References for King v. Burwell decision impact

Leave a comment

February 28, 2015 by Tony Novak

This is the impressive bibliography used by Edmund F. Haislmaier in his 2/20/2015 article for The Heritage Foundation about the possible impact of the King v. Burwell decision.

[1] 26 U.S. Code § 36B(b)(2)(A). Nevada, New Mexico, and Oregon are all building state-based exchanges while still using the federal Healthcare.gov platform. Proponents as well as opponents of the ACA assume that those states would be treated as having state-based exchanges for purposes of the Supreme Court’s eventual decision in King v. Burwell. Consequently, those three states are not included with the 34 FFM states in analyses of the effects of the Court’s ruling.

[2] Linda J. Blumberg, Matthew Buettgens, and John Holahan, “The Implications of a Supreme Court Finding for the Plaintiff in King vs. Burwell: 8.2 Million More Uninsured and 35% Higher Premiums,” Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, January 2015,http://www.rwjf.org/content/dam/farm/reports/issue_briefs/2015/rwjf417289 (accessed February 18, 2015).

[3] U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, “Health Insurance Marketplace: Summary Enrollment Report for the Initial Annual Open Enrollment Period, for the Period: October 1, 2013–March 31, 2014 (Including Additional Special Enrollment Period Activity Reported through 4-19-14),” May 1, 2014,http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/2014/MarketPlaceEnrollment/Apr2014/ib_2014Apr_enrollment.pdf (accessed February 18, 2015).

[4] Brett Norman, Rachana Pradhan, and Joanne Kenen, “Administration Admits Obamacare Enrollment Numbers Error,” Politico, November 21, 2014, http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/inflated-obamacare-enrollment-dental-113064.html (accessed February 18, 2015).

[5] Data compiled from: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, “Health Insurance Marketplace 2015 Open Enrollment Period: January Enrollment Report For the period: November 15, 2014–January 16, 2015,” January 27, 2015http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/2015/MarketPlaceEnrollment/Jan2015/ib_2015jan_enrollment.pdf (accessed February 18, 2015); U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, “Health Insurance Marketplace 2015: Average Premiums After Advance Premium Tax Credits Through January 30 in 37 States Using The Healthcare.gov Platform,” February 9, 2015, http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/2015/MarketPlaceEnrollment/APTC/ib_APTC.pdf (accessed February 18, 2015); and HHS.gov/HealthCare, “Open Enrollment Week 12: January 31, 2015–February 6, 2015,” February 11, 2015, http://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/facts/blog/2015/02/open-enrollment-week-twelve.html (accessed February 18, 2015).

[6] Given that plausible arguments can be made for why the eventual 2015 attrition rate might be either higher or lower than the 2014 rate, it seems reasonable to use the 2014 rate.

[7] Blumberg, Buettgens, and Holahan, “The Implications of a Supreme Court Finding for the Plaintiff in King vs. Burwell.”

[8] Evan Saltzman and Christine Eibner, “The Effect of Eliminating the Affordable Care Act’s Tax Credits in Federally Facilitated Marketplaces,” RAND Corporation, 2015,http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR900/RR980/RAND_RR980.pdf (accessed February 18, 2015).

[9] David Blumenthal and Sara R. Collins, “The Supreme Court Decides to Hear King v. Burwell: What Are the Implications?” The Commonwealth Fund Blog, November 7, 2014,http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/blog/2014/nov/the-supreme-court-decides-to-hear-king (accessed February 18, 2015).

[10] Edmund F. Haislmaier and Drew Gonshorowski, “Q3 2014 Health Insurance Enrollment: Employer Coverage Continues to Decline, Medicaid Keeps Growing,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 2988, January 29, 2015, http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2015/pdf/BG2988.pdf.

[11] Blumberg, Buettgens, and Holahan, “The Implications of a Supreme Court Finding for the Plaintiff in King vs. Burwell.”

[12] Saltzman and Eibner, “The Effect of Eliminating the Affordable Care Act’s Tax Credits in Federally Facilitated Marketplaces.”

[13] ASPE January Enrollment Report, Appendix Table B5.

[14] The authors also modeled other follow-on interactions, most of which generate relatively modest additional effects. The second-largest effect is derived from their assumption that “if the share of young adults fell by 1 percentage point, total enrollment among older adults and children would fall by about 0.71 percent.” Applying that calculus yields a projected enrollment decline of a further 910,000 individuals.

[15] Blumberg, Buettgens, and Holahan, “The Implications of a Supreme Court Finding for the Plaintiff in King vs. Burwell.”

[16] U.S. Government Accountability Office, “Concentration of Enrollees Among Individual, Small Group, and Large Group Insurers From 2010 Through 2013,” December 1, 2014,http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/667245.pdf (accessed February 18, 2015).

[17] Specifically, Heritage only counted those carriers in each state with 1,000 or more individual-market enrollees in 2013, on the assumption that carriers with few covered lives in 2013 were no longer actively writing new individual-market policies. Heritage’s methodology also has the effect of making the resulting comparison much more favorable to the ACA. See Alyene Senger, “Measuring Choice and Competition in the Exchanges: Still Worse than Before the ACA,” Heritage Foundation Issue Brief No. 4324, December 22, 2014, http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2014/pdf/IB4324.pdf.

[18] Ibid. The paper includes tables reporting state-level insurer completion as measured using both the GAO and Heritage Foundation methodologies.

[19] The four states with increased insurer competition that operate state-based exchanges are Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, and Washington.

[20] Blumenthal and Collins, “The Supreme Court Decides to Hear King v. Burwell.”

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: