apo sildenafil cmi doxycycline to treat strep throat how to delete old email address on iphone 6 click https://sdchirogroup.com/savings/generic-viagra-from-india-pharmacy/33/ brutus antony speech essay smith essay https://aaan.org/indications/can-you-take-atorvastatin-and-nexium-together/27/ go site enter sildenafil 1a pharma 100 mg https://willcoxwinecountry.org/linkedin/filipino-thesis-questionnaire-sample/47/ homework help sites for parents importing viagra into australia illegal academic professional resume go to site essay writing for esl source site coursework traduo oration on the dignity of man thesis gnstige alternative zu viagra clomid substitute problems education essay go to site choose the career essay essay writing terms go to site follow link cialis pewny sprzedawca oferty recette viagra naturel source el viagra tiene vencimiento AB 8 requires individual health insurance carriers to accept virtually all applicants for coverage (a practice called “guarantee issue”). Because it empowers the Major Risk Medical Insurance Board (MRMIB) to establish criteria which would divert three-to-five percent of applicants to a high risk pool MRMIB manages, there’s a small safety valve. But it is small indeed — too small to avoid creating dramatically higher premiums and increasing the number of uninsured among self-employed and unemployed Californians.
Health insurance is about spreading risk. Insureds who incur lower than average claims subsidize those who incur higher than average claims. Why? Because the “healthier” group expects their costs to be covered if they’re ever on the subsidized end of the equation.
But if individuals know they can get coverage as soon as they need it, why would they buy it when they’re healthy? A system that incents healthy individuals to forgo coverage, but encourages those incurring heavy expenses to buy insurance is called adverse selection. It can devestate a health care market and AB 8 is a recipe for doing just that.
This isn’t just theory. In Kentucky when a guarantee issue market was created 45 carriers left the market and premiums skyrocketed. Things got so bad Kentucky lawmakers had to reverse their “reforms.” In Maine, guarantee issue, along with other reforms, means only one carrier offers individual coverage. Significantly, even after the state agency regulating rates approved rate increases totaling 124 percent over six years, the lone carrier left in Maine still loses money in this market segment.
Then there’s New York and New Jersey. As noted in an earlier post, citizens of those states pay, on average, a “health care reform surcharge” of 350 percent. That’s how much more the average annual premiums in those states exceed the average annual premium in California. Adverse selection will do that.
There’s other ways AB 8’s mandate to sell provision could increase premiums in the individual market. For example, it could result in non-Californians facing surgery or expensive treatment to establish residency in the state just tenuous enough to qualify for coverage. (It appears even opening a California-based post office box might work). Once the treatment is completed, they could “move” back to their home states having paid a fraction of the cost of their care. The majority of their medical expenses would be paid by Californians in the form of higher premiums. And as premiums increase it would make it economically attractive for even more individuals to drop their coverage until they need it, increasing the amount of adverse selection in the system and driving costs up further. The process would repeat in a death spiral that could undermine the entire system.
The problem with AB 8, as it is in Maine, New York and New Jersey, is its creation of a mandate to sell coverage without a corresponding and enforceable requirement that consumers buy coverage. Guarantee issue, when coupled with mandates to purchase, could go a long way toward achieving universal coverage. This is precisely what Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger proposed and it’s what the California Association of Health Underwriters calls for in their Healthy Solutions plan. Another previous post describes how Healthy Solutions approach to guarantee issue would help mitigate against the adverse selection and higher premiums AB 8 will create.
The proponents of AB 8 are not trying to increase premiums and encourage people to drop their coverage. Unfortunately, as written, the legislation is likely to have that very result. Let’s hope supporters of the bill will slow down and enable the Legislature to reconsider some of its provisions before Californians pay the unintended consequences.