Obamacare Exchanges To Shed Users After 2018


Declining Obamacare exchange use
Investors Business Daily

It's funny what dry numbers can reveal. As reported over at Investors Business Daily, the latest Congressional Budget Office projections for the Affordable Care Act show the health care exchanges that the federal government and about half of the states struggle to establish attracting a growing base of users until 2018 — after which the numbers start to decline. At the same time, penalties paid by individuals and businesses for failing to meet the health insurance requirements of the new law are expected to rise. The take-away is that, very soon, many Americans are expected to opt to pay the penalty rather than buy health insurance.

From Jed Graham of Investors Business Daily:

After 2018, ObamaCare exchanges will be all downhill.

At least that's how it looks to the Congressional Budget Office. Its projections imply that the number of people getting subsidized coverage will ramp up from the 2014 start to peak at 22.3 million in 2018, but then fall by 1.8 million over the next five years.

The ObamaCare exchange exodus would result from subsidies covering a smaller share of premiums over time, leading more people to go without insurance and, in many cases, pay a tax penalty.

Sure enough, CBO figures (PDF) show health exchange usage by subsidized individual purchasers rising from roughly six million Americans in 2014 to roughly 22 million in 2017. After that, it starts falling off — not by a huge amount, but exchange use by subsidized individual purchasers is expected to decline after 2018.

The same CBO document projects penalty payments by uninsured individuals to rise from $3 billion in 2015 to $6 billion in 2017 to $7 billion in 2021. (Penalty payments by employers are seen rising even more dramatically, from $5 billion in 2014 to $21 billion in 2023).


Writes Graham:

The exchanges' declining future is largely tied to a little-understood last-minute cost-control inserted to make ObamaCare seem more fiscally responsible. It kicks in after 2018 if exchange subsidies top 0.5% of GDP — as CBO estimates show they surely will.

Health policy experts first interpreted the provision to mean that premium subsidies would only grow with overall inflation, well below health cost inflation. The reality, clarified by CBO in 2011, is much different.

For lower-income and older households for whom ObamaCare would cover the bulk of premiums, subsidies would continue to grow faster than inflation.

For younger and higher-income households, ObamaCare subsidies could begin to shrink outright, as IBD has reported.

That seems like something of a paltry payoff for the much-touted and fought-over exchanges which, as Peter Suderman has noted, have proven to be "a big task, with major information technology procurement issues that have already caused headaches for early implementation efforts."

See the full Investors Business Daily story here.

NEXT: Courts Likely to Strike Down Kansas Abortion Law

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they 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 for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Its almost as if this stuff was either poorly thought out and won’t work or was designed to flop and start calls for “single payer”… hmmm.

  2. The take-away is that, very soon, many Americans are expected to opt to pay the penalty rather than buy health insurance.

    so it should work as intended –

  3. Obviously this is a flaw in the free market that can only be corrected by a single-payer system.


  4. “Once passed, HCFA prohibits health insurance companies operating in Ohio from accepting any funding from the federal government that would result in potential penalties for employers or individuals. If a company chooses to receive federal subsidies, their license would be suspended in the state. While they would still be able to conduct business previously secured, the company would be barred from writing any new business until the funding is returned to the federal government. Further, due to the rules set up within PPACA, the subsidized insurance company would be prohibited from participating in any exchange nationwide.”


  5. It’s almost as if large centrally controlled market manipulation is doomed to fail.

    1. We just need to try it one more time.

  6. People *SHOCKED* at increased insurance costs; blame Korporashuns:
    “Health premium increases meet resistance”
    Because gov’t can do no wrong, especially gov’t staffed by Dems!

  7. Why would they join in the first place.
    I actually think the CBO is vastly overestimating Americans willingness to sign up for health insurance they don’t need. Even if they have to pay a tax penalty for it.

    Lets remember a few things.
    1. Most of the people that the ACA is trying to rope into buying insurance are young relatively healthy people.
    2. The unemployment rate amoung young people is very high.
    3. Those who are employed full time will have insurance through their employers.
    4. Those who have part time jobs are going to see their hours reduced so the employer won’t have to cover them.
    5. Anyone self-employed is probably too worried about the self-employment medicare/ss tax to bother with insurance. Plus they’re probably already hiding as much income as possible from the feds. A substantial portion probably don’t even file taxes.
    6. Anyone involved in grey market/black market activity obviously isn’t going to give a shit.

    Ergo, the majority of healthy young people, even if they are making some money through self-employment or grey market activity or part time jobs, are going to get sticker shock and make a rational calculation not to buy insurance.

  8. Time to institute the new minimum age of 26 to be counted as unemployed. Problem solved!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.