| Legislative
Update
STRS Ohio Legislative News
November 2009
Print a copy of the October newsletter.
Print a copy of the November newsletter.
Issues on Capitol Hill
Affordable Health Care for America Act Passes in House, Moves to Senate
On Saturday, Nov. 7, 2009, the U.S. House of Representatives narrowly passed its version of health care reform, H.R. 3962, by a vote of 220-215. Only one Republican, Rep. Joseph Cao (R-LA) voted for the bill. The overwhelming number of Democrats who opposed the bill represents districts that were won by Sen. John McCain in the 2008 presidential election, are freshmen, and/or are from districts that were previously Republican and are vulnerable in the next election. Ohio House members voted as follows: eight Democrats voted for the bill; eight Republicans plus Reps. Boccieri and Kucinich voted against the bill.
Ironically, the issue that brought conservative Democrats to an affirmative vote was an amendment presented by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) on the issue of abortion. The amendment would explicitly prohibit federal funding for abortions and also guarantee patients access to “pro-life” insurance plans that would not cover the procedure. The affirmative vote on this amendment, 240–190, allowed conservative Democrats to then vote for the full health care bill. This issue will be just as contentious in the Senate.
The primary features of the House bill would:
-
Require almost everyone to obtain health insurance.
-
Require employers to provide coverage to their workers or pay to contribute to such coverage.
-
Create an “exchange” through which those without employer-provided health insurance could purchase coverage.
-
Establish a government-run public option within the exchange to compete with plans offered by private insurers.
-
Expand Medicaid to cover those who are above the poverty level.
The Senate now becomes the main battleground. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (R-NV) has even less room to maneuver. With all Republicans firmly in opposition, Reid will need all 58 Democrats plus the 2 independents to support a vote for health care reform in the Senate to avoid filibustering by the opponents. Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CN) has already gone on record as a “no” vote on the bill if it contains a public option. The chamber has yet to bring its own blended bill to the floor for debate, and the two chambers will still need to negotiate and approve a final bill in the weeks ahead. For a comparison of the three bills, click here.
STRS Ohio staff is working with the Public Sector HealthCare Roundtable to identify the impact of some of the smaller provisions of the House and Senate proposals. While the details will likely change, any data we can provide in the debate about the impact on state and local plans will leverage our ability to advocate for modifications and improvements in the policy. Some of those key issues in the Senate versions are as follows:
High-Cost Plan Assessment: The Senate Finance Committee (SFC) bill includes a new assessment, effective 2013, on certain higher premium health benefits. The proposed 40% tax would be levied on health insurance companies and employers offering health care benefits with premiums exceeding a specified amount, which is indexed to general inflation.
– Health care benefits, for the purpose of the tax, include all employer-sponsored coverage (major medical, dental, vision and other supplementary health insurance coverage).
– In 2013, the threshold will be $8,000 for individual coverage and $21,000 for family coverage. (Note: Under a transition rule, the threshold amount is initially increased by 20% for the 17 “high-cost states” as determined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services based on 2012 data.) Thresholds will be increased annually at the rate of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for urban consumers plus 1%.
– The thresholds are different under two conditions: (1) if an individual is over the age of 55 and is retired (for both individual and family plans); and (2) if the individual is employed in a high-risk profession. Under these two circumstances, the threshold is increased by $1,850 for individuals and $5,000 for families.
– The tax is applied at a rate of 40% of the value of the benefits that exceed the thresholds.
– For self-insured plans, the tax is paid by the plan administrator.
– If there are multiple administrators and/or insurers providing the benefits subject to the tax, the administrators pay a pro rata share of the taxes. Their pro rata share is equal to the value of the benefits they provide as a percentage of the total value of all benefits provided. The employer is responsible for making these calculations and reporting the tax liability to each administrator.
– Employers are required to report the value of the employee benefits on W-2 statements.
Although the details of this assessment will likely change (and despite the fact that this proposal is not popular in the House of Representatives), it is important to develop an understanding of how this assessment would impact public purchasers, such as STRS Ohio.
Annual Fee on Insurance Providers (total: $6.7 billion): The chair’s mark provides for an across-the-board annual fee on insurance providers as defined by subchapter L of the tax code. For employers, the tax applies only to fully insured entities; ERISA plans are exempt. The mark clarifies that a federal, state and/or governmental entity is not a health insurance provider; however, an entity that underwrites for a governmental entity is a health insurance provider and would be subject to the tax.
Employer Responsibility: An employer mandate was not included in the SFC agreement. The chair chose to address employer responsibility by charging employers with 50 or more employees, who do not offer coverage, a fee for each employee receiving a subsidy through the exchange (also known as the “free-rider” assessment). The fee would be based on the national average premium subsidy and would be capped at $400/employee/year. Thus, an employer with 100 employees who does not offer coverage would not pay more than $40,000 per year in fees. The assessment would be levied as an offset to an employer’s tax liability, but because the public employers have no tax liability, it would be a new obligation. Since most public employers currently provide health care benefits for their employees, this is not a major new responsibility.
Cost-Containment Provisions Lacking in All Bills
Unfortunately, most of the focus of the congressional debate on health care reform has been on increasing the number of people covered through health care insurance. There is a lack of measurable cost-containment and system delivery reforms in the various proposed bills. The Public Sector HealthCare Roundtable has been working with other groups — including the National Coalition on Health Care (NCHC) — to urge Congress to improve these aspects of the various packages. At the moment, these conversations are focused on the Blue Dog Democrats in the House of Representatives and a group of moderate Democrats in the Senate led by Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA).
The NCHC, which was founded in 1990 and is non-profit and non-partisan, is comprised of more than 70 organizations, employing or representing about 150 million Americans. The coalition brings together large and small businesses, the nation’s largest labor, consumer, religious and primary care provider groups, and the largest health and pension funds. STRS Ohio was a member of this coalition at one time. NCHC has recently released a “white paper” that describes several of the ideas that are being discussed to ensure that health care reform is fiscally sustainable for both the public and private sectors by reducing the rate of increase in future health care costs. NCHC’s paper can be accessed at: http://www.nchc.org.
The Roundtable board of directors will meet immediately following passage of health reform legislation in both the House of Representatives and Senate to plan a strategy for the conference committee. It will be important for all members of the Roundtable to be engaged to have the most impact with legislators on behalf of the public sector providers.
Financial Market Reform Also Gets Attention in the House
On Nov. 3, The House Financial Services Committee approved an amendment reaffirming the Security and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) authority to issue a proxy access rule. The panel voted 39–30 to include the amendment, offered by Reps. Maxine Waters (D-CA) and Gary Peters (D-MI), in the Investor Protection Act (H.R. 3817), which the committee also approved the same day. The Council of Institutional Investors was active in supporting this provision, believing it would help deter unnecessary, costly and time-consuming litigation aimed at overturning an SEC proxy access rule and also encourage SEC Chair Mary Schapiro to press for commission approval of the agency’s pending access proposals. Business groups are considering filing a lawsuit to scuttle proxy access; the amendment, if enacted, would make it harder for a legal challenge to prevail. By a vote of 37 to 32, the committee also approved an amendment that would permanently exempt companies worth less than $75 million from the auditing provisions of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.
The Investor Protection Act, which passed on a 41-28 vote, would double the SEC’s budget over five years, beef up the agency’s enforcement powers, allow the SEC to end mandatory arbitration clauses in customer contracts, bring more investment advisers under the supervision of state securities regulators and create a whistle-blower bounty program. It also would harmonize fiduciary duty standards for both broker-dealers and investment advisors who provide investment advice.
The Council of Institutional Investors and public pension advocates have been pushing Congress and the administration to consider the following:
-
Provide the SEC and other federal regulators with adequate budget and staffing;
-
Require most over-the-counter derivatives contracts to be traded on exchanges;
-
Hold credit-rating agencies accountable for their assessments;
-
Create a Consumer Financial Protection Agency; and
-
Require public companies to adopt annual director elections, majority voting for directors, proxy access and other corporate governance best practices.
At the Statehouse
Casino Backers Finally Hit the Big One
For proponents of casinos in Ohio, the fifth time was the charm. Issue 3, the language on the Nov. 3 ballot proposing a constitutional amendment to allow four casinos in Ohio to be built in Columbus, Cleveland, Toledo and Cincinnati, was favorably passed with 53% of the voters after four previously failed attempts. With wide-ranging support, including the Fraternal Order of Police, many political observers viewed the measure’s passage being the result of a strong desire by its supporters to spur job creation.
The $200 million in licensing fees that will be generated by the casinos and headed for state coffers are creating other visions of sugar plums for state leaders. It has been reported that Gov. Ted Strickland is recommending at least a portion of the fees be used to restore the higher education co-op/internship program. Originally authorized by last session’s $1.57 billion job stimulus package, the Ohio Innovation Partnership fell victim to the budget ax when lawmakers cut $100 million from the fledgling initiative during this year’s budget negotiations. There was also some talk that the money could be used to help fill the $850 million budget hole that exists due to the stalled video lottery terminals (VLTs). The VLTs had been a potential source of revenue in this year’s biennial state budget, but were judged to be subject to a referendum by the Ohio Supreme Court in a case brought by VLT opponents. That action effectively made any revenue from them null and void for the current biennium. As a result of the court action, the Strickland administration has backed away from its pursuit of VLTs. Senate Finance Chair John Carey (R-Wellston) has indicated that trying to use funds that would come as a result of the casinos is not worthy of pursuing. He noted uncertainty regarding when the funds would be available and the lack of enabling legislation.
Pension Redesign Legislation Being Drafted
Following the September presentations to the Ohio Retirement Study Council (ORSC) by the five retirement systems, the recommendations were forwarded by Rep. Todd Book’s (D-McDermott) office to the Legislative Service Commission (LSC) for the purpose of drafting them into legislation. The ORSC requested the recommendations in late spring and, at its direction, were to encompass changes that would either bring the respective system back into compliance with the statutory 30-year funding requirement or would keep the respective system at 30 years.
In early November, STRS Ohio staff received a copy of a draft of the changes to Ohio Revised Code Section 3307, the statutes governing STRS Ohio. Staff is in the process of reviewing the language drafted by LSC. In the meantime, Mike Nehf, STRS Ohio executive director, and staff of the Governmental Relations Department have been meeting with legislators,. explaining to them the changes recommended by the board, why the changes need to be made, and the consequences if these recommendations or something close to them are not adopted by the Legislature.It is anticipated that a comprehensive piece of legislation that brings together all five systems’ recommendations will be available later this year or in the early part of 2010.
As mentioned previously, Book has asked for LSC to draft the changes and he is the lead sponsor of the legislation. His colleague on the Republican side of the aisle is Rep. Lynn Wachtmann (R-Napoleon), who is vice chair of the ORSC. Wachtmann is a name that should be familiar to those following pension issues as he has been involved with the systems over the course of the past decade. The Governmental Relations staff thought readers might find additional background information pertaining to these two gentlemen of interest. (The information below was taken from the Ohio House of Representatives official Web site and has not been edited.)
Rep. Todd Book (D-McDermott) of the 89th District is serving his fourth term representing voters in Scioto County and parts of Lawrence and Adams counties.
The West Portsmouth native and son of a trenching business operator and a homemaker received a bachelor’s degree in political science with honors from Western Michigan University. He then earned his law degree from the College of William & Mary’s Marshall-Wythe School of Law.
Rep. Book started practicing law back in the Portsmouth area after graduation and taught business law at Shawnee State University as an adjunct faculty member. He also became a business owner, starting Old Hickory Golf Co., Ltd. with his father. The business conducts golf outings using hickory-shafted clubs, period clothing and old-style golf balls.
In addition to his private business endeavors and his practice at the law firm of Harcha Book & Beck, LLC, Rep. Book keeps a busy schedule at the Statehouse. He chairs the Ohio House Rules and Reference Committee, and sits on the Civil and Commercial Law, Public Safety and Homeland Security, and Elections and Ethics committees. He’s also a member of several commissions and councils, and, in 2004, the Council of State Governments Midwestern Office selected Rep. Book as a fellow of the Bowhay Institute for Legislative Leadership.
Rep. Book stays extremely active in his community. He is a member of the Portsmouth Kiwanis, National Wild Turkey Federation, Scioto County Farm Bureau, Scioto County Catholic Social Services Board and the Salvation Army Advisory Board. He is also a member and an elder of the Portsmouth Second Presbyterian Church.
Rep. Book and his wife, Emily, live in McDermott. They have three children: Cassidy, Avery and Meredith.
Rep. Lynn Wachtmann (R-Napoleon) is currently serving his second term in the Ohio House of Representatives. He is no stranger to the Statehouse, having previously served in the Legislature as a state representative from 1985–1998 and a state senator from 1999–2006. He represents the 75th House District, which encompasses Henry, Paulding, Putnam and Van Wert counties as well as Adams Township in Defiance County.
In addition to his work as a legislator, Rep. Wachtmann is also president of Maumee Valley Bottling, Inc. and a partner in Culligan Water Conditioning. His experience has made him a committed advocate for business development and job creation in the district.
Rep. Wachtmann is a member of the National Rifle Association, the Ohio Right to Life Society, the Ohio Water Quality Association, the International Bottled Water Association Board of Directors, the Putnam County YMCA Board of Directors, the Ohio Farm Bureau, the Ohio Township Association, the National Association of Sportsmen Legislators, Ducks Unlimited, and Pheasants Forever. He has received numerous awards and honors for his work in government, including the Watchdog of the Treasury Award for every term he has served, as well as the Outstanding Freshman Legislator of the Year Award, the Ohio Right to Life Defender of Life Award, the National Retail Federation State Legislator of the Year Award, the Thomas Van Meter Outstanding Conservative Leadership Award, the Ohio Association of Ambulatory Surgery Centers State Legislator of the Year Award, the Ohio Association of Medical Equipment Services Legislator of the Year Award and the American Legislative Exchange Council Legislator of the Year Award.
A lifelong resident of Napoleon, Rep. Wachtmann graduated from Napoleon High School and the Four County Joint Vocational School. He and his wife, Trudy, have two children.
How the House and Senate Health Care Bills Compare
Measure |
House |
Senate HELP (Health, Education, Labor and Pensions) Committee |
Senate Finance Committee |
| Individual Mandates |
Would include mandate.
Penalty: 2.5 percent of adjusted gross income over a certain level, which is $9,350 for singles and $18,700 for couples.
Exempt those with incomes below the above-mentioned thresholds, American Indians, people with religious objections and people who can show financial hardship. |
Would include mandate.
Penalty: Up to $750 a person a year.
Exempt American Indians and those who can show financial hardship. |
Would include mandate.
Penalty would be phased in gradually: $200 a person in 2014; $400 in 2015; $600 in 2016; and $750 in 2017.
Exempt American Indians, people with religious objections, those who can show financial hardship, households with incomes lower than 133 percent of the federal poverty level ($29,327 for a family of four) and people who would have to pay more than 8 percent of their income to buy the lowest cost plan available to them. |
| Employer Contributions |
Would require employers with annual payrolls of $500,000 or more to provide health insurance or pay a new federal tax.
Employers would have to contribute at least 72.5 percent of the premium cost for individuals and 65 percent for families for the lowest cost plan that meets the minimum benefit requirements set by the government.
Penalty: Up to 8 percent of wages in payroll taxes. Employers with payrolls of $500,000 to $750,000 would pay 2 percent to 6 percent of wages, and those with payrolls above $750,000 would pay the full 8 percent.
Employers that offer health insurance must automatically enroll employees into the lowest cost plan available. But employees may opt out of employer coverage. |
Would require employers with more than 25 workers to contribute at least 60 percent of the premium costs, or
Pay a $750 penalty for each full-time worker and $375 for each part-time worker. |
Would not require employers to provide coverage. Employers with more than 50 workers would have to reimburse the government for some or all of the cost of subsidies provided to full-time employees who work 30 or more hours a week and buy insurance on their own through the exchanges.
Penalty: Up to $400 for each worker in the company, whether they are receiving subsidies for insurance or not.
Employers with 200 or more employees must automatically enroll employees into health insurance plans offered by the employer. Employees may opt out of employer coverage, however, if they are able to demonstrate that they have coverage from another source.
Individuals who qualify for Medicaid could choose to leave an employer’s insurance plan and enroll in Medicaid, in which case the employer would not be required to pay a fee.
Employers who buy coverage for their employees through the proposed exchanges must offer a plan with a deductible that does not exceed $2,000 for individuals and $4,000 for families, unless they contribute funds to offset deductibles above these limits. |
| Insurance Exchange |
Would create a national exchange. Allows states to opt out and operate their own exchange if they follow federal rules.
Open to people who do not have qualifying coverage through an employer or a public program.
Open to employers with 25 or fewer employees in the first year, 50 or fewer in the second year and 100 or fewer in the third year. The exchange could be expanded to larger employers over time, “with the goal of allowing all employers access.”
Until the exchange is established, a temporary program would provide health coverage to “those who have been uninsured for several months or denied a policy because of pre-existing conditions.” |
Would create state-based exchanges. Allows states to form regional exchanges.
Open to people who do not have qualifying coverage through an employer or a public program.
Open to employers with 50 or fewer
employees. |
Would create state-based exchanges for individuals and small employers by 2010.
Open to citizens or legal immigrants who do not have qualifying coverage through an employer or a public program. Verification of legal immigration status would be required to buy insurance through a new exchange.
For the first five years, the exchanges would be open to employers with 50 or fewer employees, but states could choose to allow companies with 100 or fewer workers to participate.
Starting in 2015, states must allow
businesses with 100 or fewer workers to buy insurance through the exchange. States can choose to allow larger businesses to participate in the exchanges starting in 2017.
Starting in 2015, states would be permitted to opt out of certain requirements set by the legislation through a waiver process, as long as the state plan does not add to the federal deficit and provides coverage that is as comprehensive as the coverage required under an exchange plan. |
| Public Plan |
Would create a new government insurance plan that would negotiate rates with doctors and hospitals, rather than using Medicare rates set by the government.
The public plan would have to offer different levels of benefits, covering between 70 to 95 percent of health care expenses.
Like private plans, the public plan must offer the same benefits, comply with the same insurance market reforms, follow provider network requirements and other consumer protections. The plan would not provide abortion coverage.
Health care providers would not be required to participate in the plan. But the bill assumes that providers participating in Medicare are participants of the public plan, unless they opt out.
The government would allocate $2 billion in start-up money but the public plan must be financially self-sustaining. The bill would require premiums, paid by beneficiaries, to cover the plan’s cost. The government would also provide loans to start up non-profit insurance cooperatives to compete with private insurers and the public plan.
The legislation would also create a public long-term-care program that would provide cash assistance — not less than an average of $50 per day — to people who become disabled. The program would be financed through premiums deducted from paychecks of people who choose to participate. Workers would have to contribute for at least five years before they can collect benefits. |
Would create a new government insurance plan that would negotiate rates with doctors and hospitals.
The plan must offer the minimum package of benefits prescribed by the government, but states can choose to offer additional benefits.
Like private plans, the public plan must offer the same benefits, comply with the same insurance market reforms, follow provider network requirements and other consumer protections.
Health care providers would not be required to participate in the plan.
The public plan’s cost must be covered by premiums.
The legislation would also create a public long-term-care program that would provide cash assistance to people who become disabled. The program would be financed through premiums deducted from paychecks of people who choose to participate. |
Would create private, nonprofit, consumer-run insurance cooperatives in states.
The co-ops would be required to meet the same guidelines as private plans regarding benefit levels, insurance market reforms and other consumer protections.
The co-ops must use their profits to lower premiums and improve benefits and the quality of health care provided to members.
The co-ops could negotiate collectively for better prices, but they would be “explicitly prohibited from setting payment rates for health care facilities and providers.”
The government would provide $6 billion in loans and grants by 2012 to help doctors, hospitals, businesses and other groups form the cooperatives. |
| Subsidies for Individuals |
Would provide credits for premium costs and other health care expenses to citizens or legal immigrants who buy insurance through the exchange. Verification of legal immigration status would be required to receive subsidies.
Households with incomes up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level ($88,200 for a family of four) would be eligible to receive premium credits, if they pay specified percentages of their income toward the premium. Premium contributions would range from 3 percent to 12 percent depending on the income. People with insurance from employers would be eligible for the credits if the cost of their premium exceeds 12 percent of their income.
The proposal would also offer cost-sharing subsidies and reduce out-of-pocket spending limits for those under 400 percent of the poverty level. |
Would provide credits for premium costs to citizens or legal immigrants who buy
insurance through the exchanges.
Households with incomes up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level would be eligible, with those at the lower end receiving more.
People with insurance from employers would be eligible for the credit if the cost of their premium exceeds 12.5 percent of their income. |
Would provide credits for premium costs and other health care expenses to people who buy insurance through the exchanges. Only citizens or legal immigrants can buy insurance through the exchanges.
Beginning in 2013, households with incomes between 134 and 300 percent of the federal poverty level ($29, 547 to $66,150 for a family of four) would be eligible, with those at the lower end receiving more.
Starting in 2014, households with incomes between 100 and 133 percent of the poverty level ($22,050 to $29,327 for a family of four) would be eligible for the credits.
People with incomes between 300 and 400 percent of the poverty level ($66,150 to $88,200 for a family of four) would not have to pay more than 12 percent of their income in premiums.
The proposal would also make cost-sharing subsidies available for households with incomes between 100 and 200 percent of the poverty level ($22,050 to $44,100 for a family of four) and reduce out-of-pocket spending limits for those under 400 percent of the poverty level. |
| Subsidies for Employers |
Would provide tax credits to employers with 25 or fewer workers and average wages of $40,000 or less.
The credit would not be allowed for employees earning more than $80,000 a year. The amount, up to 50 percent of premium costs, phases out as firm size and average wages increase.
Would spend $5 billion from 2013 to 2015 to subsidize employer-sponsored health plans covering early retirees ages 55 to 64. The federal government would cover 80 percent of the cost of a retiree’s medical claims of more than $15,000, with a cap at $90,000 — at which point the employer’s plan would pay the rest. |
Would provide tax credits to employers who have 50 or fewer workers and who pay at least 60 percent of their employees’ health insurance premiums.
Eligible employers would be able to receive the credit for only three consecutive years. The credit phases out as firm size and average wages increase.
Would subsidize employer-sponsored health plans covering early retirees ages of 55 to 64, until the proposed state exchanges are
established. The federal government would cover 80 percent of the cost of a retiree’s medical claims between $15,000 and $90,000. |
Would provide tax credits to employers with 25 or fewer workers and average wages of $40,000 or less. An employer would have to contribute at least 50 percent of the total premium for an employee’s coverage or at least 50 percent of the average premium cost for small businesses in the employer’s state.
The full credit would be available to employers with 10 or fewer workers and average wages of $20,000 or less. The amount phases out as firm size and average wages increase.
In 2011 and 2012, all qualifying employers could receive up to 35 percent of their contribution to a worker’s insurance premium.
Starting in 2013, only employers buying insurance through the proposed exchanges can receive a tax credit for two years that covers up to 50 percent of their premium contribution.
Would spend $10 billion over 10 years to subsidize employer-sponsored health plans covering early retirees ages 55 to 64. The federal government would cover 80 percent of the cost of a retiree’s medical claims between $15,000 and $90,000. |
| Expanding Medicaid |
Would include all individuals with incomes up to 150 percent of the federal poverty level ($33,075 for a family of four). The program currently covers millions of low-income older Americans, people with disabilities, pregnant women, children and some parents. Childless adults are generally not eligible.
The federal government would pay all the costs for those who are newly eligible for the first two years and 91 percent of the costs after that.
The legislation would end the Children’s Health Insurance Program, which benefits children of the working poor. Children with family incomes up to 150 percent of the poverty level would receive coverage through Medicaid. Families with higher incomes would receive subsidies to buy coverage through the exchange. |
Assumes expansion of Medicaid to include individuals with incomes up to 150 percent of the poverty level. The committee does not have authority over Medicare and Medicaid, which are under the Finance Committee’s jurisdiction. |
Would include all individuals with incomes up to 133 percent of the poverty level, starting in 2014.
The federal government would pay most of the new costs — anywhere from 77 percent to 95 percent — with a higher share in poorer states, until 2019.
In “high-need states,” where the percentage of Medicaid enrollment is below the national average and unemployment rates were 12 percent or higher in 2009, the federal government would pay 100 percent of the new costs until 2019. Only four states meet the criteria: Michigan, Nevada, Oregon and Rhode Island.
States would have the option to create a “basic health plan” for people earning between 133 and 200 percent of the poverty level ($29,327 to $44,100 for a family of four), who are not eligible for Medicare or Medicaid and who do not receive coverage through an employer. States could develop or expand various existing insurance programs that now typically cover people who qualify for Medicaid; small states could develop joint plans. Qualifying individuals living in states that choose to operate these plans could not receive the proposed federal subsidies through the exchanges. States would receive 85 percent of the money that would have been paid as subsidies to finance the plans. |
| Defining Benefits |
Would require the basic benefits package to cover 70 percent of the health care spending covered by the plan. Consumers would pay the remainder, in deductibles, co-payments and other charges. The plan would cap out-of-pocket health care spending to $5,000 for an individual and $10,000 for a family.
Insurers could choose to cover or not cover abortion as they see fit. But people who receive federal subsidies to buy insurance cannot choose a plan that includes abortion coverage. Federal tax dollars can only be used for abortion as allowed by current law, in case of rape or incest or if the life of a pregnant woman is in danger.
Insurers could not deny coverage because of a person’s pre-existing conditions. Variation in premiums is limited. Maximum difference in premiums based on age is 2 to 1 (for oldest group, compared with young adults).
The legislation would also revoke the exemption from federal antitrust law that health insurance companies have long enjoyed. It would outlaw price-fixing, bid rigging and “market allocations” by companies that sell health insurance or medical malpractice insurance.
Insurance plans covering children and their parents would have to continue “dependent coverage” for children through age 26. Rules and age limits for dependents under employer plans currently vary by state.
Besides the basic plan, the legislation would create three other levels of coverage to be offered through the health insurance exchange, covering up to 95 percent of costs. The Congressional Budget Office says the actuarial value of policies bought in the individual insurance market now averages 55 percent to 60 percent. |
Would require the basic benefits package to cover 76 percent of the health care spending covered by the plan. The plan would cap out-of-pocket health care spending to $5,950 for an individual and $11,900 for a family.
Insurers could not deny coverage because of a person’s pre-existing conditions. Variation in premiums is limited. Maximum difference in premiums based on age is 2 to 1.
Insurance plans covering children and their parents would have to continue “dependent coverage” for children through age 25.
Rules and age limits for dependents under employer plans currently vary by state.
Besides the basic plan, the legislation would create two other levels of coverage to be offered through the exchanges, covering
84 percent and 93 percent of the costs of the plans. |
Would require the basic benefits package to cover 65 percent of the health care spending covered by the plan. The plan would cap out-of-pocket health care spending to $5,950 for an individual and $11,900 for a family.
The basic plan would not be required to provide abortions but insurers could choose to cover or not cover abortion as they see fit. Health plans that chose to cover abortion could use only the premium money and co-payments contributed by beneficiaries to cover the procedure, and not any federal subsidies. Tax dollars could not be used to pay for abortions except in cases of rape or incest or if the life of a pregnant woman was in danger.
Insurers could not deny coverage because of a person’s pre-existing conditions. Variation in premiums is limited. Maximum difference in premiums based on age is 4 to 1.
Besides the basic plan, the legislation would create three other levels of coverage to be offered through the health insurance exchange, covering between 70 percent to 90 percent of costs. The proposal would also offer the option of lower-cost insurance to those 25 and younger, with protection only against the costs of catastrophic illness. |
| What Will It Cost |
About $1.05 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office, to provide coverage to 36 million people. The costs would be fully offset by cuts in the growth of Medicare and by new fees and taxes. The bill would reduce projected federal budget deficits by $104 billion over 10 years.
Earlier versions of the bill in the House included provisions to avert cuts in Medicare fees to doctors, scheduled to occur under existing law. Those provisions, which would cost more than $200 billion over 10 years, were put into a separate bill. |
About $611 billion, according to an early, incomplete estimate by the budget office. The Finance Committee is expected to propose expansions to Medicaid that would add several hundred billion dollars to the legislation’s cost, depending on how it is designed. |
About $829 billion, according to the budget office. The costs would be fully offset by cuts in the growth of Medicare and by new fees and taxes. The bill would reduce projected federal budget deficits by $81 billion over 10 years.
The government would spend $11 billion to avert the scheduled cuts in Medicare fees to doctors. |
| Raising Revenue |
Would raise $460 billion over 10 years by imposing an income surtax on high-income people — couples with adjusted gross
incomes over $1 million a year and individuals over $500,000 — at a rate of 5.4 percent.
Would raise about $100 billion with various other revenue provisions, which include a 2.5 percent excise tax on the medical devices sold for use in the United States, a $2,500 cap on contributions to health care flexible spending accounts and elimination of the tax deduction for employers who receive federal subsidies for providing retiree prescription drug coverage. |
Does not include financing proposals. The health committee does not have authority over taxes, Medicare or Medicaid. |
Would impose $13 billion in new annual fees on some sectors of the health care industry. The fees, allocated by market share, would include: $6.7 billion a year on insurance companies, $4 billion a year on manufacturers of medical devices and $2.3 billion a year on drug makers.
Impose an excise tax of 40 percent on
insurance companies and insurance
administrators for any health insurance plan that is above $8,000 for individuals and $21,000 for families, applied to premium amounts over the threshold. |
| Cutting Costs |
Would raise more than $400 billion over 10 years by trimming Medicare payments to hospitals and most other health care providers. Cut nearly $200 billion in subsidies for insurers that offer the elderly private plans through Medicare Advantage. (The government pays about 14 percent more for the private plans than it would pay for the same people in traditional Medicare.)
Demand better prices from drug makers participating in Medicare and Medicaid.
The Institute of Medicine at the National Academy of Sciences would conduct two studies and recommend changes to the
current Medicare reimbursement system. In the first, the institute would analyze geographical disparities in Medicare rates and send recommendations to be
implemented by the secretary of health and human services. The other would assess whether to tie Medicare payments to quality of care. Those recommendations would be subject to a vote in Congress. |
Does not include financing proposals. The health committee does not have authority over taxes, Medicare or Medicaid. |
Would reduce Medicare payments to
hospitals and most other health care providers. Cut subsidies to private Medicare Advantage plans.
The proposal would link Medicare payments to the quality of care provided, under a new system of “value-based purchasing.” |
| Sources: U.S. House of Representatives, U.S. Senate, New York Times |
|