New Report: Iowa Families Buying Health Insurance Would Pay Much More under Romney than under ObamaCare Print
News Releases - Health, Medicine & Nutrition
Written by Matt Sinovic   
Friday, 28 September 2012 15:19

Families Buying Health Coverage on Their Own Would Pay an Average of $11,163 under Romney’s Proposals in 2016, Compared to $7,021 under ObamaCare

330,000 More Iowans Would Be Uninsured under Romney than under ObamaCare in 2016; by 2022, the Difference Would Grow to 400,000

Washington, D.C. – Iowa families buying non-group health insurance on their own in 2016 would pay, on average, about 60 percent more under the health proposals offered by presidential candidate Mitt Romney than under ObamaCare: $11,163 compared to $7,021, according to a new report released today.

That large differential includes comparative insurance premium payments as well as out-of-pocket costs (such as deductibles and copayments) paid by families when they receive health care.

The report uses never-before-released national and state-by-state data to analyze and compare health care benefits and costs among three different plans: RomneyCare (the Massachusetts health law signed by then-Governor Mitt Romney in 2006), ObamaCare (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, signed into law in March 2010), and RomneyCandidateCare, the health care proposals of presidential candidate Romney.

Titled “ObamaCare versus RomneyCare versus RomneyCandidateCare,” the report was prepared by the national health consumer organization Families USA, together with three distinguished health analysts who participated in the development and promotion of both RomneyCare and ObamaCare. [Biographical background of those analysts is provided at the end of this release.]

The report shows significant similarities between ObamaCare and RomneyCare but substantial differences between ObamaCare and RomneyCandidateCare, including the following:

·      170,000 middle-class Iowans would receive tax credit subsidies to help pay for insurance premiums under ObamaCare in 2016, while only about 100,000 Iowans would receive tax deduction subsidies to help pay for insurance premiums under RomneyCandidateCare;

·      The average size of those tax credit subsidies under ObamaCare would be $5,256 in 2016, while the average size of the RomneyCandidateCare tax deduction subsidies would be about half that amount ($2,637) in 2016;

·      In the absence of any health reform, there would be 410,000 uninsured people in Iowa in 2016. ObamaCare reduces the number of uninsured in that year by 210,000, but RomneyCandidateCare increases the number of uninsured by 120,000—a differential of 330,000 Iowans;


·      In the absence of any health reform, there would be 440,000 uninsured people in Iowa in 2022. ObamaCare reduces the number of uninsured in that year by 230,000, but RomneyCandidateCare increases the number of uninsured by 170,000—a differential of 400,000;

·  In 2016 and 2022, respectively, there would be 530,000 and 610,000 Iowans uninsured under RomneyCandidateCare.

On the national level, the contrast between ObamaCare and RomneyCandidateCare is just as stark:

·      In the absence of any health reform, there would be 56.0 million uninsured people nationwide in 2016. ObamaCare reduces the number of uninsured in that year by 30.7 million, but RomneyCandidateCare increases the number of uninsured by 11.2 million—a differential of 41.9 million;

 

·      Nationwide in the absence of any health reform, there would be 60.0 million uninsured people in 2022. ObamaCare reduces the number of uninsured in that year by 32.9 million, but RomneyCandidateCare increases the number of uninsured by almost 18 million—a differential of 50.9 million;


·      Nationwide in 2016 and 2022, there would be 67.2 million and 78.0 million uninsured, respectively, under RomneyCandidateCare. From the latest Census Bureau findings that 48.6 million people were uninsured in 2011, these totals represent 38.3 percent and 60.5 percent increases in the number of uninsured.

 

“ObamaCare and the Massachusetts-based RomneyCare, on the one hand, and RomneyCandidateCare, on the other hand, are as different as day and night,” said Ron Pollack, Executive Director of Families USA.

“Under RomneyCandidateCare, middle-class families would pay comparatively much more out of pocket for their health care, and the number of uninsured Americans would skyrocket,” said Pollack.

 

There are key differences between ObamaCare and RomneyCandidateCare that affect current Medicare beneficiaries as well. Under ObamaCare, seniors and people with disabilities in Medicare receive free preventive care services, such as mammograms and colonoscopies. This new benefit is already in effect, and 25.7 million people enrolled in traditional Medicare—348,400 in Iowa—received such free services in 2011. By repealing ObamaCare, Governor Romney would require Medicare beneficiaries to pay for those benefits.

 

Similarly, ObamaCare helps Medicare beneficiaries that have high prescription drug costs and who fall in the large drug coverage gap called the “doughnut hole.” Currently, as a result of ObamaCare, seniors falling into the doughnut hole receive 50 percent discounts on their brand-name drugs; and by 2020, the doughnut hole will be completely eliminated.

 

In 2011, 44,500 Iowa Medicare beneficiaries who fell in the doughnut hole received discount help, and that help averaged $621 per person. Again, this and future help for seniors with high drug costs would be eliminated under RomneyCandidateCare.

 

“ObamaCare’s free preventive care and prescription medicine help are important for Medicare beneficiaries to enable them to remain healthy,” said Pollack. “Taking away these important benefits would cause great harm to Iowa’s seniors and people with disabilities.”

 

The report uses 2016 for the comparison because that is the last year of the next president’s term of office, and it is a year when there is full implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

 

The full report, “ObamaCare versus RomneyCare versus RomneyCandidateCare,” is available at www.familiesusac4.org/2012-health-care-comparison.

 

-30-

 

The development of this Families USA report was aided enormously by three distinguished health policy analysts who played significant roles in the development and promotion of RomneyCare and ObamaCare. They are:

 

·      Stuart Altman is the Sol C. Chaikin Professor of National Health Policy at the Heller School for Social Policy and Management at Brandeis University. Dr. Altman served as a Deputy Assistant Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare in the Nixon Administration and was one of the architects of Nixon’s health reform plan. He was Chair of the Prospective Payment Assessment Commission for 12 years under Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton. President Clinton appointed him to the president’s Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare.

 

·      Jonathan Gruber is a Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dr. Gruber served as a Deputy Assistant Secretary for Economic Policy in the U.S. Treasury Department. He is a gubernatorial appointee to the Board of the Massachusetts Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority. He is the Director of the National Bureau of Economic Research’s Program on Children. The new data in this report were derived from a model developed by Dr. Gruber.

 

·      John McDonough is a Professor of Practice at the Harvard School of Public Health, and he is the Director of the Harvard School of Public Health’s Center for Public Health Leadership. From 2003 to 2008, Dr. McDonough served as the Executive Director of Health Care for All in Massachusetts, where he played a central role in the 2006 passage of RomneyCare. He served as Senior Adviser in the U.S. Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, where he played a major role in developing the health insurance expansion provisions of ObamaCare.

 

Families USA is the national organization for health care consumers and is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, 501(c)(4) organization that does not endorse, support, or oppose political candidates. Its mission is to achieve high-quality, affordable health coverage and care for all Americans.


blog comments powered by Disqus