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:

Reports: North Korean State Media Announced Nuclear Program Shutdown Frances Martel, Breitbart

North Korea Announced The Suspension Of Nuclear And Missile Tests, But What Does That Really Mean? Kemberlee Kaye, Legal Insurrection

The Kevin Williamson Saga Reveals The True Colors Of Journalists Joe Simonson, The Daily Caller

Make the Tax Cuts Permanent [Watch] The Editors, Natinoal Review

Liberal Senators’ Push to Investigate Sinclair Chilling Attempt To Silence Speech Armstrong Williams, The Daily Signal

Delusions Of Justice Joel Kotkin, City Journalo

Barbara Bush's Subversive Secret To Happiness Andrew Ferguson, The Weekly Standard

What Cowardice Looks Like: More On The Philadelphia Starbucks Controversy Christopher DeGroot

How North Korea’s Hackers Became Dangerously Good Timothy W. Martin, The Wall Street Journal

Trump, Don’t Be Fooled, North Korea May Be Laying A Trap For You [Watch] Harry J. Kazianis, Fox News

Are Republicans Draining Or Filling The Swamp? Chris Talgo and Lennie Jarratt, , American Thinker

TOTAL LOSERS: DNC Suing Trump Campaign, Russia, And Wikileaks For Colluding To Win 2016 Election Matt Vespa, Townhall

NY Times Reporter: Male Hillary Clinton Staffers Directed Sexist Comments At Me Alex Griswold, The Washington Free Beacon

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 March Year-to-Year: 2.21% (CPI-U*)
    FreeMarket Central Shadow Stats: 9.9%

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

section