• Heritage Action
  • More
  • Commentary posted August 16, 2016 by Edmund F. Haislmaier, Brian Blase, Seth Chandler, Doug Badger Obamacare’s Advocates Mostly Agree On The Facts But Suggest More Corporate Welfare To Prop Up Law

    Humana recently announced that next year it is withdrawing from 88% of the counties where it sold Affordable Care Act (ACA) exchange plans this year. United Healthcare forecasts higher earnings in 2017, stemming in part from its decision to shut down most of its exchange business. Aetna has cancelled plans to expand its ACA market footprint and is instead reevaluating its…

  • Commentary posted August 12, 2016 by Edmund F. Haislmaier Why Obamacare Co-Ops Are Failing At A Rate Of Nearly 50%

    Cooperative health insurers (or co-ops) created under a federal grant and loan program in the Affordable Care Act seem to be falling like dominoes. It started in February, when CoOportunity Health, which operated in Iowa and Nebraska, was ordered into liquidation. In July, Louisiana’s insurance department announced it was shuttering that state’s co-op. The following month…

  • Issue Brief posted March 14, 2016 by Edmund F. Haislmaier Insurer ACA Exchange Participation Declines in 2016

    Among the consequences of the Affordable Care Act (ACA or Obamacare) are its effects on insurer competition, particularly in the law’s new government-run exchanges. By several different measures, insurer participation in the ACA exchanges declined in 2016. Measuring Competition One measure for the level of competition is the number of insurers offering exchange coverage…

  • Backgrounder posted February 11, 2016 by Edmund F. Haislmaier The Obama Administration’s Design for Imposing More Health Care Mandates

    On September 8, 2015, the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Office for Civil Rights published in the Federal Register a proposed regulation entitled “Nondiscrimination in Health Programs and Activities,” interpreting and implementing section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA or Obamacare).[1] The text of section 1557 references existing statues prohibiting…

  • Commentary posted January 13, 2016 by Edmund F. Haislmaier Obamacare Lessons From UnitedHealth

    The nation's largest health insurer, UnitedHealth Group, surprised investors last month. The company revealed that it was incurring substantial losses on the Obamacare exchanges — and that, consequently, it would scale back marketing its exchange plans in 2016 and possibly exit the exchanges in 2017. The poor results for United's exchange business seem to have taken even…

  • Testimony posted October 16, 2015 by Edmund F. Haislmaier Effects on Competition of Proposed Health Insurer Mergers

    Testimony before Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law United States House of Representatives Edmund F. Haislmaier Senior Research Fellow in Health Policy The Heritage Foundation September 29, 2015 Mr. Chairman and Members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to testify. My name is Edmund F. Haislmaier and I am…

  • Backgrounder posted October 15, 2015 by Edmund F. Haislmaier, Drew Gonshorowski 2014 Health Insurance Enrollment: Increase Due Almost Entirely to Medicaid Expansion

    Last year’s changes in health insurance enrollment are of particular interest, as 2014 was the year in which key provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA, or Obamacare) took effect—most notably, the offering of subsidies for coverage purchased through the new government exchanges and the ACA’s Medicaid expansion. Analysis of enrollment data for private health insurance…

  • Issue Brief posted July 23, 2015 by Edmund F. Haislmaier, Nina Owcharenko States Should Start Planning Now for the Post-ACA World

    When the Supreme Court handed down its decision in King v. Burwell upholding the Obama Administration’s interpretation of the law, some concluded that the intense debate over the Affordable Care Act (ACA or Obamacare) was coming to an end. Not surprisingly, President Barack Obama encouraged that interpretation in his response to the Court’s decision, saying that “the…

  • Issue Brief posted May 4, 2015 by Edmund F. Haislmaier, Drew Gonshorowski Responding to King v. Burwell: Congress’s First Step Should Be to Remove Costly Mandates Driving Up Premiums

    The Supreme Court is expected to issue its decision in King v. Burwell before the end of June. Should the Court reject the Obama Administration’s regulatory interpretation of the provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) at issue in the case, the Treasury would be barred from paying health insurance subsidies to individuals who obtained coverage thorough Healthcare.gov,…

  • Issue Brief posted March 30, 2015 by Edmund F. Haislmaier King v. Burwell: A Loss of Subsidy Does Not Mean a Loss of Coverage

    An important distinction is getting lost in commentary on the possible effects of a Supreme Court decision in the case of King v. Burwell. It is the distinction between how the Court’s ruling would affect “insurance subsidies” versus how it would affect “insurance coverage.” Should the Court reject the Obama Administration’s regulatory interpretation of the provisions of…

  • Issue Brief posted March 5, 2015 by Edmund F. Haislmaier King v. Burwell: What State Lawmakers Should Do

    State lawmakers—particularly those in states that would be affected by a Supreme Court ruling against the Obama Administration in the King case—should take steps to encourage Congress to put forth a legislative response to the case, specifically by exempting affected states from the costly Obamacare rules, regulations, and mandates.[1] Reject a State Exchange State…

  • Issue Brief posted February 27, 2015 by Nina Owcharenko, Edmund F. Haislmaier King v. Burwell: An Opportunity for Congress and the States to Clear Away Obamacare’s Failed Policies

    On March 4, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in King v. Burwell—a case challenging the Obama Administration’s IRS ruling granting premium support subsidies to those enrolled in federal exchanges under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). While a ruling against the Administration would preclude paying those subsidies to individuals who obtain coverage through the…

  • Issue Brief posted February 20, 2015 by Edmund F. Haislmaier Impact of King v. Burwell: The ACA’s Key Design Flaws

    On March 4, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in King v. Burwell, a challenge to an IRS ruling related to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) granting premium support subsidies to those enrolled in federal exchanges. While claims that a ruling in favor of King would disrupt coverage to millions,[1] it is important to recognize that the ultimate source of any…

  • Issue Brief posted February 20, 2015 by Edmund F. Haislmaier King v. Burwell: Assessing the Claimed Effects of a Decision for the Plaintiffs

    Should the Supreme Court rule in King v. Burwell—a case challenging the Obama Administration’s implementation of the premium tax credit provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA)—that the statute restricts the payment of premium tax credits only to individuals obtaining coverage “through an Exchange established by [a] State,” its ruling would preclude the Treasury paying…

  • Backgrounder posted January 29, 2015 by Edmund F. Haislmaier, Drew Gonshorowski Q3 2014 Health Insurance Enrollment: Employer Coverage Continues to Decline, Medicaid Keeps Growing

    During the third quarter (Q3) of 2014, enrollment in employer-sponsored coverage continued to decline, while Medicaid enrollment continued to grow. However, enrollment in individual-market plans—which substantially increased in both of the first two quarters—also declined by 357,000 during the third quarter. The net result was that total enrollment decreased by 160,000…