Study: The Chronically Ill Under ObamaCare Will Still Be Underinsured

Chronically ill individuals who are enrolled in less generous plans (e.g., Bronze or Silver) are likely to reach their OOP maximum each year. Most of these individuals will have OOP maxes well above the definition for underinsurance. For instance, a man earning $23,000 (just over 200% of poverty) will have a reduced OOP max of $5,200[3]. That represents 23 percent of his annual income, more than twice the Commonwealth definition of underinsurance. (More)

Comments (11)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Lucy says:

    Hmm…so another article showing that Obamacare is – yet again – not all it’s cracked up to be.

    • Howard says:

      Let’s do something serious about this! Time for real change that we can believe in, not false change that lets us down.

  2. Perry says:

    Just having insurance does NOT mean someone will have access to care. Should have read the law before passing it.

  3. Buster says:

    Study: The Chronically Ill Under ObamaCare Will Still Be Underinsured

    I’m not sure I agree with their definition of “underinsured.” You insure against the risk of the occurrence of an unlikely event. If they already have health conditions, having insurance is good. But saying they’re “under insured” does not mean they necessarily need Cadillac Plans.

    • Buster says:

      Buster says: December 12, 2013 at 11:25 am Study: The Chronically Ill Under ObamaCare Will Still Be Underinsured I’m not sure I agree with their definition of “underinsured.”

      I’m not sure I agree with anything that Commonwealth Fund says.

      • John Fembup says:

        Buster, when your only argument is “consider the source” there is nothing to keep people from deciding to consider the source when it’s . . . you.

  4. Don Levit says:

    If one looks at out of pocket costs in relation to income, there is cause for concern. However health care costs have little to do with income and a lot to do with treatment. One must look at out of pocket costs in relation to covered costs. While there is a strain on paying out of pocket costs, there is a huge percentage of assistance from the insurer. And, once a certain out of pocket is met, coverage is at 100 percent. Looking at out of pocket costs in relation to income is only a small part of the dynamics.
    Don Levit

  5. Devon Herrick says:

    @ Don

    You make a valid point. Unfortunately, public health advocacies tend to view any out-of-pocket medical spending as a burden that should be avoided.

    By contract, I view certain costs to be a normal part of the aging / lifecycle process. For instance, newlyweds often have college debt to pay down. They have mortgages to fund. Young couples should plan on costs associated with childbearing and childrearing. The reason Malls are build near new subdivisions is because families buy a lot of stuff! Once the costs associated with childrearing have mostly subsided, other costs are common. These include higher medical costs in late middle-age.

    If I want to spend a sizable chunk of my retirement income on a vacation home, nobody seems to be concerned. If I have to spend a significant amount of my retirement income on medical costs, there’s a large advocacy that cries foul! If I want someone else to pay for my medical costs in retirement so I can afford a vacation home, that’s somehow sound public policy.

  6. Randall says:

    What is the point of having any of these plans?

  7. Bob Hertz says:

    Note to Randall and Perry:

    A defender of Obamacare would say that the new ACA plans offer better protection if someone gets cancer or another life-threatening disease.

    And they do, in general.

    But the high deductibles are one way to pay for that feature. It is pretty thin gruel, I would agree with you on that.

    Note to Devon:

    In general I agree with you…. but in order for your life cycles to work out, one almost has to assume a good job.

    Without a good job, the college debt may never get paid down, the home can be lost to foreclosure, and the older person may be working until they drop.

    Some Americans have always been what you might call “debt-croppers,” never getting ahead in the way you describe. You can still go into factories and restaurants in America and find 80 year old workers, granted not too many of them but enough for me to feel a little depressed about it.

    Is that contingent growing? A Paul Krugman or Robert Reich would say that it is. There is some evidence on their side, though this takes a lot of data to be sure.