While the passage of the law means that the 17.1% of Americans that are uninsured[ii] must seek coverage or pay a penalty or a tax, an even greater responsibility is assigned to the states themselves. By January 1, 2014, all 50 states are required to establish what PPACA describes as a “health insurance exchange,” a virtual marketplace where individuals can shop for different private coverage plans (approved by the federal government) from different companies[iii]. The federal government will create federally controlled exchanges in states that fail to meet this deadline. While these exchanges would make it easier for consumers to compare benefits and costs, establishing such a marketplace puts an additional financial burden on state governments already plagued by the financial woes of the continuing economic slump.
New Hampshire today faces the challenge of PPACA to create a health insurance exchange in under 2 years. But is it in the best interest of the state to go forward with the construction of its own exchange? This difficult question must take into account the unique demographics of New Hampshire, as well as a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis between the possible courses of action.
New Hampshire, as well as the other 49 states, can choose one of two possible courses of action in response to PPACA’s mandate to create a health insurance exchange:
– Create and fund a state controlled exchange by the mandated deadline;
– Do nothing until the deadline and allow the national government to step in and create a federally controlled exchange.
Here, it is important to realize that no matter the course of action taken, some form of a health insurance exchange will be established in New Hampshire under PPACA. The choice that must be made is whether that exchange will be controlled by the state or federal government.
Given that every state has a unique political, economic, and social climate, the best course of action will vary between states. Recent controversy in the New York Senate over health care exchanges demonstrates the link between political and ideological support for the bill: NY Senate Democrats ardently support the establishment of a statewide health insurance exchange, touting the possibilities of universal access and lower costs. Senate Republicans have taking the opposing view, pointing out the unnecessary and inefficient government intrusions in a large section of the private sector[iv]. Elsewhere, the populous and liberal leaning state of California had already begun establishing a health care exchange even before the June Supreme Court ruling[v]. In contrast, the sparsely populated and more conservative state of Alaska has opted to simply wait until the deadline and allow the federal government to establish its own exchange in this state[vi].
Thus, we must consider all major demographic factors in order to make a sound judgment as to which course of action New Hampshire should pursue.
Evaluating the New Hampshire Health Insurance Exchange
The benefits touted by the Obama administration in favor of health insurance exchanges are primarily economic. Such an exchange fosters competition and grants greater accessibility to health care for individuals, and presumably covers costs incurred by patients without insurance. In addition, plans sold on the health insurance exchanges are purchasable by all people, even those with pre-existing conditions. Ultimately, the promised result of establishing health insurance exchanges is that the price of coverage and indeed overall health care goes down.
In a time of economic uncertainty, such a financial incentive would be a boon to not only individuals, but businesses that provide health care to their employees. The less money that people have to spend on health care, the more their disposable income will grow, effectively creating a stimulant for the national economy. In addition, these exchanges would bring us closer to universal coverage of Americans, which would allow for a healthier society.
While the establishment of health care exchanges has these amazing benefits attached, one major question mark of creating an exchange of course is that these benefits are not guaranteed. It is extremely difficult to estimate the projected savings from establishing an exchange, given that few states have actually completed the creation of an exchange. Also, the magnitude of these savings depends on the statewide demand for health insurance, the number of insurance companies in the state, and what the national government deems as qualifying insurance plans. Equally difficult is assessing the cost of establishing these exchanges within the time frame allotted by the federal government and the cost of keeping these exchanges operational for the same reasons stated above.
Fortunately, we can look to the state of Massachusetts for an example of a relatively successful health insurance exchange and draw inferences about the possible benefits of establishing a state run exchange in New Hampshire. Created in 2006, the Massachusetts health insurance exchange succeeded in bringing the number of uninsured people down to a mere 2% of the 6.6 million residents, from 10% before the law was implemented[vii]. However, the cost of maintaining this exchange has rise to $32 billion in 2011[viii], resulting in over $9,000 in health care spending per capita (compared to $6,800 nationwide)[ix]. New Hampshire has a population of only 1.3 million, with 10% uninsured as well, and 10% living in poverty (compared to poverty rates of 15% in Massachusetts and 21% nationwide)[x].
Because a substantial portion of health insurance exchanges involve fixed administrative costs[xi], New Hampshire’s lower population may not translate to a proportionally lower cost than Massachusetts’s exchange expenses. In addition, Massachusetts’s program was aimed primarily at those with lower income, but New Hampshire’s lower poverty rate diminishes the impact of this provision.
Finally, with a budget deficit of close to $3 billion[xii], New Hampshire can hardly afford to make wayward investments in an expensive program whose benefits are far from guaranteed. It would appear that the cost of a New Hampshire health insurance exchange definitively outweighs the benefits, and that this option may not be the best course of action.
Letting the Deadline Pass
As of now, this is the option that the New Hampshire government has chosen to take. On June 18 of this year, Governor John Lynch signed HB 1297[xiii] into law, prohibiting a state sponsored a health insurance exchange, instead opting to allow the federal government to step in and create its own exchange. Politically this was the favorable choice: opposition from members of the executive council and the citizenry (a plurality of which oppose PPACA) made creation of a state run health insurance exchange politically unwise, if not altogether impossible.
Establishment of a federally controlled health insurance exchange carries much of the same benefits as a state controlled one. Individuals will still be able to shop and compare different plans from different insurance companies at competitive prices. Nobody will be excluded because of pre-existing conditions, and everyone will have access to health care. The major benefit of course is that New Hampshire does not need to spend its own resources to create this exchange. Passing the PPACA deadline means that the national government assumes total responsibility.
No doubt Uncle Sam does not provide free lunch. It is difficult to estimate the potential savings from deferring responsibility from the government. Also, federal control comes with its own set of drawbacks and limitations. For example, the plans sold on the exchange would be determined by the federal government, which has few if any incentives to cater specifically to the health care needs of New Hampshire residents. This situation could result in a New Hampshire health care exchange that attracts few consumers, ultimately defeating the original purpose of these exchanges.
But taking into account the small size of New Hampshire and the fact that most residents are already covered, it is perhaps logical to let the federal government handle the establishment of an exchange and have the state government focus on other legislative issues. The federal government intrusion will likely not sit well with the right-leaning populace, 49% of which opposed the original PPACA legislation in its entirety, while only 38% fully supported it[xiv]. Nevertheless, given that New Hampshire’s health care market is smaller relatively to other states, intrusion from the federal government is less likely to have a dramatic impact than in a larger state such a California, which has over 10 times the number of health care providers and obviously a much larger population in need of health care[xv].
Given the political, economic, and demographic situation of New Hampshire, Governor Lynch has made the expedient decision in deferring the responsibility of creating a health care exchange to the federal government. Although he initially supported creating a state run exchange, the political atmosphere in Manchester led him to the inevitable about face. Although the precise dollar amounts are impossible to predict, economically, the costs for the state appear to outweigh the benefits. Indeed, New Hampshire stands favorably to the national average both in terms of the percentage in poverty and uninsured. There is no pressing incentive for the state to establish a health insurance exchange compliant with PPACA deadline. Only time will tell how the inevitable bureaucracy from Washington DC will affect the granite state in a federally run system.
[i] “PPACA-Consolidated”, National Conference of State Legislatures (www.ncsl.org/)
[vi] Rosen, Yereth. “Alaska governor says state won’t set up health-insurance exchange”, Reuters (in.reuters.com)
[vii] “RomneyCare – The Truth about Massachusetts Health Care”, Mitt Romney 2012 (mittromneycentral.com)
[viii] Kliff, Sarah “Report: Romneycare no ‘budget buster’”, The Washington Post (www.washingtonpost.com)
[ix] “Massachusetts – Kaiser State Health Facts”, Kaiser State Health Facts (www.statehealthfacts.org)
[x] “New Hampshire – Kaiser State Health Facts”, Kaiser State Health Facts (www.statehealthfacts.org)
[xi] “State of Delaware, Department of Health and Social Services, Health Insurance Exchange Planning, Exchange Model Feasibility Study”, Delaware Health and Social Services (dhss.delaware.gov/dhss/)
[xii] “New Hampshire state budget”, sunshine review (sunshinereview.org/core)
[xiii] “State Exchange Profiles: New Hampshire”, Kaiser Health Reform (healthreform.kff.org)
[xiv] Smith, Andrew. “AFTER SUPREME COURT DECISION, HEALTHCARE REFORM STILL UNPOPULAR IN NH”, University of New Hampshire (www.unh.edu)
[xv] “Providers & Service Use”, Kaiser State Health Facts (www.statehealthfacts.org)