Search

OBJECTIVES: The 2021 American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) increased the availability and magnitude of premium tax credits (PTCs) for consumers purchasing individual marketplace plans in 2021-2022. Millions currently purchase PTC-ineligible plans off of the marketplace. We estimate the proportion of off-marketplace enrollees who would be eligible for the expanded PTCs under ARPA, calculate PTC amounts for eligible enrollees, and examine factors influencing plan choice that could inform outreach efforts. STUDY DESIGN: We analyzed data from a survey of a random sample of off-marketplace enrollees in California in 2017 (n = 829). METHODS: Using survey data including self-reported income, household size, and employment status combined with 2021 benchmark premium data from Covered California, we estimate eligibility for PTCs and potential PTC amounts under ARPA among off-marketplace enrollees. We adjust for both survey design weights and poststratification weights. RESULTS: Among off-marketplace enrollees, we estimate that approximately 12% are potentially ineligible for PTCs because they reported incomes less than 100% of the poverty level or because they had access to employer-sponsored coverage for their family through themselves or their partner. The median annual PTC in 2021 for eligible off-marketplace enrollees was $311 but varied greatly by age, family or individual plan, and household income (5%-95% range, $0-$14,836). In 2017, 69% of off-marketplace enrollees were unaware that they had to enroll in marketplace plans to receive PTCs, and 51% received enrollment assistance from insurance brokers. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest the need for targeted outreach to encourage off-marketplace enrollees to switch to marketplace plans. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The tax penalty for noncompliance with the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate is to be eliminated starting in 2019. We investigated the potential impact of this change on enrollees' decisions to purchase insurance and on individual-market premiums. In a survey of enrollees in the individual market in California in 2017, 19 percent reported that they would not have purchased insurance had there been no penalty. We estimated that premiums would increase by 4-7 percent if these enrollees were not in the risk pool. The percentages of enrollees who would forgo insurance were higher among those vdth lower income and education, Hispanics, and those who had been uninsured in the prior year, relative to the comparison groups. Compared to older enrollees and those with two or more chronic conditions, respectively, younger enrollees and those with no chronic conditions were also more likely to say that they would not have purchased insurance. Eliminating the mandate penalty alone is unlikely to destabilize the California individual market but could erode coverage gains, especially among groups whose members have historically been less likely to be insured. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The Affordable Care Act (ACA) introduced reforms to mitigate adverse selection into and within the individual insurance market. We examined the traits and predicted medical spending of enrollees in California post-ACA.Data Sources: Survey of 2,103 enrollees in individual market plans, on- and off-exchange, in 2014.Study Design: We compared actual versus potential participants using data from the 2014 California Health Interview Survey on respondents who were individually insured or uninsured. We predicted annual medical spending for each group using age, sex, self-rated health, body mass index, smoking status, and income.Principal Findings: Average predicted spending was similar for actual ($3,377, 95 percent CI [$3,280-$3,474]) and potential participants ($3,257 [$3,060-$3,454]); however, some vulnerable subgroups were underrepresented. On- versus off-exchange enrollees differed in sociodemographic and health traits with modest differences in spending ($3,448 [$3,330-$3,565] vs. $3,175 [$3,012-$3,338]).Conclusions: We did not find evidence of selection into the overall insurance pool in 2014; however, differences by exchange status reflect the importance of including off-exchange enrollees in analyses and the pool for risk adjustment. California's post-ACA individual market has been a relative success, highlighting the importance of state policies and outreach efforts to encourage participation in the market. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Affordable Care Act includes financial assistance that reduces both premiums and cost-sharing amounts for lower-income Americans, to increase the affordability of health insurance coverage and care. To receive both types of assistance, enrollees must purchase a qualified health plan through a public insurance exchange, and those eligible for the cost-sharing reduction must purchase a silver-tier plan. We estimate that 31 percent of individual-market enrollees in California who were likely eligible for financial assistance purchased plans that were not silver tier or that were not sold on the state's exchange and thus missed opportunities to receive premium or cost-sharing assistance or both. Lower-income enrollees who chose plans not eligible for subsidies had two to three times higher odds of reporting difficulty paying premiums and out-of-pocket expenses during the year, compared to those who chose eligible plans. Regardless of how the structure of the individual market evolves in the coming years, efforts are likely needed to steer lower-income enrollees away from financially suboptimal plan choices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Consumer-directed health plans are plans with high deductibles that typically require patients to bear no out-of-pocket costs for preventive care, such as annual physicals or screening tests, in order to ease financial barriers and encourage patients to seek such care. We surveyed people in California who had a consumer-directed health plan and found that fewer than one in five understood that their plan exempted preventive office visits, medical tests, and screenings from their deductible, meaning that this care was free or had a modest copayment. Roughly one in five said that they had delayed or avoided a preventive office visit, test, or screening because of cost. Those who were confused about the exemption were significantly more likely to report avoiding preventive visits because of cost concerns. Special efforts to educate consumers about preventive care cost-sharing exemptions may be necessary as more health plans, including Medicare, adopt this model. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]