Jacobs Ken, Graham-Squire Dave, Roby Dylan H, Kominski Gerald F, Kinane Christina M, Needleman Jack, Watson Greg, Gans Daphna
Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, Center for Labor Research and Education, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA. USA.
Policy Brief UCLA Cent Health Policy Res. 2011 Dec:1-11.
Key Findings. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) is designed to offer premium subsidies to help eligible individuals and their families purchase insurance coverage when affordable job-based coverage is not available. However, the law is unclear on how this affordability protection is applied in those instances where self-only coverage offered by an employer is affordable but family coverage is not. Regulations recently proposed by the Department of the Treasury would make family members ineligible for subsidized coverage in the exchange if an employee is offered affordable self-only coverage by an employer, even if family coverage is unaffordable. This could have significant financial consequences for low- and moderate-income families that fall in this gap. Using an alternative interpretation of the law could allow the entire family to enter the exchange when family coverage is unaffordable, which would broaden access to coverage. However, this option has been cited as cost prohibitive. In this brief we consider a middle ground alternative that would base eligibility for the individual worker on the cost of self-only coverage, but would use the additional cost to the employee for family coverage as the basis for determining affordability and eligibility for subsidies for the remaining family members. We find that: Under the middle ground alternative scenario an additional 144,000 Californians would qualify for and use premium subsidies in the California Health Benefit Exchange, half of whom are children. Less than 1 percent of those with employer-based coverage would move to subsidized coverage in the California Health Benefit Exchange as a result of having unaffordable coverage on the job.
主要发现。《患者保护与平价医疗法案》(ACA)旨在提供保费补贴,以帮助符合条件的个人及其家庭在无法获得负担得起的基于就业的保险时购买保险。然而,对于在雇主提供的单人保险负担得起但家庭保险负担不起的情况下,这种可负担性保护如何适用,法律并不明确。美国财政部最近提议的法规规定,如果雇主为员工提供了负担得起的单人保险,即使家庭保险负担不起,其家庭成员也无资格在医保市场获得补贴保险。这可能会给处于这种差距中的低收入和中等收入家庭带来重大财务后果。采用对该法律的另一种解释,当家庭保险负担不起时,整个家庭可以进入医保市场,这将扩大保险覆盖范围。然而,这种选择被认为成本过高。在本简报中,我们考虑一种折中的替代方案,即根据单人保险的成本确定个体工人的资格,但将员工为家庭保险支付的额外成本作为确定其余家庭成员补贴可负担性和资格的基础。我们发现:在折中的替代方案下,额外有14.4万加利福尼亚人将有资格并在加利福尼亚州医保市场使用保费补贴,其中一半是儿童。在有雇主提供保险的人群中,因工作保险负担不起而转至加利福尼亚州医保市场补贴保险的人数不到1%。