10-Year CHIP extension would save $6B

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that a 10-year extension of the Children’s Health Insurance Program would cut $6 billion from the deficit, since the program allows the federal government to avoid paying higher costs for alternate insurance obtained through federally-subsidized marketplaces (CBO Report, January 11, 2018).

The CBO and Joint Committee on Taxation had previously estimated that a five-year renewal for CHIP would add $0.8 billion to the deficit, down from its previous estimate of $8.2 billion. The change stems from Congress’s repeal of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) (P.L. 111-148) individual mandate. Without CHIP, parents would be more likely to seek federally-subsidized coverage offered through health insurance marketplaces set up by the ACA, and CBO expects that the individual mandate’s repeal will lead to lower enrollment and higher costs in those marketplaces (see Eliminating individual mandate lowers cost of CHIP funding, Health Law Daily, January 8, 2018).

A longer CHIP extension, through S. 1827 the Keep Kids’ Insurance Dependable and Secure Act of 2017, would yield even higher net savings, the CBO said in response to a question by Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-NJ). The KIDS Act would increase the deficit from 2018 to 2020, and decrease the deficit every year thereafter, because the federal matching rate for CHIP would decline from an average of 93 percent in 2019 to 70 percent in 2021 and subsequent years. Under the KIDS Act, the federal costs of insuring children through CHIP would decline as states pick up more of the costs, and would allow the government to avoid paying higher costs for alternative coverage through the marketplaces, Medicaid, and employment-based insurance.

Eliminating individual mandate lowers cost of CHIP funding

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) lowered its estimate of the deficit impact of legislation that would fund the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) for five years, finding that CHIP had become less expensive relative to the rising costs of providing alternative coverage through the federally-subsidized health insurance marketplaces (CBO Report, January 5, 2018).

Prior estimate

The CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation previously reviewed S. 1827, the Keep Kids’ Insurance Dependable and Secure Act of 2017, in October, finding then that it would add $8.2bn to the deficit. The new estimate finds that the bill, which would also change the federal matching rate for the program and state eligibility requirements, would only increase the deficit by $0.8 billion over the next ten years.

Individual mandate

The change stems from Congress’s repeal of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) (P.L. 111-148) individual mandate. Without CHIP, parents would have to seek alternative coverage, including federally-subsidized coverage offered through health insurance marketplaces set up by the ACA. Without the individual mandate, the CBO expects lower enrollment and higher costs for the insurance marketplaces, which increases the federal cost of enrolling a child in coverage through the marketplaces. The rising marketplace costs make CHIP a more cost-effective alternative to funding children’s health costs, the CBO found.

Webinar: Delay, Deregulate, Derail — Health Care Roiled by Actions of Trump and Congress

Since January, both President Trump and Republican leaders in Congress have talked about a three-step process for repealing and replacing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). While the first six months of the Trump administration has seen mixed results, its efforts to reign in or hold back regulations, combined with its delay in filling lower-level agency roles, has impacted regulatory review and issuance of new regulations. So, despite Congress’ inability to pass legislation to change parts of the ACA, there is still plenty for providers to be concerned about.

Join Associate Managing Editor Kathryn Beard, JD, on Wednesday, August 2, for this half-hour live webinar covering attempts by the Trump Administration and Congress to delay, deregulate, and derail significant parts of federal health policy. She will discuss the two “repeal and replace” bills, FDARA, and significant executive and regulatory actions taken by the Trump administration which directly impact ACA provisions.

Registration Link:

Highlight on Minnesota: Health plans’ red ink worst in a decade

Nonprofit insurers in Minnesota reported an operating loss of $687 million on nearly $25.9 billion in revenue for 2016, according to a trade group for insurers, the Minnesota Council of Health Plans. The financial results were the worst in a decade, with losses in both the state public health insurance programs and the marketplace where individuals purchase coverage for themselves.

Overall, revenue from premiums increased 4 percent over the prior year, while expenses increased 6 percent to $26.6 billion. State public programs accounted for more than half of the overall losses, followed by continued losses in the individual market. According to the report, on average, health insurers paid $763 per second for care. To pay those bills, insurers withdrew nearly $560 million from state-mandated medical reserves. The bulk of the financial losses reported did not result from the employer group and Medicare markets, which remained steady, and where most Minnesotans get health insurance.

In the individual market, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota said it lost $142 million for 2016, compared to a $265 million deficit the previous year. The decline mirrored the drop in enrollment, the insurer noted, rather than an improvement in the business. Over the last 10 years, health insurers returned a profit in seven. The numbers reported by the trade group focused solely on revenue and income from the health insurance business, as investment returns made by insurers were not counted in the numbers. Some saw hope in the overall numbers, however, noting that the market was not in a “death spiral,” as some health law critics have argued, because many insurers in 2016 saw slight improvements from the previous year.