2015 Archive

Uninsured Rate Below 10% Under ObamaCare

Posted by on August 13, 2015 in ObamaCare News Archive

A new 2015 CDC study shows the uninsured rate below 10% at 9.2% for the first 3 months of 2015. Let’s take a look at what these numbers mean and how the Affordable Care Act impacted the uninsured rate.

Summary of the CDC Study on Uninsured under ObamaCare

From January through March 2015, the percentage of persons uninsured (including children and seniors) at the time of interview was 9.2% (29.0 million), a decrease of 2.3 percentage points from the 2014 uninsured rate of 11.5% (36.0 million).

FACT: According to the CDC seven million fewer persons lacked health insurance coverage in the first three months of 2015 when compared with 2014.
FACT: In the second quarter of 2014 we saw the lowest uninsured rates (11.4%) since the CDC / NHIS study was started in 1957. So according to NHIS the current uninsured rate of 9.2% for 2015 is the lowest in over 50 years.

uninsured-rate-since-1963

Key Findings From the Report

  • In the first 3 months of 2015, 29 million persons of all ages (9.2%) were uninsured at the time of interview, 7 million fewer persons than in 2014.
  • Among adults aged 18–64, the percentage uninsured decreased from 16.3% in 2014 to 13.0% in the first 3 months of 2015. There was a corresponding increase in private coverage, from 67.3% to 70.4%.
  • Among children under age 18 years, the percentage with private coverage increased from 52.6% in 2013 to 56.3% in the first 3 months of 2015, reversing a 14-year trend of declining rates of private coverage.
  • Among those under age 65, the percentage with private coverage through the Health Insurance Marketplace or state-based exchanges increased from 2.5% (6.7 million) in the last 3 months of 2014 to 3.6% (9.7 million)

You can get more information on how all the enrollment numbers work together here or learn more about the uninsured here.

Understanding the Data on the Uninsured Rate of 9.2% Versus 11.5% Versus 13.0% for 2015

The data is from The National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) done by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). This study is based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau and it is updated quarterly. This particular study was based on 26,121 interviews.

The CDC study shows an uninsured rate of 13.0% for adults 18 -64 and 9.2% for persons of all ages (including children and seniors). Both of these numbers represent a significant drop from 2014 when compared to it’s own study.

This study is different than other studies done on the uninsured. For example another highly respected survey by Gallup shows the uninsured rate among U.S. adults aged 18 to 64 was 11.4% in the second quarter of 2015, down from 11.9% in the first quarter. This study is based on approximately 44,000 interviews.

Both of these findings are based on survey data as well as actual available enrollment data. Every percentage point accounts for about 3.2 million people, so the discrepancy between 9.2% – 11.4% – 13% is significant, the numbers that should be being compared here are the CDC’s 13.0% and Gallup’s 11.4%.

If you want to get more detailed you’ll want to read the technical notes on page 8 of the study.

TIP: Saying that the uninsured rate is “around 10%” or arguably “below 10% according to some studies” is probably the most accurate way of making a general statement about the current uninsured rate unless you are citing a specific study or age group. Typically when talking about uninsured we are talking about the 18 – 64 demographic as the majority of children and seniors were covered under CHIP and Medicare respectively before the ACA. So if talking about just 18 – 64 it would be accurate to say “around 12%”. No matter how you crunch the data it is clear that the uninsured rate is falling under the Affordable Care Act and that is the important takeaway.

uninsured-rate-chart-2015

How Does the Affordable Care Act Affect the Uninsured Rate?

The Affordable Care Act expanded coverage options through Medicaid, the Marketplace, and Employers. These have been the primary causes of a drop in the uninsured rate in the 18 -64 demographic. In Medicaid and the Marketplace the biggest reduction in uninsured has been with those with low incomes and with non-whites, but arguably the biggest cause for the drop in uninsured (at least according to a separate but interesting RAND corporation study) is the “employer mandate” (the requirement for large employers to cover their workers).

A May 2015 RAND corporation study estimated that  22.8 million got coverage and 5.9 million lost plans for a net total of 16.9 million newly insured. 9.6 million people enrolled in employer-sponsored health plans, followed by Medicaid (6.5 million), the individual marketplaces (4.1 million), non-marketplace individual plans (1.2 million) and other insurance sources (1.5 million).

John Oliver Sex Eduction VIdeo

Posted by on August 11, 2015 in ObamaCare Opinions, Op-ed, and Other Articles

In case you didn’t catch it on HBO or HBO Now, here is the official clip of John Oliver’s bit on sex education. The video may be funny, but the debate over sex education is very real.

With John Stewart off the air, Planned Parenthood under attack, and the Affordable Care Act doing it’s best to improve access to sexual healthcare and sex education we felt this video was a fun and appropriate addition to our ObamaCare news and op-ed section.

FACT: The Affordable Care Act funds sexual education, improves women’s health, makes birth control free on all health plans, and more.

This John Oliver Video on Sexual Education contains some “not safe for work language”, but lots of “smart for the whole family” information.

Learn more about state policies on sex education and which states have the most abortions and STI’s per capita.

Section 9010 a Tax On Large Insurers

Posted by on August 10, 2015 in ObamaCare Opinions, Op-ed, and Other Articles

Section 9010 of the Affordable Care Act includes a tax on America’s largest insurers, the one’s who profit the most off of ObamaCare.

How Much Is the Tax Under Section 9010?

The tax started at $6.7 billion in 2010, was $7 billion in 2014, and raised to $18 billion by 2024. The exact amounts are subject to change. The current IRS page on section 9010 shows this:

Applicable Amount

Applicable amount means the aggregate fee amount each year for all covered entities under section 9010.  The applicable amounts for fee years are—

Fee Year Applicable Amount
2014 $ 8,000,000,000
2015 $11,300,000,000
2016 $11,300,000,000
2017 $13,900,000,000
2018 $14,300,000,000
2019 and thereafter The applicable amount in the preceding fee year increased by the rate of premium growth (within the meaning of section 36B(b)(3)(A)(ii).

Net Premiums Written Taken Into Account

The amount of net premiums written taken into account for each covered entity per calendar year is:

Covered entity’s net premiums written during the data year that are: Percentage of net premiums that are taken into account is:
Not more than $25,000,000 0
More than $25,000,000 but not more than $50,000,000 50
More than $50,000,000 100

Why Is There An Excise Tax?

This fee, sometimes called an excise tax, is meant to help fund the law by taxing insurers who profit the most off of the expansion of coverage under the ACA. It’s actually one of the larger funding mechanisms in the ACA.

This tax is one of many excise taxes that targets industries that profit off of America. Other major excise taxes include highway taxes, tobacco and alcohol taxes, aviation taxes, and a tax on high end health plans. See this CBO report on excise taxes.

Which Insurers Must Pay the Tax Under Section 9010

Large insurers who write more than $25 million in premiums or whose fees are more than $5 million from administration of employer self-insured plans must pay the fee under section 9010. Those who write more than $50 million in premiums pay the full amount.

Insurers who have to pay the fee include those who operate in public and private markets. Private markets include all plans sold inside and outside of the Marketplace and those who furnish group plans and Medicare Part C and D plans. Public markets include Nonprofit insurers that receive more than 80% of their premium revenue from Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, and dual eligible plans are exempt from the fee. Certain other nonprofit insurers can exclude 50% of their premium revenue from the health insurer fee calculation. Learn more here.

Do Individuals Have to Pay the Tax Under Section 9010?

In a perfect world individuals aren’t paying the tax, rather insurers are paying the non-deductible tax out of their profits.

However, some fear that the tax may lead to inflated premiums due to insurers passing the cost onto consumers. Those who wrote the law saw it as a compromise with insurers who would profit the most off of the ACA. Insurers can’t pass the tax off directly, but of course they are allowed to raise premiums as privately run businesses.

Is the Tax Hidden in the Affordable Care Act?

Some anti-ObamaCare folks have claimed the tax is hidden in the ACA. The truth is that it is the 9th item in TITLE IX – REVENUE PROVISIONS Subtitle A – Revenue Offset Provisions. If you want to call the 9th tax in the tax section “hidden” then it’s a matter of semantics.

Certainly we can agree this tax was referred to as a fee, and we do know that since it didn’t affect Americans directly few made a big deal out of it.

Logically though, it’s hard to see this as “hidden”. The tax under section 9010 is literally sandwiched in between the very publicized medical device tax and studies to improve VA healthcare. So, arguably, a politician overlooking the tax says more about the politician than the law.

Learn more about the fee at healthlawyers.org.

Will The 9010 Tax Be Repealed?

There is an effort to repeal this tax. While it may seem attractive on the surface we have to remember that this is one of the attempts to get insurers to pay their fair share and not foot America with the healthcare bill while insurers profit. Repealing the tax is probably a bad idea unless it is replaced with a smart solution that does a better job at tackling the issue of who foots the bill and how does health care become more affordable in America.

Remember the repeal of this tax is being pushed by house GOP members who want to see the law dismantled and defund piece by piece. If we take out billions in taxes on insurers the price of the ACA goes up for sure, but premiums don’t necessarily go down. This does a lot for the stance of a repealer politician, but does little to help the average American back here in reality land trying to ensure their families have access to health insurance and health care.

Of course repealers are going to go after TITLE 9, that is where one would start if they wanted to defund the law, but it doesn’t make it smart.

See a summary of all taxes in TITLE 9 of the ACA here.

Doctors Are “Cherrypicking” Their Patients – Story

Posted by on August 6, 2015 in ObamaCare Stories Archive

Long story short, I am looking for a pcp for my boss that is in his network with his insurance company. There are 154 doctors within ten miles of him all of which have a contract to accept his insurance.

Every doctor out of the 154 doctors have said they will not accept his insurance plan because it is part of the marketplace ObamaCare. Some have deny an appointment for him all together, others have said there will be a fee of 200 plus dollars at the time of the appointment and he will be considered a patient with no health insurance. They also refuse to submit any bills to the insurance company.

The insurance provider states they will cover the doctor bills as if they are in network although the doctor’s are stating they will not accept the insurance plan, however I will need to submit all the claims.

The doctors are “cherry picking” who their patients are because they do not want to have to charge less for their services and do extra paperwork such as referrals for their patients. The bottom line is these doctors are more concerned with their pocketbooks then caring for patients!

Are these type of discriminatory practices legal? Do doctor’s have the right to deny medical care solely on insurance information? Do doctor’s have the right to deny filing an insurance claim to his insurance company? What is the consumer supposed to do regarding this issue? It appears to be a huge loophole in the system.

Drug Coverage Lacking in ACA and Part D – Story

Posted by on August 5, 2015 in ObamaCare Stories Archive

I was optimistic about health care reform and voted for Obama both times! However, I’m more disgusted everyday. I should have known that seeing what a debacle Medicare part D is that ACA wouldn’t help either.

I am a physician in internal medicine in Peoria IL. Luckily my practice has lower than average medicare participants because finding a way for them to get medications they need is not working. At least before part D, most elderly qualified for drug assistance programs. My mom for instance could get Forteo, a $300/month or more drug, straight from Eli Lilly for $12. If she still needed that drug today it would be a much different story.

What really confuses me is that I have read that Medicare Advantage plans get paid more for sicker patients. Isn’t that the opposite for pay for performance? Today I had a patient with Diabetes that hasn’t tolerated any of the generic medications and brand name drugs would cost her $325 towards her deductible and we estimate $75 per month as a copay per drug. So her A1c was 12.9 and I put her on generic sulfonylurea. I don’t care for that class of medication because it is felt to burn out the pancreas faster and lead to needing Insulin sooner but it has to be better than nothing. She took it 2 months and report abdominal cramping every single day so had to stop. She had daily diarrhea on metformin. So the only option I have since she can’t afford meds is to try and cover her with samples that I get from drug reps. Some doctors don’t even take samples anymore but I can’t imagine doing that because then how could I help my patients over 65 with limited incomes when they get to donut hole or can’t afford from the outset. If this person didn’t plan well for retirement that’s one thing but she has to pay for drug coverage that doesn’t cover her drugs. That doesn’t seem fair to me.

I also would like to know how I will be judged effective as a physician when faced with these barriers to treatment. Humana can audit me to see how many of my diabetics have an A1c less than 8.0 and yet they don’t cover the meds at a level these patients can afford. Shouldn’t they be the ones that are judged? How about the insurance companies get audited and regulated? I believe most physicians are following their professional oath and doing whatever they can to help their patients. So to “judge” our effectiveness on outcomes we can only contribute to in a very, very small way is ludicrous.

I hope this doesn’t fall on deaf ears. I want to see my patients get the care they need with LESS red tape. I don’t know who’s the voice of physicians anymore so I hope you will listen to this one person as a fair representation of what is going on in the trenches.

Sincerely,
Rebecca K, MD

I Hate My Health Plan – Story

Posted by on August 4, 2015 in ObamaCare Stories Archive

I am trying to find a primary care doctor, seems like the majority of doctors do not accept my Coventry Carelink HMO plan.

After talking with a few offices if I had regular Coventry health insurance they would accept that but not my “obamacare” insurance. I just want a English speaking, American trained doctor. I CAN’T STAND MY INSURANCE

ObamaCare Repeal Voted Down in Senate

Posted by on July 27, 2015 in ObamaCare News Archive

The senate voted down a GOP attempt to repeal ObamaCare (the Affordable Care Act) 49-43, 60 votes would have been needed to repeal the law. This is the first repeal attempt since the party took control of the chamber in January 2015.

The vote was oddly made on Sunday in the middle of July 2015 and was attached to a highway funding bill. The vote fell, perhaps unsurprisingly, on party lines at 49-43 with 8 senators not voting. Oddly a number of GOP voted against repeal, but quickly changed their votes.

Senator Ted Cruz (the guy who grandstanded at a filibuster, reading Doctor Seuss, for 12 hours, while the Government was shut down over ObamaCare) pointed out that 60 votes would be needed to repeal the ACA and that the vote was “an exercise in meaningless political theater”.

According to Politico Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) is expected to propose a procedural motion to change Senate rules in order to try to repeal the Affordable Care Act with just 51 votes.

The Senate and house have tried and failed to repeal ObamaCare nearly 60 times so far and the Supreme court has heard 6 major cases. ObamaCare (the Affordable Care Act) stood up to each attempt, and despite a few bumps and scrapes like the ability for states to opt out of Medicaid, the ACA remains the law of the land.

Do We Still Need Planned Parenthood?

Posted by on July 23, 2015 in ObamaCare Opinions, Op-ed, and Other Articles

We need Planned Parenthood. ObamaCare’s expansion of coverage options provides free sexual and reproductive health services, but millions fall in the Medicaid gap in states that didn’t expand Medicaid, and millions more have yet to get coverage through the Health Insurance Marketplace.

Planned Parenthood gives millions of low-income men and women in non-expansion states somewhere to turn for reproductive health services, education, and information. Even in states that expanded Medicaid, Planned Parenthood helps both those with and without insurance including those with Marketplace coverage. Free birth control, cancer screenings related to sexual health, STI screenings, and maternity care may be covered under ObamaCare, but even people with coverage still need a place to get those services.

The role Planned Parenthood plays in our society goes beyond the services that a family doctor, hospital, or even community health centers can provide in some regions. Below we take a look at what Planned Parenthood really does and how ObamaCare (the Affordable Care Act) affects things.

UPDATE FOR 2017: Planned Parenthood is at risk of being defunded in 2017. Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) had said that defunding Planned Parenthood will be included as part of a bill to repeal ObamaCare (and this was the case with the Republican repeal and replace plan (the American Health Care Act). Find out how you can help protect Planned Parenthood, and/or find out how you can help protect ObamaCare.

FACT: Planned Parenthood provides essential services to over 5 million Americans. Only three percent of all Planned Parenthood health services were abortion services in 2013 – 2014. From June 30th, 2013 – June 30th, 2014 they provided 10,590,433 services for over 5,000,000 Americans; 327,653 them were abortions. See page 18 of official Planned Parenthood report.
FACT: Medicaid reimbursements for care received at Planned Parenthood accounts for 75 percent of Planned Parenthood’s public funding. Due to U.S. law this funding cannot go to abortion related services, instead it goes to provide care to our nation’s poorest.
FACT: Planned Parenthood does receive federal funding, but the money cannot be used for abortions by law (beyond what is allowed for by The Hyde Amendment; like any other provider who offers the service). Medicaid funding doesn’t go to abortion services, instead Planned Parenthood takes Medicaid (and other insurances) for a number of legal health services allowed by the law, just like any other healthcare provider would (and is refunded for the services provided, just like any other provider). Title X funding doesn’t go to pay for abortion services either. No federal funding goes to pay for abortion services, PERIOD. The Hyde Amendment makes it illegal to use federal tax dollars for abortion services (except in very specific instances), thus Planned Parenthood complies with the Hyde Amendment (as does any other upstanding institution, including Community Health Centers that offer abortion services). Instead of “just doing abortions” Planned Parenthood provides a host of essential health services for men and woman without health insurance or with access only to Medicaid (and to those with other insurances). See a list of fact-checks on political talking points aimed at Planned Parenthood (many people will be shocked to see the difference between what Planned Parenthood does and what its critics claim it does without providing any solid proof).

What Does Planned Parenthood Actually Do?

There is a pervasive myth that Planned Parenthood just does abortions. Anyone who has used Planned Parenthood, or whose friends have used it, knows that isn’t true. They provide education, screenings, reproductive health services, general health services, and counseling to both men and women. They play a huge role in identifying and providing treatment for sexually transmitted diseases. They help women who are pregnant and want to carry their babies to term to find doctors to help them, and adoption services if the mothers wish it. Planned Parenthood plays a big role in helping both women and men get general healthcare as well as sexual health services. They do provide abortions after counseling women, but abortions only account for 3% of all health services provided by Planned Parenthood.

Planned Parenthood’s services include information, counseling, and services related to:

  • Adoption
  • Abortion
  • Birth Control
  • Body Image
  • General Healthcare
  • Men’s Sexual Health
  • Morning After Pill
  • Pregnancy
  • Relationships
  • Sex & Sexuality
  • Sexual Orientation & Gender
  • STD’s
  • Women’s Health
  • and More

FACT: Planned Parenthood helps people sign up for Medicaid and the Health Insurance Marketplace as one of it’s many services to the community.

What is Planned Parenthood?: Planned Parenthood, short for Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), is a non-profit organization which started as a birth control clinic established by Margaret Sanger in 1916 in New York. It was then organized into the American Birth Control League which then found its way into the Planned Parenthood Federation of America in 1942. Just as the name has changed over the years, so have the services provided. Many new services have been added since 1916.

Can’t People Just Use ObamaCare Instead of Planned Parenthood?

ObamaCare is the nickname for a law that expands coverage options and improves healthcare (see a summary of each provision here). In regards to Planned Parenthood the ACA does two important things:

  1. It expands coverage by offering cost assistance through the Health Insurance Marketplace to those with 100% – 400% of the Federal poverty Level and Medicaid (which is free or low cost coverage) to those with incomes below 138% of the Federal Poverty Level.
  2. It expands basic benefits every plan must offer. This includes a large list of free services including maternity services, STI screenings, birth control, and more.

Those two points may have you thinking “since we pay taxes for ObamaCare, why do we need to pay taxes for Planned Parenthood”? “ObamaCare gives people free birth control, so we don’t need Planned Parenthood anymore, right?”

The short answer is, we still need Planned Parenthood. It’s services aren’t replaced by Obamacare; they go hand-in-hand with it. Many states have opted out of expanding Medicaid, and many people have yet to get covered under the law. There are about 30 million Americans without insurance, who have nowhere affordable to turn for the services Planned Parenthood provides.

Those that do have insurance (and sometimes those without) can get many of the same services they can get at Planned Parenthood from another source, such as a family doctor or public or private clinic. However, as we will see Planned Parenthood has a lot of benefits as they are a nationwide health center, with over 70 years of experience in providing sexual and reproductive health services.

Can’t People Just go to a Private Family Doctor?

The idea that people can just go to family doctor now that we have ObamaCare is a misconception.

First, a private doctor may require a copay and an appointment. Paying up to $100 to see your doctor in order to ask them for free birth-control provided through one’s insurance, or getting a free STI screening, is much less free if your cost includes a doctors appointment. (Only one free wellness visit is offered each year under the ACA). Also your doctor may not have the necessary community knowledge to offer the same level of care and support that Planned Parenthood can.

Privacy in health matters is important. Men and women may rely on the anonymity provided by Planned Parenthood to talk about things that they wouldn’t want to discuss with a family doctor. Your doctor may be required to keep things confidential, but you can bet that the STI screening will be on your family insurance if you go to the family doctor. Of course, for those without a family doctor (which as of July 2015 includes over 10% of America) simply don’t have the option.

Shouldn’t We Just Fund Community Health Centers Instead?

Planned Parenthood runs on both private and public funding and has a lot of similarities to both private and publicly funded community health centers, the main differences being:

  • Other centers are funded by a religious group, a local organization, a bigger public group, or a private group instead of getting a mix of private and public funding like planned parenthood.
  • Some community health centers provide assistance for low income consumers, like Planned Parenthood, but not all do.
  • Not all community health centers are focused solely on sexual and reproductive health.
  • Not all community health centers have the means to provide lab testing, screenings, safe abortions, or other key services.

The name Planned Parenthood may make people think it is limited to birth control and abortions. As we have seen, it isn’t true. We could keep Planned Parenthood and change the name to something like ”community health center for sexual and reproductive health”, but that would be pointless. Planned Parenthood is a brand name that people know, and it is a health center focused on sexual and reproductive care. Not everyone understands what services a local clinic may provide, but Planned Parenthood’s services are uniform and clearly stated in it’s web site and literature.

planned-parenthood-funding

This image shows a breakdown of how Planned Parenthood is funded. Remember no federal taxpayer funding is used to provide abortion related services.

Does the Federal Government Fund Planned Parenthood Abortion?

Current laws make it illegal for the government to fund abortion in the United States.

Planned Parenthood receives federal funding for its family planning services, including contraception and family planning information. It also receives money in the form of government grants and contracts. However, it cannot receive federal funding nor allocate such funds for abortions. Planned Parenthood also receives funding from private donors which account for around a quarter of the organization’s revenue.

How Does Planned Parenthood Federal Funding Work?

Public funds for Planned Parenthood come in the form or reimbursements from seeing Medicaid patients and from Title X, a federal family planning program that likewise primarily serves lower-income Americans. This means that like any other provider who accepts Medicaid they are simply being reimbursed for services rendered (but with the stipulation that federal funds can’t be used for abortion related services).

Title X is a federal program, Medicaid operates using federal and state funds. States receive a 90 percent federal reimbursement on Medicaid family planning spending. This means that the debate over defunding Planned Parenthood is really about defunding the Medicaid safety net to deny tax funded care to our poorest. Learn more from NPR.org.

Planned Parenthood and Abortion

As a country we know abortion is a touchy issue and very few Americans feel good about the idea. But we also know as a country:

  • The Hyde Amendment, Row V Wade, and state rights govern the law in regard to abortion, not Planned Parenthood. Abortion is legal in America. Wealthier women who are able to afford private doctors have historically had access to abortion services. Planned Parenthood makes sure that everyone, including those with low-incomes, have the access to safe abortions if they choose to have them.
  • Before 1973, young healthy American women were dying because of illegal and unsafe abortions. Today, abortion is one of the safest medical procedures in this country thanks to the surgery being legal and performed under proper medical conditions.
  • Today, 99 percent of sexually active American women at some point in their lives use birth control — and, thanks to Planned Parenthood and the Affordable Care Act, more than 48 million women are now eligible to receive it with no copay.

Planned Parenthood and Pregnancy Counseling

Of course, abortions are only a small fraction of what Planned Parenthood does for women who come to Planned Parenthood while pregnant.

When a woman knows or thinks she is pregnant, she can go to Planned Parenthood with or without money or insurance and get all the treatment she needs to have a safe pregnancy and make choices she is comfortable with. One of those choices is abortion, but other choices include adoption and bringing up the baby. In those cases it is critical that the mother learns about how to take the right steps to ensure a safe pregnancy. Planned Parenthood helps expectant mothers make the right choice for themselves and their babies by providing information and support.

The Defund Planned Parenthood Movement 2015

A recent “defund Planned Parenthood” movement  is an attempt by conservatives to cut federal funding to the 73 year old institution on ideological grounds. There is a claim that we don’t need Planned Parenthood anymore, but the truth is that until we have near 100% health coverage (and perhaps even after) Planned Parenthood is an essential part of providing sexual and reproductive health services to America, especially to low-income Americans. When people have no coverage and low-income they will often provide free care.

Despite the need for Planned Parenthood’s services, especially among the less wealthy and most vulnerable people in our society, it has been the subject of a lot of attacks. Recent news has included a sting on Planned Parenthood that has been used to renew a longstanding mark on the institution. Politically motivated propaganda has already led to the rejection of a bill that would help veterans. Republicans are currently also pushing the IRS to audit Planned Parenthood.

FACT: Planned Parenthood helps to fight against laws that restrict safe legal abortion. For instance in 2013 in Alabama, a federal judge struck down a harmful state law that would have forced three of the five abortion providers in the state to cease their work, thus severely restricting access to safe, legal abortion and thereby threatening women’s health. Planned Parenthood helps to push back against similar laws that closed health centers across Texas and threatened access to abortion in Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Wisconsin, and other non-expansion states.

20 States, Including 19 “Red” States and Maine Didn’t Expand Medicaid (As of July 2015)

Perhaps in a world where we had near 100% health coverage, we could make a stronger argument for other private and public doctors providing all the services Planned Parenthood does, but in 2015 with 19 “red” states opting out of expanding Medicaid, that choice doesn’t exist. Just about the worst thing we could do for the poorer and more vulnerable people whose needs have been ignored or rejected in these states is to take away one of their only healthcare options outside of the emergency room and a limited number of community clinics.

Even if all states expanded it wouldn’t justify “getting rid” of Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood provides coverage to those in-between coverage options, those on Medicaid who have great difficulty finding medical providers even if they are theoretically covered for their services, and those with other insurance. It works to spread awareness of healthcare and health insurance. Taking away Planned Parenthood just because people have health insurance would be analogous to closing Urgent Care Centers in the community because we have hospitals and doctors in the next town. Yes they do similar things, but one does not replace the other. They each serve important functions in our healthcare system.

Planned Parenthood Facts

Let’s look at more Planned Parenthood Facts:

  • Planned Parenthood has 59 independent local affiliates that operate approximately 700 health centers throughout the United States, providing high-quality services to women, men, and teens. They see nearly 3 million patients each year, and provide education to about 1.5 million more. In all, they provide sexual and reproductive health care, education, information, and outreach to more than five million women, men, and adolescents worldwide each year.
  • Planned Parenthood also participates in studies that advance health care, medicine, and science, and works with organizations across Africa and Latin America to increase global sexual education.
  • Eighty-four percent of Planned Parenthood health care clients in the U.S. are age 20 and older.
  • One in five women in the U.S. has visited a Planned Parenthood health center at least once in her life.
  • Planned Parenthood health centers focus on prevention and maintaining health: 80 percent of the clients receive services to prevent unintended pregnancy.
  • Planned Parenthood services help prevent approximately 516,000 unintended pregnancies each year. Our nation has very limited options to care for unwanted babies, so this is important.
  • Planned Parenthood provides nearly 400,000 Pap tests and nearly 500,000 breast exams each year, critical services in detecting cancer.
  • Planned Parenthood provides nearly 4.5 million tests and treatments for sexually transmitted infections, including 700,00 HIV tests.
  • Planned Parenthood affiliates provide educational programs and outreach to 1.5 million young people and adults each year.
  • Planned Parenthood has eight million activists, supporters, and donors working for women’s health and safety and our fundamental reproductive rights.
  • Three percent of all Planned Parenthood health services are abortion services.
  • Join us in the fight for commonsense policies that foster the sexual and reproductive health and rights of individuals, families, and communities.

 Planned Parenthood Myths

Let’s look at a few myths about Planned Parenthood:

  • It’s a myth the Federal Government funds abortions through Planned Parenthood. The Hyde Amendment says that federal funds can’t be used to pay for abortion unless the pregnancy arises from incest, rape, or to save the life of the mother. This is one of the reasons Planned Parenthood uses a mix of private and public funding. Only private funding can be used to provide abortion services.
  • It’s a myth that most of the services Planned Parenthood does are abortion related. We don’t need to guess when it comes to the above facts or figures like this. Planned Parenthood releases an annual report with a breakdown of what they do each year. They provided 10,590,433 services; 327,653 them were abortions. They also provided 3,577,348 types of contraception and 4,470,597 STI screenings.
  • It’s a myth that Planned Parenthood profits off of fetal tissue. This new myth is based on a heavily edited sting video where anti-choice activists pretended to be from a medical company that wanted to acquire fetal tissue. The video discussed something that most people don’t want to think about: the very legal and GOP supported practice of using fetal tissue to further scientific research instead of disposing of it, and the right of donating organizations to receive enough compensation to cover storage and shipping costs, but not enough to make a profit.

Planned Parenthood has been the target of those who are against both birth control and a woman’s right to choose on ideological grounds since the institution started. The latest myths and attacks won’t be the last. We urge you to educate yourself further by checking out the latest Planned Parenthood report below.

Learn more about from a recent Planned Parenthood report and the Planned Parenthood site.

ObamaCare Should Regulate Healthcare Industry, Not People – Story

Posted by on July 22, 2015 in ObamaCare Stories Archive

My parents have to use obamacare because they are not 65 yet. They have been over charged because the market place did not turn their information in on time. They had their bank account over drawn due to their premium being more than they were told and it being directly withdrawn (of the higher amount) without being notified of the new amount. Then when they try to use the insurance, it won’t cover having an ingrown toenail removed and my mom can’t get shots in her bad knees due to the Dr not taking their insurance. What’s the purpose of obamacare? It cost too much. It’s to complicated for regular people to figure out on their own. It doesn’t cover sqwat. Poor people qualify for Medicaid, rich people can afford whatever, working class people get screwed. Obamacare should regulate the insurance companies and the medical facilities increasing the cost of medical/health care, not the people needing quality healthcare.

More ObamaCare Fines Paid Than Expected, But Most Got Refund

Posted by on in ObamaCare Opinions, Op-ed, and Other Articles

710,000 who got subsidies through ObamaCare have yet to file tax returns, while 9% (7.5 million) who did file paid $1.5 billion in penalties (although many qualified for additional exemptions). Below we do a quick recap of these two important stories.

More ObamaCare Fines Paid than Expected

According to CNBC about 7.5 million taxpayers who have filed taxes have paid the penalty for not having coverage. The penalty exceeds projections by officials.

The average penalty paid was about $200 per person, and in all $1.5 billion was collected by the Internal Revenue Service in these fines. However, officials stressed that “the vast majority”—85 percent—of people who paid the fines nonetheless ended up with a net tax refund from the IRS.

And Then There are Those Who Just Didn’t File Taxes, But Claimed a Subsidy in Advance

According to the Daily Caller IRS commissioner John Koskinen said last week that 710,000 who received premium tax credits in 2014 have yet to file tax returns or file an extension (extensions are filed with form 4868).

The Orrin Hatch $2.4 billion Myth

Although 710,000 non-filers with premium tax credits is more than expected, a statement by Sen. Orrin Hatch that the total amount owed in advanced tax credit payments alone could be $2.4 billion or more is likely over exaggerated. The Hatch statement comes on the assumption that the average non-filer would owe $3,400.

The Orrin Hatch assumption in reality makes little to no sense as 7.5 million in the above article collectively paid $1.5 billion (way less than $3,400). To owe more than $2,500 you have to have 1) recived more than $2,500 and then 2) projected a low income and then made over 400% FPL ($94,200 for a family of 4). Ask yourself how many families making nearly $100,000 didn’t file taxes? What do you think? Those who make less than expected are actually owed a larger refund.

This statement comes on the back of a Hatch lead hearing seeking answers on how 11 fake applications were able to re-enroll in Obamacare.

The Takeaway

Republican talking points aside, there seemed to be more tax filing issues and ACA related tax filing issues this year than expected. For those of us who want a better healthcare system (rather than to be elected based on the destruction of the ACA) the takeaway includes upping efforts to inform America about exemptions and taxes and efforts to continue to secure and streamline the process of obtaining and maintaining marketplace coverage.

Unfortunately those who paid the correct amounts are offset by the non filers, if not by those who didn’t file at all (at least theoretically, as we don’t know the amounts owed by non-filers).

It can be an uphill battle to figure out every aspect of the ACA , but understanding key aspects like the many exemptions and how to file tax forms correctly can mean big bucks in tax refunds and tax savings every year.

We strongly suggest everyone do a review of the 20 plus exemptions people can claim on form 8965, how to adjust tax credits properly on form 8962, how to save tons of money with an HSA, how to save money with subsidies, and how to get the right plan in the first place.

It seems like a lot of the tax woes from 2015 are related to people not understanding and utilizing tax forms properly, we have created simplified guides on everything related to ObamaCare and taxes, so crack one open, take a look, and become one of the people who saves money the right way in 2016.

Alaska Medicaid Expansion

Posted by on July 20, 2015 in ObamaCare News Archive

Alaska is joining many states and expanding Medicaid under ObamaCare. Individuals making less than 138% FPL  (roughly $20,000) will qualify for Medicaid. Individuals who don’t qualify for Medicaid, but make anywhere under $58,880 for 2015 will qualify for cost assistance on health insurance through HealthCare.Gov. Medicaid and cost assistance eligibility increases by family size so families will have higher limits and children of these families qualify for CHIP.

Those dollar amounts come from the Alaska specific 2015 Federal Poverty Level and are based on Modified Adjusted Gross Income (MAGI). The dollar amounts increase every year, Alaska’s expansion most likely won’t go into effect before January 1st, 2016 although no exact date has been set.

“Today, Alaska becomes the 30th state to accept the benefits of Medicaid expansion,”Gov. Bill Walker said to applause at an event announcing his plans in Anchorage on Thursday July 16th, 2015.

2015 POVERTY GUIDELINES – ALASKA

 Household Size

 100%

 133%

 150%

200%

 250%

 300%

400%

 1

$14,720

$19,578

$22,080

$29,440

 $36,800

$44,160

$58,880

 2

19,920

 26,494

29,880

  39,840

 49,800

59,760

79,680

 3

25,120

 33,410

37,680

  50,240

 62,800

75,360

100,480

 4

30,320

 40,326

45,480

  60,640

 75,800

90,960

121,280

 5

35,520

 47,242

53,280

  71,040

 88,800

106,560

142,080

 6

40,720

54,158

61,080

  81,440

 101,800

122,160

162,880

 7

45,920

 61,074

68,880

  91,840

 114,800

137,760

183,680

 8

51,120

 67,990

76,680

  102,240

 127,800

153,360

204,480
Gov. Bill Walker talks to Medicaid expansion supporters. Photo by Marc Lester / ADN

Gov. Bill Walker talks to Medicaid expansion supporters. Photo by Marc Lester / ADN

The History of Medicaid Expansion in Alaska

Due, in part, to Republican leadership Alaska chose not to expand Medicaid after many “red” states opted out of expanding health coverage to their state’s poorest despite 90 – 100% federal funding on January 1st, 2014. Since that date many states, and now including Alaska, decided to expand Medicaid either as envisioned by the ACA or by filing a waiver and creating an acceptable alternative. After about a year and a half of in-fighting between Alaska officials a decision to expand just barely passed and was announced by Gov. Bill Walker. This will cover as many as 42,000 Alaskans.

“Alaska and Alaskans cannot wait any longer,” Walker said. “This is the final option for me. I’ve tried everything else,” he said of his decision to circumvent lawmakers after months of lobbying them to enact his plan via legislation. “I never give up, and I won’t give up.”

Gov. Bill Walker will meet with U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell to discuss Medicaid expansion next week. There is not an exact date for the expansion taking place, but it would make sense if it were in place by January 1st, 2016.

A Failed Healthcare System, We Need Single Payer – Story

Posted by on July 17, 2015 in ObamaCare Stories Archive

What Obamacare provides is a Health Insurance Reform. The Government throws out some arbitrary number, based on what it considers “poverty level” of Americans who qualify. That number was developed by a woman in the 1960’s who took a basket of food for a family of 4 for a week and multiplied it 4 to determine what was “poverty level”. It has only ever been adjusted for inflation and no one will address it. The “self-sufficiency” standard for a single mother raising a child in Los Angeles is 64,000 a year, a realistic number. I am that mother, and for me and my son, the cheapest plan for us is 500. per month, and carries a 10,000. deductible. Needless to say, I cannot begin to afford care. Not a chance. I refuse to purchase coverage. I have to get care from free clinics and I negotiate any bills I do get with the provider. Both of us are healthy, and really rarely seek care. This is a failed system, and those getting it for free are most of the people that signed up for this plan. Those deemed “middle class” by an antiquated system that is not a real world model, pay the cost of the free ride for others. This is the American way, and it is one reason the middle class is shrinking and breaking down. We cannot continue to pay for both the rich and the poor.

Sorry Me. Obama. I will support any effort made to enact a single-payer healthcare system.

Due to ObamaCare I Survived Toxic Shock and Complications – Story

Posted by on in ObamaCare Stories Archive

I wanted to write and say how thankful I am for OBAMA Care!!!

About 6 years ago I had gotten Toxic Shock Syndrome. This involved being in a coma for 2 1/2 weeks, kidney failure, a heart attack, and many other complications. By the time I woke from the coma, I had a pick line, a port for dialysis and couldn’t roll over or get up on my own by my self. My body and mind were blown up!!!

Once home I was very weak and was so grateful to my daughter Megan who was right by my side since I could hardly walk to the sink… But ended up hospitalized 2 or 3 more times with more bags of blood and heavy duty antibiotics because the infection kept coming back as grapefruit size cysts on my ovaries. That when we decided to do a hysterectomy and so it was done but the end wasnt there. While in the coma they scanned my abdomen and there was a growth on my kidney. Later after the hysterectomy and all was taken care of regarding the toxic shock, we took that kidney out… and low and behold I had kidney cancer.

After I recovered I got my first job in 21 years of staying home with my children, I finally had the guts to leave a 27 year marriage/relationship that I was afraid to leave for many years and got a divorce. But this left me with out the good insurance I had during the Toxic Shock and Kidney Cancer. On my own for the first time in a long time (I was on my own at 19 and 20 and then got married the next year.) post critical illness I found my system/body was not the same and with no insurance it was scary. I had to go to the hospital 2 or 3 times and thank god I was able to get treatment but owed a couple big hospital bills!!! Because my body and mind were so blown up from the critical illness a bunch of years prior and many major evens, divorce and my mother passing away. (That just 2 there were many more life events) I had to cut my hours to part time because I wasn’t coping well and was crying every day and wasn’t able to have insurance through work because I was part time.

Being on Obama Care has afforded me to go to a psyche and she diagnosed me with PTSD, as well I have had Melanoma/surgery and a painful gull bladder that I had suffered great pain with and was misdiagnosed for 2 years while I didn’t have insurance. (One of the hospital visits while I was uninsured) with Obama Care I was able to get that gull bladder out and end the pain.

I can say I am so grateful for OBAMA Care because if I didn’t have it things would be very different in my world right now. I do not think I would have been able to deal with the Melanoma or the Gull Bladder and if I had I don’t know how I would have payed for it because I was a stay at home mom for so long with no schooling under my belt, its not like I make a lot of money to survive and make rent let alone pay those kinds of big medical bills and plus since the Toxic Shock my coping tools are much more tedious… So working full time is harder than for the normal person who hasn’t had a critical illness and almost died.

Thank you President Obama for giving me the chance to live! I am so grateful, for if it wasn’t for your Obama Care Act, If you hadn’t implemented Obama Care I may have been dead right now (or close to it) or so in dept from medical bills trying to stay alive it would be perilous and defeating!

Now I feel hope… I feel cared for, feel valued and feel safe… I am so grateful!!!

My best regards and thankfulness!!! ~Valerie

How Obama Care Negatively Affected my Best Friend – Story

Posted by on in ObamaCare Stories Archive

My best friend had a harsh life and has worked hard all her life. Two years ago she was diagnose with Cancer when things finally settle down for her. She has been through surgery and treatments and is on so many medication for all her symptoms everyday. She pay top for her insurance and they were able to cover most of her cost.

After Obama Care went into affect. Her insurance no longer pays for most of the medication that she needs to be on. Her doctor tried to change different brand and generic brand in order to make it affordable. But all the other generic brand caused her symptoms to be worse and she was told by her doctor if it persists it may cause her illness to take a side turn and the side affects of these generic brand might cause other cancer to arise.

Obama Care helps those with low income and were not previously able to qualify for insurance. I’ve seen this for a fact. By not restricting what the insurance company can cut coverage for, it is negatively affects the average income household that pays their taxes in time and is living paycheck to paycheck.

Before with insurance coverage she pays from copay $30.00 for one medicine out of 5 or more each month. Now after much struggle the insurance will to cover for one medicine. She will now have to pay $5000.00 per month for one medicine that use to cost her $30. If she does not pay she has to continue taking the generic brand that is making her condition even worse.

Who is helping her?

New CMS Advanced Care Planning Proposal

Posted by on July 16, 2015 in ObamaCare News Archive

A new proposal by the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare would pay doctors to consult with Medicare beneficiaries on end-of-life treatments, giving the patient their own decision on the type of care they wish to pursue.

FACT: Currently there is no structure in place to pay doctors for providing end of life counseling. This leads to people not being able to make their own life choices and overspending of tax dollars by Medicaid and Medicare. Learn more about Advanced Care Planning here.

In response to the large amount of inquiries, CMS has proposed a program that pays physicians to discuss advanced care treatments with patients under Medicare. This program is meant to give beneficiaries the choice of treatment in the event of a life-threatening illness. The ultimate decision is there’s to make, either pursuing intense medical treatments, or making their wishes known for their relatives/caretakers on writing.

Despite the vast advocacy for a type of advanced care program, there was no structure in place that would pay doctors for this type of counseling. The current option that is available is the “Welcome to Medicare” visit that’s open to any new Medicare enrollee, but that person may not need that type of service when they first enroll. A completely separate payment code for physicians and advance care planning plan gives beneficiaries and doctors the flexibility of choosing the best to time to discuss end-of-life treatments with patients and their families.

Back in May, the American Medical Association, AARP, along with 66 other organizations representing senior citizens and medical societies wrote to Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell encouraging the federal government to establish some sort of payment program for advanced care planning.

When Does the New Advanced Care Planning Proposal go Into Effect?

The proposed rule will take effect January 1st, 2016 and was included as part of regulation passed for doctor payments.

Medical Organizations wrote in a joint letter to HHS:

“Published, peer‐reviewed research shows that ACP [advance care planning] leads to better care, higher patient and family satisfaction, fewer unwanted hospitalizations, and lower rates of caregiver distress, depression and lost productivity, ACP is particularly important for Medicare beneficiaries because many have multiple chronic illnesses, receive care at home from family and other caregivers, and their children and other family members are often involved in making medical decisions.”

ACP would take off next year, it’s foundation originates from the recommendations of the American Medical Association. Billing codes would be put into place for physicians to charge for counselling sessions. During these sessions, patients would – Get advice on a range of options, from minimal medical interventions to demanding that every treatment possible be offered near the end of life. Patients can choose whether or not to schedule end-of-life counseling.”

CMS is looking for public Input on it’s new ACP program, stating that

“Today’s proposal supports individuals and families who wish to have the opportunity to discuss advance care planning with their physician and care team, as part of coordinated, patient- and family-centered care,”

Strange Happenings with BCBS Plan – Story

Posted by on July 14, 2015 in ObamaCare Stories Archive

In June of 2014, I terminated my employment and called 1800 ASK Blue to assist in finding an affordable Health Plan. The representative was very helpful and I chose the HMO Silver at cost of she noted I could be approved for a subsidy that bring the cost down to $105.70. We could make a three party call to if I qualified. I was a impressed. After answering the questions with my Blue Cross salesperson there to help me along I was “approved”. I purchased Vision and Dental and was relieved that I had affordable healthcare. I have paid that premium since 6/14 through 6/15 to Independence Blue Cross. On July 2nd, 2015 I was informed by a Blue Cross representative my Health Insurance was terminated as of 3pm. I went to pharmacy and was told my prescription was $800.00.

The first concerns I had were the billing statements I received. The invoices were on identical Blue Cross Logo stationary so I called ! 800 Ask Blue for clarification. One stated No amount due $105.70 and second was for $511.05. The billing office said they saw no issues and all was in order. After receiving same billing statements in November, I was transferred from billing to a representative that said he would get to the bottom of it…Easy fix. I was relieved. I had two policies opened. Wow! How did that happen? Although he didn’t know the reason it was easy to fix. I wanted to keep my current $105.70 policy. He said just close the Keystone. He gave me a phone number, we called and he said he would take care of the rest. Keystone? I never thought I had Keystone All the information II had said Independence Blue Cross.

I continued to make payments. I received notifications that it was time to enroll. I called the number on my card, 1800 Ask Blue if I needed to act. “No, you are fine. No need to do anything unless your employment status changes” .

It is May and those annoying big statements were still popping up. I started ramping up my calls. Not so much out of concern but sheer bafflement. Why was I receiving Independence Blue Cross statements that did not reflect what I was paying. Finally a frustrated representative said they had no information and I was directed to call the “the Marketplace”..
After 3 months of no answers, every phone call starting me from the beginning and ending with redirecting me. Independence Blue Cross, ,Marketplace., the light came on. Someone made mistakes and I was lost in a shuffle board game and did not enjoy being the puck.

After learning “The Marketplace” was not a flea Market for cheap insurance but rather the Healthcare Reform.hub that assured everyone had affordable healthcare..

A Marketplace advanced resolution specialist finally facilitated a three call. with an Independence Blue Cross operations representative. The picture became clearer and “a case was opened” internally at Blue Cross. Bottom line, my payments were being processed.for over a year and being applied to a ghost policy. i had received my first notification from Independence Blue Cross billing after the case was opened that no payments had been applied to my policy since November and I owed them close to seven thousand dollars. My case was open so the operations representative assured me they would reach a resolution. This would be fully investigated. I would be notified as soon as a resolution was reached.so I could be directed on how to proceed. I called daily. No response.
As of today I have no insurance. I have reached out for help. My Independence Blue Cross has vanished.like magic .It now shows I had no Insurance outside of dental and vision since November according to their computer. And yes, my June payment has been processed.

Free Contraception For Employees at Exempt Employers

Posted by on July 13, 2015 in ObamaCare News Archive

Employees can get free contraceptive coverage on employer plans, even if an employer is exempt from offering contraception for religious reasons.

Summary of How the Final Rules on Contraception for Religious Employers Work

Final rules issued by the Obama administration make it easier for religious employers to be granted an exemption from the mandate to provide contraception. Employers won’t have to arrange or pay for contraceptive coverage, but employees will be able to access free contraceptive services at no cost through a third party, as long as they maintain their employer plan.

To get the exemption employers must write a letter to Department of Health and Human Services stating their objection. HHS will then notify a third-party insurer of the company’s objection, and the insurer will provide birth control coverage to the company’s female employees at no additional cost to the company.

This rule applies to all religious employers (such as religious non-profits, religious hospitals, religious institutions of higher education, and religious employers like hobby lobby) but it does not apply to “places of worship”. Places of worship are still exempt from the mandate to provide contraceptive coverage.

“Women across the country should have access to preventive services, including contraception. At the same time, we recognize the deeply held views on these issues, and we are committed to securing women’s access to important preventive services at no additional cost under the Affordable Care Act, while respecting religious beliefs.” – HHS Secretary Sylvia Burwell

Below is a summary of how the rules differ for each employer type from HHS.Gov.

Final Rules for Religious Employers

Final rules issued by the Obama administration simplify the definition of “religious employer” in regard to the exemption from providing contraceptive coverage. This makes it easier for employers, primarily houses of worship, to understand if they meet the exemption or not.

The final rules also lay out the accommodation for other non-profit religious organizations – such as non-profit religious hospitals and institutions of higher education – that object to contraceptive coverage.   Under the accommodation these organizations will not have to contract, arrange, pay for or refer contraceptive coverage to which they object on religious grounds, but such coverage is separately provided to women enrolled in their health plans at no cost.  The approach taken in the final rules is similar to, but simpler than, that taken in the proposed rules, and responds to comments made by many stakeholders.

With respect to an insured health plan, including a student health plan, the non-profit religious organization provides notice to its insurer that it objects to contraception coverage.  The insurer then notifies enrollees in the health plan that it is providing them separate no-cost payments for contraceptive services for as long as they remain enrolled in the health plan. 

Similarly, with respect to self-insured health plans, the non-profit religious organization provides notice to its third party administrator that objects to contraception coverage.  The third party administrator then notifies enrollees in the health plans that it is providing or arranging separate no-cost payments for contraceptive services for them for as long as they remain enrolled in the health plan.

The final rules provide more details on the accommodation for both insurers and third party administrators.

The final rules strike the appropriate between respecting the religious considerations raised by non-profit religious organizations and increasing access to important preventive services for women.

The final rules are available here: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/07/02/2013-15866/coverage-of-certain-preventive-services-under-the-affordable-care-act

For more information about today’s final rules visit: http://www.cms.gov/CCIIO/Resources/Fact-Sheets-and-FAQs/womens-preven-02012013.html

Learn more about ObamaCare and contraception or learn more about how ObamaCare saved women $1.4 billion on birth control.

ObamaCare Uninsured Rate 11.4% Second Quarter 2015

Posted by on July 10, 2015 in ObamaCare News Archive

A second quarter 2015 Gallup-Healthways poll shows only 11.4% of Adults lack health insurance. This is down 6 points from late 2013 before key ACA changes took effect.

The findings are down from 11.9% in the first quarter and sharpest declines are found among minorities and lower-income adults. Please note that these findings are based on survey data. This survey data draws different conclusions than other studies. While exact numbers may differ from study to study, the Gallup poll is one of the most respected, and all studies show the ACA decreasing uninsured rates.

Learn more about other studies and the uninsured rate on our ACA enrollment numbers page.

gallup-healthways-2nd-quarter-2015-aca-uninusred

2015 Health Affairs Study Shows ObamaCare Birth Control Benefits

Posted by on July 8, 2015 in ObamaCare News Archive

A 2015 Health Affairs study shows out-of-pocket spending on the pill decreased nearly 50%, saving women an estimated $1.4 billion per year on birth control medication since ObamaCare’s requirement to provide free contraception on all plans went into effect.

  • The study found that out-of-pocket expenses decreased for almost all reversible contraceptive methods on the market.
  • The average percentages of out-of-pocket spending for oral contraceptive pill prescriptions and intrauterine device insertions by women using those methods both dropped by 20 percentage points after implementation of the ACA mandate.
  • They estimated average out-of-pocket savings per contraceptive user to be $248 for the intrauterine device and $255 annually for the oral contraceptive pill.
  • Their results suggest that the mandate has led to large reductions in total out-of-pocket spending on contraceptives and that these price changes are likely to be salient for women with private health insurance.

Read the whole 2015 Health Affairs study.

Health Insurance Companies Merge After SCOTUS Ruling

Posted by on July 3, 2015 in ObamaCare News Archive

Just days after the Supreme Court declared subsidies legal many major health insurance companies declared mergers. Mergers include Aetna (AET) buying Humana (HUM) for $230 a share, 23% higher then market price the day before the announcement.

The new Aetna Humana hybrid will have more than 33 million members, and bring in estimated revenue of about $115 billion per year, with 56% coming from government-sponsored programs such as Medicare.

Other possible mergers include Anthem (ANTX) is interested in buying Cigna (CI), and UnitedHealth (UNH) was even rumored to be interested in Aetna or Humana. That’s on top of a spate of health industry deals and negotiations last year. At one point, Pfizer (PFE) offered over $100 billion for AstraZeneca (AZN), though the talks fell apart. You can read more at CNN money.

obamacare-major-health-companies-merging

Opinions on the Mergers

Above are the facts, two major insurers are merging and some other healthcare industry giants may follow suit. Below is our opinion on what this means.

Our past polls have shown that we have two groups of Americans. One group that wants equal access to healthcare for all Americans, one group that wants a Market driven system.

America is a democracy and sometimes we simply get what we asked for. Not only is health care reform implemented under the Affordable Care Act itself a quasi-public system that is equal parts public healthcare and subsidies and equal parts private markets and shareholders… it now seems the health industries of America (insurers, drug makers, hospitals, device manufacturers) are following suit by consolidating private for-profit companies who make an increasing percentage of their income off of public programs.

The truth is there are many pros and cons here. It’s good for the Market, but could bring us close to monopolies. Many wanted a single payer system, this is closer to that in a way. Health insurance is all about cutting deals with doctors and hospitals, less competition could mean better prices for consumers. Less competition could also mean bigger profits for insurers at the expense of people.

One thing is for sure, the drive to keep stock prices rising and profits up is surely going to be a little tricky here in a world where America continues to acquire healthcare debt at an unsustainable pace and people continue to struggle to afford healthcare without government assistance.

Is it good, is it bad, are we happy, are we sad? It’s probably early to tell. What really matters is the answer to this question: “will insurers jack up rates for 2016 and are the American people getting affordable quality healthcare?”

Fee For Reimbursing Employees for Individual Health Plans

Posted by on July 1, 2015 in ObamaCare News Archive

Can Employers Reimburse Employees for Individual Coverage?

Employers who reimburse employees for individual non-group health plans face a $100 a day or $36,500 per year, per employee excise tax. This rule applies to all employers, but the fine itself is only levied on those who have to comply with ObamaCare’s mandate (firms with 50 or more full-time equivalent employees). The enforcement of the fee was put off in most cases, but it was kicked into full gear starting July 1, 2015.

In general:

  • Employers with over 50 FTE need to offer a group plan.
  • Employers with less than 2 employees can offer whatever they want. However, offering an HRA seems to count as minimum essential coverage (and thus it can’t be paired with premium tax credits or other marketplace assistance; an HRA can be paired with a marketplace plan, but not with marketplace assistance; learn more).
  • Employers with less than 50 FTE should look into group plans first, but can consider an HRP (which is like an HRA with special rules; and i’m not sure if it can be paired with tax credits; learn more about HRPs).

IMPORTANT UPDATE: Since this article was written a fix for small business HRAs was put in place via the 21st Century Cures Act of 2016 under President Obama. As of March 13, 2017 employers began to be able to offer Small Business HRAs called Qualified Small Employer Health Reimbursement Arrangements (QSEHRAs). These are Affordable Care Act-compliant health coverage plans for businesses with fewer than 50 full-time-equivalent (FTE) employees. Learn more about QSEHRAs.

TIP: Nothing on this page should be taken as legal or tax advice. There are some rather large fees for getting it wrong, so take that into account. We suggest seeking professional advice before making a health reimbursement choice. When in doubt, try ObamaCare’s SHOP.

On Section 105 Plans?

Saying there has been confusion over employers reimbursing individual health plans is an understatement. After a lot of searching and some great feedback… we have two conflicting schools of thought on section 105 plans. We will present them both and then a conclusion, but first, to make things simple (ish):

According to cbiz.com’s 2015 article IRS Grants Penalty Relief, Issues Guidance on Medical Reimbursement Plans (article) – Certain types of medical reimbursement plans are exempt from the §4980D penalty, including:

  • Ancillary benefit plans – plans that only cover ancillary benefits such as dental, vision, long-term care and disability coverage, which are not considered part of essential health benefits;
  • Integrated Section 105 plans – plans that are coordinated with insurance coverage, so that the combined arrangement provides an ACA-compliant group health plan;
  • Retiree-only plans – medical reimbursement plans covering only retired employees; and
  • One-employee plans – medical reimbursement plans that only cover one employee (must comply with Section 105 nondiscrimination rules).

If you want another take on this see: Risking a Health Insurance Strategy the I.R.S. May Not Approve by the NYTimes.

Where the two schools agree: “To comply with the mandate employers must offer a group health plan”, employers can’t reimburse individual coverage with a section 105 HRA. See the few exceptions to the HRA rule here.

Beyond this there are two schools of thought on what kinds of section 105 plan choices employers have.

School 1) ZaneBenefits suggests a section 105 “Healthcare Reimbursement Plan” (HRP). An HRP is a certain type of section 105 plan that doesn’t count as offering health insurance, but is tax deductible for an employer, and tax-exempt for the employee. It can be used to distribute funds to an employee on a monthly basis for health expenses, up to a limit set by the employer. It won’t satisfy market reforms, but also don’t incur the excise tax as it doesn’t break the DOL compliancy rules that the HRA breaks. There is a “use-it-or-lose-it” rule. There is a bit more to it. In general, the plan is structured to meet all requirements set forth by the PPACA, but doesn’t satisfy the employer mandate for 50 or more FTE.

School 2) As a reader put it:  “The IRS has repeatedly stated that employers are prohibited from reimbursing employees for individual health premiums, period, They restated it again in Q&A 2 at https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-15-87.pdf An HRA is a 105 plan.

I don’t know what it will take to stop a couple of vendors from promoting this. And, I see you are referring to them for this solution. Calling it a 105 vs a 125 is NOT a work around. Please read Q3 at http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/faqs/faq-aca22.html that specifically mentions 105.

Every major law firm (Alston & Bird, Leavitt and others) that have address this issue have been clear that reimbursement by employers of individual premiums is clearly prohibited, with fines of $100/ee/day. Please, you are putting a lot of small employers at risk based on the opinion of marketers that are unwilling or unable to provide a legal opinion to back their “workaround.”

Our conclusion: School 2 is a misunderstanding of the nuances of how plans can be structured for businesses and the implications of the new PPACA related legislation. Employers should go with a group health plan in most instances, but for those that this doesn’t make sense for an HRP or even HRA could be the way to go. However, Zane’s section 105 alternative HRP can be a smart workaround for those who don’t have to comply with the mandate and don’t want to offer a group plan. This is even more true after the 2016 issued IRS Notice 2015-87 (plain english explainer here). You can get the ZaneBenefits explainer on this here.

Ultimately, after working with ZaneBenefits to ensure we understood their workaround, we feel it makes a good alternative assuming care is taken to structure the plan correctly. Feel free to comment below with questions.

FACT: Small employers will likely benefit the most from offering a SHOP group health plan as tax credits are offered for up to 50% of an employee’s premium based on FTEs and income.

Can an Employer Reimburse an Employee for an Individual Health Plan as Health Coverage?

No, an employer must offer a group health plan to “offer health coverage”. If an employer who has to comply with the mandate tries to reimburse an employee for individual coverage they face a $100 a day or $36,500 per year, per employee fine. The caveat is small employers are exempt from the fee and those who don’t need to offer coverage can offer a “Healthcare Reimbursement Plan” (HRP) instead.

Health care arrangement’s set up under a section 105 reimbursement plan can’t reimburse health insurance premiums for private plans purchased by the employee. Details on the rule and the fine can be found here 26 U.S. Code § 4980D – Failure to meet certain group health plan requirements.

Summary of Fee for Reimbursing Employees for Individual Non-Group Coverage

Now that we know employers can’t reimburse non-group plans lets take a closer look at why so this can all make sense. Here is a quick breakdown of what you need to know:

Employers Should Offer Group Health Plans, Small Employer Can Use the SHOP

The ACA was written to have employers offer group health plans. There is a Marketplace called the SHOP for smaller employers to get cost assistance and buy fairly priced group plans.

Larger employers, who have traditionally paid less for coverage for group plans don’t get to use the SHOP, but they are required to offer coverage to full-time employees or pay a fee. The requirement to offer coverage is called the employer mandate.

An Employer With 1 Employee is Exempt

A small employer is an employer with 2 or more, but less than 50 full-time employees.

According to 26 U.S. Code § 4980D: For purposes of paragraph (1), the term “small employer” means, with respect to a calendar year and a plan year, an employer who employed an average of at least 2 but not more than 50 employees on business days during the preceding calendar year and who employs at least 2 employees on the first day of the plan year. For purposes of the preceding sentence, all persons treated as a single employer under subsection (b), (c), (m), or (o) of section414 shall be treated as one employer.

The Law Wasn’t Super Clear, But DOL and IRS Guidelines Are

Although the law wasn’t super clear about this, later clarification from the IRS and Department of Labor (DOL) clarified that employers couldn’t reimburse employees for individual health plans as Health Reimbursement Arrangements (HRAs) or employer payment plans. Remember this is mainly talking about offering HRAs as coverage for employers who have to comply with the mandate. It’s not talking about all reimbursement options outside of “offering health insurance”.

The Rule Deters “Double Dipping”

The rule was meant to avoid employers getting tax benefits via the HRA while at the same time the employee was using ObamaCare’s subsidized Marketplace’s. That would be “double dipping” (getting double tax benefits on the same dollar. In this case once for employer tax breaks and once from employee getting Premium tax credits and/or out-of-pocket cost assistance).

The Fee Enforces the Rule

To ensure the rule is followed and to prevent employers and employees from “double dipping” and skirting the mandate through the use of Marketplace subsidies and HRAs a large excise tax was enacted for non-compliance.

Luckily There are Exemptions

There are a fair amount of exemptions for business size, not realizing you weren’t supposed to do this, etc, etc. So generally a business won’t get a fee, but will rather get a warning and will have 30 days to fix their ways. Also, as mentioned small businesses have more options than large businesses.

Even Small Employers Need to Offer Group Plans (Although Small Employers are Exempt from the Fine)

Employers who want to offer health insurance or need to under the law should offer group health plans. Reimbursing a non-group plan won’t qualify for tax benefits and may result in a hefty fee.

The Fee Goes into Effect July 1st, 2015

The fee went into effect July 1st, 2015. Make sure you are in compliance with the new rules ASAP.

The Bottom Line

If you are an employer, you should offer your employees a group plan. You can always make any arrangement you want with an employee, but you won’t be able to get tax benefits for offering healthcare if an employee gets non-group coverage. If you are a large employer, you could face the full fee and no exemption if you reimburse employees for non-group coverage.

You can read more about employer health care arrangements here. We go into more detail on reimbursement practices, the fee, and how to avoid it.

Marry the Person You Love and Get a Family Plan You Can Afford

Posted by on June 26, 2015 in ObamaCare Opinions, Op-ed, and Other Articles

The Supreme Court has been busy making America awesome, not only did they uphold subsidies they also declared same-sex couples have a right to marriage. Generally almost all of their recent decisions have fought back against discrimination, repression of freedom speech, repression of freedom of religion, and repression of individual liberty. It hasn’t seemed to matter how words have been twisted, SCOTUS seems to be ruling in favor of real American values and not tricky half-truths that only appear American when slanted a certain way. That being said there are a few equally as important cases for the judges to rule on that will also affect the future of America.

Check out a list of how the Supreme Court has ruled on important 2015 cases, and a few more key cases that will see a ruling before the end of June 2015.

“It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage,” Justice Kennedy said of the couples challenging state bans on same-sex marriage. “Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.”

Where to Read the Supreme Court Decision on Same-Sex Marriage that Legalized “Gay Marriage”

Read the Supreme Court Decision on Same-Sex Marriage From June 2015 here. Just so you know the name of the case is OBERGEFELL ET AL. v. HODGES, DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL. or just Obergefell V Hodges for short.

You can read the whole 103 page actual supreme court ruling by clicking on the link above. Not everyone is going to read the 103 page document, but that is why they include an official 5 page summary at the beginning of the document (most rulings have a quick summary of the long document). It’s not as hard to digest as you may think. Take the time to read about the historic decision on same-sex marriage for yourself.

Supreme Court Upholds Subsidies

Posted by on June 25, 2015 in ObamaCare News Archive

On June 25th, 2015 the Supreme Court upheld ObamaCare’s subsidies 6-3 in a ruling on King V Burwell. Millions will keep their legal HealthCare.Gov subsidies and the IRS will continue to be able to issue subsidies to those who buy plans on the federal website.

In other words ObamaCare (the Affordable Care Act) remains the “law of the land”.

The truth is 7 in 10 polled didn’t know that King V. Burwell was happening or that subsidies were in danger of being repealed. Had the plaintiffs won millions could have lost health coverage and it could have sent us down a road to losing our new benefits, rights, and protections (including guaranteed issue for those with preexisting conditions).

As it stands this news may pass many people by, but make no mistake today is a historic day in the history of American healthcare.

Read the Supreme Court decision upholding Obamacare subsidies here.  Below we present our own summary of the King V Burwell decision in simple terms.

The Supreme Court Decision on King V Burwell Explained

Not everyone has the time to read the Supreme Court decision on King V Burwell, but understanding why SCOTUS ruled in favor of subsidies rather than the plaintiffs can help you understand the ACA, Supreme Court, Congress, the legal system, and the history of health care reform.

Below is a quick overview of everything you need to know to understand this in plain simple terms:

In the 1990’s a few states, including Massachusetts, decided to make it so insurers had to offer coverage to those with preexisting conditions (making coverage guaranteed issue). Things went bad fast, people loved the new rule… but instead of getting coverage they waited until they were sick to get covered. Insurers lost money and some even left the states creating an “economic death spiral”.

In 2006 Massachusetts (under Mitt Romney and with the help of Jonathan Gruber btw) fixed the above problem by adding a two crucial missing pieces to the puzzle, they added 1) tax credits (ie. health insurance subsidies) and 2) a fee for not obtaining coverage during a specific time of the year (along with exemptions for those who still couldn’t afford coverage). The mandate doesn’t work without tax credits, this is because without tax credits people with incomes below 400% of the Federal Poverty Level statistically end up paying more than the key 8% of their incomes for coverage. If everyone is exempt from the law and people can buy coverage whenever, then the whole thing falls apart and it creates an “economic death spiral”.

Fast forward to 2010, President Obama passes a very similar healthcare reform law in the style of the successful Massachusetts reform. The new law, the Affordable Care Act, also has 3 key pieces: 1) health insurance options for everyone 2) subsidies 3) and a mandate. The wording of the 1,000 pages isn’t perfect and some sections are a little questionably written… but when read in whole and in context the meaning of each section becomes clear. It is meant to mirror the reforms that worked in Massachusetts and is meant to accomplish the 3 things listed above.

Fast forward to King V Burwell. 4 plaintiffs (organized by Conservative Libertarian think tanks in an effort to bring down the ACA) said they should be exempt from the mandate. They said that a part of the law says only “exchanges established by the state” (one of those not so well written sections) should get subsidies and thus they shouldn’t get subsidies, thus they should be exempt from the requirement to get coverage as coverage would cost more than 8% of their income. (The plaintiffs live in Virginia and Virginia didn’t set up their own exchange).

Fast forward to the King V Burwell ruling. The Supreme Court decides 6 – 3 that despite the section of the law being poorly written, that when read in context the law must be read to mean that the 3 key pieces stand. In the passage “the state” must be referring to states or the federal government, as that is the only way the law would make sense in context. Why would congress pass a law meant to mirror the Massachusetts law and then in only one section sneak a part in there undoing 2 of the 3 key pieces for all states that failed to create their own exchange? Congress must have meant “the state” to refer to both states and the federal government.

The lawsuit didn’t rest upon one of the key parts, whether it was up to the IRS to interpret the meaning of the law as experts (“the Chevron defense”). This is because the decision said the law itself was clear enough on its own. The Affordable Care Act is written to mean that all states can issue subsidies whether they have set up their own exchange or whether the federal Government sets up that exchange for them.

Summary: SCOTUS says congress would not have passed a law that treated some states differently than others. Giving some states the failed 1990’s version of healthcare reform and giving other states the fixed Massachusetts / ACA version based on whether they created an exchange themselves or deferred creation to the federal government would make no sense. When the whole law is read in context the intentions of the ACA are clear. For the ACA to work we must have:

1. Open Enrollment / a Mandate

2. Guaranteed coverage

3. Premium Tax Credits

This decision hints that further healthcare reform proposals, including a future repeal attempt by the GOP must include or address all three of these points.

What Happens if ObamaCare is Repealed?

Posted by on June 19, 2015 in ObamaCare News Archive

Repealing ObamaCare would increase the federal deficit by at least $137 billion over ten years and increase the number of uninsured by 19 million by 2016. Also if the law is fully repealed, consumers would lose all of the new benefits, rights, and protections which you can read about here. This number is a net increase to the deficit after all money saved from subsidies is taken into account. You can go straight to the CBO report now and read the findings for yourself or keep reading for our simplified breakdown of how repealing the Affordable Care Act increases the deficit.

Summary of How Repealing ObamaCare Increases the Deficit in the Next Ten Years

There are five factors which lead to an estimated net deficit of $137 from 2016 to 2025:

  1. $1,658 billion less spending on Marketplace subsidies and Medicaid expansion.
  2. $502 billion in revenue loss from eliminating new taxes related to health insurance like the excise tax, mandates, and payroll taxes. Bringing the total savings to $1,156 billion
  3. Repealing new rules and protections, specifically ones that target Medicare waste and fraud, increase federal spending by $879 billion. Bringing the total savings to $277 billion.
  4. $631 billion in revenue loss from repealing other taxes like the hospital insurance payroll tax for high-income tax payers and fees on insurers. Bringing the grand total savings to NEGATIVE $354 (CBO rounds this to $353 billion in increased deficits).
  5. Now a 5th factor, the elimination of the employer mandate stimulates job growth in the short term. “Macroeconomic feedback” like this could account for as much as $216 in revenue. This would then bring our grand total to NEGATIVE $137. In other words repealing the ACA costs $137 billion.

Conclusion: Hopefully this explains the $353 billion cost of repeal talking point (that is not the CBO’s bottomline conclusion, that is their estimate without macroeconomic feedback). This should also hopefully explain away the $1,658 billion (or so) saved from repeal talking point from the other media.

Keep reading to find out how the deficit gets even more out of hand post 2025 if the law is repealed.

obamacare-expected-uninsured

How Does Repealing ObamaCare Increase the Deficit Beyond 2025?

The increased federal deficit may seem counter intuitive, the ACA includes lots of spending and obviously repealing the mandates and subsidies will mean big savings! After-all that is the punchline the GOP as been repeating since 2008 right? Well, that like many of the words that comes out of politicians mouths, is a convenient half-truth. Yes, repealing the ACA (or at least it’s key provisions) brings the deficit down by decreasing spending, but only a few of the 1,000 or so pages in the law actually include spending. Most of the law are reforms that curb healthcare spending over time and generates revenue. The longer the law sticks around the more long term deficit growth is curbed. Or as the CBO puts it, “Repealing the ACA would cause federal budget deficits to increase by growing amounts after 2025, whether or not the budgetary effects of macroeconomic feedback are included. That would occur because the net savings attributable to a repeal of the law’s insurance coverage provisions would grow more slowly than would the estimated costs of repealing the ACA’s other provisions—in particular, those provisions that reduce updates to Medicare’s payments. The estimated effects on deficits of repealing the ACA are so large in the decade after 2025 as to make it unlikely that a repeal would reduce deficits during that period, even after considering the great uncertainties involved.”

In the chart below we see the effects of repeal in the first ten years alone, even with macroeconomic feedback the deficit goes up by $137 billion. Another chart in the report itself shows the effects of repealing spending and revenue specifically.

Read more about the effects of the ACA on the deficit here.

effects-of-repealing-obamacare-cbo-chart-june-2015

Also, Human Lives Have Value? Right?

Remember, aside from our collective American pocketbook (which is continuing to look more like our personal college loan debt and credit card debt and is a serious problem even without adding $137 billion to the deficit) we are also talking tens of millions of people losing access to health insurance! Under a repeal employment may go up and that can have positive affects on coverage, but Medicaid and individual non-group coverage drops enough to leave about 24 million uninsured by 2025! That IS something.

The Increase Is Reported By the Non-Partisan Congressional Budget Office

See it’s not Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton telling us repeal would continue to bankrupt the country, this is the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and Join Committee on Taxation (JCT).

Go to page #1 of the June 2015 CBO report now and read the effects of repeal for yourself.

The truth might hit you like a ton of bricks if you are a repealer, but we all need to be on the same page here. After-all King V Burwell could have a decision as early as before we are done posting this article. At that moment, if SCOTUS rules that subsidies are illegal, the GOP will begin voting to repeal and replace the ACA and provide ACA alternatives. “alternative” could mean a few smart fixes, or it could mean a veiled attempt to repeal all the safety net features and pass pro-business reforms that do little to nothing to consider long term federal spending (we make this claim based off of their last proposal for an alternative).

Anyway, you have our summary of the effects of repeal based on the new CBO report… but we are arguably one step less unbiased than the CBO. So why not check out what they have to say:

Key Findings From the June 2015 CBO Report on Repealing ObamaCare:

“Including the budgetary effects of macroeconomic feedback, repealing the ACA would increase federal budget deficits by $137 billion over the 2016–2025 period (see Table 1).

That estimate takes into account the proposal’s impact on federal revenues and direct (or mandatory) spending, incorporating the net effects of two components:

• Excluding the effects of macroeconomic feedback—as has been done for previous estimates related to the ACA (and most other CBO cost estimates)—CBO and JCT estimate that federal deficits would increase by $353 billion over the 2016–2025 period if the ACA was repealed.

• Repeal of the ACA would raise economic output, mainly by boosting the supply of labor; the resulting increase in GDP is projected to average about 0.7 percent over the 2021–2025 period. Alone, those effects would reduce federal deficits by $216 billion over the 2016–2025 period, CBO and JCT estimate, mostly because of increased federal revenues.

For many reasons, the budgetary and economic effects of repealing the ACA could differ substantially in either direction from the central estimates presented in this report. The uncertainty is sufficiently great that repealing the ACA could reduce deficits over the 2016–2025 period—or could increase deficits by a substantially larger margin than the agencies have estimated. However, CBO and JCT’s best estimate is that repealing the ACA would increase federal budget deficits by $137 billion over that 10-year period.”

More Americans Approve of Subsidies Than Not

Posted by on June 15, 2015 in ObamaCare News Archive

More Americans approve of ObamaCare’s subsidies than not with 55% against repealing subsidies according to a Washington Post poll and our own polls.

The Washington Post released the results of a poll in May 2015 where they asked about overall approval ratings for the ACA and subsidies. Although general approval was only at 54% for the ACA, 55% of people polled thought that the Supreme Court should allow subsidies to remain legal.

We (ObamaCareFacts.com) had done a poll of our users in late 2014 which showed much of the same thing. In our poll roughly 49% of people polled showed support for subsidies, 25% wanted them to be made illegal, and 25% said didn’t have enough information.

Our findings on general sentiment toward the ACA were also similar (although we gave people a lot of room to explain exactly how they felt about the law). You can see pie chart of overall feelings from our poll below, but to sum things up only 37% of those polled actually felt the Affordable Care Act should be completely repealed. (You can see the full results of the poll here, we left most of the raw data including NSFW comments in the report. See overall approvals on page 12 of our ACA poll results.)

aca-approval-rating-obamacare-facts-2015-poll

This is important as the Supreme Court is expected to rule on King V Burwell this month. King V Burwell is a lawsuit which charges that states that didn’t set up their own health insurance exchange under the law shouldn’t be allowed to have the IRS issue subsidies on their behalf. That is the gist, you can get a simplified overview of everything you need to know about King V Burwell here.

ObamaCareFacts is a free informational site. It's privately owned and is not owned, operated, or endorsed by the US federal government or state governments. Our contributors have over a decade of experience writing about health insurance. However, we do not offer professional official legal, tax, or medical advice. See Legal Information and Cookie Policy. For more on our company, learn About ObamaCareFacts.com or Contact us.