In this column for The Wall Street Journal’s Think Tank, Drew Altman explores the trend of higher deductibles in health plans and discusses a new analysis showing that many people with private insurance don’t have sufficient financial resources to pay a mid- or high-range deductible.
- view as grid
- view as list
Higher cost sharing in private insurance has been credited with helping to slow the growth of health care costs in recent years. For families with low incomes or moderate incomes, however, high deductibles, out-of-pocket limits and other cost sharing can be a potential barrier to care and may lead these families to significant financial difficulties. This issue brief uses information from the Federal Reserve Board’s 2013 Survey of Consumer Finances to look at how household resources match up against potential cost-sharing requirements for plans offered by employers or available in the individual market, including in the Affordable Care Act marketplaces.
Medicaid is the nation’s main public health insurance program for people with low incomes, and it is the single largest source of health coverage in the U.S., covering nearly 70 million Americans. Medicaid also finances 16% of total personal health spending in the nation. States design and administer their own Medicaid programs within federal requirements, and states and the federal government finance the program jointly. As a major payer, Medicaid is a core source of financing for safety-net hospitals and health centers that serve low-income communities, including many of the uninsured. It is also the main source of coverage and financing for both nursing home and community-based long-term care.
On Friday, March 6, 2014, the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Alliance for Health Reform hosted an ACA 101 briefing on the Affordable Care Act. The briefing took place just as the second marketplace enrollment period ended, and the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case challenging the ACA’s subsidies (King v Burwell).
In this column for The Wall Street Journal’s Think Tank, Drew Altman explores a practical timetable for state action if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the plaintiffs in King V. Burwell and ponders what Republicans in Congress might do.
This brief examines the coverage provisions of the Affordable Care Act , providing an update on how they have been implemented and assessing their impact five years after the law’s enactment. It also discusses key issues for coverage going forward.
New Kaiser Policy Insight and Issue Brief Examine Policy Implications and Legal Arguments in the U.S. Supreme Court’s King v. Burwell Case
With the Supreme Court set to hear oral arguments in King v. Burwell on March 4, a new Policy Insight from the Kaiser Family Foundation’s Larry Levitt and Gary Claxton explores the policy implications for consumers and insurance markets if the Court were to side with the plaintiffs in the…
Are Premium Subsidies Available in States with a Federally-run Marketplace? A Guide to the Supreme Court Argument in King v. Burwell
This issue brief examines the major questions raised by King v. Burwell, explains the parties’ legal arguments, and considers the potential effects of a Supreme Court decision about the availability of the Affordable Care Act’s premium subsidies in states with a Federally-run Marketplace.
This perspective addresses how insurance markets might respond if the US Supreme Court sides with the plaintiffs in the King v. Burwell case. The case challenges the legality of premium and cost-sharing subsidies for low- and middle-income people buying insurance in states where the federal government rather than the state is operating the marketplace under the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
In his latest column for The Wall Street Journal’s Think Tank, Drew Altman and guest co-author Dana Goldman examine hospital productivity gains, and what they may mean for hospitals’ ability to absorb spending reductions. All previous columns by Drew Altman are available online.