Ken Jacobs, Dave Graham-Squire, Dylan H Roby, Gerald F Kominski, Christina M Kinane, Jack Needleman, Greg Watson, Daphna Gans
{"title":"拟议的法规可能会限制工人的子女和家庭成员获得负担得起的医疗保险。","authors":"Ken Jacobs, Dave Graham-Squire, Dylan H Roby, Gerald F Kominski, Christina M Kinane, Jack Needleman, Greg Watson, Daphna Gans","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":82329,"journal":{"name":"Policy brief (UCLA Center for Health Policy Research)","volume":" ","pages":"1-11"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Proposed regulations could limit access to affordable health coverage for workers' children and family members.\",\"authors\":\"Ken Jacobs, Dave Graham-Squire, Dylan H Roby, Gerald F Kominski, Christina M Kinane, Jack Needleman, Greg Watson, Daphna Gans\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":82329,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Policy brief (UCLA Center for Health Policy Research)\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-11\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2011-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Policy brief (UCLA Center for Health Policy Research)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Policy brief (UCLA Center for Health Policy Research)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
关键的发现。《患者保护和平价医疗法案》(Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, ACA)旨在提供保费补贴,帮助符合条件的个人及其家庭在无法负担得起的以工作为基础的保险时购买保险。然而,法律没有明确规定,在雇主提供的个人保险是可负担的,而家庭保险不是可负担的情况下,如何适用这种可负担性保护。美国财政部最近提出的法规规定,如果雇主向雇员提供负担得起的自我保险,即使家庭保险负担不起,家庭成员也没有资格获得交易所的补贴保险。这可能会对处于这一差距中的低收入和中等收入家庭产生重大的经济后果。使用对该法案的另一种解释,可以让整个家庭在负担不起家庭保险的情况下进入保险交易所,这将扩大获得保险的机会。然而,这种选择被认为成本过高。在本文中,我们考虑了一种中间选择,将个人工人的资格建立在自我保险的成本上,但将使用员工家庭保险的额外成本作为确定剩余家庭成员的可负担性和补贴资格的基础。我们发现:在中间地带的替代方案下,额外的144,000加州人将有资格获得并使用加州健康福利交易所的保费补贴,其中一半是儿童。由于在工作中负担不起保险,只有不到1%的以雇主为基础的人会转向加州健康福利交易所的补贴保险。
Proposed regulations could limit access to affordable health coverage for workers' children and family members.
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.