Tag Archives: Marco Rubio

CBO implies Obama regulation shoveled $8 billion to insurers

The Congressional Budget Office issued a report this week revising its February projections of the cost of the Affordable Care Act.  Although there is much to discuss regarding the report, I want to focus here on its troubling discussion of “Risk Corridors.”  That’s the part of the law under which the federal government reimburses insurers selling policies on the new Exchanges for sizable fractions of their losses. It also taxes insurers if they happen to make money selling policies on the new Exchanges. Between February and April, the CBO estimated cost of Risk Corridors jumped $8 billion.  In February, Risk Corridors were predicted to make the government a net of $8 billion over the three years of the program. Now, Risk Corridors are expected to net the government nothing. The CBO claims that this jump was caused by regulations issued by the Obama administration in March that drove up the cost of the program.

There’s a second explanation, however, for the $8 billion change between February and April that’s possibly more troubling. This past February I wrote a blog entry with a lot of math explaining that the CBO prior analysis of the Risk Corridors provision was baffling and rested on extremely dubious and factually unsupported assumptions about the profitability of insurers selling on the Exchanges.  That error, if it was one, was particularly salient because it ended up forestalling growing efforts within Congress to repeal Risk Corridors as an unwarranted “bailout” of the insurance industry.  Could it be that with the repeal threat gone, CBO is now using the “noise” created by an Obamacare regulation as cover for rectifying the unduly optimistic assumptions it made back in February regarding Risk Corridors? That would be very troubling, because while math errors merely challenge the CBO’s competence, the alternative behavior about which I am speculating here goes to something more important: the CBO’s integrity.

The CBO explanation means the Obama administration shoveled $8 billion to insurers through a regulatory “tweak”

The official explanation from the CBO on its change of $8 billion in the cost of Risk Corridors is as follows:

“In March 2014, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a final regulation stating that its implementation of the risk corridor program will result in equal payments to and from the government, and thus will have no net budgetary effect.  CBO believes that the Administration has sufficient flexibility to ensure that payments to insurers will approximately equal payments from insurers to the federal government and thus that the program will have no net budgetary effect over the three years of its operation. (Previously, CBO had estimated that the risk corridor program would yield net budgetary savings of $8 billion).”

So, if the CBO is to be believed, the change isn’t due to any earlier error, but due to an administration regulation promulgated by the Obama administration that has resulted in a net of $8 billion more going to insurers.  That’s a big change for several reasons. First, it means that the regulatory changes instituted by the Obama administration cost the federal government $8 billion.  All of that money went to the insurance industry.  And so, in March of 2014, without much fanfare, the Obama administration would in effect have written a check to the insurance industry for $8 billion.  That payment would only have been motivated by one thing: a desire to keep insurers pacified and in the Exchanges after having deprived them of perhaps their most healthy potential insureds by a prior administrative ruling  — in violation of the ACA — that insurers could keep selling non-compliant policies.  The $8 billion would thus have been “damages” paid by the taxpayer in order to permit the President to honor his campaign promise that if you liked your insurance plan you could keep it.

In short, if you believe the CBO, a regulation for which statutory support will be extremely hard to find, resulted in the government shoveling $8 billion to insurers, basically to pacify them for the losses they suffered as a result of further regulatory changes of dubious legality.  The Obama administration can not afford to have its signature program enter a death spiral as a result of regulatory actions that, while mollifying those who otherwise would have lost their health insurance coverage, caused insurers to lose more money in the Exchanges. And, again, the Obama administration did so in a clever way that made it difficult for anyone to have legal standing to challenge them.  So far as I can discern, no insurer will be worse off as a result of the March 2014 regulatory changes. The real victims are taxpayers with diffuse interests and, of course, the Rule of Law.  

The CBO math is still baffling

A second reason the change by the CBO is big comes from a look at the math.  As I said in my February 2014 post calling the CBO February report “baffling,” consider the implications of asserting that the insurers would make so much money on the Exchanges that they would, on net owe the federal government $8 billion. If you do the math, it means that the CBO assumed that, over the course of three years, insurers would be earning about 8 cents on every dollar they earned via policies sold on the Exchanges.   I just ran the numbers again and came up with a very similar conclusion: the earlier estimate could only be true if insurers were supposed to make a hefty 8% or greater return on premiums. That estimate of 8 cents on the dollar was really peculiar at the time because enrollment — let alone actually paying customers — was running seriously behind projections and the number of “young invincibles” was particularly low.  Low overall insurance purchases and particularly low rates of purchases by the people who were most needed in the Exchanges caused many people to believe back in February that insurers would hardly make hefty profits and pay money to the government under Risk Corridors.  Instead, they thought insurers would fare poorly and probably have to be subsidized (or “bailed out”) by the government.

The effect of the February CBO pronouncement was to dampen enthusiasm for a bill proposed by Senator Marco Rubio that would have repealed the Risk Corridors provision as a bailout to the insurance industry.  If, after all, the federal government was, on balance, making money on Risk Corridors, it was hard to see it as a “bailout” to the insurance industry. Whether intended or not, the political effect of the February CBO announcement was to pull the rug out from one justification for repeal of Risk Corridors.

But is it even plausible to believe that the regulatory change made by the Obama administration in March without the approval of Congress could cause such a large change in the Risk Corridors program? I have done the math again and the answer is no.  I do not see how it is possible to get $8 billion out of the regulatory tweak that was made. Again, the calculations are baffling.

Here’s how we know.  The $8 billion the CBO thought back in February the government would make off of Risk Corridors represents about 4% of the premiums insurers on the Exchanges would take in during that time period. One can use that and other information from the CBO to reverse out a distribution for  “allowable costs” (basically claims expenses) We can thus make a respectable estimate of how many insurers would make money on the Exchanges, how many would lose, and how much these insurers would gain and lose. I describe the gory process in my post from February.  Call this distribution the CBO Insurer Profitability Distribution.  Then assume the government tweaks, as it did, two regulatory parameters used in the computation of Risk Corridor payments, changing something called a profit margin floor from 0.03 to 0.05 and changing an “administrative cost cap” from 0.2 to 0.22. If one then takes the CBO Insurer Profitability Distribution and computes how much the government would now make on Risk Corridors does one emerge with the CBO’s new prediction that Risk Corridors will produce no net revenue? No! One gets that the Risk Corridors program now generates about 2.8% of premiums for the government. In other words, the reduction in Risk Corridor revenue resulting from the administrative tweak is only 1/3 of what the government claims.

The easier way to reach the CBO’s April’s conclusion is to assume that the gain of $8 billion resulted from two phenomena: (1) the regulatory tweak mentioned by the CBO and discussed above, but (2) a recognition that the CBO Insurer Probability Distribution the CBO had used in February was, as I have said, wrong.  If, for example, one assumes that insurer claims were about 6% higher than the CBO estimated in February, the regulatory tweaks combined with higher insurer claims expenses indeed generate an $8 billion shift in the amount of revenue the government would make on Risk Corridors.

For those interested in the details, I link here to a Mathematica notebook showing the computations; I try to avoid black boxes.

Conclusion

So, what are we to make of this apparent discrepancy between the CBO’s explanation of its change in estimates and the actual effects of the regulatory changes it asserts to be the cause ?  It could, I suppose, be my mistake.  I have been careful and consider myself pretty knowledgable in this area, but I will hardly claim to be mathematically infallible. The problem is that the for ordinary Americans (like me), the CBO is a black box. It is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act and it does not publish enough of its methodology for even experts in the field to figure out what it is doing.  That, I would submit, is a real problem for the democratic process, where the fate of legislation depends essentially on trust rather than the Reagan doctrine of “trust but verify” (doveryai no proveryai, in the original Russian).

It could also, however, be a coverup for a mistake (or worse) back in February. There is, after all, an alternative explanation of the change in estimate. It was unrealistic all along for the CBO to think that insurers in the Exchange were going to make money on balance. That’s what I suggested in my February 2014 post.  So, rather than admit that the it had been guilty of unwarranted optimism, the CBO simply used a new distribution of likely claims expenses, came up with a different answer, and used the March 2014 regulatory changes as a smokescreen.

I will confess, however, that I am very uncomfortable with conspiracy theories or with theories that are premised on people acting in bad faith.  Nonetheless, I would not find it impossible to believe that a culture could emerge in a politically sensitive agency that was reluctant to expose forcefully the consequences of government programs that proved far more expensive and far less successful than forecast originally.  It would be a culture in which good news, or optimistic speculation, was uncritically embraced. What I challenge the CBO to do, therefore, not only with the Risk Corridors analysis, which is but the tip of a very big iceberg, but with the entirety of its ACA analysis, is to open it up for scrutiny.  When government policy is essentially set on the basis of models that are not subject to peer review or public scrutiny, there is a great chance for error and, frankly, for manipulation. Government by black box breeds suspicion.

Postscript: Is the tweak legal?

I have said before and I say again that the regulatory tweak that the CBO now says will cost the federal government $8 billion is extremely dubious.  It’s an extremely sneaky way of sending money to the insurance industry, resting, as it does, on arcane manipulations of mathematical formulae. And I have serious doubts that the changes are authorized by Congress.The submission of the original regulations in March, 2013 says that essentially all commenters agreed that a 3% margin for profit was appropriate.  No commenters indicated at that time that insurers were entitled to a higher imputed rate of return on capital.  No one said anything about 5%. Back in March of 2013, HHS thought 3% was the right number. There has been no fundamental change in the capital markets since that time.  The only thing that has changed is that the Obama administration has made the pool of insureds making purchases in the Exchanges less healthy on average. The regulatory “tweak” moving the profit margin from 3% to 5% is thus not consistent with the original goal of Congress for the Risk Corridors program, but is simply a way of compensating insurers for another regulatory change.

The change in the administrative cost cap from 20% to 22% that will likewise result in higher payments to insurers is likewise dubious.  The reason 20% was suggested in the original July 2011 proposal and chosen in the March 2013 regulations was to maintain parity with regulations governing the “Medical Loss Ratio” codified at 42 U.S.C. § 300gg-18 as part of the ACA. The idea, which was apparently supported by commenters on the original rules, was that if insurers — even small group and individual insurers — could not claim more than 20% administrative costs without owing rebates pursuant to section 10101(f) of the ACA then they should not be able to claim more than 20% administrative costs under the Risk Corridors provision.  Makes sense!  But, again, nothing has changed.  There is no indication that anything President Obama did that raised the administrative costs of running a health insurance plan on the Exchanges.  There is no indication that any factor in the real world (such as the cost of computers or paper) increased the administrative costs of running a health insurance plan on the Exchanges.  The limits for the Medical Loss Ratio computation have not changed.  There is no better reason now then there was a year ago to let the cap on administrative costs be higher for Risk Corridors than it is for Medical Loss Ratio.  And, yet, it is now 22% instead of 20%.  The only reason it has changed is to provide a vehicle for shoveling money to insurers.

Again, unless one thinks that the goal of keeping insurers in the Exchange is so overwhelming as to permit the Executive Branch to do anything, it is difficult to see a conventional, lawful justification for the regulatory change that results, according to the CBO, in $8 billion of compensation to the insurance industry. And I say that believing fully well that many of the Obama administration’s other regulatory changes — also of dubious legality — such as expanding the hardship exemption and permitting insurers to sell policies off the Exchanges that contain prohibited provisions have significantly hurt insurers selling policies on the Exchanges. Two wrongs do not make a right.

Technical Appendix

The following graphic shows the relationship between the Risk Corridor Ratio and the net receipts of the government for each premium dollar. As one can see, the higher the Risk Corridors Ratio, the less money the government receives or, in some instances, the more money the government pays out.

RiskCorridorsRatioToHHSNetReceipts

The following graphic compares the relationship between claims costs (“allowable costs”) incurred by an insurer as a percentage of premiums and the Risk Corridors Ratio. It does so for two sets of regulatory parameters.  It first uses the regulatory parameters that were in place prior to March of 2014 (3% profit margin and 20% administrative cost cap).  It next using the new regulatory parameters (5% profit margin and 22% administrative cost cap). As one can see, the regulatory changes increased the Risk Corridors Ratio for all levels of allowed costs and thus decreased the amount the government would receive from insurers (or increased the amount the government would pay to insurers).

AllowableCostsToRiskCorridorsRatio

Share Button

CBO projection of $8 billion from Risk Corridors is baffling

The Congressional Budget Office just issued a report that assumes the Affordable Care Act system of individual policies sold in Exchanges without medical underwriting can remain relatively stable. Tightly bound up with that assumption is its prediction about a controversial ACA program known as “Risk Corridors” that requires profitable insurers to pay the federal government up to 80% of profits they make on policies sold on the Exchanges but that also requires the federal government to pay insurers up to 80% of the losses they suffer from policies sold on the Exchanges.  The CBO now believes it has enough information to predict that Risk Corridors will actually make money — $ 8 billion over three years — for the government at the expense of insurers.

This CBO prediction of $8 billion in federal revenue, which has gained much publicity,  pulls the rug out from critics of the ACA such as Senator Marco Rubio who have introduced legislation that would repeal Risk Corridors as an insurance industry “bailout.” Such a blunting of Senator Rubio’s proposed repeal legislation is crucial in the ongoing battle over the ACA because repeal of Risk Corridors could  result in insurers (who just might not believe the CBO’s numbers) exiting the Exchanges for fear of having no government protection against losses resulting from unfavorable experiences in the new market the government has created. On the other hand, if the CBO is just getting its number wrong, Rubio’s case for repeal of Risk Corridors remains as strong (or problematic) as it ever was. The CBO projection is also important because Risk Corridors nets the government money if and only if the ACA works, insurers are able to make some profits, and a death spiral never takes hold. And this, as readers of this blog are aware, is a prediction about which many have serious doubts. 

Here’s the short version of the rest of this post.

I’ve done the math and I don’t see how the CBO is getting this $8 billion number unless it is assuming either very high enrollment in policies covered by Risk Corridors or very high rates of return made by insurers.  Or it made a mistake. I don’t think the CBO’s own numbers support very high enrollment in policies covered by Risk Corridors and I don’t believe either an emerging reality or the CBO’s own rhetoric justify assuming very high rates of return.  So I think the CBO ought to take a second look at its prediction. People should not yet make policy decisions based on the CBO estimate.

Reader, you now have a choice. I’m afraid that the next several paragraphs of this post become very technical. It’s kind of forensic mathematics in which one attempts to use statistics and numerical methods to deduce the circumstances under which something said could be true.  If that sounds dreadful, scary or tedious, I would not protest too loudly were you to skip ahead to the section titled “How could I be wrong?”  Before you leave, however, realize that what I am attempting to accomplish in the part you skip is a form of proof by contradiction. I prove that if what the CBO was saying were true, then insurers would have to be making 8% profit.  But nobody, including the CBO thinks they will make 8% profit, so the $8 billion number can’t be right.

On the other hand, dear reader, if you liked the Numb3rs television show (including my minor contributions thereto) or math or detective work or just care a lot about the Affordable Care Act, the rest of this post is for you.  What I am about to discuss is not only exciting math, but also the soul of the Affordable Care Act — whether the individual Exchanges without medical underwriting can remain relatively stable.

Forensic mathematics in action

Conceptually, here’s the calculation one needs to do.  What we want to figure out is the distribution of insurer profits (measured as a ratio of expenses divided by premium revenues)  upon which the CBO must be relying. I assume the CBO is using a  member from the “Normal” or “Lognormal” family of distributions because those are typical models of financial returns and there is little reason to think that the distributions of insurer profits (expenses minus revenues) will materially depart from those assumptions.  To continue reading this post, you don’t have to know exactly what those distributions are except that they look for our purposes like the “bell curves” you have seen for many years.  I’ve placed a graphic below showing some normal (blue) and lognormal (red) distributions. Although it should not matter all that much, I’m going to use a lognormal distribution from here on in because the ratio of insurer expenses to premiums should never be negative and the lognormal distribution, unlike its normal cousin, never takes on negative values.

Examples of probability density functions for normal and lognormal distributions
Examples of probability density functions for normal and lognormal distributions

The problem is that there are an infinite number of lognormal distributions from which to choose.  How do we know which distribution the CBO is emulating in its computations?  How do we know just how positive the CBO assumes the individual Exchange market is going to be on average or how dispersed insurer profits are going to be? As it turns out, the complexity of the lognormal distribution can be characterized with just two “parameters” often labeled μ (mu, the mean of the distribution) and σ (sigma, the standard deviation of the distribution).  Once we have those two parameters (just two numbers), we can deduce everything we need about the entire distribution.

Now, to solve for two parameters, we often need two relationships. And, thoughtfully, the CBO has given us just enough information.  It has told us how much money in total it intends to raise from Risk Corridors ($8 billion) and the ratio (2:1) between money it collects from profitable insurers and the money it pays out to unprofitable insurers. These two facts help constrain the set of permissible combinations of Risk Corridor populations (the number of people purchasing policies in plans subject to the Risk Corridor program) and insurer profitability distributions. What I want to show is that it takes an extremely high Risk Corridor population in order to get rates of return that are not way larger than most people — including the CBO — think likely to occur.

I first want to calculate the amount of money insurers would pay to HHS under the Risk Corridors program if the total amount of premiums collected were $1. Some of the payments — those by highly profitable insurers  —  will be positive.  Those by highly unprofitable insurers will be negative. To do this I take the “expectation” of what I will call the “payment function” over a lognormal distribution characterized by having a mean of  μ and a standard deviation of  σ.  By payment function, I mean the relationship shown below and created by section 1342 of the ACA, 42 U.S.C. § 18062. This provision creates a formula for how much insurers pay the Secretary of HHS or the Secretary of HHS pays insurers depending on a proxy measure of the insurer’s profitability. The idea is to calculate a ratio of “allowable costs” (roughly expenses) to a “target amount” (roughly premiums).  If the ratio is significantly less than 1 (and outside a neutral “corridor”), the insurer makes money and pays the government a cut. If the result is significantly greater than 1 (and outside the neutral “corridor”), the insurer loses money and receives a “bailout”/”subsidy” from the government.  The program has been referred to with some justification as a kind of “derivative” of insurer profitability, the ultimate “Synthetic CDO.

The graphic below shows the relationship contained in the Risk Corridors provision of the ACA.  The blue line shows the net insurer payment (which could be negative) to the government as a function of this proxy measure of the insurer’s profitability. Ratios in the green zone represent profits for the insurer; ratios in the red zone represent losses. Results are stated as a fraction of  “the target amount,” which, as mentioned above, is, roughly speaking, premium revenue.

How much the insurer pays (positive) or receives (negative) under Risk Corridors as a function of  measurement of profitability
How much the insurer pays (positive) or receives (negative) under Risk Corridors as a function of a ratio-based measurement of profitability

When we do this computation, we get a ghastly (but closed form!) mathematical expression of which I set out just a part in small print below. (It won’t be on the exam). I’ll call this value the totalPaymentFactor. Just keep that variable in the back of your mind.

Excerpt of the formula for insurer total payout
Excerpt of the formula for insurer total payout

I next want to calculate the amount of payments profitable insurers will make to HHS. To do this, we truncate the lognormal distribution to include only situations where the ratio between premiums and expenses is greater than 1. Again, we get a pretty ghastly mathematical expression, a small excerpt of which is shown below. I will call it the expectedPositivePaymentFactor.

Formula for expected negative insurer payments under risk corridors over a truncated lognormal distribution
Formula for expected negative insurer payments under risk corridors over a truncated lognormal distribution

Finally, I want to calculate the amount of payments unprofitable insurers will receive from HHS. To do this, we truncate the lognormal distribution to include only situations where the ratio between premiums and expenses is less than 1. Again, we get a pretty ghastly mathematical expression, which, for those of you who can not get enough, I excerpt below. I will call it the expectedNegativePaymentFactor.

Formula for expected positive insurer payments under risk corridors over a truncated lognormal distribution
Formula for expected positive insurer payments under risk corridors over a truncated lognormal distribution

The CBO has told us in its recent report that the government will collect twice as much from profitable insurers (expectedPositivePaymentFactor) as it pays out to unprofitable ones (expectednegativePaymentFactor).  We can use numeric methods to find the set of μ, σ combinations for which that relationship exists.  The thick black line in the graphic below shows those combinations.

 

Black line shows combination of mu and sigma that result in the correct ratio of positive and negative insurer payouts under Risk Corridors
Black line shows combination of mu and sigma that result in the correct ratio of positive and negative insurer payouts under Risk Corridors

To determine which point on the black line above, which combination of the parameters μ, σ , is the actual distribution, we need to use our information about the totalPaymentFactor.  The idea is to realize that the totalPaymentFactor must be equal to the quotient of the CBO’s estimated $8 billion and the total premium collected by Risk Corridor plans over the next three years.  But we know that the total premium collected should be equal to the mean premium charged by the Exchanges multiplied by the number of people in Risk Corridor plans. Some math, discussed in the technical notes, suggests that the mean premium under the ACA is about $3,962. And the CBO accounts for 8 million people being in Risk Corridor plans in 2014, 15 million being in Risk Corridor plans in 2015 and 25 million being in Risk Corridor plans in 2016. This means that the total premiums collected by insurers under Risk Corridor plans over the next 3 years should be about $190.2 billion. And this in turn means that the totalPaymentFactor must be 0.042.

Ready?

It turns out that of all the infinite number of lognormal distributions there is only one that satisfies the requirements that (a) the government will collect twice as much from profitable insurers (expectedPositivePaymentFactor) as it pays out to unprofitable ones (expectednegativePaymentFactor) and (b) for which the totalPaymentFactor takes on a value of 0.042. It is a distribution in which the mean value is 0.923 and the standard deviation is 0.113.  I plot the distribution below. A dotted line marks the break even point for insurers.  Points to the left of the break even line correspond with profitable insurers; points to the right correspond with unprofitable insurers.

Lognormal distribution of insurer profitability consistent with CBO data
Lognormal distribution of insurer profitability consistent with CBO data

Here are some factoids about the uncovered distribution.  The  average insurer will have expenses that are 92.3% of premiums and the median insurer will have expenses that are only 91.6% of profits. In other words, they will be making 7.7 cent and  8.4 cents respectively on every dollar of premium they take in.  For reasons discussed below, this is a difficult figure to accept. It is particularly difficult in light of the pessimistic news that is emerging about things such as the age distribution of enrollees , reports from Deutsche Bank that one of the largest insurers in the Exchanges, Humana, expects to receive (not pay!) a lot of money under the Risk Corridors program, the hardly exuberant forecasts of other publicly traded insurers about the ACA, and the recent general downgrading of the insurance sector by Moody’s partly because of the ACA.

Implicit in my finding about the most likely distribution of profitability is an assertion by the CBO that 76% of insurers will be profitable under the ACA while 24% will be unprofitable. About 17% will be sufficiently unprofitable that they will receive subsidies (a/k/a bailouts) from the federal government and 9% will be sufficiently unprofitable that their marginal losses will be covered at 80%. Only 15% of insurers will be “inside” the risk corridor and neither pay nor receive under the program.

How could I be wrong?

I feel  confident that I’ve done the ” gory math part” of this blog post correctly. Mathematica, which is the software I’ve used to do the integral calculus and the numeric components involved just does not make mistakes.  I also feel pretty confident that I understand how the Risk Corridors program works under section 1342 of the ACA.  That’s kind of my day job. And so, readers who skipped down to this part, I do believe that if the CBO were right about the $8 billion, that could only happen if insurers were, on average, earning an implausible 8% in the Exchanges.

If I’m wrong, then, it is because, except for the little issue I will mention at the end, I have made bad assumptions about the total premiums insurers expect to collect over the next three years in policies covered by Risk Corridors. That error could come from two sources. I could have the mean premium per policy wrong or I could have the relevant enrollment wrong. Let’s look at each of these.

Could I be wrong about the mean premium?

I computed the mean premium in the computation above by using data collected by the Kaiser Family Foundation on the ratio of premiums by age under most insurance plans and the typical Silver plan premium for a 21 year old (non-smoker). I then used the original forecast about the age distribution of insureds to compute an expected premium.  I got $3,962.  And this number seems very much in line with earlier HHS estimates, which were that mean premiums would be $3,936. So, I think I have the mean premium correct.

Could I be wrong about the number of people in Risk Corridor plans?

I computed the number of people enrolled in policies covered by Risk Corridors by looking at the CBO’s own figures.  I’m not vouching that the CBO is right in its projections, but this is not the day to argue that point.  The CBO now says (Table B-3, p. 109) that individual enrollment in the Exchanges will be 6 million, 13 million and 22 million respectively over the next three years.   And it says that employment-based coverage purchased through Exchanges (which I assume are SHOP Exchanges) will be 2 million, 2 million and 3 million respectively.  So , by addition, that’s where the figures I used of 8 million,  15 million and 25 million come from.  I’m not aware of anyone else who would purchase a policy subject to Risk Corridors. Again, bottom line, I don’t think I’m doing anything wrong here.

The little issue at the end: Could ACA definitions be responsible for the incongruity?

The only other conceivable explanation of the divergence between the CBO figures and my analysis is that I am failing to take a subtlety of Risk Corridors into account.  Remember, careful readers, that sentence earlier up that started out: “The idea is to calculate a ratio of “allowable costs” (roughly expenses) to a “target amount” (roughly premiums).” I stuck in the “roughlies” because the “allowable costs” are not exactly expenses and the “target amount” is not exactly premiums. When you look at the statute and the regulations, you can see that both of these terms are tweaked: basically you subtract administrative costs from both values.  And you subtract reinsurance payments from expenses — but that makes sense because the insurer reduced premiums in anticipation of those reinsurance payments.

So, in the end, I don’t see why these subtleties should affect my analysis in any significant way. But I am not infallible. And I do pledge that if someone points out an error to me, I will dutifully assess it and report it.

Sensitivity Analysis

Out of an abundance of caution, however, I have rerun the numbers on the assumption that premium revenue from policies subject to Risk Corridors is 50% greater than my original estimate either because of an underestimate of per policy costs or a failure to understand that there is some additional group within Risk Corridors protection.  When I do that, though, I find that the ratio of expenses to premiums is 0.943, meaning that insurers are still earning a pretty substantial 5.6%.  Although that is more believable than the earlier figure of 7.7%, it is still pretty high. 

Conclusion

To be honest, it makes me very nervous to say that the CBO did its math wrong or, worse, to accuse it of bad faith.  These are intelligent, educated professionals and they have access to a lot more data and a lot more personnel than I do.  Here at acadeathspiral  it’s just me and my little computer along with some very powerful software.  On the other hand, it’s not as if the CBO hasn’t been wrong before. It assumed earlier that the government would reduce its deficit $70 billion over 10 years as a result of Title VIII of the ACA (the so-called CLASS Act on long term care insurance) when many independent sources believed — rightly as it turned out — that the now-repealed CLASS Act was obviously structured in a way that could never fly.  The CBO assumed in July 2012 that 9 million people would enroll in the Exchanges in 2014, a number that is now down to 6 million. And, while there are explanations for each of these changes, the bottom line is that CBO is fallible too.

So, if I might, I would strongly urge the CBO to double check its numbers and provide more information on the data it relied upon and the methodology it employed in getting to its results.  I’d ask Congress, which has ongoing oversight of the ACA, to insist that the Congressional Budget Office, which is exempt from Freedom of Information Act requests from ordinary citizens, provide further detail.  American healthcare is indeed too important to have policy decisions made on the basis of what could be some sort of mathematical error.

Really Technical Notes

  1. I’m using a reparameterized version of the lognormal distribution that permits direct inspection of its mean and standard deviation rather than the conventional one, which in my opinion is less informative.   The explanation for doing so and the formula for reparameterization is here.
  2. To compute the average premium, I took the premium ratios used by the Kaiser Family Foundation, calibrated it so that a 21 year old was paying the national average payment for a silver plan purchased by a 21 year old. I then computed the expected premium over the distribution of purchase ages originally assumed by those modeling the ACA.
Share Button

Phantom costs: The lawless proposal to buy off the insurance industry via a “fix” to Risk Corridors

In my last blog post, I began to explain the proposed “fix” to the Risk Corridors program that the Obama administration seeks to achieve through modifications of its regulations. This is the provision of the Affordable Care Act under which the federal government reimburses large proportions of money lost by insurers over the next three years selling insurance to individuals in the Exchanges or to small employers.  Originally thought by many to be budget neutral, if, as appears increasingly possible, insurers on average lose significant money in the Exchanges, Risk Corridors could cost the federal government hundreds of millions of dollars or more.

I also suggested in that prior blog post that the “fix” raised serious concerns about the rule of law and separation of powers.  In this post, I want to follow up and explain further the accounting trickery and word play in which the administration is engaged and why it is not authorized by any law passed by Congress. Basically, the proposed changes in the regulations amount to an illegal pay off to the insurance industry so that they do not exit the Exchanges after having had the rug pulled out from under them by another decision not to enforce the law as written.

In sum, the Obama administration is proposing without any statutory authorization to let insurers increase the amount they get from the federal government under the Risk Corridors provision of the Affordable Care Act by treating as a “cost” money that the insurers have not spent and that can not be fairly said to be a cost of doing business.  The Obama administration makes this use of phantom costs appear more palatable by terming it “profit” and likening it to an opportunity cost of capital. But the increased “profits” the Obama administration now seek to permit insurers to subtract as a cost has completely detached itself from anything to do with real opportunity costs of running a business. The Obama administration would have been equally dishonest had they permitted insurers to place triple their rent on their Risk Corridor accounts and term the extra 200% a cost of business that entitled them to yet more money from the government. The proposed regulations should be seen as unlawful as an attempt by the Executive branch to change hard percentages used in the statute such as  80% into 95% simply because the Executive thought it better balanced the interests at stake.

Background

The fundamental problem stems from the divergence between what the President repeatedly told Americans during his presidency — if you like your health care plan, you can keep it — and what the Affordable Care Act (a/k/a Obamacare) really said, particularly as it ended up being implemented by the President’s own executive agencies (here and here). The insurance industry acted as if the rule of law mattered, not the campaign rhetoric or people’s perceptions of it, and set its prices in the healthcare Exchanges in accord with the law and the administration’s own forecasts of its effects on competing policies otherwise available to healthy people.  So, when the President announced on November 14, 2013, that his administration would conform the law to his rhetoric and public expectations (by declining under certain circumstances to execute sections 2701-2709 of the Public Health Service Act as modified by the Affordable Care Act), the insurance industry had a fit. It appropriately warned the President that, by reviving competitive sources of health insurance for some of their healthiest potential insureds, he was destabilizing the insurance markets. And, since the keystone of the President’s signature piece of legislation, the Affordable Care Act, depends on happy private, profitable insurers, this was a warning the President and his executive agencies had to heed.  Instead of backing down on the November 14, 2013 announcement, the President doubled down on regulatory change. This past week the Department of Health and Human Services proposed in the Federal Register how current Risk Corridor regulations might be amended to give insurers relief.

A Quick Look at the Statute

For ready reference, here’s an excerpt of the key part of the Risk Corridors statute in question.  You can try to read it now or refer to it periodically as you progress through the remainder of this blog entry.

(b) PAYMENT METHODOLOGY.—
(1) PAYMENTS OUT.—The Secretary shall provide under the
program established under subsection (a) that if—
(A) a participating plan’s allowable costs for any plan
year are more than 103 percent but not more than 108
percent of the target amount, the Secretary shall pay to
the plan an amount equal to 50 percent of the target
amount in excess of 103 percent of the target amount;
and
(B) a participating plan’s allowable costs for any plan
year are more than 108 percent of the target amount,
the Secretary shall pay to the plan an amount equal to
the sum of 2.5 percent of the target amount plus 80 percent
of allowable costs in excess of 108 percent of the target
amount.

The Federal Register Proposal

The fundamental idea in the new Risk Corridors proposal is to put the insurers back in the same position they would have been in had the non-enforcement announcement (“the transitional policy”) not been made.One can see this point made repeatedly in the Federal Register proposal:

Therefore, for the 2014 benefit year, we are considering whether we should make an adjustment to the risk corridors formula that would help to further mitigate any unexpected losses for issuers of plans subject to risk corridors that are attributable to the effects of the transition policy. (78 FR 72349)

We are considering calculating the State-specific percentage adjustment to the risk corridors profit margin floor and allowable administrative costs ceiling in a manner that would help to offset the effects of the transitional policy upon the model plan’s claims costs. (78 FR 72350)

Although the adjustment that we are considering would affect each issuer differently, depending on its particular claims experience and administrative cost rate, we believe that, on average, the adjustment would suitably offset the losses that a standard issuer might experience as a result of the transitional policy. (78 FR 72350)

Two clearly illegal ways to “fix” the problem

The problem the administering agency (Health and Human Services) faces, however, is how. How does HHS “suitably offset the losses that a standard issuer might experience as a result of the transitional policy?” One simple way might have been to adjust the reimbursement percentages contained in the statute, changing them from 50% and 80% for different levels of losses to higher levels. The problem is that the statute (42 U.S.C. § 18062) specifically sets forth the 50% and 80% reimbursement percentages and it would challenge even the most fertile imaginations to contend that it was within the province of an administrative agency to interpret those, as, say, 70% and 95%. And in the current gridlock — and with proposals to repeal Risk Corridors circulating —  getting such a proposal through Congress would seem impossible.

Alternatively, the administration might have made the insurers whole by adding state-by-state constant terms to the formula for reimbursement that roughly approximated the amount a typical insurer might lose in that state. Again, though, that would just constitute a statutorily unauthorized give away of federal taxpayer to the insurance industry.  Congress did not authorize payments so that insurers could maintain the same profits they would have earned in an alternative regulatory environment; instead Congress attempted to compress the profits and losses of insurers based on the regulatory environment that they in fact were in.

The “fix” suggested by the Federal Register proposal: what’s the difference?

What I now want to persuade you of, however, is that, after one strips away the confusing accounting, the Federal Register proposal, in its essence, amount to the same thing as these clearly unauthorized alternatives.  They are, in effect, a coverup for a giveaway of government money. The are very much the assumption of legislative powers by the executive branch of government.

The conceptual problem

One can almost see the problem without doing the math. The very objective set forth repeatedly in the Federal Register proposal — of putting the insurer back into some alternative financial condition, almost as if the government had taken their property or committed a tort by changing the rules — is nowhere to be found in the Risk Corridors statute. Section 1342 speaks of real premiums earned and real costs incurred and looks at their ratio in order to determine federal aid to insurers writing in the Exchanges. That perspective is echoed in the initial regulations published in the Federal Register months before the “transitional policy” brouhaha broke out. The definitions of critical terms adopted in those regulations speak of costs “incurred” or the “sum of incurred claims” or “premiums earned.” (See note below on definitions). Moreover, the definitions are nationwide. There is no sense that the values in the regulations (such as limits on the amount of administrative costs that can be claimed by an insurer) need to be adjusted on a state-by-state basis. And that refusal to adjust the regulations based on different economics in different states exists under the current regulations even if insurers in different jurisdictions have different financial experiences under the Affordable Care Act or face different state regulatory environments.

So, with those darned percentages statutorily nailed down, how does one achieve the objective in the Federal Register proposal of giving insurers their anticipated profits back? The answer is that the Federal Register proposal attempts to add a phantom cost that will vary state-by-state in precisely the amount needed to do the job.  Of course, writing “state-specific phantom cost” into the regulations would alert everyone that the plan was just to shovel money to insurers to keep them happy regardless of what was in the law. So, instead, the idea was to seize upon a word already in the regulations — “profit” — and alter its definition beyond recognition. Expanded “profit” could then do the same job as “state specific phantom cost.”

The math

Here are the specifics. The statute makes the amount the insurer receives in Risk Corridor payments (or pays) depend on a ratio.  A higher ratio often results in more payments and never results in smaller payments from HHS. The numerator of the ratio is something called “allowed costs,” so the higher the allowed costs, the better HHS treats the insurer under Risk Corridors.  The denominator of the ratio is something called “the target amount.” Because higher ratios are good for the insurer, the smaller the “target amount” the better HHS treats the insures under Risk Corridors. (Remember, dividing by a smaller number yields a higher result.) And “target amount” is defined as total premiums less administrative costs.  So, the more an insurer can stuff into administrative costs, the smaller the denominator, the higher the ratio, and the better the insurer fares under Risk Corridors. Indeed, much of the regulatory effort has been appropriately devoted to deterring insurers from exploiting the formula by stuffing overhead they incur servicing non-ACA policies into “administrative costs” that increase their Risk Corridor payments. (Good idea!)

Back in March of 2013, in trying to figure out how to operationalize the ideas contained in the Risk Corridors statute, HHS decided to recognize that the insurer risks its capital in order to operate an insurance company. HHS recognized that it is therefore appropriate to treat some of that opportunity cost as a true cost. (I have no particular problem with the concept). Perhaps unfortunately, but as a convenient shorthand, HHS called this opportunity cost “profit.” Be clear, however, the term “profit” as used in the regulations had little to do with how much money the insurer actually made; it was just an easy term to reflect the fact that when insurers use money to establish offices and buy computers they forgo interest and dividends  that they might otherwise have earned.

But how much of this opportunity cost called “profit” should an insurer be entitled to use to reduce its Risk Corridor denominator?  After receiving comments that were apparently almost uniform on the subject — the one dissent advocated a lower number — HHS decided to use 3% of after-tax premiums. It called this number, “the profit margin floor.”

Several things are significant about the decision to use 3% of premiums.  First, the profit margin floor is 3%, not 6% or 9% or some higher number yet. No one apparently thought the number should be higher. Second, the number is uniform across states. This is entirely sensible because, to the extent that an allowance for capital costs is appropriate at all, capital costs of an insurer are incurred in a national market. Insurers in California do not have opportunity costs of capital that differ very much from insurers in Texas. And, third, the number is a coefficient of net premiums rather than assets probably because use of premiums provides a sensible surrogate for the amount of capital risked by running an Exchange insurance operation instead of running one’s entire insurance business.

What the new Federal Register proposal does is to increase the profit margin floor and to do it in a state-specific way. By increasing the profit margin floor, one can decrease the target ratio denominator and increase the Risk Corridors ratio, which in turn can increase the payment made by HHS to the insurer.  Mathematically, increasing the profit margin floor is little different than permitting the insurer to count triple-rent on its offices rather than real rent or to just pad its electric bills by, say, a million dollars. All are additions of non-existent “phantom costs” that act to decrease a denominator and, derivatively, increase a ratio upon which reimbursement depends.

Moreover, the amount by which the profit margin floor will need to be increased is not a trivial amount.  As shown in the Risk Corridors Calculator, “profit margins” may need to be tripled or more to bring an insurer back to the same position they were in originally.  I would not be surprised to see the profit margin floor in some states in which adverse selection proves particularly problematic to be upwards of 12%.  I am not aware of many insurers making 12% of their premiums in profits, which is precisely why, before they saw the need to repair the damage done by the President’s change of mind, HHS was using 3% as the appropriate figure with only lower numbers being suggested.

Why the proposed fix is unlawful

Any thought that the proposed increase in profit margin floor might have something to do with economic reality, with changes in the cost of capital, is belied by the way HHS explains the change and by the state-by-state approach it now proposes to take.  The HHS explanation is that, because different states are implementing “the transitional plan” differently, the need to adjust Risk Corridors to bring insurers back to their former position differs as well.

We believe that the State-wide effect on this risk pool will increase with the increase in the percentage enrollment in transitional plans in the State, and so we are considering having the State-specific percentage adjustment to the risk corridors formula also vary with the percentage enrollment in these transitional plans in the State. (78 FR 72350)

Of course, in some sense, this is true. But this simply highlights the point that the adjustments to profit margin floor have nothing to do with real costs, the concept the statute cares about.

Not enough? Take a look at the explanation for why HHS did not adjust profit margin floors it on an insurer-by-insurer basis.  It has nothing to do with different costs of capital that different insurers might face, but again, the state-by-state approach is used because it is a simpler way of approximating and offsetting the loss insurers would face in each state as a result of differential effects of the transition policy.

Although the adjustment that we are considering would affect each issuer differently, depending on its particular claims experience and administrative cost rate, we believe that, on average, the adjustment would suitably offset the losses that a standard issuer might experience as a result of the transitional policy. (78 FR 72350)

The administrative law and separation of powers issue is whether the agency empowered with administering Risk Corridors can count as a cost not an expense the insurers actually incur as a result of being in an Exchange but the “regulatory taking” that will occur differentially in each state as a result of President Obama changing his mind. I suppose that, if there is someone with standing to challenge this give away of government money, it will ultimately be for the courts to decide this question.  (By the way, if anyone can suggest someone who might have standing, email me). And I suppose someone can argue that it actually fulfills some general intent of the ACA to keep insurers involved in the Exchanges and not have them flee when other regulations change.

Executive administrative agencies such as the Department of Health and Human Services have the authority under some circumstances to interpret statutes; courts will often then defer to their interpretations. But this fix is not a stretch; if it actually does what its drafters intend, it will be a redraft of the Affordable Care Act itself. I see no difference except opacity between what the Obama administration has done by seizing on a code word “profit” and expanding its definition beyond recognition and saying that when the statute says 80% of losses, surely that could be construed as 95%. Both are unlawful.

Two final notes

The allowable administrative cost cap percentage and the medical loss ratio

Careful readers of the Federal Register will note that there are two other matters it discusses.

The Federal Register proposal also discusses the need to adjust the “allowable administrative costs ceiling (from 20 percent of after-tax profits) in an amount sufficient to offset the effects of the transitional policy upon the claims costs of a model plan.” This provision is needed because otherwise, even if the profit margin floor were increased, insurers would bump up against the existing administrative cost ceiling of 20%.  So, to make sure that the phantom cost “profit margin floor” increase really works, the proposed regulations propose removing that constraint. And to make sure that evil insurers do not take advantage of the relaxed constraint to allocate more of their costs to Exchange plans, the regulations make clear that the insurer would had to have met the 20% standard before consideration of increased “profit” was made.

The Federal Register proposal also discusses a need to adjust the Medical Loss Ratio (MLR) percentages. This is the provision of the ACA that says that if insurers spend too much of their money on non-claims matters, they have to pay a rebate to their insureds.  The problem becomes that if insurers are permitted to treat more than 20% of their premiums as administrative costs for purposes of Risk Corridors they might want to treat more than 20% of their premiums as legitimate administrative costs for purposes of MLR rebates. It’s a little fuzzy, but it sounds as if HHS wants to tweak the MLR regulations so that the MLR provisions do not take away from insurers what they will be winning if the remainder of the Federal Register proposal goes into effect.

The typo in the statute

There’s a complication we have to work through. This whole area is complicated by the fact that there is a typographic error in section 1342.  Here again is the relevant part.

(b) PAYMENT METHODOLOGY.—
(1) PAYMENTS OUT.—The Secretary shall provide under the
program established under subsection (a) that if—
(A) a participating plan’s allowable costs for any plan
year are more than 103 percent but not more than 108
percent of the target amount, the Secretary shall pay to
the plan an amount equal to 50 percent of the target
amount in excess of 103 percent of the target amount;
and
(B) a participating plan’s allowable costs for any plan
year are more than 108 percent of the target amount,
the Secretary shall pay to the plan an amount equal to
the sum of 2.5 percent of the target amount plus 80 percent
of allowable costs in excess of 108 percent of the target
amount.

See in subparagraph (1)(A) where it says “the Secretary shall pay to the plan an amount equal to 50 percent of the target amount in excess of 103 percent of the target amount.” But if you think about it, this could never happen.  Taken literally, there could never be a payment under this provision. So long as the target amount is a positive number, which it always will be since premiums are positive, the target amount can NEVER be in excess of 103% of the target amount.  5 can never be in excess of 103% of 5 (5.15).  10 can never be in excess of 103% of 10 (10.30). Can’t happen.

Looking at the next subparagraph, (1)(B), resolves the mystery of subparagraph (1)(A). It speaks about paying “ 80 percent of allowable costs in excess of 108 percent of the target amount.” (emphasis mine). And this makes complete sense.  The more the insurer loses, the more the government reimburses the insurer.  That’s the whole point of the provision.  I therefore believe that  subparagraph (1)(A) should be interpreted to mean “the Secretary shall pay to the plan an amount equal to 50 percent of  allowable costs in excess of 103 percent of the target amount.”

So, I assume that courts will interpret the statute to read as Congress must have intended it and not as some sort of cute joke resting on a mathematical impossibility.  See United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, 489 U.S. 235 (1989) (“The plain meaning of legislation should be conclusive, except in the ‘rare cases [in which] the literal application of a statute will produce a result demonstrably at odds with the intentions of its drafters.’ Griffin v. Oceanic Contractors, Inc., 458 U. S. 564, 571 (1982). In such cases, the intention of the drafters, rather than the strict language, controls. Ibid.” )

Note on Definitions

As set forth in the regulations, “Allowable costs mean, with respect to a QHP [Qualified Health Plan], an amount equal to the sum of incurred claims of the QHP issuer for the QHP.” The regulation sensibly uses the word “incurred.” This is so because costs are things the insurer has to pay out or has to accrue liabilities for, not things that, under some other set of circumstances they might otherwise have had to pay out.  If that were not the case, the administration could redefine costs to include anything at all, such as the costs the insurer would have faced if every one of their insureds had cancer.

The regulations tweak the definition of “administrative costs” by adding an extra adjective. They introduce the concept of “allowable administrative costs.”  The insurer is not permitted to reduce its “target amount” by claiming some enormous sum (such as private jets for the CEO) as non-claims costs, subtracting them from premiums and reporting low net premiums (target amount) in order to get paid more by the government under the Risk Corridors program. Instead, the regulations define “allowable administrative costs” as non-claims costs that are not more than 20% of premiums. That makes some sense because section 10101 of the ACA (42 U.S.C. § 300gg-18) often requires insurers whose administrative costs are more than 20% of premiums to pay a rebate to their insureds.

Premiums are also reasonably defined under the existing regulations. They sensibly say, “Premiums earned mean, with respect to a QHP, all monies paid by or for enrollees with respect to that plan as a condition of receiving coverage.” Thus, under the statute and existing regulations, premiums must refer to real premiums, not hypothetical premiums. Premiums are moneys the insurer receives, not money the insurer might have received under some other set of circumstances. Again, this just has to be the case; if it were not true, the administration could funnel virtually an infinite amount of money to the insurance industry by saying that premiums are funds the insurer would have received if no one signed up for their plan. 

Share Button

The Two Million Scenario: What if the Affordable Care Act enrolls a lot fewer people in the Exchanges than predicted?

People can be blinded by dreams in many spheres
People can be blinded by dreams in many spheres

Many people who remain basically positive about the Affordable Care Act are viewing the enrollment statistics like the football fan whose team is 2-6 and who point out that the team could win 7 out of its 8 remaining games and still probably make the playoffs.  Yes, getting off to a really bad start doesn’t preclude a happy ending. Success may still be mathematically possible. But unless there’s good reason to think that the fundamental factors such as poor coaching,  poor game plans or unexpected injuries that have led to the bad start no longer apply, the more reasonable prediction is that things will continue more or less as they have.

It’s time to start thinking realistically about what happens if a core component of the Affordable Care Act, subsidized, non-underwritten health insurance available from private insurers, essentially fails to provide many with better access to medical care. This might not happen in every state — there might be a few whose Exchanges can be deemed “successful” — but it is looking more and more to me as if we are heading for enrollments in many states well, well short of that on which the arguments for the ACA were significantly premised. Indeed, some supporters of the ACA have started moving the goal posts, revising history to say that the real goal of the Act wasn’t to reduce the number of uninsureds but to have an actuarially sound pool. (So the purpose of the Act was to help insurance companies stay afloat?) And it hardly helps enrollment when President Obama urges his allies to hold back enrollment efforts so the insurance marketplace does not collapse this coming week under a crush of new users even after he earlier assured the nation  healthcare.gov  was supposed to be working much better by this time.

For purposes of this blog entry, I’m going to assume that enrollment in the Exchanges ends up being about 2 million for 2014 instead of the projected 7 million.  I can’t rigorously justify that number — but, of course, neither could the pundit who is now saying 4 million. And, if I had time and space I’d prefer to do this analysis under a variety of scenarios, but, for now, the 2 million figure feels about right. And if I were betting on which side of the 2 million we will fall, it would be the lower side. What are the consequences? I can’t address all of them in a single blog entry — and trying to predict matters past 2014 gets very treacherous — but here are some.

And, for those of you who don’t want to read further, here’s the headline:

Insurance sold through Exchanges without medical underwriting — a central promise of the Affordable Care Act — is likely to implode in a significant number of states by 2015 while limping along in several others but providing little net desired decrease in the number of people without quality health insurance.  The silver lining in this failure will be that the program will likely cost less than projected due to fewer number of people receiving subsidies, although this reduction will be partly offset by higher-than-projected subsidies to the insurance industry. Expect significant pressure to grow among supporters of the Affordable Care Act to use these net savings to increase the subsidies available to people buying coverage through the Exchanges and to lure insurers in the problem states back into the Exchanges.

1. The number of people without private health insurance may actually grow

This is so because, if 2 million obtain insurance through the Exchanges but more people (3.5 million is a prevailing estimate from sources ranging from Forbes to Jonathan Gruber) lose their current individual health insurance, that’s a net decrease in the number of insured.  And if we add in the loss of 100,000 or so people from the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan that likewise is terminated or those who heretofore were in various state high risk pools, there is a serious risk that the Affordable Care Act will have decreased the number with private health insurance.

In fairness, I have not taken Medicaid expansion into account. Some may see it as unfair to count just the number of people with private health insurance rather than the number with access to health care through private insurance or public schemes such as Medicaid. And, indeed, in those states in which Medicaid has been expanded — one can’t blame President Obama too much if other states choose not to participate — enrollment has outpaced enrollment in private plans at about a 4-to-1 ratio. This suggests, by the way, that people are willing to use a web site, even some clunky ones, to sign up for health care if they think the price is right.

The rejoinder to the argument that we should consider Medicaid, however, is that an awful lot of political energy and an awful lot of monetary investment has been predicated on healthcare reform benefiting more than just the poor but the middle class too. If it turns out the middle class has, net, been hurt by the 2014 features of Affordable Care Act or has paid a large investment for the 2014 features of a law that, net, does provide little marginal benefit, it’s fair to criticize the 2014 features of the Act for their architectural shortcomings. And, yes, I know all about staying on your parents’ policy until you are 26 and limitations on rescissions, but none of those pre-2014 “achievements” should count in assessing the 2014 record.

2. The number of people with quality health insurance may stay about the same

Yes, there will be people who formerly had no health insurance or who had rotten health insurance who, thanks to the 2014 aspects of the ACA, now have health insurance that covers more.  There are many news accounts from pro-ACA forces providing evidence of this. Here’s one (although all the “success stories” are likely to have high medical claims); here’s another (notice again that the successes are likely to have high medical claims).

But it may well be that for every such success story apparently to be catalogued by paid grants from the government, there is another who had health insurance tailored to their needs (such as policies for the 50 and over set that did not cover maternity expenses) who now find themselves priced out of the health insurance market with its Essential Health Benefits requirement (section 1302 of the ACA). Here’s a website inviting people to post their cancellation notices.  Here are some anecdotes relating such problems (although one always have to be very careful about exaggerations in this arena; see here for a discussion of a particular case by Consumer Reports).  Here’s another.

On balance, though, it’s quite believable that, many of the gains due to subsidization may be offset due to government offering only products that have more “features” than many people are willing to pay for.  To analogize, consider a law that prohibited people from owning either a clunker car (defined somehow) or a car without four-wheel drive. The theory behind the law was that clunkers were unsafe and that four-wheel drive is sometimes useful: even if you don’t need it right now, you might need it or have needed it at some point.  Fair enough. But such a law might not actually increase the number of people driving quality cars that fit their needs. Some people just can’t afford a new car.  And others, who could afford a respectable car without four wheel drive and didn’t think they needed it right then (urban Floridians, for example), might simply decide not to get a car rather than use scarce marginal dollars for cars with features they don’t need. While such a result need not occur — it depends on all sorts of factors — my sense is that this is where we are heading with the Affordable Care Act and its fairly demanding and undifferentiated requirements for coverage in policies sold on the Exchanges.

3.  Federal mandate tax payments may be a little bit bigger than expected for 2014

The Congressional Budget Office estimates this spring that the United States Treasury would receive about 2 billion dollars as a result of the individual mandate tax (26 U.S.C. § 5000A). That figure was premised, however, on a belief that 7 million people would enroll in the Exchanges.  If only 2 million people get insurance through the Exchange that’s roughly 5 million fewer than anticipated who will not. There thus could be as many as 5 million more people who will have to pay the individual mandate (26 U.S.C. §5000A) and could lead to something like another $500 million in revenue next year.

Before we spend the money of 5 million more Americans who might have to pay extra in tax, however,  we need to we need to subtract off two categories of people.  (1) We should subtract off those who acquire faux-grandfathered policies created by President Obama’s recent turnabout to let people who like their (potentially cruddy) coverage keep it under some circumstances and not have to pay the individual mandate.  (2) We should subtract off the small number of people who were projected to purchase policies on the Exchange but, because of poverty or otherwise, would not have had to pay the mandate tax had they failed to do so.

So, let’s say on balance that 3 million fewer people than projected pay the tax under 26 U.S.C. 5000A. It’s hard to know exactly what sort of tax revenue would be involved, but it is likely in excess of $285 million per year because each such person would have been responsible for at least a $95 per person penalty. (I know, I know, there are lots of complications because the penalty is difficult to enforce and because you only have to pay half for children, but then there are complications the other way in that $95 is a floor and one may have to pay 1% of household income). Why don’t we use round numbers, though, and say that the government might get about $300 million more in tax revenue for 2014 (although they may not get the money until 2015) due to lower-than-projected enrollments in the Exchanges.

4. Before the federal government subsidizes them, insurers in the Exchange will lose billions

4. Before consideration of various subsidies (a/k/a bailouts) of the insurance industry created by the Affordable Care Act, insurers could lose $2 billion as a result of having gambled that the Exchanges would be successful.  Here’s how I get that figure. No one knows for sure but, if the experience under the PCIP plan is any guide, when about 1/3 of the projected number of people apply to a plan that is not medically underwritten, expenses per person can be more than double that originally expected.  Even if we assume that experience under the PCIP is not fully applicable, given an enrollment 1/3 of that projected, it would shock me if covered claims were not at least 125% of that expected. If so, on balance that means that losses per insured could total roughly $1,000. If we multiply $1,000 per insured by 2 million insureds, we get about $2 billion. If the Exchanges lose money at the same rate as the PCIP, insurer losses could be upwards of  $7 billion. Again, I make no pretense of precision here. I am simply trying to get a sense of the order of magnitude.

5. The federal government will subsidize insurers more than expected but insurers will still lose money

The Affordable Care Act creates several methods heralded as protecting insurers writing in the Exchanges from claims that were greater than they expected.  One such method, Risk Corridors under section 1342 of the ACA, could end up helping insurers in the Exchanges significantly. But, if, as discussed here, enrollment in the Exchanges for 2014 is 2 million persons, the cost of helping the insurance industry in this fashion will be another $500 million for 2014. Risk Corridors, which have recently been aptly analogized to synthetic collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), requires the government to reimburse insurers for up to 80% of any losses they suffer on the Exchanges.  It also imposes what amounts to a special tax (again of up to 80%) on profits that insurers may make on the Exchanges. The system was supposed to be budget neutral but, as I and others have observed, will in fact require the federal government to pay money in the event that insurer losses on the Exchange outweigh insurer gains. The basis for my $500 million computation is set forth extensively in a prior blog entry. It will only be more if, as discussed in another prior blog entry, the Obama administration modifies Risk Corridors to indemnify insurers for additional losses they suffer as a result of President Obama’s decision to let those with recently cancelled medically underwritten health insurance policies stay out of the Exchanges.

If claims are, as I have suggested 25% higher as a result of enrollment of 2 million, insurers will lose, after Risk Corridors are taken into account, about 9% on their policies. It would thus not surprise me to see insurers put in for at least a 9 or 10% increase on their policies for 2015 simply as a result of enrollment in the pools being smaller than expected.

The relatively modest 9% figure masks a far more significant problem, however.  It is just a national average. Consider states such as Texas in which only 2,991 out of the 774,662 projected have enrolled thus far.  If, say, Texas ends up enrolling “only” increasing its enrollment by a factor of 16 and gets to 50,000 enrollees, I would not be surprised to see claims be double of what was projected.  Even with Risk Corridors, insurers could still lose about 24% on their policies. A compensating 24% gross premium increase, even if experienced only by that portion of the insurance market paying gross premiums, could well be enough to set off an adverse selection death spiral.

Footnote: For reasons I have addressed in an earlier blog entry, one of those methods, transitional reinsurance under section 1341 of the ACA is best thought of as a premium subsidy that induces insurers to write in the Exchanges. Because the government’s payment obligations are capped, however, the provision is unlikely to help them significantly if the cost per insured ends up being particularly high throughout the nation.

6. The federal government might save $19 billion in premium subsidies

The Congressional Budget Office assumed that premium subsidies would be $26 billion in 2014, representing a payment of about $3,700 per projected enrollee.  If the distribution of policies purchased and the income levels of purchasers are as projected, but only 2 million people apply, that would reduce subsidy payments down to $7.5 billion.  And if the policies sold in 2014 cost a little less than projected, that might further reduce subsidy payments.  I think it would be fair, then, to estimate that low enrollment could save the federal government something like $19 billion in premium subsidies in 2014. This savings coupled with heightened tax revenue under 26 U.S.C. §5000A — could we round it to $20 billion — would be more than enough to cover insurer losses resulting from the pool being smaller and less healthy than projected.

The Bottom Line

I suspect my conclusion will make absolutist ideologues on the left and right equally uncomfortable.  What I am wondering is if the Affordable Care Act might not die in 2015 with a giant imploding bang but rather limp on with a whimper. On balance, what we may well see if only 2 million enroll in Exchanges pursuant to the Affordable Care Act is a system that fails to function in some states and remains fragile and expensive elsewhere. On the one hand, it will be an expensive system because of the enormous overhead incurred in creating a highly regulated industry that provides assistance to a relatively small number of people. On the other hand, precisely because it will be helping far fewer people than projected, it might well cost significantly less  than anticipated. I would expect this departure from what was projected to lead to two sorts of pressures:

(1) There will be a claim from ACA supporters that we can use the savings to increase subsidies or the domain of the subsidies beyond the 400% of Federal Poverty Line cutoff  and thereby reduce the adverse selection problem that will already be manifesting itself.

(2) There will be a claim from ACA detractors that all of this confirms that, apart from ideological considerations, the bill is an expensive turkey and that, if  the only way to save it is to impose more and more regulation and spend more and more money, it ought simply to be repealed.

Complicating factors

Rules

There are many factors that could result in the estimates provided in this entry being quite wrong.  I do not want to fall into the same trap as others who have ventured into this field and claim that there are not very large error bars around all of these numbers.  And I do not believe the system is necessarily linear. It may be that small changes have cascading effects. Here are several reasons my estimates might be wrong.

1. The rules change in 2015. There are at least three significant rule changes in 2015.

a. The tax under 26 U.S.C. 5000A for not having government-approved health insurance increases significantly, going from the greater of $95 per person or 1% of household income to the greater $295 per person or 2% of household income. Insurers may therefore assume that enrollment will be greater in 2015 than in 2014.  Some people will be pushed over the edge by the higher tax rate into purchasing health insurance. If so, insurers may feel less pressure to increase prices because they believe their experience in 2014 will not be repeated in 2015.

b. The employer mandate will presumably not be delayed again by executive order which may have two offsetting events: employers reducing the number of full time employees thereby adding more to the Exchanges or employers maintaining health insurance thereby reducing the potential pool for the Exchanges.

c. As discussed in an earlier blog entry, there will be a decline in transitional reinsurance now provided free to insurers in the Exchange which, in and of itself, will put significant pressure on premiums

Realities

Finally, this is a field where events just frequently overtake predictions.  All of these predictions go out the window, for example:

a. if there is a major security breach in the government computer systems and people’s personal information is disclosed;

b. healthcare.gov continues to seriously malfunction during the critical pre-December 23 sign up period

c. if the yet-to-be-built payment system for insurers does not function and people become dissatisfied as a result;

d. if people find, as some are projecting (here and here), that the set of medical providers available in the Exchange policies is drastically reduced over what they expected; and

e. there is a major sea change in legislative power in Washington.

f. other

 

 

 

 

Share Button

Proposed cuts in transitional reinsurance could increase Exchange premiums 7-8% in 2015

Late last week, HHS released its 255-page HHS Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters for 2015. Buried away in this technical documents are at least two interesting matters.

  1. HHS is planning to cut reinsurance payments to insurers participating in its Exchanges in a way that, in and of itself, could increase gross premiums 7-8% in 2015 and increase the risk of further adverse selection
  2. HHS has validated the claims of insurers that President Obama’s recent about-face on the ability of insurers to renew certain policies not providing Essential Health Benefits could destabilize the insurance market.  The Notice proposes changing the way insurers calculate their profits and losses so that the amount of payments made by government to insurers in the Exchange would increase. It claims, however, that it does not know how much this will cost.
The HHS Notice for 2015
The HHS Notice for 2015

Less reinsurance

Under the system in place for 2014, if insurers in an Exchange have to pay between $45,000 and $250,000 on one of their insureds, the government picks up 80% of that loss (assuming the $63 per insured life it taxes various other health insurance plans is sufficient to pay that amount). But in 2015, the money that goes into this transitional reinsurance pool (section 1341 of the ACA, 42 U.S.C. sec. 18061) declines by a third from $12 billion to $8 billion and the head tax correspondingly declines from $63 to $44. As a result, HHS proposes to now pick up only 50% of the tab for losses between $70,000 and $250,000. Thus, losses between $45,000 and the new $70,000 attachment point will now fall entirely on insurers without federal help and insurers will have to pay 30% more on losses between $70,000 and $250,000.

This reduction in free reinsurance provided by the taxpayers will almost certainly result in increased premiums for insureds. My estimate is that the average premium hike induced by this reduction in reinsurance is likely to be about 7-8%.

Here’s how I did this computation. I took loss distributions contained in the government’s “Actuarial Value Calculator.” That’s the Excel spreadsheet the government (and insurers) use to figure out what metal tier, if any, their policy falls into. I then performed the following steps.  You can verify what I have done in the Computable Document Format (CDF) document I have placed on Dropbox. You can view the document using the free CDF player or using Mathematica

Step 1.  I determined the expected value of claims under those loss distributions with reinsurance parameters set at the 2014 rates.  I get four results, one for each metal tier: {3630.52, 4223.87, 4468.95, 5556.06}. I then do exactly the same computation but use the 2015 reinsurance parameters. I get four results, one for each metal tier: {3906.67, 4550.95, 4807.06, 5948.53}.

Step 2. I multiply each result by the actuarial value of the associated metal tier to approximate the size of the premium needed to support the expected level of the claims. I get {2178.31, 2956.71, 3575.16, 5000.46} for the 2014 reinsurance parameters and {2344., 3185.67, 3845.65, 5353.68} for the 2015 reinsurance parameters.

Step 3. I then simply compute the percent increase in the needed 2015 premiums over the needed 2014 premiums and get {0.0760631, 0.077436, 0.0756584, 0.0706371}

If losses are, as I suspect they will be, greater than those assumed in the actuarial value calculator — because the pool is going to be drawn for a variety of reasons from a riskier group than originally anticipated —  the diminution in reinsurance is yet more significant and, standing by itself, could add more than 7-8% to the gross premiums charged in the Exchanges.

Whether the increase in gross premiums is about 7-8% or whether it is higher, it creates a heightened risk for an adverse selection problem.  This is so because, although subsidies insulate many people in the Exchanges from increases in gross premiums — net premiums are pegged to income rather than gross premiums for them — it will affect the significant number (estimated by HHS to be about 18% (4/22)) who are expected to purchase policies inside the Exchanges without subsidies.  The higher premiums go, however, the more we would expect to see the healthy drop out and find substitutes for the non-underwritten policies sold in the Exchanges. (If premiums are low enough, adverse selection is not a problem: insurance is a good deal for everyone and healthy and sick purchase it alike. See, e.g., Medicare Part B, which is very heavily subsidized and does not suffer seriously from adverse selection.)

Note to experts. Some of you might think I erred in saying that the 2014 reinsurance attachment point is $45,000 and not $60,000. But the 2015 notice says on page 11 that it will retroactively reduce the attachment point to $45,000.

HHS Validates Insurer Fears About Obama Reversal and the Destabilization of Insurance Markets

Many individuals, including me, have claimed that President Obama’s recent decision to permit insurers to “uncancel” certain individual plans that do not contain Essential Health Benefits could destabilize insurance markets. The Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters just released appears to validate that assertion. Stripped of bureaucratese, the HHS document basically says that insurers are right to be disconcerted by the President’s about face.

For those who enjoy bureaucratese, however, or who properly want to validate my own conclusions about the document, here’s what it actually says.

On November 14, 2013, the Federal government announced a policy under which it will not consider certain non-grandfathered health insurance coverage in the individual or small group market renewed between January 1, 2014, and October 1, 2014, under certain conditions to be out of compliance with specified 2014 market rules, and requested that States adopt a similar non-enforcement policy.

Issuers have set their 2014 premiums for individual and small group market plans by estimating the health risk of enrollees across all of their plans in the respective markets, in accordance with the single risk pool requirement at 45 CFR 156.80. These estimates assumed that individuals currently enrolled in the transitional plans described above would participate in the single risk pools applicable to all non-grandfathered individual and small group plans, respectively (or a merged risk pool, if required by the State). Individuals who elect to continue coverage in a transitional plan (forgoing premium tax credits and cost-sharing reductions that might be available through an Exchange plan, and the essential health benefits package offered by plans compliant with the 2014 market rules, and perhaps taking advantage of the underwritten premiums offered by the transitional plan) may have lower health risk, on average, than enrollees in individual and small group plans subject to the 2014 market rules.

If lower health risk individuals remain in a separate risk pool, the transitional policy could increase an issuer’s average expected claims cost for plans that comply with the 2014 market rules. Because issuers would have set premiums for QHPs in accordance with 45 CFR 156.80 based on a risk pool assumed to include the potentially lower health risk individuals that enroll in the transitional plans, an increase in expected claims costs could lead to unexpected losses.

So, the government wants help in figuring out what to do. One method it is contemplating involves technical adjustments to the Risk Corridors program in a way that would get insurers more money (pp. 101-105).  Although I will confess to considerable difficulty in understanding exactly what it is that HHS suggesting, the basic idea, as I understand it, would be to assume that those who, by virtue of the President’s about face, “uncancel” their policies would have had claims expenses equal to 80% of the average claims of the rest of the pool (page 103-04). HHS will then, on a state-by-state basis figure out what the position of the insurer would have been and try to adjust Risk Corridors such that the position of the insured after application of adjusted Risk Corridors is similar to that which it would have been in had these persons, who pay the same premium as the rest but who tend to have only 80% of the claims expenditures, enrolled in their plan.

It is not clear to me where the statutory authority to make this change comes from. Section 1342 of the ACA (42 U.S.C. 18062) does not define its key terms of “target amount” and “allowable costs” in a fashion that would appear to my eye to extend to hypothetical costs and hypothetical premiums. I will also confess to being unsure as to who would have standing to challenge this proposed give away of taxpayer money to the insurance industry.

What is clear to me, however, is the proposed reform, by necessity, will result in greater previously unbudgeted expenditures by the federal government. If we are really talking about making insurers whole and the people in question might have profited insurers something like $1,000 a person, the federal government appears to be suggesting a change in regulations that could cost it hundreds of millions of dollars.  The HHS Notice declines to put an exact figure on the cost of the change:

Because of the difficulty associated with predicting State enforcement of 2014 market rules and estimating the enrollment in transitional plans and in QHPs, we cannot estimate the magnitude of this impact on aggregate risk corridors payments and charges at this time.

HHS is probably correct in saying it is difficult to estimate the cost of the proposed changes to Risk Corridors.  I don’t think we have a good feel for how many people will return to the plans President Obama has carved out for special treatment.  It does look, however, as if a floor of a couple of hundred million dollars on the cost of the proposal would be quite reasonable. This, of course, could give some ammunition to those, such as Florida Senator Marco Rubio, who have called for repeal of the Risk Corridors provision as an insurance “bailout.” (For a discussion, look here, here and here)

Final Note

Yesterday, I said I hoped to provide a major post.  This actually is not the post I was speaking about. There’s still more news coming.  Maybe today or maybe while recovering from a turkey overdose tomorrow.

Share Button

Eliminating Risk Corridors jeopardizes Exchange Insurance

Draft of S.1726
Draft of S.1726

In a Wall Street Journal op-ed today that tracks much of what has been said on this blog in recent years, Florida Senator Marco Rubio announced that he will introduce later today a bill (provisionally numbered S.1726 ) that would apparently eliminate “Risk Corridors,” the provision of the Affordable Care Act under which the government would reimburse insurers selling insurance on an Exchange for the next three years from a good portion of any losses that they suffer there. Rubio contends  that “ObamaCare’s risk corridors are designed in such an open-ended manner that the president’s action now exposes taxpayers to a bailout of the health-insurance industry if and when the law fails.”

Marco Rubio portrait
Marco Rubio

Senator Rubio is largely correct, I believe, in his understanding of Risk Corridors (section 1342 of the ACA, codified at 42 U.S.C. 18062) both as drafted in the statute and as implemented by the Department of Health and Human Services.  Unlike its cousins, the reinsurance provisions (42 U.S.C. § 18061) and the risk adjustment provisions (42 U.S.C. § 18063), both of which likewise help reduce the risks of writing policies for sale on an Exchange, Risk Corridors is not drafted to be budget neutral.  That was the way the Congressional Budget Office scored it — it assumed that receipts under the provision would equal outlays — but this was clearly a blunder that should have been apparent at the time and that minimized the advertised budgetary risk entailed by passage of the Affordable Care Act. As discussed in an earlier blog post, if the distribution of profit and loss by insurers selling in the Exchanges is skewed in the loss direction, the government will be obligated to pay out more than it takes in.  Where the funding for this new “entitlement” for the insurance industry would come from is unclear. Senator Rubio is thus correct again when he says that the bill will be paid for by the taxpayer.

Senator Rubio is not correct to imply, however, that, standing by itself, the underestimate of Risk Corridor exposure represents this enormous understatement of the cost to the taxpayer of the Affordable Care Act.  That law, for better or worse, always called for large taxpayer outlays to help prop up an insurance system that, as one of its critical architectural features, would attack medical underwriting by insurers.  Indeed, although it was not apparent to many until recently, precisely because of the Three Rs of Risk Corridors, “free” reinsurance and future “risk adjustments,” the Affordable Care Act always created this scheme that looked like it preserved private insurance but in fact converted insurers largely into claims processors in a system in which profitability and core insurance functions were largely controlled by the federal government.

To see the relative magnitude of the Risk Corridors program, consider the bigger picture. The CBO projected most recently, for example, that subsidies to help individuals purchase insurance via tax credits and cost sharing reductions would total $26 billion in 2014 and ramp up to $108 billion by 2017.  To be sure, that figure was based on the assumption, which is beginning to look very suspect, that there would be 7 million people in the Exchanges in 2014, and thus might decrease if enrollment is considerably lower.  Still, since by my calculations it seems unlikely that the Risk Corridor payments will amount to more than $1 billion per year (but see footnote below), it is not as if the cost of “Obamacare” suddenly went through the roof. Maybe Risk Corridors could be considered the “straw that broke the camel’s back,” but the Affordable Care Act has always been a stretch of the federal budget and it has been a stretch that many have long found deeply troubling.

CBO projections on the cost of the Exchanges
CBO projections on the cost of the Exchanges

The more serious issue surrounding Senator Rubio’s suggestion that Risk Corridors be repealed is that such an action might well be the straw that broke the insurers’ backs.  Insurers do not have to participate in the Exchanges and they certainly do not have to continue to do so in 2015. I suspect that if, anything stands right now or in the future between the deeply troubling enrollment numbers and an adverse selection death spiral caused by a combination of premium escalation and insurer withdrawals from the exchange marketplace, it is insurers’ belief that Uncle Sam will take care of the insurance industry.  Indeed, that’s the not-too-subtle consolatory hint that accompanied the letter sent last week by the Obama administration to state insurance commissioners. It tells regulators and insurers that, to enable the President to keep his oft-repeated campaign promise — I don’t even have  to tell you which one — the healthy insureds on which Exchange insurers were banking would now be given a sometimes cheaper (and sometimes competitive) alternative. How many of these victims of the previously broken promise would have purchased insurance on the Exchanges if forced to do so is open to question. But, at the present time, every insured helps those Exchanges survive, even if only barely.

By telling insurers that, contrary to the strong hints at the end of  the Obama administration letter, there will be no relief for the additional average costs now imposed on insurers,  passage of Senator Rubio’s bill might lead to the implosion of the insurance Exchanges and the death of a crucial portion of the Affordable Care Act. While such a result would hardly deter many from voting in favor of the bill, those who dislike the Affordable Care Act ought to think hard not just about how much they want it to end but in what way they want it to end. Dismantling the ACA is itself going to be difficult and painful — wait until we hear the cries from the people who deeply craved the subsidized insurance they thought they were receiving or who otherwise benefited from the Act — and ultimately entails very serious and difficult policy choices about how we want to finance healthcare in the United States.  Consumer driven? Single payor? If the law is to be unwound, it would be better if it were done in as deliberate and orderly way as practicable rather than as an unforeseen result of legislation that purported to deal with a narrow aspect of the ACA.

There is, it should be noted, a compromise position that will preserve something of Risk Corridors while not adding to the federal budget deficit.  One could amend the Risk Corridors provision to force it to be budget neutral.  This has already been done in the companion provisions of stop-loss reinsurance and risk adjustment and there is no reason that, if legislators could act in good faith, the law could not be modified to state that payments by the Secretary of HHS to insurers would be reduced pro rata to the extent necessary to make payments in under Risk Corridors equal payments out.  This potential reduction in payments might, it must be acknowledged, scare insurers and contribute to the implosion of Obamacare, but it would be less likely to do so that a bill that repealed Risk Corridors altogether.

A Footnote on the cost of Risk Corridors

Footnote: I’ve been thinking some more about a back of the envelope computations in a blog entry that attempted to develop a relationship between the number of people enrolling in insurance on the Exchanges and the size of the Risk Corridor payments. As those paying the closest attention to my prior blog post will recall, I made an assumption about the spread of the distribution of insurer profits and losses.  The assumption was not unreasonable, but it was also hardly infallible.  What if, I have been wondering, the spread was much narrower than I suggested it might be?

I decided to run the experiment again using a standard deviation of profits and losses only 1/10 of what it had been.  I thus create regimes in which the financial fates of most insurers selling policies are closely tied together.  What I find is that assuming that most insurers will either make money or that most insurers will lose money has a tendency to increase the payments the government will likely have to make if enrollment is small.  In this new experiment, payments peak at about $1.5 billion rather than $1 billion in the prior experiment.  Bottom line: the prior blog post was basically correct — we are dealing here with very rough estimates — but if all insurers are subject to similar economic forces the Risk Corridor moneys paid by the government might grow somewhat. Still, it is not as if the cost of Risk Corridors is suddenly going to dwarf the cost of premium subsidies and cost sharing reductions already required by the ACA.

 

 

 

Share Button