Reading Los Angeles: Join The Times' new book club
Opinion Opinion L.A.

Obamacare: Breathing new life into Obama's broken promise

Remember "If you like your health plan, you can keep it"? The Obama administration may try to breathe new life into that broken promise.

In particular, the Associated Press' Tom Murphy reported last week that the administration is mulling whether to let insurers continue offering policies that do not meet the minimum standards set by the 2010 Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare. After insurers canceled a huge number of individual policies, President Obama announced in November that those policies could be resurrected for 2014. The administration is now considering whether to give insurers up to three more years before terminating noncomplaint policies.

That would be a mistake for at least two reasons, one procedural and one substantive. There's a better way to help people who want lower-cost coverage, and the administration should work with Congress to implement it. But more on that later.

Most plans in the individual insurance market ran afoul of the new standards because they lacked an "essential benefit," such as maternity or substance-abuse coverage, or they did not cover enough of the total cost of medical care. The law exempted policies that people had kept in place since before the ACA was enacted, but this "grandfather clause" protected surprisingly few policyholders.

The cancellation letters -- coming amid the spectacularly botched rollout of the HealthCare.gov website -- triggered a wave of outrage by consumers who felt the president had lied to them repeatedly about Obamacare. The president's approval ratings plummeted, and they haven't recovered.

Because the reversal Obama announced in November was temporary, insurers are expected to send out another round of cancellation letters in the fall -- at the height of the 2014 campaign. Obamacare is already an albatross for many Democratic candidates; having to deal with the cancellation issue again just before voters go to the polls would only make matters worse. Hence the administration's interest in pushing the problem back another few years.

But as The Times' editorial board argued last year, canceling noncompliant policies is a necessary byproduct of a crucial reform in the ACA. In the individual market, insurers have used narrowly drawn policies to keep costs down for the healthy (and themselves) while driving those with preexisting conditions out of the market or into expensive high-risk insurance gulags. One point of the ACA was to end that practice, joining individuals into a single, broad risk pool in each state. That way, costs and risks would be shared as broadly as they are in the market for large group plans, which have been less costly and volatile for consumers.

Transforming the individual insurance market is no mean feat, however, and the change produces winners and losers. Many older and sicklier individuals have seen their premiums drop, while many younger, healthier ones have seen their premiums go up -- in some cases, scarily so.

Obama's response has been to put off dealing with those issues. It's hard to see where the administration gets the authority to waive the law's minimum standards, which were supposed to have taken effect Jan. 1. Delaying the effective date for multiple years seems even more legally dubious. Such changes should be done through Congress, even if Republicans there are far less interested in fixing the law than in nuking it.

A better approach would be to address the factors causing such a sharp increase for some in premiums. First and foremost is the elimination of high-deductible comprehensive-only plans for those over age 30. If people want to assume more of the risk of their healthcare costs, they ought to be able to do so while still contributing to the cost of the total risk pool. A second factor is the "essential benefits" mandate, which seems to have been imposed without regard to the cost of such broad coverage. That's an issue worth revisiting, to see whether some of the mandated benefits aren't truly essential.

Such changes would have to be enacted by a Congress that's bitterly divided on healthcare reform. So maybe it's a fool's errand. Nevertheless, the individual market badly needs to be reshaped into one that shares risks and costs more broadly. The administration should be keeping its eyes on that prize rather than simply trying to limit the fallout from the changes.


Bill Gates: The world is better than ever

California needs a water measure that works.

Cute? Hardly. The Beatles subverted the American way of life

Follow Jon Healey on Twitter @jcahealey and Google+

Copyright © 2015, Los Angeles Times
Related Content
  • A sensible cap on costly prescription drugs
    A sensible cap on costly prescription drugs

    To help prevent Americans from being bankrupted by medical bills, the 2010 federal healthcare law placed an annual cap on deductibles, co-pays and other out-of-pocket costs imposed by health insurers. That's turned out to be a mixed blessing for Americans who suffer from certain chronic diseases,...

  • Bill on drug pricing would help state in figuring healthcare costs
    Bill on drug pricing would help state in figuring healthcare costs

    A new crop of specialty drugs holds great promise for treating or even curing some devastating diseases, but their high cost challenges health insurers and taxpayer-funded health programs. In California, Gov. Jerry Brown has asked for $300 million in the coming fiscal year's budget just for specialty...

  • Obamacare turns 5: The law's potential has been stymied by politics
    Obamacare turns 5: The law's potential has been stymied by politics

    President Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act into law five years ago Monday, an anniversary that congressional Republicans will soon observe with another symbolic vote to repeal it. The general public isn't as eager to do away with the law, widely known as Obamacare, but...

  • It's past time for Congress to pass Medicare reform
    It's past time for Congress to pass Medicare reform

    House Republicans have no qualms about leaving millions of low-income Americans without health coverage, as evidenced by their repeated votes to repeal Obamacare. But they're so skittish about reducing access to Medicare, the federal insurance program for senior citizens and the disabled, that...

  • A middle way to resolve the Obamacare case
    A middle way to resolve the Obamacare case

    At the Supreme Court argument in King vs. Burwell, the case challenging how the Affordable Care Act works, someone should have asked, “If a state with a federally run health insurance exchange now adopts or ratifies that marketplace as its own, wouldn't it qualify as a state-established exchange?”...

  • Goal should be to keep Daughters of Charity hospitals open
    Goal should be to keep Daughters of Charity hospitals open

    The financial crisis faced by the Daughters of Charity Health System appeared to be solved last year when Prime Healthcare Services of Ontario agreed to buy the chain and keep its six hospitals, including St. Francis Medical Center of Lynwood, open for at least five years. On Tuesday, however,...

  • Overdue for checkups: Denti-Cal program for low-income kids
    Overdue for checkups: Denti-Cal program for low-income kids

    Fewer than half the low-income kids enrolled in California's dental insurance program see a dentist in any given year. That seems like a problem. Whether it is, though, is impossible to tell because of the state's inadequate oversight of the program, known as Denti-Cal. According to a recent audit,...

  • How do you treat pain when most of the world's population can't get opioids?
    How do you treat pain when most of the world's population can't get opioids?

    In the United States, where doctors write more than 250 million prescriptions for painkillers a year, the frequency of abuse and overdose represents a public health crisis. More than 15,000 Americans died from an overdose of prescription opioids in 2013.