getting information from an employer: 17 percent of ACA opponents say they have gotten ACA information from an employer, compared to 6 percent of supporters.

FIGURE 3: MAJORITY REPORT HEARING A MIX OF GOOD AND BAD ABOUT THE HEALTH CARE LAW
Thinking about the information you’ve gotten about the law from your most important source, would you say you’ve heard mostly good things about the law, mostly bad things, or a mix of the two?Among those whose most important source on the ACA is conversations with friends and familyAmong those whose most important source on the ACA is newspapers, radio, or other online sourcesAmong those whose most important source on the ACA is cable TV news channels, or their websites
Bad things30%26%26%
Good things967
Mix of the two616565

Early Days For ACA Ad Penetration

At this early stage, before the launch of most public campaigns, about one in four Americans already say they’ve seen or heard an ad having to do with the health care law, though more of these are being perceived as having a point of view on the law than are seen to be strictly informational in nature. Among those who said they had seen an ad, slightly more reported seeing a negative ad (19 percent of the public overall) than a positive one (12 percent of the public). About one in ten Americans report seeing an ad that provided information about how to get coverage under the health care law.

Those who reported relying mainly on cable news as their main source of ACA information were twice as likely as the public in general to report having seen an ad about the law. Those in groups targeted by the law, including the uninsured and those in low income households, were no more likely to report having seen an ad about the ACA.

Four In Ten Unaware ACA Is Still Law

Meanwhile, the April tracking survey provides continuing confirmation of the amount of confusion still surrounding the status of the Affordable Care Act, with four in ten Americans unaware that the ACA is still the law of the land and is being implemented.2  This share is higher among certain populations the law was specifically designed to help; for example, six in ten of those in households making less than $30,000 a year are unable to say the law is still in force, as are half of younger Americans.

FIGURE 4: FOUR IN TEN UNAWARE ACA STILL LAW AND BEING IMPLEMENTED
As you may know, a health care bill was signed into law in March 2010. As far as you know, which comes closest to describing the current status of the health care law?AllAges18-29Annual household income less than $30,000
It is still the law of the law and is being implemented (aware of ACA status)59%49%42%
Unaware of ACA status (NET)425159
It has been overturned by the Supreme Court and is nolonger law7814
It has been repealed by Congress and is no longer law122116
Don’t know/Refused232229
Note: Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding.

Not surprisingly, then, about half the public (49 percent) says they do not have enough information about the health reform law to understand how it will impact their own family, a proportion which rises to 56 percent among those non-elderly living in low-income households, and 58 percent among the uninsured. Also notable: Hispanics are more likely than whites or blacks to report they do not yet have enough information about the law to understand how the ACA will affect their families (65 percent of Hispanics say so, compared to 48 percent of blacks and 45 percent of whites).

More Favor Making Changes To Law Than Defunding It

Overall, the public remains as divided as ever when it comes to their overall evaluations of the health law. This month, 35 percent report a favorable view, 40 percent an unfavorable view, and a full 24 percent report they have no opinion on the law, continuing a recent trend of particularly high shares not offering an opinion. Partisans remain quite divided, with a majority of Democrats in favor (57 percent) and most Republicans opposed (67 percent).

Figure 5

In terms of the law’s political future, just over half of Americans (53 percent) continue to say that they approve of efforts by opponents to change or stop the law “so it has less impact on taxpayers, employers, and health care providers”, a view which theoretically encompasses a range of positions from hard-core repeal supporters to those who believe the law only needs minor tweaks. One in three (including more than half of Democrats) believe that the law’s opponents should accept that it is the law of the land and stop trying to block its implementation, down somewhat from January (33 percent now compared to 40 percent at the start of the year).

Still, a majority of Americans continue to oppose the idea of stopping the law by defunding it in Congress. Overall, 58 percent say they disapprove of cutting off funding as a way to stop some or all of the law from being put into place, 31 percent approve. While Republicans are significantly more likely than Democrats or independents to give their blessings to this tactic (51 percent do), 37 percent disapprove of defunding the law.

Figure 6

State Medicaid Expansion

With state by state deliberations on the future of the ACA’s Medicaid expansion ongoing, a somewhat larger share of Americans favor having their state expand Medicaid than favor keeping their state’s program as it is today (50 percent versus 41 percent). These percentages have been roughly stable since last summer, and even providing both sides with a counterargument currently does little to change people’s minds, as the chart in Figure 7 shows.

Figure 7

Americans, like their leaders, are divided on this issue by their partisan affiliation: seven in ten Democrats would like to see their state expand its Medicaid program under the ACA, while roughly the same share of Republicans would like to keep their state’s program as is, and independents are divided. Another way to look at it: among those who like the law, most (75 percent) want to expand their state’s Medicaid program. Among those who don’t like the law, most (67 percent) want to keep Medicaid’s status quo in their state.

FIGURE 8: VIEWS ON STATE MEDICAID EXPANSION DIFFER SHARPLY BY PARTISAN IDENTIFICATION
Do you think your state should keep Medicaid as it is today or expand Medicaid to cover more low-income uninsured people?BY PARTY ID
TotalDemocratsIndependentsRepublicans
Keep Medicaid as is41%21%42%68%
Expand Medicaid50724721
Other/Neither (VOL.)/Don’t know/Refused971011

As experts try to keep up with the complicated decision-making going on in some states over the future of their Medicaid program, three in four Americans say they don’t know enough to say what their state’s leadership has decided on the issue.

This Kaiser Health Tracking Poll was designed and analyzed by public opinion researchers at the Kaiser Family Foundation led by Mollyann Brodie, Ph.D., including Claudia Deane and Sarah Cho. The survey was conducted April 15-20, 2013, among a nationally representative random digit dial telephone sample of 1,203 adults ages 18 and older, living in the United States, including Alaska and Hawaii (note: persons without a telephone could not be included in the random selection process). Computer-assisted telephone interviews conducted by landline (601) and cell phone (602, including 339 who had no landline telephone) were carried out in English and Spanish by Princeton Data Source under the direction of Princeton Survey Research Associates International (PSRAI). Both the landline and cell phone samples were provided by Survey Sampling International, LLC. For the landline sample, respondents were selected by asking for the youngest adult male or female currently at home based on a random rotation. If no one of that gender was available, interviewers asked to speak with the youngest adult of the opposite gender. For the cell phone sample, interviews were conducted with the person who answered the phone.

The combined landline and cell phone sample was weighted to balance the sample demographics to match estimates for the national population data from the Census Bureau’s 2011 American Community Survey (ACS) on sex, age, education, race, Hispanic origin, nativity (for Hispanics only), and region along with data from the 2010 Census on population density. The sample was also weighted to match current patterns of telephone use using data from the January-June 2012 National Health Interview Survey. The weight takes into account the fact that respondents with both a landline and cell phone have a higher probability of selection in the combined sample and also adjusts for the household size for the landline sample. All statistical tests of significance account for the effect of weighting. Weighted and unweighted values for key demographic variables are shown in the table below.

Sample Demographics
UnweightedWeighted
Gender
Male48.8%48.2%
Female51.2%51.8%
Age
18-249.2%13.2%
25-3414.6%16.6%
35-4413.1%16.6%
45-5417.9%18.9%
55-6420.4%16.4%
65+24.8%18.2%
Education
HS Graduate or Less29.1%41.6%
Some College/Assoc. Degree28.8%30.7%
College Grad.42.1%27.7%
Race/Ethnicity
White/not Hispanic72.9%67.7%
Black/not Hispanic10.4%11.7%
Hisp – US born7.6%7.2%
Hisp – born outside4.7%6.9%
Other/not Hispanic4.4%6.5%
Party Identification
Democrat31.4%30.9%
Independent33.2%32.7%
Republican22.1%20.8%
Other7.3%8.2%

The margin of sampling error including the design effect for the full sample is plus or minus 3 percentage points. For results based on subgroups, the margin of sampling error may be higher. Sample sizes and margin of sampling errors for other subgroups are available by request. Note that sampling error is only one of many potential sources of error in this or any other public opinion poll.

The response rate calculated based on the American Association for Public Opinion Research’s Response Rate 3 formula was 10 percent for the landline sample and 11 percent for the cell phone sample.

Methodology for Omnibus Supplement

One additional question (about whether the ACA is still law of the land or if it has been repealed or overturned by the Supreme Court) was asked on the Princeton Data Source omnibus survey. Different research clients purchase space on the omnibus survey and therefore additional questions covering a wide variety of topics may have preceded or followed the question. The Kaiser Health Tracking Poll Omnibus Supplement was conducted April 18-21, 2013, among a nationally representative random digit dial telephone sample of 1,002 adults ages 18 and older, living in the continental United States (note: persons without a telephone could not be included in the random selection process). Computer-assisted telephone interviews conducted by landline (501) and cell phone (501, including 237 who had no landline telephone) were carried out in English by Princeton Data Source under the direction of PSRAI.

The margin of sampling error including the design effect for the full sample on the omnibus supplement is plus or minus 4 percentage points. For results based on subgroups, the margin of sampling error may be higher. Sample sizes and margin of sampling errors for other subgroups are available by request. Note that sampling error is only one of many potential sources of error in this or any other public opinion poll.

Full methodological details, including weighted and unweighted values for key demographic variables and response rates are available upon request.

Endnotes

  1. For the purposes of this report, u2018lower incomeu2019 is defined as those that self-report living in a household making under $40,000 annually. References to u2018the uninsuredu2019 refer to those under age 65 (who are typically not eligible for Medicare) that say they do not have health insurance. ↩︎
  2. This question was asked on a separate survey that was conducted April 18-21, 2013. See methodology for more details. ↩︎

Summary of the Affordable Care Act

Published: Apr 25, 2013

Note: President Trump and Republicans in Congress have pledged to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, and unsuccessfully advocated several proposals to do so in Congress in 2017. Compare those plans here. As part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, Congress eliminated the Affordable Care Act’s tax penalty for most people who are not covered by health insurance effective in 2019.  On Dec. 14, 2018, a federal judge in Texas ruled that this change to the law’s individual mandate made the entire law itself unconstitutional, though that decision has no effect as the case works its way through the appeals process.

On March 23, 2010, President Obama signed comprehensive health reform, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, into law. The following summary of the law as originally enacted focuses on provisions to expand coverage, control health care costs, and improve health care delivery system.

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (P.L. 111-148)
Overall approach to expanding access to coverage
  • Require most U.S. citizens and legal residents to have health insurance. Create state-based American Health Benefit Exchanges through which individuals can purchase coverage, with premium and cost-sharing credits available to individuals/families with income between 133-400% of the federal poverty level (the poverty level is $19,530 for a family of three in 2013) and create separate Exchanges through which small businesses can purchase coverage. Require employers to pay penalties for employees who receive tax credits for health insurance through an Exchange, with exceptions for small employers. Impose new regulations on health plans in the Exchanges and in the individual and small group markets. Expand Medicaid to 133% of the federal poverty level.
INDIVIDUAL MANDATE
Requirement to have coverage
  • Require U.S. citizens and legal residents to have qualifying health coverage. Those without coverage pay a tax penalty of the greater of $695 per year up to a maximum of three times that amount ($2,085) per family or 2.5% of household income. The penalty will be phased-in according to the following schedule:  $95 in 2014, $325 in 2015, and $695 in 2016 for the flat fee or 1.0% of taxable income in 2014, 2.0% of taxable income in 2015, and 2.5% of taxable income in 2016. Beginning after 2016, the penalty will be increased annually by the cost-of-living adjustment. Exemptions will be granted for financial hardship, religious objections, American Indians, those without coverage for less than three months, undocumented immigrants, incarcerated individuals, those for whom the lowest cost plan option exceeds 8% of an individual’s income, and those with incomes below the tax filing threshold (in 2009 the threshold for taxpayers under age 65 was $9,350 for singles and $18,700 for couples).
EMPLOYER REQUIREMENTS
Requirement to offer coverage
  • Assess employers with 50 or more full-time employees that do not offer coverage and have at least one full-time employee who receives a premium tax credit a fee of $2,000 per full-time employee, excluding the first 30 employees from the assessment. Employers with 50 or more full-time employees that offer coverage but have at least one full-time employee receiving a premium tax credit, will pay the lesser of $3,000 for each employee receiving a premium credit or $2,000 for each full-time employee, excluding the first 30 employees from the assessment. (Effective January 1, 2014) • Exempt employers with up to 50 full-time employees from any of the above penalties.
Other requirements
  • Require employers with more than 200 employees to automatically enroll employees into health insurance plans offered by the employer. Employees may opt out of coverage.
EXPANSION OF PUBLIC PROGRAMS
Treatment of Medicaid
  • Expand Medicaid to all non-Medicare eligible individuals under age 65 (children, pregnant women, parents, and adults without dependent children) with incomes up to 133% FPL based on modified adjusted gross income (as under current law undocumented immigrants are not eligible for Medicaid). All newly eligible adults will be guaranteed a benchmark benefit package that meets the essential health benefits available through the Exchanges. The Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of the ACA upheld the Medicaid expansion, but limited the ability of HHS to enforce it, thereby making the decision to expand Medicaid optional for states. To finance the coverage for the newly eligible (those who were not previously eligible for at least benchmark equivalent coverage, those who were eligible for a capped program but were not enrolled, or those who were enrolled in state-funded programs), states will receive 100% federal funding for 2014 through 2016, 95% federal financing in 2017, 94% federal financing in 2018, 93% federal financing in 2019, and 90% federal financing for 2020 and subsequent years. States that have already expanded eligibility to adults with incomes up to 100% FPL will receive a phased-in increase in the federal medical assistance percentage (FMAP) for non-pregnant childless adults so that by 2019 they receive the same federal financing as other states (93% in 2019 and 90% in 2020 and later). States have the option to expand Medicaid eligibility to childless adults beginning on April 1, 2010, but will receive their regular FMAP until 2014. In addition, increase Medicaid payments in fee-for-service and managed care for primary care services provided by primary care doctors (family medicine, general internal medicine or pediatric medicine) to 100% of the Medicare payment rates for 2013 and 2014. States will receive 100% federal financing for the increased payment rates. (Effective January 1, 2014)
Treatment of CHIP
  • Require states to maintain current income eligibility levels for children in Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) until 2019 and extend funding for CHIP through 2015. CHIP benefit package and cost-sharing rules will continue as under current law. Provide states with the option to provide CHIP coverage to children of state employees who are eligible for health benefits if certain conditions are met. Beginning in 2015, states will receive a 23 percentage point increase in the CHIP match rate up to a cap of 100%. CHIP-eligible children who are unable to enroll in the program due to enrollment caps will be eligible for tax credits in the state Exchanges.
PREMIUM AND COST-SHARING SUBSIDIES TO INDIVIDUALS
Eligibility
  • Limit availability of premium credits and cost-sharing subsidies through the Exchanges to U.S. citizens and legal immigrants who meet income limits. Employees who are offered coverage by an employer are not eligible for premium credits unless the employer plan does not have an actuarial value of at least 60% or if the employee share of the premium exceeds 9.5% of income. Legal immigrants who are barred from enrolling in Medicaid during their first five years in the U.S. will be eligible for premium credits.
Premium credits
  • Provide refundable and advanceable premium credits to eligible individuals and families with incomes between 100-400% FPL to purchase insurance through the Exchanges. The premium credits will be tied to the second lowest cost silver plan in the area and will be set on a sliding scale such that the premium contributions are limited to the following percentages of income for specified income levels:
Up to 133% FPL:  2% of income133-150% FPL: 3 – 4% of income150-200% FPL: 4 – 6.3% of income200-250% FPL: 6.3 – 8.05% of income250-300% FPL: 8.05 – 9.5% of income300-400% FPL: 9.5% of income
  • Increase the premium contributions for those receiving subsidies annually to reflect the excess of the premium growth over the rate of income growth for 2014-2018. Beginning in 2019, further adjust the premium contributions to reflect the excess of premium growth over CPI if aggregate premiums and cost sharing subsidies exceed .504% of GDP.
  • Provisions related to the premium and cost-sharing subsidies are effective January 1, 2014.
Cost-sharing subsidies
  • Provide cost-sharing subsidies to eligible individuals and families. The cost-sharing credits reduce the cost-sharing amounts and annual cost-sharing limits and have the effect of increasing the actuarial value of the basic benefit plan to the following percentages of the full value of the plan for the specified income level:100-150% FPL: 94%150-200% FPL: 87%200-250% FPL: 73%250-400% FPL: 70%
Verification
  • Require verification of both income and citizenship status in determining eligibility for the federal premium credits.
Subsidies and abortion coverage
  • Ensure that federal premium or cost-sharing subsidies are not used to purchase coverage for abortion if coverage extends beyond saving the life of the woman or cases of rape or incest (Hyde amendment). If an individual who receives federal assistance purchases coverage in a plan that chooses to cover abortion services beyond those for which federal funds are permitted, those federal subsidy funds (for premiums or cost-sharing) must not be used for the purchase of the abortion coverage and must be segregated from private premium payments or state funds.
PREMIUM SUBSIDIES TO EMPLOYERS
Small business tax credits
  • Provide small employers with no more than 25 employees and average annual wages of less than $50,000 that purchase health insurance for employees with a tax credit.
    • Phase I:  For tax years 2010 through 2013, provide a tax credit of up to 35% of the employer’s contribution toward the employee’s health insurance premium if the employer contributes at least 50% of the total premium cost or 50% of a benchmark premium. The full credit will be available to employers with 10 or fewer employees and average annual wages of less than $25,000. The credit phases-out as firm size and average wage increases. Tax-exempt small businesses meeting these requirements are eligible for tax credits of up to 25% of the employer’s contribution toward the employee’s health insurance premium.
    • Phase II: For tax years 2014 and later, for eligible small businesses that purchase coverage through the state Exchange, provide a tax credit of up to 50% of the employer’s contribution toward the employee’s health insurance premium if the employer contributes at least 50% of the total premium cost. The credit will be available for two years. The full credit will be available to employers with 10 or fewer employees and average annual wages of less than $25,000. The credit phases-out as firm size and average wage increases. Tax-exempt small businesses meeting these requirements are eligible for tax credits of up to 35% of the employer’s contribution toward the employee’s health insurance premium.
Reinsurance program
  • Create a temporary reinsurance program for employers providing health insurance coverage to retirees over age 55 who are not eligible for Medicare. Program will reimburse employers or insurers for 80% of retiree claims between $15,000 and $90,000. Payments from the reinsurance program will be used to lower the costs for enrollees in the employer plan. Appropriate $5 billion to finance the program. (Effective 90 days following enactment through January 1, 2014)
TAX CHANGES RELATED TO HEALTH INSURANCE OR FINANCING HEALTH REFORM
Tax changes related to health insurance
  • Impose a tax on individuals without qualifying coverage of the greater of $695 per year up to a maximum of three times that amount or 2.5% of household income to be phased-in beginning in 2014.
  • Exclude the costs for over-the-counter drugs not prescribed by a doctor from being reimbursed through an HRA or health FSA and from being reimbursed on a tax-free basis through an HSA or Archer Medical Savings Account. (Effective January 1, 2011)
  • Increase the tax on distributions from a health savings account or an Archer MSA that are not used for qualified medical expenses to 20% (from 10% for HSAs and from 15% for Archer MSAs) of the disbursed amount. (Effective January 1, 2011)
  • Limit the amount of contributions to a flexible spending account for medical expenses to $2,500 per year increased annually by the cost of living adjustment. (Effective January 1, 2013)
  • Increase the threshold for the itemized deduction for unreimbursed medical expenses from 7.5% of adjusted gross income to 10% of adjusted gross income for regular tax purposes; waive the increase for individuals age 65 and older for tax years 2013 through 2016. (Effective January 1, 2013)
  • Increase the Medicare Part A (hospital insurance) tax rate on wages by 0.9% (from 1.45% to 2.35%) on earnings over $200,000 for individual taxpayers and $250,000 for married couples filing jointly and impose a 3.8% tax on unearned income for higher-income taxpayers (thresholds are not indexed). (Effective January 1, 2013)
  • Impose an excise tax on insurers of employer-sponsored health plans with aggregate values that exceed $10,200 for individual coverage and $27,500 for family coverage (these threshold values will be indexed to the consumer price index for urban consumers (CPI-U) for years beginning in 2020). The threshold amounts will be increased for retired individuals age 55 and older who are not eligible for Medicare and for employees engaged in high-risk professions by $1,650 for individual coverage and $3,450 for family coverage. The threshold amounts may be adjusted upwards if health care costs rise more than expected prior to implementation of the tax in 2018. The threshold amounts will be increased for firms that may have higher health care costs because of the age or gender of their workers. The tax is equal to 40% of the value of the plan that exceeds the threshold amounts and is imposed on the issuer of the health insurance policy, which in the case of a self-insured plan is the plan administrator or, in some cases, the employer. The aggregate value of the health insurance plan includes reimbursements under a flexible spending account for medical expenses (health FSA) or health reimbursement arrangement (HRA), employer contributions to a health savings account (HSA), and coverage for supplementary health insurance coverage, excluding dental and vision coverage. (Effective January 1, 2018)
  • Eliminate the tax deduction for employers who receive Medicare Part D retiree drug subsidy payments. (Effective January 1, 2013)
Tax changes related to financing health reform
  • Impose new annual fees on the pharmaceutical manufacturing sector, according to the following schedule:
    • $2.8 billion in 2012-2013;$3.0 billion in 2014-2016;
    • $4.0 billion in 2017;
    • $4.1 billion in 2018; and
    • 2.8 billion in 2019 and later.
  • Impose an annual fee on the health insurance sector, according to the following schedule:
    • $8 billion in 2014;
    • $11.3 billion in 2015-2016;
    • $13.9 billion in 2017;
    • $14.3 billion in 2018
    • For subsequent years, the fee shall be the amount from the previous year increased by the rate of premium growth.

For non-profit insurers, only 50% of net premiums are taken into account in calculating the fee. Exemptions granted for non-profit plans that receive more than 80% of their income from government programs targeting low-income or elderly populations, or people with disabilities, and voluntary employees’ beneficiary associations (VEBAs) not established by an employer. (Effective January 1, 2014)

  • Impose an excise tax of 2.3% on the sale of any taxable medical device. (Effective for sales after December 31, 2012)
  • Limit the deductibility of executive and employee compensation to $500,000 per applicable individual for health insurance providers. (Effective January 1, 2009)
  • Impose a tax of 10% on the amount paid for indoor tanning services. (Effective July 1, 2010)
  • Exclude unprocessed fuels from the definition of cellulosic biofuel for purposes of applying the cellulosic biofuel producer credit. (Effective January 1, 2010)
  • Clarify application of the economic substance doctrine and increase penalties for underpayments attributable to a transaction lacking economic substance. (Effective upon enactment)
HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGES
Creation and structure of health insurance exchanges
  • Create state-based American Health Benefit Exchanges and Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP) Exchanges, administered by a governmental agency or non-profit organization, through which individuals and small businesses with up to 100 employees can purchase qualified coverage. Permit states to allow businesses with more than 100 employees to purchase coverage in the SHOP Exchange beginning in 2017. States may form regional Exchanges or allow more than one Exchange to operate in a state as long as each Exchange serves a distinct geographic area. (Funding available to states to establish Exchanges within one year of enactment and until January 1, 2015)
Eligibility to purchase in the exchanges
  • Restrict access to coverage through the Exchanges to U.S. citizens and legal immigrants who are not incarcerated.
Multi-state plans
  • Require the Office of Personnel Management to contract with insurers to offer at least two multi-state plans in each Exchange. At least one plan must be offered by a non-profit entity and at least one plan must not provide coverage for abortions beyond those permitted by federal law. Each multi-state plan must be licensed in each state and must meet the qualifications of a qualified health plan. If a state has lower age rating requirements than 3:1, the state may require multi-state plans to meet the more protective age rating rules. These multi-state plans will be offered separately from the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program and will have a separate risk pool.
Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan (CO-OP)
  • Create the Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan (CO-OP) program to foster the creation of non-profit, member-run health insurance companies in all 50 states and District of Columbia to offer qualified health plans. To be eligible to receive funds, an organization must not be an existing health insurer or sponsored by a state or local government, substantially all of its activities must consist of the issuance of qualified health benefit plans in each state in which it is licensed, governance of the organization must be subject to a majority vote of its members, must operate with a strong consumer focus, and any profits must be used to lower premiums, improve benefits, or improve the quality of health care delivered to its members. (Appropriate $4.8 billion to finance the program and award loans and grants to establish CO-OPs by July 1, 2013)
Benefit tiers
  • Create four benefit categories of plans plus a separate catastrophic plan to be offered through the Exchange, and in the individual and small group markets:
    • Bronze plan represents minimum creditable coverage and provides the essential health benefits, cover 60% of the benefit costs of the plan, with an out-of-pocket limit equal to the Health Savings Account (HSA) current law limit ($5,950 for individuals and $11,900 for families in 2010);
    • Silver plan provides the essential health benefits, covers 70% of the benefit costs of the plan, with the HSA out-of-pocket limits;
    • Gold plan provides the essential health benefits, covers 80% of the benefit costs of the plan, with the HSA out-of-pocket limits;
    • Platinum plan provides the essential health benefits, covers 90% of the benefit costs of the plan, with the HSA out-of-pocket limits;
    • Catastrophic plan available to those up to age 30 or to those who are exempt from the mandate to purchase coverage and provides catastrophic coverage only with the coverage level set at the HSA current law levels except that prevention benefits and coverage for three primary care visits would be exempt from the deductible. This plan is only available in the individual market.
  • Reduce the out-of-pocket limits for those with incomes up to 400% FPL to the following levels:
    • 100-200% FPL: one-third of the HSA limits ($1,983/individual and $3,967/family);
    • 200-300% FPL: one-half of the HSA limits ($2,975/individual and $5,950/family);
    • 300-400% FPL: two-thirds of the HSA limits ($3,987/individual and $7,973/family).

These out-of-pocket reductions are applied within the actuarial limits of the plan and will not increase the actuarial value of the plan.

Insurance market and rating rules
  • Require guarantee issue and renewability and allow rating variation based only on age (limited to 3 to 1 ratio), premium rating area, family composition, and tobacco use (limited to 1.5. to 1 ratio) in the individual and the small group market and the Exchange.
  • Require risk adjustment in the individual and small group markets and in the Exchange. (Effective January 1, 2014)
Qualifications of participating health plans
  • Require qualified health plans participating in the Exchange to meet marketing requirements, have adequate provider networks, contract with essential community providers, contract with navigators to conduct outreach and enrollment assistance, be accredited with respect to performance on quality measures, use a uniform enrollment form and standard format to present plan information.
  • Require qualified health plans to report information on claims payment policies, enrollment, disenrollment, number of claims denied, cost-sharing requirements, out-of-network policies, and enrollee rights in plain language.
Requirements of the exchanges
  • Require the Exchanges to maintain a call center for customer service, and establish procedures for enrolling individuals and businesses and for determining eligibility for tax credits. Require states to develop a single form for applying for state health subsidy programs that can be filed online, in person, by mail or by phone. Permit Exchanges to contract with state Medicaid agencies to determine eligibility for tax credits in the Exchanges.
  • Require Exchanges to submit financial reports to the Secretary and comply with oversight investigations including a GAO study on the operation and administration of Exchanges.
Basic health plan
  • Permit states the option to create a Basic Health Plan for uninsured individuals with incomes between 133-200% FPL who would otherwise be eligible to receive premium subsidies in the Exchange. States opting to provide this coverage will contract with one or more standard plans to provide at least the essential health benefits and must ensure that eligible individuals do not pay more in premiums than they would have paid in the Exchange and that the cost-sharing requirements do not exceed those of the platinum plan for enrollees with income less than 150% FPL or the gold plan for all other enrollees. States will receive 95% of the funds that would have been paid as federal premium and cost-sharing subsidies for eligible individuals to establish the Basic Health Plan. Individuals with incomes between 133-200% FPL in states creating Basic Health Plans will not be eligible for subsidies in the Exchanges.
Abortion coverage
  • Permit states to prohibit plans participating in the Exchange from providing coverage for abortions.
  • Require plans that choose to offer coverage for abortions beyond those for which federal funds are permitted (to save the life of the woman and in cases of rape or incest) in states that allow such coverage to create allocation accounts for segregating premium payments for coverage of abortion services from premium payments for coverage for all other services to ensure that no federal premium or cost-sharing subsidies are used to pay for the abortion coverage. Plans must also estimate the actuarial value of covering abortions by taking into account the cost of the abortion benefit (valued at no less than $1 per enrollee per month) and cannot take into account any savings that might be reaped as a result of the abortions. Prohibit plans participating in the Exchanges from discriminating against any provider because of an unwillingness to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.
Effective dates
  • Unless otherwise noted, provisions relating to the American Health Benefit Exchanges are effective January 1, 2014.
BENEFIT DESIGN
Essential benefits package
  • Create an essential health benefits package that provides a comprehensive set of services, covers at least 60% of the actuarial value of the covered benefits, limits annual cost-sharing to the current law HSA limits ($5,950/individual and $11,900/family in 2010), and is not more extensive than the typical employer plan. Require the Secretary to define and annually update the benefit package through a transparent and public process. (Effective January 1, 2014)
  • Require all qualified health benefits plans, including those offered through the Exchanges and those offered in the individual and small group markets outside the Exchanges, except grandfathered individual and employer-sponsored plans, to offer at least the essential health benefits package. (Effective January 1, 2014)
Abortion coverage
  • Prohibit abortion coverage from being required as part of the essential health benefits package. (Effective January 1, 2014)
CHANGES TO PRIVATE INSURANCE
Temporary high-risk pool
  • Establish a temporary national high-risk pool to provide health coverage to individuals with pre-existing medical conditions. U.S. citizens and legal immigrants who have a pre-existing medical condition and who have been uninsured for at least six months will be eligible to enroll in the high-risk pool and receive subsidized premiums. Premiums for the pool will be established for a standard population and may vary by no more than 4 to 1 due to age; maximum cost-sharing will be limited to the current law HSA limit ($5,950/individual and $11,900/family in 2010). Appropriate $5 billion to finance the program. (Effective within 90 days of enactment until January 1, 2014)
Medical loss ratio and premium rate reviews
  • Require health plans to report the proportion of premium dollars spent on clinical services, quality, and other costs and provide rebates to consumers for the amount of the premium spent on clinical services and quality that is less than 85% for plans in the large group market and 80% for plans in the individual and small group markets. (Requirement to report medical loss ratio effective plan year 2010; requirement to provide rebates effective January 1, 2011)
  • Establish a process for reviewing increases in health plan premiums and require plans to justify increases. Require states to report on trends in premium increases and recommend whether certain plan should be excluded from the Exchange based on unjustified premium increases. Provide grants to states to support efforts to review and approve premium increases. (Effective beginning plan year 2010)
Administrative simplification
  • Adopt standards for financial and administrative transactions to promote administrative simplification. (Effective dates vary)
Dependent coverage
  • Provide dependent coverage for children up to age 26 for all individual and group policies. (Effective six months following enactment)
Insurance market rules
  • Prohibit individual and group health plans from placing lifetime limits on the dollar value of coverage and prohibit insurers from rescinding coverage except in cases of fraud. Prohibit pre-existing condition exclusions for children. (Effective six months following enactment)  Beginning in January 2014, prohibit individual and group health plans from placing annual limits on the dollar value of coverage. Prior to January 2014, plans may only impose annual limits on coverage as determined by the Secretary.
  • Grandfather existing individual and group plans with respect to new benefit standards, but require these grandfathered plans to extend dependent coverage to adult children up to age 26 and prohibit rescissions of coverage. Require grandfathered group plans to eliminate lifetime limits on coverage and beginning in 2014, eliminate annual limits on coverage. Prior to 2014, grandfathered group plans may only impose annual limits as determined by the Secretary. Require grandfathered group plans to eliminate pre-existing condition exclusions for children within six months of enactment and by 2014 for adults, and eliminate waiting periods for coverage of greater than 90 days by 2014. (Effective six months following enactment, except where otherwise specified)
  • Impose the same insurance market regulations relating to guarantee issue, premium rating, and prohibitions on pre-existing condition exclusions in the individual market, in the Exchange, and in the small group market. (See new rating and market rules in Creation of insurance pooling mechanism.)  (Effective January 1, 2014)
  • Require all new policies (except stand-alone dental, vision, and long-term care insurance plans), including those offered through the Exchanges and those offered outside of the Exchanges, to comply with one of the four benefit categories. Existing individual and employer-sponsored plans do not have to meet the new benefit standards. (See description of benefit categories in Creation of insurance pooling mechanism.) (Effective January 1, 2014)
  • Limit deductibles for health plans in the small group market to $2,000 for individuals and $4,000 for families unless contributions are offered that offset deductible amounts above these limits. This deductible limit will not affect the actuarial value of any plans. (Effective January 1, 2014)
  • Limit any waiting periods for coverage to 90 days. (Effective January 1, 2014)
  • Create a temporary reinsurance program to collect payments from health insurers in the individual and group markets to provide payments to plans in the individual market that cover high-risk individuals. Finance the reinsurance program through mandatory contributions by health insurers totaling $25 billion over three years. (Effective January 1, 2014 through December 2016)
  • Allow states the option of merging the individual and small group markets. (Effective January 1, 2014)
Consumer protections
  • Establish an internet website to help residents identify health coverage options (effective July 1, 2010) and develop a standard format for presenting information on coverage options (effective 60 days following enactment).
  • Develop standards for insurers to use in providing information on benefits and coverage. (Standards developed within 12 months following enactment; insurer must comply with standards within 24 months following enactment)
Health care choice compacts and national plans
  • Permit states to form health care choice compacts and allow insurers to sell policies in any state participating in the compact. Insurers selling policies through a compact would only be subject to the laws and regulations of the state where the policy is written or issued, except for rules pertaining to market conduct, unfair trade practices, network adequacy, and consumer protections. Compacts may only be approved if it is determined that the compact will provide coverage that is at least as comprehensive and affordable as coverage provided through the state Exchanges. (Regulations issued by July 1, 2013, compacts may not take effect before January 1, 2016)
Health insurance administration
  • Establish the Health Insurance Reform Implementation Fund within the Department of Health and Human Services and allocate $1 billion to implement health reform policies.
STATE ROLE
State role
  • Create an American Health Benefit Exchange and a Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP) Exchange for individuals and small businesses and provide oversight of health plans with regard to the new insurance market regulations, consumer protections, rate reviews, solvency, reserve fund requirements, premium taxes, and to define rating areas.
  • Enroll newly eligible Medicaid beneficiaries into the Medicaid program no later than January 2014 (states have the option to expand enrollment beginning in 2011), coordinate enrollment with the new Exchanges, and implement other specified changes to the Medicaid program. Maintain current Medicaid and CHIP eligibility levels for children until 2019 and maintain current Medicaid eligibility levels for adults until the Exchange is fully operational. A state will be exempt from the maintenance of effort requirement for non-disabled adults with incomes above 133% FPL for any year from January 2011 through December 31, 2013 if the state certifies that it is experiencing a budget deficit or will experience a deficit in the following year.
  • Establish an office of health insurance consumer assistance or an ombudsman program to serve as an advocate for people with private coverage in the individual and small group markets. (Federal grants available beginning fiscal year 2010)
  • Permit states to create a Basic Health Plan for uninsured individuals with incomes between 133% and 200% FPL in lieu of these individuals receiving premium subsidies to purchase coverage in the Exchanges. (Effective January 1, 2014)  Permit states to obtain a five-year waiver of certain new health insurance requirements if the state can demonstrate that it provides health coverage to all residents that is at least as comprehensive as the coverage required under an Exchange plan and that the state plan does not increase the federal budget deficit. (Effective January 1, 2017)
COST CONTAINMENT
Administrative simplification
  • Simplify health insurance administration by adopting a single set of operating rules for eligibility verification and claims status (rules adopted July 1, 2011; effective January 1, 2013), electronic funds transfers and health care payment and remittance (rules adopted July 1, 2012; effective January 1, 2014), and health claims or equivalent encounter information, enrollment and disenrollment in a health plan, health plan premium payments, and referral certification and authorization (rules adopted July 1, 2014; effective January 1, 2016). Health plans must document compliance with these standards or face a penalty of no more than $1 per covered life. (Effective April 1, 2014)
Medicare
  • Restructure payments to Medicare Advantage (MA) plans by setting payments to different percentages of Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) rates, with higher payments for areas with low FFS rates and lower payments (95% of FFS) for areas with high FFS rates. Phase-in revised payments over 3 years beginning in 2011, for plans in most areas, with payments phased-in over longer periods (4 years and 6 years) for plans in other areas. Provide bonuses to plans receiving 4 or more stars, based on the current 5-star quality rating system for Medicare Advantage plans, beginning in 2012; qualifying plans in qualifying areas receive double bonuses. Modify rebate system with rebates allocated based on a plan’s quality rating. Phase-in adjustments to plan payments for coding practices related to the health status of enrollees, with adjustments equaling 5.7% by 2019. Cap total payments, including bonuses, at current payment levels.  Require Medicare Advantage plans to remit partial payments to the Secretary if the plan has a medical loss ratio of less than 85%, beginning 2014. Require the Secretary to suspend plan enrollment for 3 years if the medical loss ratio is less than 85% for 2 consecutive years and to terminate the plan contract if the medical loss ratio is less than 85% for 5 consecutive years.
  • Reduce annual market basket updates for inpatient hospital, home health, skilled nursing facility, hospice and other Medicare providers, and adjust for productivity. (Effective dates vary)
  • Freeze the threshold for income-related Medicare Part B premiums for 2011 through 2019, and reduce the Medicare Part D premium subsidy for those with incomes above $85,000/individual and $170,000/ couple. (Effective January 1, 2011)
  • Establish an Independent Payment Advisory Board comprised of 15 members to submit legislative proposals containing recommendations to reduce the per capita rate of growth in Medicare spending if spending exceeds a target growth rate. Beginning April 2013, require the Chief Actuary of CMS to project whether Medicare per capita spending exceeds the average of CPI-U and CPI-M, based on a five year period ending that year. If so, beginning January 15, 2014, the Board will submit recommendations to achieve reductions in Medicare spending. Beginning January 2018, the target is modified such that the board submits recommendations if Medicare per capita spending exceeds GDP per capita plus one percent. The Board will submit proposals to the President and Congress for immediate consideration. The Board is prohibited from submitting proposals that would ration care, increase revenues or change benefits, eligibility or Medicare beneficiary cost sharing (including Parts A and B premiums), or would result in a change in the beneficiary premium percentage or low-income subsidies under Part D. Hospitals and hospices (through 2019) and clinical labs (for one year) will not be subject to cost reductions proposed by the Board. The Board must also submit recommendations every other year to slow the growth in national health expenditures while preserving quality of care by January 1, 2015.
  • Reduce Medicare Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) payments initially by 75% and subsequently increase payments based on the percent of the population uninsured and the amount of uncompensated care provided  (Effective fiscal year 2014)
  • Eliminate the Medicare Improvement Fund. (Effective upon enactment)
  • Allow providers organized as accountable care organizations (ACOs) that voluntarily meet quality thresholds to share in the cost savings they achieve for the Medicare program. To qualify as an ACO, organizations must agree to be accountable for the overall care of their Medicare beneficiaries, have adequate participation of primary care physicians, define processes to promote evidence-based medicine, report on quality and costs, and coordinate care. (Shared savings program established January 1, 2012)
  • Create an Innovation Center within the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to test, evaluate, and expand in Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP different payment structures and methodologies to reduce program expenditures while maintaining or improving quality of care. Payment reform models that improve quality and reduce the rate of cost growth could be expanded throughout the Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP programs. (Effective January 1, 2011)
  • Reduce Medicare payments that would otherwise be made to hospitals by specified percentages to account for excess (preventable) hospital readmissions. (Effective October 1, 2012)
  • Reduce Medicare payments to certain hospitals for hospital-acquired conditions by 1%. (Effective fiscal year 2015)
Medicaid
  • Increase the Medicaid drug rebate percentage for brand name drugs to 23.1 (except the rebate for clotting factors and drugs approved exclusively for pediatric use increases to 17.1%); increase the Medicaid rebate for non-innovator, multiple source drugs to 13% of average manufacturer price. (Effective January 1, 2010) Extend the drug rebate to Medicaid managed care plans. (Effective upon enactment)
  • Reduce aggregate Medicaid DSH allotments by $.5 billion in 2014, $.6 billion in 2015, $.6 billion in 2016, $1.8 billion in 2017, $5 billion in 2018, $5.6 billion in 2019, and $4 billion in 2020. Require the Secretary to develop a methodology to distribute the DSH reductions in a manner that imposes the largest reduction in DSH allotments for states with the lowest percentage of uninsured or those that do not target DSH payments, imposes smaller reductions for low-DSH states, and accounts for DSH allotments used for 1115 waivers. (Effective October 1, 2011)
  • Prohibit federal payments to states for Medicaid services related to health care acquired conditions. (Effective July 1, 2011)
Prescription drugs
  • Authorize the Food and Drug Administration to approve generic versions of biologic drugs and grant biologics manufacturers 12 years of exclusive use before generics can be developed. (Effective upon enactment)
Waste, fraud, and abuse
  • Reduce waste, fraud, and abuse in public programs by allowing provider screening, enhanced oversight periods for new providers and suppliers, including a 90-day period of enhanced oversight for initial claims of DME suppliers, and enrollment moratoria in areas identified as being at elevated risk of fraud in all public programs, and by requiring Medicare and Medicaid program providers and suppliers to establish compliance programs. Develop a database to capture and share data across federal and state programs, increase penalties for submitting false claims, strengthen standards for community mental health centers and increase funding for anti-fraud activities. (Effective dates vary)
IMPROVING QUALITY/HEALTH SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
Comparative effectiveness research
  • Support comparative effectiveness research by establishing a non-profit Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute to identify research priorities and conduct research that compares the clinical effectiveness of medical treatments. The Institute will be overseen by an appointed multi-stakeholder Board of Governors and will be assisted by expert advisory panels. Findings from comparative effectiveness research may not be construed as mandates, guidelines, or recommendations for payment, coverage, or treatment or used to deny coverage. (Funding available beginning fiscal year 2010) Terminate the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research that was founded under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. (Effective upon enactment)
Medical malpractice
  • Award five-year demonstration grants to states to develop, implement, and evaluate alternatives to current tort litigations. Preference will be given to states that have developed alternatives in consultation with relevant stakeholders and that have proposals that are likely to enhance patient safety by reducing medical errors and adverse events and are likely to improve access to liability insurance. (Funding appropriated for five years beginning in fiscal year 2011)
Medicare
  • Establish a national Medicare pilot program to develop and evaluate paying a bundled payment for acute, inpatient hospital services, physician services, outpatient hospital services, and post-acute care services for an episode of care that begins three days prior to a hospitalization and spans 30 days following discharge. If the pilot program achieves stated goals of improving or not reducing quality and reducing spending, develop a plan for expanding the pilot program. (Establish pilot program by January 1, 2013; expand program, if appropriate, by January 1, 2016)
  • Create the Independence at Home demonstration program to provide high-need Medicare beneficiaries with primary care services in their home and allow participating teams of health professionals to share in any savings if they reduce preventable hospitalizations, prevent hospital readmissions, improve health outcomes, improve the efficiency of care, reduce the cost of health care services, and achieve patient satisfaction. (Effective January 1, 2012)
  • Establish a hospital value-based purchasing program in Medicare to pay hospitals based on performance on quality measures and extend the Medicare physician quality reporting initiative beyond 2010. (Effective October 1, 2012)  Develop plans to implement value-based purchasing programs for skilled nursing facilities, home health agencies, and ambulatory surgical centers. (Reports to Congress due January 1, 2011)
Dual eligibles
  • Improve care coordination for dual eligibles by creating a new office within the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid services, the Federal Coordinated Health Care Office, to more effectively integrate Medicare and Medicaid benefits and improve coordination between the federal government and states in order to improve access to and quality of care and services for dual eligibles. (Effective March 1, 2010)
Medicaid
  • Create a new Medicaid state plan option to permit Medicaid enrollees with at least two chronic conditions, one condition and risk of developing another, or at least one serious and persistent mental health condition to designate a provider as a health home. Provide states taking up the option with 90% FMAP for two years for home health-related services, including care management, care coordination, and health promotion. (Effective January 1, 2011)
  • Create new demonstration projects in Medicaid to pay bundled payments for episodes of care that include hospitalizations (effective January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2016); to make global capitated payments to safety net hospital systems (effective fiscal years 2010 through 2012); to allow pediatric medical providers organized as accountable care organizations to share in cost-savings (effective January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2016); and to provide Medicaid payments to institutions of mental disease for adult enrollees who require stabilization of an emergency condition (effective October 1, 2011 through December 31, 2015).
  • Expand the role of the Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission to include assessments of adult services (including those dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid). ($11 million in additional funds appropriated for fiscal year 2010)
Primary care
  • Increase Medicaid payments in fee-for-service and managed care for primary care services provided by primary care doctors (family medicine, general internal medicine or pediatric medicine) to 100% of the Medicare payment rates for 2013 and 2014. States will receive 100% federal financing for the increased payment rates. (Effective January 1, 2013)
  • Provide a 10% bonus payment to primary care physicians in Medicare from 2011 through 2015. (Effective for five years beginning January 1, 2011)
National quality strategy
  • Develop a national quality improvement strategy that includes priorities to improve the delivery of health care services, patient health outcomes, and population health. Create processes for the development of quality measures involving input from multiple stakeholders and for selecting quality measures to be used in reporting to and payment under federal health programs. (National strategy due to Congress by January 1, 2011)
  • Establish the Community-based Collaborative Care Network Program to support consortiums of health care providers to coordinate and integrate health care services, for low-income uninsured and underinsured populations. (Funds appropriated for five years beginning in FY 2011)
Financial disclosure
  • Require disclosure of financial relationships between health entities, including physicians, hospitals, pharmacists, other providers, and manufacturers and distributors of covered drugs, devices, biologicals, and medical supplies. (Report due to Congress April 1, 2013)
Disparities
  • Require enhanced collection and reporting of data on race, ethnicity, sex, primary language, disability status, and for underserved rural and frontier populations. Also require collection of access and treatment data for people with disabilities. Require the Secretary to analyze the data to monitor trends in disparities. (Effective two years following enactment)
PREVENTION/WELLNESS
National strategy
  • Establish the National Prevention, Health Promotion and Public Health Council to coordinate federal prevention, wellness, and public health activities. Develop a national strategy to improve the nation’s health. (Strategy due one year following enactment)  Create a Prevention and Public Health Fund to expand and sustain funding for prevention and public health programs. (Initial appropriation in fiscal year 2010)  Create task forces on Preventive Services and Community Preventive Services to develop, update, and disseminate evidenced-based recommendations on the use of clinical and community prevention services. (Effective upon enactment)
  • Establish a Prevention and Public Health Fund for prevention, wellness, and public health activities  including prevention research and health screenings, the Education and Outreach Campaign for preventive benefits, and immunization programs. Appropriate $7 billion in funding for fiscal years 2010 through 2015 and $2 billion for each fiscal year after 2015. (Effective fiscal year 2010)
  • Establish a grant program to support the delivery of evidence-based and community-based prevention and wellness services aimed at strengthening prevention activities, reducing chronic disease rates and addressing health disparities, especially in rural and frontier areas. (Funds appropriated for five years beginning in FY 2010)
Coverage of preventive services
  • Eliminate cost-sharing for Medicare covered preventive services that are recommended (rated A or B) by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and waive the Medicare deductible for colorectal cancer screening tests. Authorize the Secretary to modify or eliminate Medicare coverage of preventive services, based on recommendations of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. (Effective January 1, 2011)
  • Provide states that offer Medicaid coverage of and remove cost-sharing for preventive services recommended (rated A or B) by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and recommended immunizations with a one percentage point increase in the federal medical assistance percentage (FMAP) for these services. (Effective January 1, 2013)
  • Authorize Medicare coverage of personalized prevention plan services, including a comprehensive health risk assessment, annually. Require the Secretary to publish guidelines for the health risk assessment no later than March 23, 2011, and a health risk assessment model by no later than September 29, 2011. Reimburse providers 100% of the physician fee schedule amount with no adjustment for deductible or coinsurance for personalized prevention plan services when these services are provided in an outpatient setting. (Effective January 1, 2011)
  • Provide incentives to Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries to complete behavior modification programs. (Effective January 1, 2011 or when program criteria is developed, whichever is first) Require Medicaid coverage for tobacco cessation services for pregnant women. (Effective October 1, 2010)
  • Require qualified health plans to provide at a minimum coverage without cost-sharing for preventive services rated A or B by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, recommended immunizations, preventive care for infants, children, and adolescents, and additional preventive care and screenings for women. (Effective six months following enactment)
Wellness programs
  • Provide grants for up to five years to small employers that establish wellness programs. (Funds appropriated for five years beginning in fiscal year 2011)
  • Provide technical assistance and other resources to evaluate employer-based wellness programs. Conduct a national worksite health policies and programs survey to assess employer-based health policies and programs. (Conduct study within two years following enactment)
  • Permit employers to offer employees rewards—in the form of premium discounts, waivers of cost-sharing requirements, or benefits that would otherwise not be provided—of up to 30% of the cost of coverage for participating in a wellness program and meeting certain health-related standards. Employers must offer an alternative standard for individuals for whom it is unreasonably difficult or inadvisable to meet the standard. The reward limit may be increased to 50% of the cost of coverage if deemed appropriate. (Effective January 1, 2014) Establish 10-state pilot programs by July 2014 to permit participating states to apply similar rewards for participating in wellness programs in the individual market and expand demonstrations in 2017 if effective. Require a report on the effectiveness and impact of wellness programs. (Report due three years following enactment)
Nutritional information
  • Require chain restaurants and food sold from vending machines to disclose the nutritional content of each item. (Proposed regulations issued within one year of enactment)
LONG-TERM CARE
CLASS act
  • Establish a national, voluntary insurance program for purchasing community living assistance services and supports (CLASS program). Following a five-year vesting period, the program will provide individuals with functional limitations a cash benefit of not less than an average of $50 per day to purchase non­medical services and supports necessary to maintain community residence. The program is financed through voluntary payroll deductions: all working adults will be automatically enrolled in the program, unless they choose to opt-out. NOTE: This provision was repealed by the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012.
Medicaid
  • Extend the Medicaid Money Follows the Person Rebalancing Demonstration program through September 2016 (effective 30 days following enactment) and allocate $10 million per year for five years to continue the Aging and Disability Resource Center initiatives (funds appropriated for fiscal years 2010 through 2014).
  • Provide states with new options for offering home and community-based services through a Medicaid state plan rather than through a waiver for individuals with incomes up to 300% of the maximum SSI payment and who have a higher level of need and permit states to extend full Medicaid benefits to individual receiving home and community-based services under a state plan. (Effective October 1, 2010)
  • Establish the Community First Choice Option in Medicaid to provide community-based attendant supports and services to individuals with disabilities who require an institutional level of care. Provide states with an enhanced federal matching rate of an additional six percentage points for reimbursable expenses in the program. (Effective October 1, 2011)
  • Create the State Balancing Incentive Program to provide enhanced federal matching payments to eligible states to increase the proportion of non-institutionally-based long-term care services. Selected states will be eligible for FMAP increases for medical assistance expenditures for non-institutionally­based long-term services and supports. (Effective October 1, 2011 through September 30, 2015)
Skilled nursing facility requirements
  • Require skilled nursing facilities under Medicare and nursing facilities under Medicaid to disclose information regarding ownership, accountability requirements, and expenditures. Publish standardized information on nursing facilities to a website so Medicare enrollees can compare the facilities. (Effective dates vary)
OTHER INVESTMENTS
Medicare
  • Make improvements to the Medicare program:
    • Provide a $250 rebate to Medicare beneficiaries who reach the Part D coverage gap in 2010 (Effective January 1, 2010);
    • Phase down gradually the beneficiary coinsurance rate in the Medicare Part D coverage gap from 100% to 25% by 2020:
      • For brand-name drugs, require pharmaceutical manufacturers to provide a 50% discount on prescriptions filled in the Medicare Part D coverage gap beginning in 2011, in addition to federal subsidies of 25% of the brand-name drug cost by 2020 (phased in beginning in 2013)
      • For generic drugs, provide federal subsidies of 75% of the generic drug cost by 2020 for prescriptions filled in the Medicare Part D coverage gap (phased in beginning in 2011);

      Between 2014 and 2019, reduce the out-of-pocket amount that qualifies an enrollee for catastrophic coverage;

      • Make Part D cost-sharing for full-benefit dual eligible beneficiaries receiving home and community-based care services equal to the cost-sharing for those who receive institutional care (Effective no earlier than January 1, 2012);
      • Expand Medicare coverage to individuals who have been exposed to environmental health hazards from living in an area subject to an emergency declaration made as of June 17, 2009 and have developed certain health conditions as a result (Effective upon enactment);
      • Provide a 10% bonus payment to primary care physicians and to general surgeons practicing in health professional shortage areas, from 2011 through 2015; and
      • Provide payments totaling $400 million in fiscal years 2011 and 2012 to qualifying hospitals in counties with the lowest quartile Medicare spending; and
      • Prohibit Medicare Advantage plans from imposing higher cost-sharing requirements for some Medicare covered benefits than is required under the traditional fee-for-service program. (Effective January 1, 2011)
Workforce
  • Improve workforce training and development:
    • Establish a multi-stakeholder Workforce Advisory Committee to develop a national workforce strategy. (Appointments made by September 30, 2010)
    • Increase the number of Graduate Medical Education (GME) training positions by redistributing currently unused slots, with priorities given to primary care and general surgery and to states with the lowest resident physician-to-population ratios (effective July 1, 2011); increase flexibility in laws and regulations that govern GME funding to promote training in outpatient settings (effective July 1, 2010); and ensure the availability of residency programs in rural and underserved areas. Establish Teaching Health Centers, defined as community-based, ambulatory patient care centers, including federally qualified health centers and other federally-funded health centers that are eligible for payments for the expenses associated with operating primary care residency programs. (Funds appropriated for five years beginning fiscal year 2011)
    • Increase workforce supply and support training of health professionals through scholarships and loans; support primary care training and capacity building; provide state grants to providers in medically underserved areas; train and recruit providers to serve in rural areas; establish a public health workforce loan repayment program; provide medical residents with training in preventive medicine and public health; promote training of a diverse workforce; and promote cultural competence training of health care professionals. (Effective dates vary)  Support the development of interdisciplinary mental and behavioral health training programs (effective fiscal year 2010) and establish a training program for oral health professionals. (Funds appropriated for six years beginning in fiscal year 2010)
    • Address the projected shortage of nurses and retention of nurses by increasing the capacity for education, supporting training programs, providing loan repayment and retention grants, and creating a career ladder to nursing. (Initial appropriation in fiscal year 2010)  Provide grants for up to three years to employ and provide training to family nurse practitioners who provide primary care in federally qualified health centers and nurse-managed health clinics. (Funds appropriated for five years beginning in fiscal year 2011)
    • Support the development of training programs that focus on primary care models such as medical homes, team management of chronic disease, and those that integrate physical and mental health services. (Funds appropriated for five years beginning in fiscal year 2010)
Community health centers and school-based health centers
  • Improve access to care by increasing funding by $11 billion for community health centers and by $1.5 billion for National Health Service Corps over five years (effective fiscal year 2011); establishing new programs to support school-based health centers (effective fiscal year 2010) and nurse-managed health clinics (effective fiscal year 2010).
Trauma care
  • Establish a new trauma center program to strengthen emergency department and trauma center capacity. Fund research on emergency medicine, including pediatric emergency medical research, and develop demonstration programs to design, implement, and evaluate innovative models for emergency care systems. (Funds appropriated beginning in fiscal year 2011)
Public health and disaster preparedness
  • Establish a commissioned Regular Corps and a Ready Reserve Corps for service in time of a national emergency. (Funds appropriated for five years beginning in fiscal year 2010)
Requirements for non-profit hospitals
  • Impose additional requirements on non-profit hospitals to conduct a community needs assessment every three years and adopt an implementation strategy to meet the identified needs, adopt and widely publicize a financial assistance policy that indicates whether free or discounted care is available and how to apply for the assistance, limit charges to patients who qualify for financial assistance to the amount generally billed to insured patients, and make reasonable attempts to determine eligibility for financial assistance before undertaking extraordinary collection actions. Impose a tax of $50,000 per year for failure to meet these requirements. (Effective for taxable years following enactment)
American Indians
  • Reauthorize and amend the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. (Effective upon enactment)

Assessing the Effects of the Economy on the Recent Slowdown in Health Spending

Published: Apr 22, 2013

Introduction

Health spending has been growing at historically low levels in recent years. The Office of the Actuary (OACT) in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services reports that national health spending grew by 3.9% each year from 2009 to 2011, the lowest rate of growth since the federal government began keeping such statistics in 1960. Estimates from the Center for Sustainable Health Spending at the Altarum Institute suggest that the slowdown largely continued into 2012, with health spending growing by 4.3% last year. The Kaiser Family Foundation/Health Research & Educational Trust Employer Health Benefits Survey shows similar moderation, with premiums in employer-sponsored health plans increasing by 4% in 2012.

There has been a significant focus on whether this slowdown in health spending is a result of broader economic factors (such as the Great Recession of 2007-2009), structural changes in the health system that could lead to slower growth in the future as well, or some combination of the two. To the extent this is a temporary phenomenon driven by the economic downturn and abnormally low inflation, we can expect health spending growth to bounce back up in the future as the economy recovers. To the extent structural changes are at play – i.e., that health spending is growing more slowly than what would be expected given the state of the economy – we may see a continuation of historically low rates of growth even as the economy returns to full employment.

This has major implications for policy, since health spending growth is a major driver of federal and state budgets through the Medicare and Medicaid programs, as well as the tax exclusion for employer-sponsored insurance. Beginning in 2014, it will also affect the federal cost for subsidies provided to low- and middle-income people buying coverage through new health insurance exchanges. In particular, projected future increases in health spending are an important factor in estimates of the federal budget deficit, and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) recently lowered its forecast of future Medicare and Medicaid spending based on the historically low rates of growth of health spending in recent years. A better understanding of what is driving changes in health spending will also be important context for interpreting what happens as the Affordable Care Act (ACA) goes into effect. Perhaps most importantly, if we believe health spending growth will remain low, we may be satisfied letting current cost containment strategies play out; if we do not, there may be greater impetus to consider new efforts to address health care costs.

This analysis uses a statistical model we developed to assess how much of the recent slowdown in spending is due to economic factors, and to identify sustained periods where health spending has grown faster or slower than would have been expected due to macroeconomic changes (i.e., growth in GDP and inflation). We also address what could happen to health spending in the coming years if the economy recovers as projected by CBO.

A Statistical Model of the Effects of the Economy on Health Spending

Researchers at the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Altarum Institute’s Center for Sustainable Health Spending developed a statistical model to track how the growth in national health spending varies with macroeconomic indicators, using estimates of national health spending from OACT for 1965 to 2011 and estimates of health spending for 2012 from Altarum.

This model allows us to go back in time and assess how much changes in the economy as a whole are associated with increases in health spending, in effect generating a “reverse forecast.” It also allows us to forecast what could happen to the growth in health spending in the future assuming the economy recovers as expected.

Two macroeconomic variables were found to be highly predictive of the growth in health spending in any given year:

  • Inflation in the current year, as measured by the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) deflator, as well as inflation in the prior two years.
  • The growth in real GDP in the current year, as well as GDP growth in the prior five years.

These variables explain over 85% of the variation in health spending growth rates from 1965 through 2011.1

It is not surprising that inflation and GDP are significant drivers of health spending growth. Changes in real GDP – reflecting recessions and periods of economic growth – are primarily a function of changes in consumer spending, so it makes sense that consumers will also respond to broader economic changes by adjusting spending on health care as well. This could be a very direct response (e.g., that consumers use fewer health care services as their incomes lag and they cut back on spending of other goods and services as well). It could also be an indirect effect (e.g., employers cutting back on health benefits or fewer people working and more people uninsured during recessionary periods).

Perhaps more surprising, we found that these effects are quite slow to develop, with changes in GDP filtering through the health system over a six year period (including the current year). There are a variety of possible explanations for this lagged effect, including:

  • Most people are insured, and insurance has an economically protective effect in shielding people from the full cost of health care.
  • Consumers may perceive health care as a necessity in a way that is different from other economic goods, and therefore cut back on health spending only after exhausting other ways of trimming household budgets.
  • Employers may not make immediate changes to health benefits in response to changes in GDP.
  • Hospitals (which account for a large share of health spending) are quite deliberate in their decision-making processes regarding whether to expand or contract services and capital expenditures.
  • Legislated changes in spending under Medicare and Medicaid may require an extended process of debate before any substantial adjustments are made. In fact, as unemployment rises and incomes fall, Medicaid costs tend to go up as more people become eligible for the program, though states in response may react by cutting back on eligibility or payments to providers.
health-spending-growth-actual-vs-predicted-HEALTH-COSTS-042213

In effect, our analysis finds that health spending fully responds to changes in the economy, but that the effect is gradual and cumulative rather than immediate. For example, a 1% change in real GDP ultimately a produces a 1.49% change in health spending. The effect is greater than 1.0 because health spending over time grows faster than the economy as a whole, leading to a greater share of GDP devoted to health.

Chart 1 shows the growth in health spending for the period 1965 to 2012, as well as what the model predicts health spending would have been based solely on inflation and changes in real GDP. This chart illustrates the striking relationship between health spending and the economy, with health spending growth cycling up and down over time closely in sync with macroeconomic measures.

How Much of the Recent Slowdown in Health Spending is Due to the Economic Downturn?

For the past four years, health spending growth has been at its lowest level in five decades. There has been much discussion about how much of this slowdown is due to the great recession. This is not just interesting from an historical perspective, but also highly relevant in considering how long the slowdown may last. A casual examination suggests that there is more going on here than just the recession, since the slowdown in costs predated the recession and has continued after it. However, because GDP and inflation influence health spending with a significant lag, the effects of economic cycles on the health system are not always apparent from looking at such simple relationships.2

Our analysis indicates that that economic growth influences health spending on a lagged basis over a period of six years, and inflation does so over two years. Inflation was quite similar in the years running up to 2002 and 2012, but real GDP growth was quite different. Real GDP growth averaged 3.4% per year during the period 1997-2002, but just .8% from 2007-2012.

As a result, our analysis suggests that much of the decline in health spending growth in recent years was fully expected given what was happening more broadly in the economy. For example, in the three years 2001-2003, annual health spending growth rates averaged 8.8%, the recent peak in the curve. Annual growth rates have been steadily declining since then and have averaged 4.2% from 2008 to 2012, a decline of 4.6 percentage points from the peak. But, based on patterns of real GDP changes and inflation, our model predicts that the growth rate in health spending would have been expected to decline by 3.6 percentage points over that same period. In other words, about three-quarters (77%) of the recent decline in health spending growth can be explained by changes in the broader economy.

Are We in a Period of High or Low “Excess” Health Spending?

While economic factors explain the vast majority of the recent slowdown in health spending, they do not explain it entirely. To quantify how much of the slowdown might be due to structural changes in the health system that could persist for some period of time, we estimate the amount of “excess” health spending growth over time.

Historically, “excess” growth in health spending has been measured by how much faster (or slower) health expenditures are rising relative to GDP. Over the long term, from 1960 to 2011, health spending has grown by an average of 2.6 percentage points faster than GDP. Over the last 20 years, the average “excess” has been 1.6 percentage points. Any time this “excess” growth is greater than zero, it means that the health sector is growing as a share of GDP.

One challenge with this measure is that it is quite volatile. For example, when GDP falls precipitously during recessions, health spending typically does not immediately move in lockstep (as our statistical model confirms), leading to a very large gap between health and GDP. This is an accurate measure of how much faster the health care system grew than the economy as a whole in any given year, but the results are largely driven by GDP and are not a good indication of how the health system is performing from a cost perspective. For example, in 2009 health spending grew at about GDP+6, but this was clearly not indicative of any longer term trend.

Some have sought to correct for this volatility in GDP by instead looking at the gap between health spending growth and what is known as “potential” GDP (PGDP) as an indicator of “excess” growth in the health system. PGDP estimates what the nation’s economic output would be if labor and capital resources were fully employed, and it is consequently relatively insensitive to business cycles. Therefore, using PGDP to measure “excess” health growth may provide a better indicator of longer-term trends. However, looking at the gap between health spending and PGDP has almost the opposite problem of looking at GDP – during economic downturns, “excess” health spending will appear unnaturally low because the growth in health expenditures tends to drop while PGDP remains relatively constant.

To compensate for the deficiencies in these rough measures of “excess” health spending, we instead developed an improved measure (using our statistical model) that adjusts for temporary fluctuations in health spending and GDP growth caused by the lagged effect of business cycles and inflation. This measure, in effect, estimates how health spending is growing relative to the economy as a whole, independent of business cycles. [3] Chart 2 presents year-by-year estimates of “excess” health spending growth using this approach, with orange bars illustrating periods of sustained low growth (2012 is shaded differently since it is based on a preliminary estimate of spending).

As the chart shows, health spending grew significantly faster than the economy throughout the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, with “excess” growth averaging 3.2% over the period. That long-term trend first broke in about 1993, likely due to the threat of health reform during the debate over the Clinton Health Security Act and the subsequent rapid rise in managed care enrollment. “Excess” growth remained low through the rest of the 1990s – averaging just less than 1% – at which point it spiked for a few years as a backlash against managed care ensued and hospitals consolidated. This spike was short-lived, lasting through 2003, and the rest of the decade and the early years of the new millennium have looked very much like the 1990s (with “excess” growth averaging about 1%).   It may be too soon to identify the changes that have led to the slowdown in “excess” growth since 2004. Some of it could be attributed to the ongoing effects of various forms of managed care. Through the 1980s, the vast majority of people with private insurance were in relatively unmanaged insurance models, including conventional fee-for-service plans and loosely organized preferred provider organization (PPO) type arrangements. Since then – even following the backlash against managed care – various forms of utilization management and plans with defined networks are the norm in employer-sponsored insurance. These arrangements have also grown in Medicare and Medicaid as well. However, deductibles and other types of patient cost-sharing have also increased in recent years, dampening use of services. Some point to greater sophistication of information technology systems to track and manage health services and changes in the delivery system as possible sources of system-wide savings as well.

excess-health-spending-growth-adjusted-for-GDP-and-Inflation-HEALTH-COSTS-042213

There is no way of knowing for certain whether this slowdown will persist and for how long, though the trend since 2008 has been generally upward. However, the major elements of the ACA – including significant cost savings in Medicare and the creation of new health insurance exchanges – have in general not yet been fully implemented, and could dampen growth in the future.

What May Happen to Health Spending if the Economy Recovers?

From a policy perspective, understanding patterns of health spending in the past is primarily of interest as a guide for what may happen in the future. Our statistical model can be used to forecast health spending in the coming years, based on assumptions about how quickly the economy recovers.

Chart 3 shows historical growth in health spending by year broken down by the components of that growth as estimated by our statistical model: the effects of real GDP and inflation (current and lagged), as well as “excess” health spending growth. The chart also illustrates what could happen to health expenditures over the next decade based on CBO’s forecast of GDP and inflation. However, future spending depends critically on not only the economy, but also on the level of “excess” growth in the health system.

actual-and-projected-growth-in-health-spending-by-component-HEALTH-COSTS-042213

The stacked light and dark blue bars in Chart 3 show how health spending growth rates are expected to climb as inflation and especially GDP ramp up as the economy recovers. Our analysis suggests that the lagged effect of the economy alone – i.e., no change upwards or downwards in “excess” health costs – will gradually add 3.5 percentage points to the annual growth rate in health spending by 2019.

However, how fast health spending will ultimately grow also depends on the level of “excess” in the health system. If the “excess” rate of growth is 1.6 percentage points over the next 10 years – the average for the last 20 years and what preliminary estimates suggest it has been over the last couple of years – then health spending growth could remain roughly flat for the next couple of years but reach 7.1% by the end of the current decade (compared to an estimated 4.3% in 2012). This is illustrated by the orange bars in Chart 3. Even under this scenario, though, we would not see a return to the double-digit increases of the late 1980s and early 1990s, assuming inflation and real GDP growth remain relatively modest and “excess” health spending does not rise further.

National health expenditures totaled an estimated $2.8 trillion in 2012, so even a small difference in the growth rate can lead to substantial differences in spending over time. For example, lowering the growth rate by one percentage point on average over the next decade means that total health spending would be almost half a trillion dollars lower than expected 10 years from now.

These projections are intended to be illustrative rather than precise. They do not account for an expected one-time increase of two to three percentage points in health spending growth as more people become insured under the ACA. Nor do they explicitly include substantial future savings in Medicare under the ACA – or potential spillover to the private sector of Medicare pilot projects to reform delivery system incentives – which could help to hold the overall level of “excess” growth down. In fact, Medicare spending per capita is expected to grow slower than GDP per capita over the next decade.

Except for the ACA boost in 2014, our projections with a 1.6 percentage point “excess” growth rate track very closely on a year-to-year basis with those from the CMS Office of the Actuary.

Discussion

There has been much discussion recently about the causes of the historically low rate of growth we are now seeing in health spending, and more importantly, whether it will continue. This analysis will not settle that debate – especially about what the future holds — but will hopefully illuminate it.

There is a very strong statistical link between business cycles and inflation and national health spending. However, because the effect of economic activity on health prices and utilization is gradual and highly lagged, it is not always easy to discern the relationship by looking just at single year measures. In particular, the fact that health spending growth rates started to fall before the great recession, or continued to fall even after the recession ended, is not necessarily a demonstration that the recent slowdown is occurring for reasons other than what is happening generally in the economy.

Our analysis suggests that the vast majority (77%) of the recent decline in the health spending trend can be attributed to broader changes in the economy. At the same time, however, there are also indications that structural changes in the health system may be playing a modest role as well. “Excess” health growth in recent years has fallen to levels similar to the mid to late 1990s when managed care was spreading rapidly. This could be due to continuing changes in the way health care is delivered, but also to rising levels of patient cost-sharing in private insurance plans that discourage use of services. While discussions in the health community have focused more on changes in delivery, it is difficult to determine which of these developments is having a greater impact.

As the economy recovers, health spending is likely to trend upwards, though growth rates are unlikely to return to the double-digit levels we have seen in the past. Future health spending increases will also depend on whether “excess” health costs remain at the relatively modest level of recent years or return to the historical norm. History suggests that previous efforts to control health care costs have had only a temporary effect, and there are initial signs that the recent slowdown (independent of the effects of the economy) is beginning to wane.

Changes coming under the ACA could also affect these trends significantly. Increases in coverage will induce a modest, one-time bump of a couple percent in spending as people who were previously uninsured get insurance and better access to health services. This will likely coincide with an expected economic recovery, so higher growth rates in health spending due to that recovery should not be attributed to the ACA simply because of the coincidental timing.

On the other side of the ledger, the bulk of the Medicare savings included in the ACA – primarily achieved through smaller increases in payments to providers – have yet to be realized and will lower the future growth in spending in that program. Changes in the delivery system – through accountable care organizations (ACOs) and bundled payments to providers – may also yield results and help to keep “excess” health costs down in public programs, as well as in private insurance. In addition, the ACA’s tax on high cost, “Cadillac” employer-sponsored health plans, scheduled to take effect in 2018, is expected to trim the cost of benefits and could lead to lower overall health spending as well.

In fact, caution should be exercised in translating broad projections of total national health spending to effects on federal and state budgets. Many of the drivers of health spending overall affect Medicare and Medicaid as well, as reflected in CBO’s reduced estimates for future spending in those programs. At the same time, spending in these programs is also influenced heavily by legislated changes such as those in the ACA or that have been discussed in the context of federal deficit reduction proposals.

However, our analysis suggests that over time the economy is by far the biggest determinant of changes in health spending overall. Increases in health expenditures are likely to trend upwards over the coming decade as the economy returns to a more normal rate of growth. Sustaining low growth rates in health spending will require continued pressure for containing costs throughout the system.

This paper, as well as the analysis supporting it, was prepared by researchers at the Kaiser Family Foundation, including Larry Levitt and Gary Claxton; Charles Roehrig of the Altarum Institute’s Center for Sustainable Health Spending; and Thomas Getzen of the Fox School of Business at Temple University.

Notes:

1. The model was estimated in SAS using least squares regression with the Yule-Walker correction for autocorrelation. Results are presented below.

Dependent VariableNational Health Expenditures
Intercept0.03%
Inf0.71*
Inf-10.28
Inf-20.25
rGDP0.20*
rGDP-10.23*
rGDP-20.16*
rGDP-30.28*
rGDP-40.40*
rGDP-50.23*

2. See Getzen, T.E. Forecasting health expenditures: short, medium and long (long) term. Journal of Health Care Finance. 200; 26: 56-72.

3. To estimate “excess” growth in health spending, we adjust the coefficients in the statistical model so that they sum to 1.0 for the current and lagged inflation variables and for the real GDP variables. This assumes that health spending grows at the same rate as real GDP plus inflation, taking into account lagged effects. We measure “excess” health spending growth as the difference between actual spending growth and what this adjusted model would predict for any given year.

News Release

Study Finds Recent Slowdown in Health Spending Growth Mostly Tied to the Economy

Published: Apr 22, 2013

Growth Expected To Move Towards Historical Levels In Coming Years As the Economy Recovers

A new Kaiser Family Foundation analysis of how the economy affects the nation’s health spending concludes that the record slow growth rate of recent years stems largely from economic factors beyond the health system, with the economy explaining 77 percent of the slowdown, and more rapid growth expected in coming years if the economy strengthens as expected.

Based on statistical modeling and analysis by health cost experts at the Foundation and Altarum Institute’s Center for Sustainable Health Spending, the analysis assesses how much the economy is driving the nation’s recent slowdown in national health spending, a category encompassing what individuals, employers and governments collectively spend.

Government statistics show that health spending grew by 3.9 percent each year from 2009 to 2011 — the slowest growth since the government began tracking it in 1960. Estimates suggest that slow growth in health spending continued into 2012. On average, health spending grew by 4.2 percent per year from 2008 to 2012, down from the recent peak of 8.8 percent from 2001 to 2003.

Based on statistical analysis of 50 years of health spending and economic trends, the study finds that the economy, including factors such as Gross Domestic Product growth and inflation, produces a major but delayed effect on the nation’s health spending. This effect stretches over a period of six years, meaning that the recession that ended in 2009 will continue to dampen health care spending for several more years and that spending will increase gradually as the economy strengthens.

Economic factors alone account for 77 percent of the reduced growth in national health spending from its 8.8 percent peak in 2001 to 2003. The remaining 23 percent result from changes in the health care system, potentially including higher deductibles and other cost-sharing that dampen patients’ use of services, as well as various forms of managed care and delivery system changes. This study cannot determine the separate impact of these factors.

“The problem of health costs is not solved and we need to be realistic that health spending increases will return to more typical levels as the economy improves,” Foundation President and CEO Drew E. Altman said. “But the analysis also shows that the economy is not the entire story, and if we could shave even a percentage point or more off annual health care spending increases, we could save trillions of dollars over the next decade.”

A related column, authored by the Foundation’s Drew Altman and Larry Levitt, appears in today’s Washington Post.

Though the recession will likely continue to dampen health spending growth over the next couple of years, the study projects that expected economic growth will drive up health spending in years ahead — gradually adding 3.5 percentage points to the annual growth rate by 2019. This would push the annual growth rate in health spending back over 7 percent, which is much closer to historical averages.

The economy can have a direct effect on health spending, such as consumers using fewer health care services as their incomes lag, as well as an indirect effect — for example, employers raising deductibles or fewer people working and more people uninsured during economic downturns. The effect is not immediate because individuals, employers, and governments do not always respond quickly to economic changes or may cut other expenses before health.

A number of factors could alter the rate of increase in health spending in the years ahead and are not explicitly accounted for in the study. The Affordable Care Act will likely produce a modest one-time increase in health spending as more people gain insurance coverage through health insurance exchanges and broader eligibility for Medicaid. The ACA is also expected to generate substantial savings in Medicare through smaller increases in payments to providers and insurers. Other ACA provisions could also reduce costs. In addition, new delivery models being developed in the public and private sectors, as well as higher deductibles in private insurance plans, could dampen future cost growth.

With national health expenditures totaling about $2.8 trillion in 2012, trimming anticipated growth by even a single percentage point could reduce spending by more than $2 trillion over the course of a decade, with big implications for government, private-sector and family budgets.

The study, Assessing the Effects of the Economy on the Recent Slowdown in Health Spending, is based on statistically modeling using economy data and national health care expenditures data from actuaries at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services through 2011, and from the Center for Sustainable Health Spending at the Altarum Institute for 2012. The study was prepared by researchers at the Kaiser Family Foundation, including Larry Levitt and Gary Claxton; Charles Roehrig of Altarum Institute; and Thomas Getzen of the Fox School of Business at Temple University. Altarum Institute’s monthly health indicator briefs are available at www.altarum.org/HealthIndicators.

The Kaiser Family Foundation, a leader in health policy analysis, health journalism and communication, is dedicated to filling the need for trusted, independent information on the major health issues facing our nation and its people. The Foundation is a non-profit private operating foundation, based in Menlo Park, California.