GAO Report: ObamaCare Waivers Issued to Prevent Premium Increases Caused By Health Law's Mandates
For months, it's been unclear how the Obama administration's Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight (CCIIO)—the new bureaucracy set up to regulate health insurance under ObamaCare—was deciding whether to hand out waivers to businesses and unions seeking exemptions from some of the law's requirements. Now, thanks to a new report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO), we have a somewhat better idea: The administration was handing out waivers in order to prevent large health insurance premium hikes that last year's health care would have otherwise caused.
According to the GAO, which prepared its report with the help and guidance of CCIIO, the Obama administration's new insurance regulators "granted waivers on the basis of an application's projected significant increase in premiums or significant reduction in access to health care benefits." It's not a bright-line test, however; there's still a discretionary element. As the report's authors explain, "officials told us that they could not exclusively rely on specific numerical criteria to define a significant increase in premiums or a significant decrease in access to benefits, because applicant characteristics and circumstances varied widely." So the process is still not fully transparent.
But what's most important about the report is how it reveals, yet again, that the folks running the ObamaCare show are aware of the effects the law will have on the price of insurance. Like the Obama administration's decision to grant the state of Maine a waiver from ObamaCare's medical loss ratio requirement, the GAO's description of the waiver process is about as straightforward an admission as anyone is likely to get fulfilling ObamaCare's new insurance requirements does indeed drive up premium prices and/or reduce health insurance benefits.
Now, the administration would likely contest that argument as unfair. After all, they did issue waivers to businesses and union groups where the premium hikes or benefit losses were expected to be largest. But if anything, the waiver process simply shows that the Obama administration knows that, despite all of the president's claims about bringing down the cost of both care and insurance premiums, the legislation, as passed, will make health insurance more expensive for a very large number of individuals—hence the issuance of 1,347 waivers covering more than 3 million people.
The result is an inherently unfair system in which some businesses and unions have to obey the rules and some don't, and the regulators get to decide who falls into which category. I've said it before, and I'll probably say it again: If it's so clear that the provisions in question aren't working for so many people, why not just grant everyone waivers by ditching those requirements entirely?
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
SugarFree makes love to donkeys regularly.
Democrates?
Someone needs to kill this freakin' bill.
On it.
Time for employers to start issuing their own "waivers".
Time for employers taxpayers to start issuing their own "waivers".
FTFY
How do you do this?
The Foundation for Innovation in Medicine, a non profit organization dedicated to accelerating medical discoveries by improving the clinical trial process, is currently working on introducing a bill to Congress:
THE DOCTORNAUT ACT
That would RAPIDLY speed the process of medical discovery without increasing risks to patients!
Google and Facebook Search: Foundation for Innovation in Medicine
AND SIGN THE PETITION TODAY!
How would your life be changed if there was a cure for cancer, diabetes, MS, MD, Parkinson's? How many people in your life would benefit?
Herc is that you?
Needs more brackets.
The result is an inherently unfair system in which some businesses and unions have to obey the rules and some don't, and the regulators get to decide who falls into which category.
And this surprises....who....anyone...anyone?
A feature not a bug for the dems.
" It's not a bright-line test, however; there's still a discretionary element. As the report's authors explain, "officials told us that they could not exclusively rely on specific numerical criteria to define a significant increase in premiums or a significant decrease in access to benefits, because applicant characteristics and circumstances varied widely." So the process is still not fully transparent."
Dilbert Doe covered this yesterday:
http://reason.com/blog/2011/06.....nt_2339192
"officials told us that they could not exclusively rely on specific numerical criteria to define a significant increase in premiums or a significant decrease in access to benefits, because applicant characteristics and circumstances varied widely."
So, you could say that allowable premiums are determined for each according to his ability, and benefits distributed to each according to his need.
Brilliant! And to think I was worried about these guys.
"I see the sadness...(from realizing that class warfare isn't working) I see the wrinkles (from squinting to see where his golf ball has landed on the fairway) I see him hunched over every memo, reading every word so that he is more knowledgeable than every person in the room (I thought he ALREADY the smartest person in the room)!
It's a never ending struggle.
The result is an inherently unfair system in which some businesses and unions have to obey the rules and some don't, and the regulators get to decide who falls into which category.
If businesses and unions can't hire lobbyists to influence the politicians and bureaucrats who regulate the systems they create, it would limit corruption and waste and create rampant fairness and equality.
The result is an inherently unfair system in which some businesses and unions have to obey the rules and some don't, and the regulators get to decide who falls into which category.
Feature, not a bug. Now pay your tribute if you want to keep doing business.
The administration was handing out waivers in order to prevent large health insurance premium hikes that last year's health care would have otherwise caused.
Um, my premiums doubled this year, and most of us at the company went from PPO's to HSA's because the cost to maintain a PPO was triple the previous years cost.
Can I have a waiver?
Work with the I for J or someone to put an equal protection suit together.
You can file for one. However, it just encourages the model. Since the model doesn't work without "hiding the decline" so to speak, the model is flawed.
But, as previously noted, the Dems are bad liars and this was a feature of the bill and not a bug.
If it's so clear that the provisions in question aren't working for so many people, why not just grant everyone waivers by ditching those requirements entirely?
Where's the sport in THAT?