Monthly Archives: August 2016

It has been six years since the sweeping healthcare legislation “Obamacare” passed.  In that time states have grappled with the prospect of instating their own exchanges to cover all adults living within 138 percent of the federal poverty line.   The feds have dangled 100 percent matching funds until 2016 and 90 percent after that for the states that expand Medicaid.  Thus far, 32 states have taken the bait, including Arizona. And as many of the critics predicted, expansion has failed to deliver on any of its promises and has now trapped states into a fiscally unsustainable program.

Higher than Expected Costs

The financial architecture of the Medicaid expansion was predicated on a larger pool of new enrollees being cheaper than that of current Medicaid members.  This premise has proven to be a complete miscalculation.  According to a recent report by the Department of Health and Human Services, new ACA enrollees cost an average of $6,366 annually, 49 percent higher than their initial predictions.  Apparently not factored into the costs were the states’ response to economic incentives – given the feds were flipping the bill – most states have exceptionally high capitation rates.  This economic fact never changes, if someone doesn’t have to personally pay for it, they will spend more.  This apparently applies to states as well as individuals.  Once again, the government has under-estimated the costs of their healthcare bureaucracy.

Lower than Expected Benefits

Proponents often cite the metric of new insured individuals as the evidence of Obamacare’s success.  There is no debate here.  Without a doubt, under penalty of a fine, more people have insurance.  However, the data surfacing reveals a deeper truth about the healthcare law.  A study conducted by economists at MIT found every one dollar of government spending on Medicaid resulted in 0.20 – 0.40 of benefit to Medicaid recipients.  Not only are the costs ($425 billion in 2011 alone) to fund Medicaid extraordinary, but the efficiency of those dollars are so low, one must ask the question, what are we even paying for?

This corroborates what past studies have already demonstrated.  In 2008, Oregon conducted an expansion of its Medicaid program, prior to the advent of Obamacare.  What was deemed as “The Oregon Experiment” showed simply insuring more individuals did not correspond to improved health outcomes for those individuals.  And yet we continue to dump more dollars into a system which does not deliver the health results for Americans.

Competition is Disappearing

Even with high capitation rates, private insurers are losing money on ACA plans.  The gorilla of private insurance, UnitedHealth Group, reported $200 million in ACA losses just in the second quarter of this year.  They are pulling out of most state exchanges.  Anthem is in the midst of acquiring Cigna Corp, they are threatening pulling out of the exchanges, should the feds stymy their merger plansCentene who recently acquired HealthNet, is facing structural financial woes as HealthNet has suffered extreme losses of its ACA plans.  Humana too is fleeing many of its exchange plans.  Aetna anticipates $300 million in losses on marketplace plans this year and has since stalled plans to enter into new markets.  Many of the Blue Cross Blue Shield Insurers are losing money in exchange states as well.  One fact is for certain, the private insurance industry is bleeding out in the public exchange market.  As higher risk consumers flood the exchange and low-risk, healthy consumers hedge their bets with no insurance, private insurers are either cutting their losses or eliminating popular PPO plans in lieu of thin network, high deductible and co-pay plans as well as higher premiums.  In rural areas, like Gila County in Arizona, the lack of choice is particularly acute.  This obvious crisis of competition is spurring the Obama Administration to call for Congress to develop its own public plan.  What could possibly go wrong with that?

The deficiencies of heavily subsidized public healthcare systems are well documented.  In the 1990’s several states tried their hand at developing their own state systems.  They provided “guaranteed issue” and “modified community ratings” which eventually led to the squeezing of the individual health market, the decline in the number of private carriers, and eventually a bust of the system over all.  Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Vermont, and Washington have all been down this road before; all have suffered the same obvious disastrous results.  Furthermore, though the Obama Administration and supporters had a rosy outlook of the Medicaid expansion effort, critics at the time were spot-on accurate with the consequences we are seeing today.

At the end of the day, the failings of Obamacare and Medicaid expansion should be a surprise to no one.

 

 

As many will recall, last month Governor Ducey announced in an executive order a prohibition on state agencies using taxpayer money to hire contract lobbyists. Now it appears that the publicly funded Citizens Clean Elections Commission (CCEC) is asking for a special exemption, claiming that contract lobbyists are essential to carrying out their mission.

What is the CCEC’s mission? According to the 1998 initiative and their own website, the entire program exists in order to reduce the influence of special interest money in politics. Yet they want an exemption to hire more lobbyists to expand their own influence. The hypocrisy is stunning, but not surprising.

The truth is the CCEC believes that they should be the only group with a voice in the political process. That is why they see no problem with asking for the exemption; since they are the only “legitimate” special interest, it is OK for them to hire contract lobbyists. The ends, therefore, justify the means. This follows a pattern for the CCEC, who believe they are exempt from all sorts of administrative oversight including the formal rule making process that governs all other state agencies.

This is a tremendous amount of arrogance for an agency that was approved with only 50.1% of the vote 18 years ago and has had their authority curtailed by the Supreme Court. The fact that the CCEC now thinks they are carrying out the will of the voters by contracting hired guns to lobby for them is absurd.

The elimination of contract lobbyists for state agencies is a win for taxpayers.  Besides the actual money the state will save, more importantly it stifles the government’s ability to lobby for their own expansion and funding, which is more often than not contrary to the interests of the taxpayer.  The Citizens Clean Elections Commission is no exception to this principle and so should be swiftly denied any exemptions.



Latest Tweets

@azfec
The Arizona Free Enterprise Club is a free market policy and advocacy group dedicated to promoting a strong and vibrant Arizona economy.
  • @morganloewcbs5 That is incorrect, paychecks would get bigger due to the lower individual rates and an effective da… https://t.co/rcMZnVESjD
  • It will be interesting to see next year if opponents to tax reform cling to the false narrative that Republicans ra… https://t.co/NCQWm707DQ
  • Arizona taxpayers big winners in agreed upon tax reform package in DC. Corporate rate 21%, expanded standard deduct… https://t.co/99G51tGOSQ
  • Maricopa Association of Governments Agrees: Cities Should Reform Home-Based Business Laws https://t.co/Sl5NYNt0EI
  • Wise decision by the Glendale city council to not waste money on the light rail boondoggle https://t.co/pwaaEUthaA