Right now, the ACA requires a lot of preventive care to be covered with no cost-sharing. This legal requirement is intended to reduce the barriers to accessing care that likely has substantial long term value but little short term value that can be captured by insurers. However, ACA opponents have sued to have this requirement be rendered moot as they contend that the Department of Health and Human Services overly relies on a non-executive branch board to declare what services are required to be no cost sharing.
The likely dire consequences if Texas Judge O’Connor and his conservative judicial colleagues strike down the ACA’s required first-dollar coverage for preventive services.https://t.co/2dVMuZv3gm
— Harris Meyer (@Meyer_HM) March 8, 2023
We have an incentive issue.
Right now, insurers cover these services because they have to. The judge might remove the have to. If there is no change in incentives, there is a legitimate fear that a lot of policies will stop offering no-pay preventive care services. And once that happens, uptake for vaccinations and screenings will collapse because price is a major barrier for some populations and preventive care service utilization when there are cost-sharing requirements is an excellent predictor of higher than expected/risk adjusted utilization.
There is a way to make preventive care services a “want to” offer service rather than a “have to” offer service. Incorporating procedure codes associated with these services into the risk adjustment formula would create financial motivations for insurers to aggressively deliver these services. Risk adjustment in the ACA is zero sum, so insurers that pay for a lot of these services will get money from insurers that don’t pay for a lot of these services. Conversely, insurers that place a lot of barriers to accessing preventive care will be paying other insurers. On a first blush static analysis, this should have minimal, if any premium impact, but rejiggering incentives by changing risk adjustment is a first pass plausible policy response to this lawsuit.
Eolirin
Can the executive branch unilaterally make that change or would it require legislation?
Anonymous At Work
If Judge O’Connor shoots down the preventive care requirement, he’ll shoot down changing the risk adjustment formula to protect the poor oppressed insurance CEOs scrapping by on 10-digit salaries. Right now, student loan forgiveness might be tossed using the Major Question doctrine. If SCOTUS does that, how much of ACA is vulnerable?
kindness
Can we petition to boot Texas from the US? I’d sign it even though there are a lot of good folk in Texas. I’m tired of their politicians & judges ruining it for the rest of us.
Anonymous At Work
@kindness: There’s a bill in the state lege there to put secession on the ballot in 2024 to explore the process. If we want it to pass, we just have to hope no one notices that Ted Cruz would become a citizen of the Republic of Texas.
Beatrice Fitzpatrick
@kindness: yup
David Anderson
@Eolirin: Executive branch administrative action…. this is 3rd level political appointee level work.