Los Angeles Times

Trump’s disastrous war on the ACA

- Nicholas Bagley isa professor of law at the University of Michigan. By Nicholas Bagley

The Trump administra­tion has declared war on the Affordable Care Act. With its decision to end critical subsidies, it has thrown the exchanges into chaos on the eve of open enrollment; it has imperiled the full faith and credit of the United States; and it will cause a massive increase in federal spending.

This is no way to run a healthcare system, and no way to run a government.

The subsidies in question — known as cost-sharing payments — have been mired in controvers­y for years. The ACA requires insurers in the individual market to limit what they can ask their poorer enrollees to pay out of pocket for medical care. Otherwise, deductible­s and co-pays would be unmanageab­le for the low-income population. In exchange, the ACA says that the federal government “shall” reimburse insurers for the money they lose from cutting their low-income customers a break.

But there’s a glitch. The Constituti­on says that money can’t be drawn from the Treasury unless Congress has appropriat­ed the money. And by law, an appropriat­ion law has to “specifical­ly state that an appropriat­ion has been made.” A promise to pay, by itself, doesn’t cut it.

Therein lies the problem.

The ACA doesn’t appropriat­e the money to make the payments. It’s silent on the matter.

Back in 2013, the Obama administra­tion asked Congress to appropriat­e the money for the cost-sharing payments. The Republican-controlled Congress refused. Concerned for the fate of its healthcare bill, the Obama administra­tion then adopted a dubious legal theory that allowed it to make the payments even in the absence of a clear appropriat­ion from Congress.

Incensed, the House sued the administra­tion. A federal court ruled in the House’s favor, but put its opinion on hold to allow the Obama administra­tion to appeal.

That’s where matters stood when President Trump took office. At that point, he decided that the threat of withholdin­g the payments would give him leverage in negotiatio­ns over repealing and replacing Obamacare. “You’ve got a lot of nice people with insurance there, Democrats,” he might as well have said. “It’d be a shame if something happened to them.”

Ten months later, Trump has followed through on his threat, claiming to finally appreciate that the payments cannot lawfully be made. But the constituti­onal rhetoric is pure pretext. Ending the cost-sharing payments is only the most visible manifestat­ion of a systematic campaign to sabotage the ACA.

The administra­tion has slashed funding for groups that help people enroll. It has gutted the ad budget for HealthCare.gov. And it has signaled that it won’t vigorously enforce the mandate requiring Americans to purchase insurance.

More alarming, Trump on Thursday ordered agency officials to create loopholes for insurers to evade the ACA’s regulation­s. The president, for example, wants to allow insurers to sell more short-term plans that offer cheap but threadbare coverage. That move would siphon healthy people from the exchanges, driving up premiums for those who are left behind.

Ending the cost-sharing payments will exacerbate the problem. Insurers across the country, moreover, may decide they’ve had enough and that it’s not worth doing business with a feckless federal partner. As insurers withdraw, competitiv­e pressures will ease and prices will rise. In some areas, it’s possible that no insurers at all will remain in the market.

If you think the federal government will at least save some money — well, it won’t.

To compensate for the loss of cost-sharing payments, insurers that continue to sell on the exchanges will have to increase premiums for their mid-tier “silver” plans. Because Obamacare subsidies that help customers afford their premiums — which are not part of the appropriat­ions battle — are tied to the price of silver plans, their size will increase in lockstep with the rise in premiums.

The end result will be a big uptick in federal spending. In fact, the Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that cutting the cost-sharing payments will lead federal outlays to increase by $2.3 billion in 2018.

At the same time, insurers will sue the federal government to recover the cost-sharing payments that they’re owed. Those lawsuits are almost certainly viable — and they’ll be huge. This year, cost-sharing will amount to about $7 billion; obligation­s of similar size will accrue through 2018 and beyond. The question isn’t whether the insurers will be paid. It’s when.

If Congress wanted to, it could immediatel­y appropriat­e the money for the cost-sharing payments. That would stanch the bleeding and restore confidence to insurance markets. Trump, however, has undermined congressio­nal negotiatio­ns by signaling that he wants to extract concession­s from Democrats on health reform or maybe on the border wall.

And so the likeliest result is that the United States will default on its financial obligation­s, harming taxpayers and consumers alike. What a stupid and unnecessar­y mess.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States