|
The first
analysis looks at the House plan’s provisions that would
enhance the tax credits available to people who purchase their own health
coverage on the marketplace, both for people already eligible for tax
credits and for those currently ineligible at higher incomes facing high
premiums due to their age and location. The higher tax credits would end
after two years.
It finds that the vast
majority of the nearly 14 million people already insured through the
individual market would see lower premiums under the proposal, and could
potentially use the premium savings to buy plans with lower deductibles.
Most of the roughly 15 million uninsured people who could buy coverage
through the Marketplace would be eligible for new or bigger subsidies.
The group likely to see
the biggest drop in premiums are those who make just above 400% of the
federal poverty rate ($51,040 for an individual), who are not eligible
for marketplace tax credits under current law and face a “subsidy cliff”
as they may pay the full cost of coverage.
The analysis finds about
8 million people, including both insured in the non-group market and
uninsured people eligible to buy on the Marketplace, do not currently
receive tax credits. Many would be subject to the subsidy cliff under
current law, but some may have incomes high enough that they wouldn’t
qualify for tax credits under the House plan either.
Tax credits would still
be tied to age and geography, so the people who would see the largest
benefits under the proposal would be older Americans living in
high-premium areas such as Wyoming, West Virginia, South Dakota,
Nebraska, Connecticut, and Alabama.
The Congressional Budget
Office (CBO) and Joint Committee on Taxation project that the enhanced
premium tax credits in the House proposal would increase federal deficits
by $34.2 billion over 10 years.
The second analysis
illustrates the potential impact on state spending under the House plan’s
provision temporarily increasing the federal share of traditional
Medicaid spending for two years in states that have not expanded their
Medicaid programs if they were to do so.
It finds that the
two-year boost in federal funding would more than offset the new state
costs to implement the Medicaid expansion during that period. After the
two years, states would continue to receive the 90% match for the
expansion group and their regular match, without the increase, for the
traditional population. CBO estimates that the option could increase
federal spending by a net of $15.5 billion over the 2021-2030 period and
do not assume that all states will adopt the new option.
If the House proposal
becomes law, 14 states could be eligible for the enhanced match: Alabama,
Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina,
South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin, and Wyoming, as well as
Missouri and Oklahoma, which adopted the expansion via ballot initiative
but have not yet implemented it.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment