Skip to main content

Holding Your Breath


Here’s why you don’t need to be holding your breath while awaiting the announcement of the Supreme Court’s decision on the Affordable Care Act.

Its immediate impact on you may be a whole lot less than you think.

And here’s why you should be holding your breath.

How the Court rules could ultimately determine whether private health insurance or public health insurance is the way we finance health care in the future.

The reason is this.  ACA expanded both the role of private insurance and public insurance in providing healthcare coverage in the future.  It added a projected 13 million people to the private insurance rolls and 17 million to Medicaid. 

The 13 million were added to private insurance primarily through a mandate that individuals who can afford it buy insurance.  The 17 million were added to Medicaid through a mandate that the states expand the Medicaid-eligible population.

The Supreme Court was asked to rule on the constitutionality of both mandates at the same time. 

If it chooses one over the other – by finding one expansion constitutional and the other unconstitutional – it may well determine just how health financing unfolds for decades to come.

Here are a few things to keep in mind as you listen to the result.

  • Despite all the rhetoric, ACA will have little long term effect on overall health spending.  The cost of health care services is projected to rise by an average of 5.7% per year over the next ten years, from $2.6 trillion to $4.5 trillion.  The amount that the entire Affordable Care Act will contribute to this increase is not 100%, or even 50%.  It is around 5% – or an average of three-tenths of 1% per year.

  • The share of the nation’s health care bill that private insurance will pay in 2011 is 34 percent, much of which is either paid or subsidized by government.  If all the provisions of the Affordable Care Act – including the individual mandate – remain in place through 2021, then private insurance will pay 33% of the bill, one percent less than it pays today.

One reason – the individual mandate, at the crux of the rest of the legal challenge to ACA, will affect fewer than one in 50 Americans.
  • States have claimed that the Medicaid expansion is the real budget back-breaker of the Affordable Care Act.  But a majority of the new Medicaid costs that states attribute to the Affordable Care Act are actually the costs of enrolling currently eligible people.  The Medicaid bill is going up either way; the only question is how big a share of new costs the federal government will pay.

The ACA decision may well be a momentous one politically, but I’m not really convinced about this. 

The only truly “politically framed” issue in the whole debate has been about the fairness of the individual mandate.  Presidential candidates Obama and Romney both opposed it, while public officials President Obama and Governor Romney both supported it.  Maybe one of them will get a lasting boost from the decision about its constitutionality; maybe not.

What will matter more for public policy in the near term is this:  whether either of the provisions, if ruled unconstitutional, is found to be severable from other parts of the law.  That’s because many other parts of the law, such as the consumer protections and the Medicare expansions, are popular and affect most of the voting public.

But neither of these things will matter most in the long term.  What will matter down the road is what we learn from the ruling about the fundamental health financing policy choice of at least the last fifty years – public or private?    

I’ll be looking at this question and more in a series of five OHPM columns that will be published over the next few days. 

The first column will be out tomorrow, shortly after the decision is announced. 

The second, on Friday, will be entitled What the ACA Decision Means for You.

The third, on Saturday, will discuss the implications of the ACA decision for the future of private health insurance.

The fourth, next Monday, will discuss the implications of the ACA decision for the future of Medicare and Medicaid.

The fifth, next Tuesday, will take a look at the post-ACA world for health, public health, and mental health policy.

Of course, if the Court delays its announcement at the last minute, then the columns' publication will be postponed as well. 

In the meantime, let’s just take a deep breath and see what the Court has decided.

If you have questions about this column, please contact gionfriddopaul@gmail.com.  Paul  Gionfriddo will be presenting on the implications of the Supreme Court's ACA decision on Friday, June 29, at noon, at the Mental Health Association of Palm Beach County.  For more information, click here.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Veterans and Mental Illness

On a sultry June morning in our national’s capital last Friday, I visited the Vietnam Veterans Memorial .   Scores of people moved silently along the Wall, viewing the names of the men and women who died in that war.   Some stopped and took pictures.   One group of men about my age surrounded one name for a photo.   Two young women posed in front of another, perhaps a grandfather or great uncle they never got to meet. It is always an incredibly moving experience to visit the Wall.   It treats each of the people it memorializes with respect. There is no rank among those honored.   Officer or enlisted, rich or poor, each is given equal space and weight. It is a form of acknowledgement and respect for which many veterans still fight. Brave Vietnam veterans returned from Southeast Asia to educate our nation about the effects of war and violence. I didn’t know anything about Post Traumatic Stress Disorder when I entered the Connecticut Legislature in the late 1970s.   I had only vag

Scapegoats and Concepts of a Plan: How Trump Fails Us

When a politician says he has “concepts of a plan” instead of a plan, there is no plan. And yet, that’s where we are with Donald Trump, nine years after he first launched a political campaign promising to replace Obamacare with something cheaper and better, nearly four years after he had four years to try to do just that. And fail. Doubling down during Tuesday’s debate, he claimed he had “concepts of a plan” to replace Obamacare. Really? He’s got nothing. In fact, he sounds just like Nixon sounded in 1968, when he claimed he had a “secret” plan to get us out of Vietnam. That turned out to be no plan at all (remember “Vietnamization?”) and cost us seven more years there and tens of thousands of lives. The Affordable Care Act, about which I wrote plenty in this blog a decade or more ago, wasn’t perfect. But it was a whole lot better than what we had before it – and anything (save a public option) that has been proposed since. Back then, insurers could deny coverage because of pre-exi

Anxiety and the Presidential Election

Wow. Could the mainstream media do anything more to raise our anxiety levels about the 2024 election? And diminish or negate all the recent accomplishments in our country? Over the past three-and-a-half years, our nation’s economy has been the strongest in the world. Unemployment is at record lows, and the stock market is at record highs. NATO – which last came together to defend the United States in the aftermath of 9/11 – is stronger than ever. Border crossings are down. Massive infrastructure improvements are underway in every state. Prescription drug costs are lower. We finally got out of Afghanistan – evacuating more than 100,000 U.S. citizens and supporters – with just a handful of deaths. Inflation – which rose precipitously in the aftermath of the pandemic – has come back down, and prices in many areas have even begun to decline. And yet, all the media commentators can talk about these days – and they are not “reporters” when they are clearly offering opinions to frame the