• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Congressional Hearing Highlights Need to Repeal CLASS

    Last week, Kathy Greenlee, the Assistant Secretary for the Administration on Aging, was placed in the uncomfortable position of defending the unworkable CLASS Program in front of the House Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee. Her task was made all the more difficult from recent remarks made by Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and by Sen. Max Baucus (D–MT), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.

    At a Senate Finance hearing in February, Sebelius stated, “While the law outlined a framework for the CLASS Act, we determined pretty quickly that it would not meet the requirement that the act be self-sustaining and not rely on taxpayer assistance.”

    Moreover, at a separate Senate Finance hearing this week, Senator Baucus stated, “I was not in favor of the CLASS Act, let me tell you, for all the reasons people decry it.”

    Congressional discontent surrounding CLASS is actually nothing new. During the Obamacare debate, six Democratic Senators plus Sen. Joe Lieberman (I–CT) expressed “grave concerns that the real effects of (CLASS) would be a new federal entitlement with large, long-term spending increases that far exceed revenues.”

    If there was widespread discontent, including among many congressional Democrats, why was CLASS bundled into Obamacare? The reason is that CLASS made the official budget score of the bill sweeter in the eyes of its authors. This is because of the program’s five-year vesting period, when premiums are paid in but no benefits are paid out. Over a 10-year window (the period the Congressional Budget Office uses to assess legislation), the vesting period made CLASS appear to reduce the deficit. The improved budgetary projection that CLASS’s insertion had on Obamacare provided cover for many skeptical lawmakers to support the legislation and certainly contributed to its ultimate passage.

    The insertion of CLASS into Obamacare as a budget gimmick makes this particular program worse. There are many underlying problems with CLASS. To start, everyone who earns over $1,200 a year in wages can enroll. Moreover, unhealthy individuals and healthy individuals of the same age must pay the same premium. This makes the program look much more attractive to individuals in poor health or individuals who already have disabilities.

    The design problem gets even worse. Individuals who earn below the federal poverty line are required to pay a monthly premium of only $5. In order for the program to be funded solely by participants’ premiums, they will have to be cross-subsidized with much higher premiums for individuals who earn above the poverty line. This will further discourage healthy individuals from enrolling.

    Sebelius claims that she has broad authority to change the minimal earnings requirement. She wants this authority in order to limit the number of already disabled individuals enrolling so to protect the program’s integrity. However, on March 15, the Congressional Research Service released a letter that strongly questions the Secretary’s authority to increase the minimal earnings threshold.

    Another serious problem mentioned at the hearing by health economist Joe Antos of the American Enterprise Institute and actuary Allen Schmitz of the CLASS Act Task Force is the extreme uncertainty surrounding how high to set the initial premiums for participation. This is because no product like CLASS has ever been offered in the private market. Indeed, a firm that cares about its bottom line would likely never introduce such a financially irresponsible product.

    To illustrate, experts have come to very different estimates of what initial premiums would have to be in order for the program to remain fiscally solvent. For example, the Office of the Actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services estimates an initial premium twice as high as what the Congressional Budget Office estimates. If these agencies had used identical benefit amounts, it would have been closer to three times as high.

    Despite the fact that the Administration acknowledges that CLASS is “unsustainable” and has not yet released a blueprint for “fixing” the program, President Obama is requesting $120 million in fiscal year 2012 to market CLASS. Greenlee mentioned 35–40 different places HHS can change the CLASS program, but she offered no specific proposal at the hearing. Indeed, Greenlee indicated that a final plan might not be released until October 2012, which is actually when CLASS is supposed to be open for enrollment. There is little evidence that the Secretary can fix CLASS, because she does not have the legal authority, and the basic program framework is simply unfixable.

    The private market already offers long-term care insurance products, and millions of Americans purchase them. There is not a market failure here that requires government to create a product to compete with private long-term care policies. On the contrary, government should look at the underlying problem of why not enough individuals purchase long-term care insurance. If government looks in the mirror, it may realize that Medicaid plays a substantial role in crowding out the demand for private long-term care insurance. The underlying problem is the fault of government, not the market.

    Posted in Obamacare [slideshow_deploy]

    3 Responses to Congressional Hearing Highlights Need to Repeal CLASS

    1. Pingback: Congressional Hearing Highlights Need to Repeal CLASS | Big Propaganda

    2. Lee McSpadden Versai says:

      Can anyone confirm if the following is true?


      This would change everything and should be retroactive!

      No one has been able to explain to me why young men and women serve in the

      U.S. Military for 20 years, risking their lives protecting freedom, and only

      get 50% of their pay. While politicians hold their political positions in

      the safe confines of the capital, protected by these same men and women, and

      receive full pay retirement after serving one term. It just does not make

      any sense.

      Monday on Fox news they learned that the staffers of Congress family members

      are exempt from having to pay back student loans. This will get national

      attention if other news networks will broadcast it. When you add this to the

      below, just where will all of it stop?

      35 States file lawsuit against the Federal Government

      Governors of 35 states have filed suit against the Federal Government for

      imposing unlawful burdens upon them. It only takes 38 (of the 50) States to

      convene a Constitutional Convention.

      This will take less than thirty seconds to read. If you agree, please pass

      it on.

      This is an idea that we should address.

      For too long we have been too complacent about the workings of Congress.

      Many citizens had no idea that members of Congress could retire with the

      same pay after only one term, that they specifically exempted themselves

      from many of the laws they have passed (such as being exempt from any fear

      of prosecution for sexual harassment) while ordinary citizens must live

      under those laws. The latest is to exempt themselves from the Healthcare

      Reform… in all of its forms. Somehow, that doesn't seem logical. We do not

      have an elite that is above the law. I truly don't care if they are

      Democrat, Republican, Independent or whatever. The self-serving must stop.

      Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution: "Congress shall

      make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not

      apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall

      make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does

      not apply equally to the citizens of the United States ."

    3. Garry , California says:

      As a Heritage Member recieving the truth regarding important issues, it is clear that Obama Care screams to be repealed. The intrusion and unsustainability are sreious concerns. I also ,agree with the concept of the proposed 28TH Ammendment.

    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.