• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Side Effects: The Catch 22 of Obamacare Risk Pools

    It was one of the most oft-repeated promises of Obamacare:  It will cover people, regardless of pre-existing conditions.

    But when it came time to make good on that promise, Congress came up short.  Yes, in 2014, the new law prohibits insurers from discriminating against pre-existing conditions—starting in 2014.  But what about the next four years?

    Lawmakers thought they’d patched that coverage gap by requiring the federal government to create high-risk pools to insure citizens with pre-existing conditions.  However, as the AP reports, “some vulnerable patients are probably going to feel a little cheated.” In other words, they didn’t quite get that bit right.

    The new pools will operate parallel to existing state high-risk pools. And, since they will be federally subsidized, the new pools will offer lower premiums.  Richard Popper, the director of Maryland’s high-risk pool, claims that “premiums in the new federal pool are expected to be 10 percent to 50 percent lower than current state rates”.

    Many of those in state high-risk pools struggle to pay the costly premiums, so these people can just switch over to the new, less expensive federal pools, right?  Nope.

    To keep the Obamacare cost estimate down (with this crowd, the driver was always a favorable CBO score, not intelligent policy), lawmakers included a requirement that people entering the new federal pools must have been uninsured for at least six months prior to enrolling.  So if you’re currently in a state high-risk pool, the only way to switch is to jump ship and go uninsured for six months.  Not a very appealing option for the very sick.

    This policy conspicuously punishes those who have tried to do the right thing by restricting their access to more affordable options than the current state high-risk pools.  But it may not be so for long.

    Congress allotted only $5 billion to run the federal high-risk pools.  According to the AP, Medicare economists predict that the program could spend $4 billion in its first year alone, running out of cash well before 2014.

    What then?  Well, it could mean that states will have to pick up the costs for the remaining years of the program.  Or it could mean patients using the pools will simply see their premiums skyrocket.  In other words, Obamacare could need a bailout before it even begins.

    There are much more effective ways to provide coverage for Americans with chronic conditions, as Heritage’s Ed Haislmaier outlines here.

    Posted in Obamacare [slideshow_deploy]

    4 Responses to Side Effects: The Catch 22 of Obamacare Risk Pools

    1. Joe - Virginia says:

      I praise God for the new high risk pools created for people like me, who have not had any access to health care whatsoever for atleast 6 months. I know its rough for the people in the current pools to know that they will have to pay more for them, but atleast they have had health care, whatever the cost.

      Living in Virginia, we have no state ran high risk pool and with my medical conditions I have been unable to obtain credible coverage through any insurer. Don't get me wrong, I wish everyone could have top of the line care at the most affordable rate possible, I really do.

      The new high risk pool has many pros, I am thankful a system is FINALLY being put into place for people like myself.

    2. jj says:

      It is a misnomer that people are without healthcare, some may be without insurance. My sister-in-law who lived in KY dropped her insurance coverage about 18 mos before going on Medicare. Lo and behold during that time she required several operations and treatments for various problems, she was never denied healthcare by any doctor, specialist, or hospital. People are confused by the healthcare bill, it has nothing to do with healthcare/treatment, but government wants control of the insurance industry and the medical profession and thereby control of it's people period.

    3. james , nev says:

      joe you sound the the people that grew up in the welfare state. The ones that think THE GOVNT owes them a living, medical care etc. I myself grew up in a time when there was no govnt help I.E food stamps, rent assistance, car allowances, motor voting, free medical care, where the people took care of each other! No one starved and and life was much better. All of you suck-whine types that want the GOVNT too take care of you is only on the back of the TAX PAYING WORKING PEOPLE.

    4. sailorpa says:

      WELL Joe you sound like a drain on society. I would guess that we who work have to pay your medical bills as well the increased cost of our own. We all will be paying 40% or more in income taxes within 10 years to pay for all these goverment takeover programs.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×