In two new posts at the Health Affairs blog, I lift the fog of economic jargon to show ObamaCare’s preexisting‐conditions provisions are reducing quality, are wildly unpopular with voters, and are indeed the law’s greatest political vulnerability:
Public opinion surveys show voters support ObamaCare’s preexisting conditions provisions by a two‐to‐one margin. If those provisions have the effect of reducing quality, however, that initial support flips to two‐to‐one opposition. The biggest shift is among Democrats, who swing from 82 percent in favor to 55 percent opposed. Voters turn against those provisions whether the erosion in quality comes in the form of less access to medical tests and treatments, longer waits for care, more surprise medical bills, or less access to top‐rated treatment centers…
In “Is ObamaCare Harming Quality? (Part 1),” I explain that new research shows that ObamaCare is not working how it is supposed to work in theory: the law’s preexisting conditions provisions create perverse incentives for insurers to reduce the quality of coverage; those provisions are reducing the quality of coverage relative to employer plans; and the erosion in quality is likely to accelerate in the future.
In “How To Ensure Quality Health Coverage (Part 2),” I explain why regulators cannot fix this problem, and why providing sick patients secure access to quality health care requires allowing consumers to purchase health plans not subject to ObamaCare’s preexisting conditions provisions.
Part 2 also explains how expanding the definition of “short‐term” health insurance to include policies that include guaranteed‐renewability riders, a change the Trump administration can make on its own via regulation, would free consumers from ObamaCare and pressure Democrats to come to the negotiating table.