(Bask = Blog Ask for newcomers, not to be confused with a Bleg.)
There is a new wave of projections for increases in health insurance premiums for 2015 (relative to 2014), and they are not heart attack inducing. But I’m concerned that something fishy may be going on with some of these relatively innocuous analyses.
It’s one thing to look at how much a given insurance plan, with specified benefits, deductibles, caps, etc., increased in price because of the introduction of the Affordable Care Act (aka “ObamaCare”).
However, that type of analysis doesn’t really correspond to what most people think when they say, “Holy #)($*! My premiums jumped up x percent!”
For example, in my case my policy is going up about 50%. But I’m being forced to get a “better” policy. So I’m wondering if my type of situation would go into these studies as a 50% increase, or instead as a (say) 20% increase because that’s the premium hike for the new policy that I’m being forced to buy, compared to that same policy pre-ACA.
And then of course, how do you do a percentage calculation for the people who used to pay $0 for health insurance, not because they had a pre-existing condition, but because they were young and healthy and didn’t think it was worth the money? That’s an infinite percentage increase, though I understand it’s a tricky situation.
In any event, does anyone know of a scholarly treatment of these subtleties? I have never seen an actual study that made the above distinctions.