The U.S. Supreme
Court’s June 25th decision in King v. Burwell to maintain the premium subsidies created
by the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is viewed very differently across our state.
Some Utahns
described the King decision negatively.
Sen. Orrin Hatch
(R-UT) issued
a press release stating: “Obamacare has been a series of
broken promises from the start. From skyrocketing costs to less access to care
and more bureaucratic control of the healthcare system, the President’s law has
failed patients and taxpayers.”
Utah House Speaker
Greg Hughes reacted
this way: “This
administration’s damaging healthcare policy continues to undermine real
insurance markets and drive up the cost of healthcare, resulting in less access
to care for many of our nation’s most needy.”
Meanwhile, Salt Lake
City business owner and cancer survivor Victor Saldivar said
he was “extremely relieved” by the court’s decision to keep the subsidies. “Without
the subsidy, I am not sure what I was going to do. I was thinking of moving out
of my apartment and go live in my car to afford coverage.”
And Lisa
Patterson of Moab responded
to the news by saying, “Oh yes, yes, that is such good news. I feel like I’m
going to cry.” Sonja Blackham, who receives a premium subsidy to purchase health
insurance for herself and her husband, reacted to the decision by saying,
“I think it was the right decision and a good thing. I feel like there’s no
going back now… I don’t think they can just take it away now.”
So which is true
for Utah?
Are the ACA’s premium
subsidies “overwhelmingly harmful to the U.S. healthcare system,” as Rep. Chris
Stewart claims?
Or do they help real Utahns like Victor, Lisa, and Sonja stay insured and
healthy?
We think you
know where UHPP comes down on this issue.
Our West Valley
City office is a focal point for the Take
Care Utah enrollment network, which gives us an up-close perspective on how
access to affordable health insurance can improve the financial and health
security of Utah families. We recognize that some individuals and businesses
believe that the ACA is negatively impacting their choices or their
bottom-line. But when we investigate many of those stories, we learn that the
blame for their troubles should be placed elsewhere.
We also know
that last month’s Supreme Court decision was about a lot more than just premium
subsidies. It was about maintaining the trajectory of improving access to affordable
and quality health insurance in Utah and across the country. And those goals
matter to everyone. As a result, we’ve put together these five reasons why the
King v. Burwell decision matters to many more Utahns than the 86,000 who depend
on the subsidies for their coverage.
Here’s our list.
(1) Utahns will be able to keep their health insurance.
This one is
easy. The 86,000 Utahns who currently
receive premium subsidies will keep their insurance coverage. They will
continue to be able to see their doctor, receive treatments, access
prescription drugs, and get preventive care and check-ups. As of March 31 over 128,220 Utahans have
signed up for health insurance through healthcare.gov, and over two-thirds
receive subsidies—worth an average of $208 a month—to make their coverage more
affordable. In addition, Utah has the nation’s highest
percentage of children and young adults enrolled in ACA insurance in the
nation. 22% of all ACA sign-ups in Utah are by kids under age 18.
(2) More Utahns will be able to sign up when they need
health insurance.
Anyone who loses their insurance coverage
due to job loss, divorce, or moving to a new place can sign up for health
insurance to maintain continuous and affordable coverage. Plus, parents with
new babies can sign up their newborn and their entire family for new insurance.
Had the subsidies gone away, any Utahn who needed new insurance would have been
stuck without affordable options.
(3) The rest of the insurance marketplace will be more
stable and efficient.
Since all of the
marketplace (ie. ACA) insurance is sold by the same private insurers that offer
other individual and small-group policies, any disruption to the premium
subsidies would have hurt those insurers. This means that the 60% of Utahns
covered by employer-based insurance will experience fewer disruptions, rate
increases, and benefit cutbacks because the ACA subsidies are intact. Had the
subsidies been taken away, Utah
insurance companies and the Congressional
Budget Office had warned that the resulting turmoil would have increased
costs and cutbacks for the entire insurance marketplace.
(4) The legislature and governor can continue to work
on a solution to Utah's coverage gap.
On the last day
of the 2015 legislative session in March, lawmakers passed a
bill to create the so-called “Gang of Six,” a special group of policymakers tasked to negotiate
a solution to Utah’s coverage gap by a July 31 deadline. Written into the bill was
the suggestion that the upcoming King v. Burwell decision would factor into
their decision-making process. Now that
we know the premium subsidies are intact, the Gang of Six can negotiate a
coverage gap solution based on the reality of ACA insurance being available to
Utahns who earn enough to stay out of the gap.
(5) Even if you don't receive subsidies, the decision
preserves the ACA so that it will remain available in case you need them in the
future.
Although 62% of
Americans support
the Supreme Court decision to maintain premium subsidies, the same
poll shows that the percentage of people with a “favorable” opinion of the
Affordable Care Act is still below 50%. We can explain this discrepancy two
ways. First, acceptance of the ACA is still hamstrung by widespread
misinformation. Second, only about 10% to 15% of Americans directly benefit
from ACA insurance at any time. But here’s the silver lining. Even if you don’t need ACA insurance now, you
or a close family member might need
it in the future when you 1) retire early, 2) lose your job, 3) move to a
new state, or 4) start your own company. Plus, you’re already benefiting from
the ACA if you have a pre-existing
health condition, are insuring a young
adult under age 26, are age
40 or above, or receive
Medicare. Many people just don’t realize those new benefits are because of
the ACA. Over the long-term, we see the
ACA becoming more like the G.I. Bill, the landmark legislation first
passed by Congress in the 1940s to give returning service members access to low-cost
mortgages, loans, and tuition assistance. Not everyone benefited from the G.I.
Bill, but our society deemed it as a public policy worth supporting because of
its overall impact on our workforce, family structure, and economy. The ACA
does many of the same things for a specific portion of our society, and we
believe its benefits will also be recognized and supported.
