Senate bill's fine print: Premiums could rise in spite of caps

Kaiser Health NewsOctober 29, 2009 

WASHINGTON -- Proponents of the Senate Finance Committee's health care bill say the legislation will limit the amount that lower- and middle-income people must pay for health insurance to a maximum of 12 percent of their incomes.

There's a catch, however: The fine print shows that, over time, the premium costs could rise well beyond those caps. That's because the cost of coverage would shift from a percentage of income to a percentage of the premium, no matter how high the premiums go.

Because premiums generally rise faster than wages, consumers getting subsidies would pay a larger percentage of their incomes toward premiums over time.

The provision means slower-growing subsidy costs for the government, however. That tradeoff reflects the difficult balancing act lawmakers face as they try to hold down the bill's overall price tag while also trying to provide financial help to millions who'll be required to have coverage, but may not be able to afford it.

The first year the legislation would take effect, people getting subsidized coverage would be required to pay from 2 percent to 12 percent of their incomes for insurance. The government would pick up the rest of the tab. People with lower incomes would pay less and those with higher incomes more.

In the second year, however, the premium changes. From then on, it is based on a percentage of the premium that was paid the first year, no matter how far premiums rise.

For years, health insurance premiums have risen faster than wages, and the trend is expected to continue.

"People are going to have to keep paying more and more," says Judith Solomon, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a nonpartisan Washington research group that looked at the effect in a recent paper.

The way the subsidies are indexed, she says, has so far taken a backseat to a larger debate among lawmakers, budget hawks, consumer advocates and others that's more focused on the size of the subsidies -- and how much of their income people should initially be forced to put toward coverage.

Solomon's paper offers an example of a family of three making 220 percent of the federal poverty level, or about $40,282. In the first year, the family would be required to pay 8 percent of its income for premiums, or $3,223. That amount represents 29 percent of $11,083, the average 2009 cost of high deductible family coverage offered by employers.

Let's assume in subsequent years that the family's income kept pace with inflation and they remained at 220 percent of the federal poverty level. They would continue to pay 29 percent of the cost of the premium. Because premiums are likely to rise faster than inflation, however, Solomon's analysis found, the family's cost would soon rise above 8 percent of their income.

Since 1999, insurance premiums have jumped 131 percent, while wages increased 38 percent, according to a survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation. (KHN is a program of the Foundation.) This year, the average premium for all family policies rose about 5 percent, to $13,375 annually, the foundation reported, while workers' wages rose 3.1 percent.

Robert Laszewski, president of the consulting firm Health Policy and Strategy Associates in Arlington, Va., says the indexing makes it harder for Congress to meet President Barack Obama's goals of providing affordable coverage.

"The president has promised health insurance security for the middle class, but there are problems with that," he said. "The first is the size of the subsidies to start with. And apparently, the way that Senate Finance has structured the plan, the subsidies as a percentage of income will dwindle each year."

All the major bills before Congress have subsidies for people under 400 percent of poverty, which is currently $73,240 for a family of three. They all link the amount people getting subsidies would have to pay to a percentage of their income in the first year.

The Finance Committee provision would help hold down the amount of federal subsidies needed, by shifting more of the growth in costs to consumers over time. Already, subsidies represent about $450 billion of the estimated $900 billion price tag of the legislation over 10 years.

"They did this to make subsidies a little cheaper," says Karen Pollitz, research professor at the Health Policy Institute at Georgetown University. "But it means that if you're (a low-income policyholder) struggling in the first year, it will get harder and harder unless we have some massive breakthrough in cost containment" and the growth of premiums slows.

(Kaiser Health News, an editorially independent news service, is a program of the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan health care policy-research organization that isn't affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.)


Kaiser Family Foundation survey of employer health benefits

Coverage of the health care debate

Side by side comparison of health care bills


Pelosi unveils House version of health care bill

Health bills in Congress won't fix doctor shortage

Americans cutting back on health care to save money

Senate health care bill would reduce deficit, analysis finds

Rove-Dean health care debate punctuated by name calling

Follow the latest politics news at McClatchy's Planet Washington

McClatchy Newspapers 2009

McClatchy Washington Bureau is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere in the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

Commenting FAQs | Terms of Service