• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Just because you believe it, that doesn’t make it true.

The gop is a fucking disgrace.

Motto for the House: Flip 5 and lose none.

Some judge needs to shut this circus down soon.

I really should read my own blog.

Jesus, Mary, & Joseph how is that election even close?

You can’t love your country only when you win.

Hi god, it’s us. Thanks a heap, you’re having a great week and it’s only Thursday!

Republicans: The threats are dire, but my tickets are non-refundable!

Chutkan laughs. Lauro sits back down.

Shut up, hissy kitty!

I’d try pessimism, but it probably wouldn’t work.

Hot air and ill-informed banter

Innocent people don’t delay justice.

Let’s not be the monsters we hate.

A thin legal pretext to veneer over their personal religious and political desires.

The new republican ‘Pastor’ of the House is an odious authoritarian little creep.

Despite his magical powers, I don’t think Trump is thinking this through, to be honest.

JFC, are there no editors left at that goddamn rag?

Prediction: the gop will rethink its strategy of boycotting future committees.

White supremacy is terrorism.

Republicans choose power over democracy, every day.

We need to vote them all out and restore sane Democratic government.

The Giant Orange Man Baby is having a bad day.

Mobile Menu

  • Four Directions Montana
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • COVID-19 Coronavirus
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2024 Elections
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Anderson On Health Insurance / Levels and spreads

Levels and spreads

by David Anderson|  October 11, 201811:55 am| 4 Comments

This post is in: Anderson On Health Insurance

FacebookTweetEmail

The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services just issued a press release trumpeting a decrease in the benchmark premiums for the individual market plans sold on Healthcare.gov.

the average premium for the Second Lowest Cost Silver Plan (SLCSP) is expected to drop by 1.5 percent.

This brings up a good example of the conflict between levels and spreads. Average premiums across the county went up by about 3%.

If average premiums went up and a specific subset of plans went down, that implies other plans went up faster than the overall aggregate increase in premiums. If this situation was for anything other than the benchmark plan it would be a meaningless idiosyncrasy. However it is the benchmark plan.

Subsidies are tied to the level of the benchmark plan. The subsidy is the gap filler between an individual’s expected contribution and the final premium. If an individual buys a plan that is less expensive than the benchmark, they get a dollar for dollar in the premium that they pay. If an individual buys a plan that is more expensive than the benchmark, they pay the entire incremental increase in premium.

If the benchmark decreases and other plans increase, this means that the plans that are less expensive than the benchmark in 2018 are still less expensive than the benchmark in 2019 but the gap is smaller. A smaller gap means higher premiums that the individual pays every month. For plans that are more expensive than the benchmark, the lower benchmark and higher everything else implies higher net of subsidy premiums for the buyer as well.

Lower benchmark premiums in the context of generally higher premiums for everything else is good for the federal government’s budget and potentially good for a small subset of off-exchange buyers but it is either neutral or higher premiums for everyone else.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Thursday Mid-Day Open Thread
Next Post: Untreated Mental Illness is Not a Joke. Nor a Political Statement. »

Reader Interactions

4Comments

  1. 1.

    FelonyGovt

    October 11, 2018 at 1:16 pm

    Just signed up for Medicare and, coming off a Covered California (Affordable Care Act) plan, I was unpleasantly surprised by how much I’m going to need to pay for decent coverage under Medicare. This is really tricky stuff.

  2. 2.

    Dorothy A. Winsor

    October 11, 2018 at 1:39 pm

    @FelonyGovt: Yeah, people think it’s free. Not so.

  3. 3.

    lamh36

    October 11, 2018 at 2:20 pm

    Hey David, been meaning to pick your brain bout something. I’ve got this term paper to write for my Health Care Economics class. I’ve finally settled on a subject matter.

    I’d like to write my on the effect of the new Protecting Access to Medicare Act (PAMA), that went into effect on Jan 1, 2018. PAMA called for the new market-based payment schedule that could cut Medicare/Medicaid payments for lab services up to 30%.

    My paper would explore the effects on the laboratory and some ways laboratories are adjusting to the new fee reimbursement realities.

    Course the problem is, it is often very hard to get information about new policies since they have not been around long enough for people to write about them scientifically.

    And in fact, the majority of the information available on the impact of PAMA on laboratory are all theoretical analysis based on the pre-PAMA pricing being compared to the “expected” pricing. There is one recent study with information from the 1st quarter of the current year, that was just published by the National Independent Laboratory Association, where they “conducted eleven key informant interviews with selfselected representatives from community and regional independent clinical laboratories.”

    https://www.nila-usa.org/images/nila/PAMA%20Key%20Informant%20Summary_FINAL.pdf

    I’d like to focus on the PAMA changes, but so far, there isn’t much current empirical data on the effects of it since it only took effect 10 months ago.

    I ran the topic by my professor, and he said to go ahead with my proposal (have 2 weeks to submit a proposal on the paper), but to make sure to present it as predictive rather that factual?

    I’d love to know if you know of any other links or resources I can turn to that may have some more info…or at the very least the most up to day info from before PAMA went into effect, I figured I’ll have to end up basically comparing the solid empirical figures from before to the “expected” figures that lab mgr pros are expecting…

    Any resources ya can send me, I’d really appreciate it…you can get send me an email, the other FPers have emailed me before.

    Thanks in advance

  4. 4.

    piratedan

    October 11, 2018 at 2:30 pm

    @lamh36: its funny, once upon a time, the lab was a revenue generator for hospitals, nowadays, based on reimbursement limits, I wonder if that is still the case… I’ve never seen a cost analysis done on how much money it takes to run a test versus what they are paid for providing that data. No one ever seems to be able to account for the cost of the instrumentation, the networking of said instrument to an application and a network and the training of staff it takes to run the test, the reagents used by the instrument to perform the calculations to derive the result, the staff it takes to obtain and deliver said specimen to the lab itself. There are a boatload of things that have to happen before a specimen is even obtained and that never appears to be considered when all of these arbitrary dictates come down from on high regarding who will pay what for any said item.

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

Recent Comments

  • Martin on Wednesday News Roundup, A Little Late (Apr 18, 2024 @ 1:03am)
  • NotMax on Wednesday News Roundup, A Little Late (Apr 18, 2024 @ 1:02am)
  • eclare on Wednesday News Roundup, A Little Late (Apr 18, 2024 @ 1:01am)
  • Jay on Wednesday News Roundup, A Little Late (Apr 18, 2024 @ 12:54am)
  • Chet Murthy on Wednesday News Roundup, A Little Late (Apr 18, 2024 @ 12:54am)

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Balloon Juice Meetups!

All Meetups
Talk of Meetups – Meetup Planning
Proposed BJ meetups list from frosty

Fundraising 2023-24

Wis*Dems Supreme Court + SD-8
Virginia House Races
Four Directions – Montana
Worker Power AZ
Four Directions – Arizona
Four Directions – Nevada

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
Positive Climate News
War in Ukraine
Cole’s “Stories from the Road”
Classified Documents Primer

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Mailing List Signup
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)

Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Balloon Juice for Ukraine

Donate

Twitter / Spoutible

Balloon Juice (Spoutible)
WaterGirl (Spoutible)
TaMara (Spoutible)
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
ActualCitizensUnited

Political Action 2024

Postcard Writing Information

Balloon Juice for Four Directions AZ

Donate

Balloon Juice for Four Directions NV

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2024 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!