04/09/2017

Understanding High-Risk Pools As Part Of Obamacare Replacement

Edmund Haislmaier, The Daily Signal

As House Republicans try to negotiate an agreement on the design of Obamacare repeal and replace legislation, specific elements are often referenced using shorthand terminology.

While understandable, this can result in confusion if the same (or similar) term is applied to different concepts.

An example is the term “high-risk pool,” which has recently been used as a shorthand reference for what are really three different concepts, depending on who is using the term.

Traditionally, the term “high-risk pool” refers to a separate arrangement under which insurance companies operating in a given market collectively subsidize (that is, pool) the extra costs for providing coverage to individuals who, because they are poor risks, have been refused coverage under standard policies.

In this construct, those individuals are given coverage that is separate and different from that obtained by other people in the general market.

However, the term “high-risk pool” has also been sometimes used as shorthand for two other related, but different, concepts.

One concept can be more accurately described as a “risk transfer pool.” Under this design, for a given market, each insurer’s claims experience is compared to the collective (that is, pooled) experience of the whole market.

Then, based upon an agreed formula, a portion of premium revenues are transferred from the insurers whose experience was significantly better than the norm to the insurers whose experience was significantly worse than the norm.

The idea is to adjust for potential selection effects so that an insurer is compensated if it attracts a larger than normal share of costly enrollees.

Thus, as with a traditional high-risk pool, under a risk transfer pool the cost of expensive enrollees is spread across all insurers in the market. However, unlike in a traditional high-risk pool arrangement, costly individuals aren’t given separate coverage.

In sum, the difference is that the latter concept involves moving money, but without also moving people into different coverage.

Finally, the third concept basically consists of relabeling publicly funded “reinsurance” and calling it “high-risk pool funding.”

Read full article



You May Also Like:

Senate Reaches Agreement To End Shutdown Without DACA Fix Haley Byrd, Weekly Standard

Get Rid Of U.S. Government Shutdowns Forever Ramesh Ponnuru, Bloomberg.com

Free Market Central Interview: This Noted Statistics Expert Says Inflation In 2018 Is Way Higher Than They're Telling Us—And It's Going To Get Worse [LISTEN] Free Market Central

Single-Payer Health Care Isn’t Worth Waiting For Sally C. Pipes, The Wall Street Journal

Who's Lying?: FBI Says 5 Months Of Texts "Lost," Yet IG Horowitz Says His Office Received Them In August Tyler Durden, ZeroHedge

Not Only Did Loretta Lynch Know In Advance Of Comey’s Findings On Hillary The DOJ Helped Comey Write His Memo Streiff, RedState

Adam Schiff Doesn’t Want FISA Memo Released Because He Thinks Americans Are TOO STUPID To Understand It [Watch] Joshua Caplan, Gateway Pundit

American History Shows That Expanding The Economy Benefits Everyone Amity Shlaes, City Journal

Will Supreme Court Now Act Against Judges' Campaign To Foil Trump Presidency? Seth Lipsky, New York Sun

Disability Rolls Tumble As Economy Gains Steam Investor’s Business Daily

Expansion Of ‘Free’ British Childcare Has Led To Rationing Through The Backdoor Kristian Niemietz, Institute of Economic Affairs

The Case For This Licensing Scheme Is Ridiculous -- But The Eighth Circuit Just Swallowed It George Leef, Forbes.com

State Democrats Fight To Protect Abused Wealthy Taxpayers From Their Own Misguided Tax Policies Tyler Tate, Americans for Tax Reform

Communist Propaganda Has Infiltrated More Than 100 US Colleges, Posing As Chinese Language Institute Brendan Pringle, Washington Examiner

Public School Was The Worst — Luckily I Had Options Clara M. Brashear, Foundation for Economic Education

Paging Doctor Marx? Theodore Dalrymple, Library of Law and Liberty

Do You Live In One Of These States That People Are Fleeing? Joe Jarvis, Daily Bell

Apple Just An Early Sign Of Tax Reform’s Long-Term Economic Boost Bret Swanson, American Enterprise Institute

For More go to the Home Page >>>

Join Our Email List



section

Bookshelf

FreeMarket Central

Some titles recent, all recommended -

Special Video Feature

FreeMarket Central

Voices From The 2017 International Students For Liberty Conference

section

In Search Of History

The Reagan Tax Cuts Worked

Thanks to "bracket creep," the inflation of the 1970s pushed millions of taxpayers into higher tax brackets even though their inflation-adjusted incomes were not rising. To help offset this tax increase and also to improve incentives to work, save, and invest, President Reagan proposed sweeping tax rate reductions during the 1980s. What happened? Total tax revenues climbed by 99.4 percent during the 1980s, and the results are even more impressive when looking at what happened to personal income tax revenues. Once the economy received an unambiguous tax cut in January 1983, income tax revenues climbed dramatically, increasing by more than 54 percent by 1989 (28 percent after adjusting for inflation).

 

-- Daniel J. Mitchell,

Shadow Stats Snapshot


FreeMarket Central

ShadowStats alternate economic indicators are based on the methodology of noted economist John Williams, specialist in government economic reporting.

  • Unemployment:
    FreeMarket Central BLS: 4.07%
    FreeMarket Central Shadow Stats: 21.7%
  • Inflation:
    FreeMarket Central December Year-to-Year: 2.20% (CPI-U*)
    FreeMarket Central Shadow Stats: 9.9%

*[cpi-u is the Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation rate for all urban consumers]

section