Two scholars at the renowned Brookings
Institution, Loren Adler and Paul Ginsburg, have published an analysis finding that
“average premiums in the individual market actually dropped significantly upon
implementation of the ACA [Affordable Care Act].” This contrasts with a
plethora of evidence, including a
rigorous 2014 Brookings study, showing that the
ACA significantly increased premiums. In this post, I discuss methodological
concerns with the Adler and Ginsburg approach as well as evidence that leads
most scholars to reach a very different conclusion……………
(Full text at link below)
Conclusion
Adler and Ginsburg argue that the ACA both improved coverage and
lowered costs. If true, the exchanges would undoubtedly be more successful than
they are. Thus far, the result is significantly
worse than expected, with far fewer enrollees—particularly younger
and healthier enrollees—than projected, and substantial market instability.
Another Brookings Institution scholar, Stuart Butler, recognizes the problem,writing just two weeks ago that “the ACA might
be more appropriately labeled the ‘Medicaid Expansion Act’” because “enrollment
in the ACA exchanges has been disappointing, with an estimated 10 million fewer
people enrolled compared with earlier expectations.”
The new Brookings study does not mention the numerous studies,
including the rigorous 2014 Brookings study,
that come to opposite conclusions, does not use actual pre-ACA individual
market data, does not consider the huge increase in the cost of medical claims
in the individual market after 2013, and makes a number of questionable
methodological choices. The authors arrive at a different conclusion than most
scholars who have examined the effect of the ACA on health insurance premiums.
Most scholars and analysts conclude that, particularly when fully accounting
for the various government subsidies for individual insurance coverage, the ACA
significantly increased individual market premiums.
Read more at: