Health Plans
e-Newsletter
Intelligence Unit Special Reports Special Events Subscribe Sponsored Departments Follow Us

Twitter Facebook LinkedIn RSS

Eliminating Individual Mandate Would Come With Strings

Margaret Dick Tocknell, for HealthLeaders Media, January 18, 2012

With Supreme Court challenges to the individual mandate filed, arguments scheduled to be heard March, and a final decision expected sometime this summer, it seems like a good time to step back and assess what the loss of the individual mandate could mean for health insurance premiums, coverage, and uncompensated care.

That's precisely the analysis applied in a January report from the nonpartisan Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. You may have seen some news stories about the report. The headlines have referenced how premiums could increase by 25% without the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act mandate.

That's certainly eye-catching, but it's only part of the story. A look at some of the other numbers included in the report helps put into perspective why there is so much opposition to healthcare reform and the individual mandate. Here's a hint: Government and employer spending will increase.

With the individual mandate in place, spending will increase because more people will have coverage. But if you're opposed to healthcare reform, you'll focus on the $98 billion increase in government and employer spending and gloss over the estimated 24 million formerly uninsured who will now have health insurance coverage.

Researchers at RWJF compared healthcare spending and enrollment under four ACA scenarios, one with the individual mandate and three without. Here's a look at some of the numbers:

1 | 2 | 3

Comments are moderated. Please be patient.

1 comments on "Eliminating Individual Mandate Would Come With Strings"


Todd Madden (1/19/2012 at 6:12 PM)
Saying uncompensated care will drop partly due to Medicaid enrollment increasing is misleading. Medicaid reimbursement is typically well below cost and Medicaid beneficiaries tend to be in poorer health than the average population which increses utilization. It seems more like shell game than anything else. Hospitals will still be cost shifting even more to employers.