Getting creamed in New Jersey: Testimony of the unsubsidized
As noted in my last post (and called for in my January op-ed), a bill introduced in the New Jersey Senate (S-1877) last month would implement a state individual mandate and earmark the penalty revenue for a state reinsurance program. A companion bill (S-1878) would authorize pursuit of an ACA innovation waiver to seek federal funding for the reinsurance, as Alaska, Oregon and Minnesota* have successfully done.
BlueWaveNJ, a grassroots group for which I volunteer, supports these paired bills. We have lots of members who insure themselves through the individual market -- many subsidized, and many unsubsidized. In support of the bills, we collected testimony from the latter group -- who were slammed by this year's premium increases. Yesterday, I submitted their testimony at a hearing of the state Senate's Budget and Appropriations Committee, which approved amended versions of both bills.
The testimony is posted here, on the BlueWaveNJ website. As the personal narratives indicate:
These are individuals in their fifties and sixties now facing premiums in the $600-1000/month range and family premiums north of $2000. They describe tough choices between narrow network coverage and still-higher premiums, or between narrow networks and down-sizing to bronze plans that offer basically catastrophic coverage. Subsidized members are faced with a similar choice between ultra-narrow networks and steep premium increases or reduced coverage.
One other point in the testimony I'd like to emphasize here: states can move in two directions to adjust their individual markets, but they really can't stand still:
When the market gets unaffordable enough, people seek alternatives, even if these alternatives limit access to comprehensive care. New Jersey shuts out the alternatives promoted by the Trump administration -- banning short-term policies and tightly regulating association health plans. That's good policy -- but it creates an obligation to foster a market that's affordable to the unsubsidized and offers robust choices to all. An individual mandate paired with reinsurance is the most cost-effective way to do that.
I hope you'll take a look at the tales collected in the testimony.
----
* Minnesota's did come with a poison pill of sorts -- reduced funding for the state's Basic Health Program.