begin quote from:
Older people would pay more, AARP says
Older people would pay more under new health care bill, AARP says
GOP health care plan clears first hurdle 00:48
Story highlights
- AARP estimates older people would pay significantly more than they do now
- The influential group doesn't believe more young people would enter the market
- A conservative seniors group is in favor of the legislation and its offer of patient choice
(CNN)One of the nation's most influential domestic policy groups said Thursday that the health care bill making its way through Congress would put the cost of insurance far out of reach for many more Americans.
"This will make health care less secure and less affordable," said Nancy LeaMond,
AARP's executive vice president. "No one believes the current health
care system is perfect, but the American Health Care Act is not the
answer."
The AARP, which supported Obamacare, sent a critical letter to Congress on Tuesday (PDF). Among other issues, the
group does not like the part of the bill that changes the ratio for
what insurance companies can charge customers based on age.
Under
Obamacare, insurance companies can charge up to three times more for
someone older -- and more likely sicker -- compared with their younger,
and presumably healthier, counterparts.
The
new legislation would allow insurers to charge older customers up to
five times as much as younger customers. The bill gives states the
latitude to change that ratio, so states like Vermont, which has a 1 to 1
age rating, can keep their arrangements.
An AARP analysis (PDF)
says that if you are younger, you may pay less, but if you are older
and get your insurance on the individual market, you could be spending a
lot more.
For
example, for a 55-year-old making $25,000 a year, premiums could go up
to $3,600. Currently, a nonsmoker in Atlanta who bought a moderate plan
called a silver plan would spend $1,700 per year for
premiums. That's about 7% of household income, compared with 14% under
the new legislation, according to the analysis.
For
a 64-year-old, it would get even more expensive. For someone making
$25,000 a year, premiums could go up to $7,000 a year, according to the
AARP's analysis. Currently, a nonsmoker living in Phoenix who bought a
silver plan is spending $1,700 per year for premiums. That's nearly 7%
of income with current subsidies and age ratios, compared with 28%,
according to this analysis.
And
for a 64-year-old whose take-home pay was even less, health insurance
would become significantly more expensive, according to the AARP
analysis. A 64-year-old who makes $15,000 a year and buys a policy on
the individual market would probably spend $8,400 on premiums a year:
more than 56% of their income.
These are "increases the American people cannot afford," LeaMond said.
And
although the new legislation would not include a return to the
pre-Obamacare days when companies could refuse to sell a policy if a
person had a pre-existing condition, an insurance company could charge
that person 30% more if they have a two-month gap in coverage. That
means older adults could be spending even more than the AARP analysis
says.
The costs could be even
higher for older people in regions such as California's Bay Area, where
the cost of living is higher. The new legislation would give Americans a
flat amount for subsidies to buy coverage based on their age, as
opposed to their income and the cost of insurance in their area, as with
Obamacare.
The
idea behind the change in age ratio is to entice more young people into
the insurance market, GOP lawmakers say. With younger and likely
healthier people in the market, the cost of insurance for everyone
should go down, but the AARP doesn't think that will happen. Its models
show the change in price probably would not encourage young people to
buy insurance.
A separate analysis
by S&P Global also suggests that premiums would significantly
increase for older people, driving many of them out of the market. The
report estimates that up to 10 million people could lose their coverage
under the new legislation.
The
AARP said it has other concerns about the legislation, such as weakened
Medicare and Medicaid and a tax break for drug companies.
"Drug
companies and special interests get a sweetheart deal" in the plan,
LeaMond said, yet the legislation does nothing to lower the cost of
prescription drugs. The Trump administration has said lower drug prices would be a legislative priority.
The nation's leading hospital and doctors' groups also spoke against the bill. The American Medical Association wrote (PDF)
in a letter to House committee leaders that it could not support the
bill because of the "expected decline in health insurance coverage and
the potential harm it would cause to vulnerable patient populations."
The American Hospital Association and the Federation of American
Hospitals also oppose the measure.
At
least one group, the Association of Mature American Citizens, a
conservative group founded by a former insurance agency owner, praised
the legislation as a great "first step" in the efforts to repeal
Obamacare and said the legislation will "put the power of health care
choices back into the hands of patients." It praised the bill's
expansion of health savings accounts and the repeal of the individual
mandate, which requires all Americans to get insurance.
Although
the GOP has vowed to get the legislation through Congress quickly,
whether Americans will like it is uncertain. Polls have showed that most
Americans think lowering what individuals pay for health care should be
a "top priority" for Congress and President Trump, according to the Kaiser Foundation. The majority, 61%, thought lowering the cost of prescription drugs should be a priority as well.
The
Trump administration said it supports the bill. On Wednesday, White
House spokesman Sean Spicer shrugged off any opposition from the medical
establishment.
"We
would love to have every group on board," Spicer said. "This isn't
about figuring out how many special interests in Washington we can get
paid off. It's about making sure that patients get the best deal that
lowers prices and brings back cost."
No comments:
Post a Comment