Well, the initial enrollment period is in its final hours. Fans of the legislation are telling us to celebrate the six million people who signed up for individual insurance. (Of course they previously told us “success looks like at least 7 million people having signed up”, but we’ll ignore that.) According to the Washington Post today:
Democrats and insurance industry officials are already seeking ways to blunt what may be the next big controversy: an expected increase in monthly insurance premiums next year for the health plans sold through the federal and state marketplaces.
Hmmm. Seems like not so long ago, Nancy Pelosi said “everybody will have lower rates”. Obama said it would “cut the cost of a typical family’s premium by up to $2,500 a year”. Now suddenly we’re expecting an increase in premiums next year, on top of the already high premiums offered on the exchanges. How did that happen?
I’d say it’s entirely predictable, and indeed many people have been predicting it since the ACA was passed. Let’s look at one example.
The ACA says that for any plan, the cost for men and women must be the same. Now women consume more health care than men. The result of this, for generations, has been that women need to pay more for health insurance than men, on average. That’s basic math: the more you consume, the more you pay. Actuarial science is the science of determining how much it will cost to offer an insurance plan to certain customers and pricing it accordingly. Since women consume more on average, the results lead to women paying more on average. Despite frequent claims that it’s the Republicans who are “anti-science”, the Democrats passed a law which forbids the use of actuarial science to determine separate rates for men and women.
Well, what’s going to happen? Even Democrats know that the insurance companies will only sell plans if they expect to make a profit. Suppose that a company previously sold a plan to male customers for $300 per month and made a 2% profit from an average male customer. Now they must offer the same plan to women. If women buying the plan will, on average, cost the company $350 per month, then the price will have to go up. Male customers will now be paying more and effectively subsidizing the more costly health care of women.
This isn’t the only way in which the ACA forces premiums up. The story is basically the same for the oft-mentioned “pre-existing conditions”. A plan can be sold cheaper if it’s not offered to those with pre-existing conditions. Require that people with pre-existing conditions be allowed to buy any plan and the prices must go up; there’s no way it could not happen. Those without pre-existing conditions are subsidizing those who have such conditions.
Likewise for age. Companies are still allowed to charge more to older customers, but the size of the gap is now limited. So the young subsidize the old. (The old, of course, are much wealthier than the young on average.)
Some folks accuse the health insurance companies of “greed” and are glad that the companies are now legally limited in how they can set their rates. But greed isn’t really the reason for these decisions. A company’s profit margin may remain the same, regardless of whether or not it offers different rates to men and women, or to any two groups. But by offering different rates to men and women, the companies provide cheaper insurance to men than they would otherwise. Likewise by not selling a plan to those with pre-existing conditions, they offer cheaper insurance to those who don’t have pre-existing conditions. Some people might be a little bit peeved to hear that it was greed which allowed them to buy affordable insurance before the ACA, and that they now can’t.