Healthcare reform implications for workers’ comp, Part 1

With Congressional efforts to repeal/replace/revise ACA behind us for now, it’s time to consider what all this means for workers’ comp.

First up – Medicaid expansion

Currently 32 states have expanded Medicaid; 19 have not. Expect more states to consider expanding Medicaid as the combination of Federal dollars and struggling hospitals makes a compelling case for state adoption.

In addition, the Trump Administration may well allow states more flexibility in expanding Medicaid, and this will likely lead to more states opting in. For example, Arkansas has applied for permission to add coverage to a more limited population…other states will almost certainly follow suit.

Other states, including Texas, are facing the dual realities that their poorer citizens’ health status is declining, and hospital financials are deteriorating as well.

A couple data points illustrate the linkage between Work Comp and Medicaid

63% of Medicaid recipients have at least one family member working full time. This varies among states, from 77% in Colorado to 51% in Rhode Island. 15% have a part time worker. Only 19% of recipients’ familes have no one working.

Many employers (e.g. those with <50 FTEs) that

  • don’t provide health insurance &/or
  • aren’t required to provide health insurance under ACA
  • &/or have a lot of part time workers who don’t qualify for employer-sponsored health insurance

recommend workers who qualify sign up for Medicaid.

The potential implications for claiming behavior are apparent.

We all know workers comp premiums are driven by employment. Most credible studies indicate Medicaid expansion increased employment in states that expanded Medicaid.

More employment = more payroll = more workers’ comp premium and more claims (NOT higher frequency, which is a percentage and not a raw number)

There’s also implications for disability filings…A just-published study found “a 3-4 percent reduction in the number of people receiving supplemental security income… in states that expanded Medicaid.”

What does this mean for you?

The work comp industry dodged a bullet when Congress didn’t repeal ACA. However, watch carefully as other efforts to de-fund and otherwise cut back on Medicaid are ongoing.

 

Work comp is fading, and that’s a big loss.

Hold on, because this isn’t going to end up where you think it is.

The comp insurance business is shrinking. Insurers are increasingly outsourcing claims function to TPAs, and TPAs are looking to move more claim-related activities in-house to capture more of a shrinking pie.

Sure, carriers including AmTrust and the Berkshire companies are growing by leaps and bounds, but most others are moving in the opposite direction. And yes, our friends in California have seen earned premiums increase – and as the largest state by far we can’t ignore that. However, insurer profits have remained solid while rates while the last two years have seen frequency drop – the first time this has happened since the Bush Recession.

Margins are very healthy, markets are competitive, and the business remains solidly profitable.

Over the last 22 years, only one saw a material increase in claim frequency.

After 2 years of essentially flat trend rates, 2016 saw a 5 percent jump in claim severity.

Work comp premiums have been flat since 2015 as decreasing claims costs and insurer discounts have balanced out higher payrolls. Overall, it looks like more employers have seen their premium rates decrease than increase.

Those aren’t just a jumble of unrelated facts and figures, rather a combination of causes and effects, all leading to an inescapable conclusion – industrial accidents and illnesses are less common than they used to be, and more common then they are going to be.

Implications abound.

Here’s a major one.  More insurers appear to be looking to outsource claims, generating growth and jobs in the TPA industry which is one of the few sectors that’s seeing this.

The service sector has consolidated rapidly with two huge PBMs dominating the pharmacy space; physical medicine owned by two other firms (one of which, MedRisk, is a client); Genex increasing it’s position as the largest case management provider, imaging already the domain of OneCall, and three bill review tech firms where once there were six. Other examples abound, all driven by the inevitabilities of a mature industry.

Yes, smaller companies, innovators, and new entrants can and are doing well, but these are by far the exception rather than the rule. Fact is, external factors and technology are rapidly shrinking workers’ comp.

I’m more than a bit frustrated by this.

I see work comp as one answer to the mess that is health care. We actually care about, and work to restore, functionality, an “outcome” that few in the group health, Medicaid, or Medicare world grasp.

What we do – when we do it right, which is all too uncommon – is what they should do – deliver care that gets the patient healthy again – defined as able to do what they did before, if not do it better.

Those pinheads in DC are arguing over insurance – which is NOT the problem.

They should be talking about why our nation’s healthcare is so crappy, and why healthcare we all pay for, and get, and that our loved ones get, doesn’t work a hell of a lot better than it does today.

 

Republicans channelling Monty Python

Why the President and Congressional Republicans are still trying to do healthcare legislation is truly a puzzle. Unhappy with their initial effort to completely blow up the insurance markets (and their political future), they’ve re-engaged in a pointless effort that is destined to fail – and wound themselves in the process.

Pointless because every concession to win votes from the Freedom Caucus guys costs votes from those slightly more moderate.  So, it’s a zero-sum game – win an arch-conservative’s support, lose a less-conservative vote.

perhaps they’re thinking the initial AHCA no-vote debacle wasn’t much of a concern…

To be fair, in the disastrous AHCA non-vote they ONLY lost one of their arms.  This time they’re looking to lose more appendages.  This is one of those “if you don’t laugh you’ll cry” moments, because ACA does need significant improvement, but – at least for now – improvements are being ignored as politics prevail.


There are a lot of reasons this is political suicide…

The President and Republican candidates committed to keeping coverage for pre-existing conditions.  The plan being discussed today would gut this entirely, leaving over a quarter of us without coverage for pre-ex.  Ignore claims to the contrary; the combination of changes to what’s covered (essential health benefits) and removal of restrictions on premiums would mean anyone in the individual or small group markets would be subject to medical underwriting (absent state regulations to the contrary).

A close friend and lifelong Republican (including experience working on Capitol Hill) emailed me this morning about this latest “reform the reform” effort using language that would peel the paint off a battleship.

Most Americans now believe the GOP “owns” health reform.  A just-published Gallup poll finds 61% of respondents said “any problems with the law moving forward are the responsibility of Trump and Republicans in Congress…”

Interestingly, ACA is now polling higher than ever, at 55% approval. That’s up 13 points since the election…

I think the Freedom Caucus guys understand their ideological purity means millions of Americans will lose insurance coverage – and thus healthcare. 

And when they do, every mother, father, aunt, uncle, and grandparent will be incensed beyond measure that their wife/husband/child/grandchild won’t get the care they need.

How that is a winning proposition escapes me, but good for the Freedom Caucus for standing up for what they believe in.

Of course, you need to have legs if you want to stand.

 

UPDATE – looks like the Freedom guys and their Republican opponents can’t agree on what the White House said the new bill would include.  Either that or the WH folks told the two parties different things.

Trump, Immigration, and Healthcare providers

Today MCM is honored to bring you a guest post authored by the Sedgwick Institute’s Rick Victor, PhD.  Rick is the former CEO of the Workers’ Compensation Research Institute, and a colleague and friend as well.

The post begins below; emphasis was added by MCM.

Trump Immigration Rhetoric and Actions

Risk Higher WC Costs and Slower Return to Work

The Trump immigration actions and rhetoric will significantly worsen the doctor shortage. The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) reports a deficit of 8200 primary care doctors in 2016. It predicts a shortage of nearly 95,000 doctors by 2025. As of 2010, 27% of US physicians were foreign born – 230,000 physicians. Fortunately for US patients, that number has increased each year. Given the large number of baby-boomer physicians who will retire in the next decade, we increasingly rely for our care on foreign born doctors.

The Trump travel ban, rhetoric and recent actions to detain and deport immigrants are creating direct impediments to immigration of needed medical personnel, and a hostile environment for many healthcare workers who consider immigrating to the US for training or jobs. It is in our self-interest to encourage the best and brightest come to the US rather than embracing public policies and rhetoric that repel them.

Seven thousand US physicians were born in the six countries covered by the Trump travel ban. These doctors provide 14 million patient-visits each year. Especially affected are patients in Michigan (1.2 million visits), Ohio (880,000 visits), Pennsylvania (700,000 visits) and West Virginia (210,000). In areas with current doctor shortages, the doctors born in these 6 countries provide 2.3 million patient-visits each year. [The Immigrant Doctors Project used US government data to create a map showing the adverse effects on each local area in the US https://immigrantdoctors.org/.

The negative impact of the Trump travel ban on our healthcare system is much broader than this. First, the rhetoric and initial actions have created substantial uncertainty (and inhospitality) for immigrants from many countries, not just the six listed in the travel ban. The best and the brightest of these have many options other than the US.

Second, both those currently working and training in the US and those considering immigration for training and/or better living conditions are also affected. For those currently training in the US, they wonder if they leave the US to visit family, will they be allowed to returned. When their training is completed, will they be allowed to stay? For those considering training or relocating to the US, they are making a multi-year commitment – mid-course disruption would be very costly to them. The uncertainty created by the recent rhetoric and government actions make the decision to come to the US an increasingly risky one.

Third, we rely heavily on non-physician healthcare workers – 1 in 6 of US healthcare workers are foreign born (nearly 2 million). Forty percent of foreign born healthcare workers are from Asia and the Middle East.

Each year, the US healthcare system depends heavily on immigration to meet the growing demand for healthcare services in the US. Between 2006 and 2010, the number of foreign born US healthcare workers grew from 1.5 million to 1.8 million – adding 300,000 new immigrant healthcare workers.

The US healthcare system relies heavily on foreign born doctors and other healthcare workers. Each year, its reliance grows. The demands on our healthcare system are growing substantially with the aging of the population. Current doctor shortages are predicted to growth dramatically, even if the past patterns of immigration continue. The Trump rhetoric and actions on immigration will impair the flow of healthcare workers immigrating to the US. We will all be worse off as wait times grow and access to needed services becomes more difficult.

Foreign born doctors have choices about where they work. Opponents of single payer models of healthcare financing often cite the longer wait times for patients in single payer systems like Canada and Britain. How ironic if US immigration policies end up reducing wait times in Canada while increasing our wait times.

ACA Deathwatch – (some) Republicans reveal their bill

Good morning all – it’s going to be a busy day in health reform land – so here’s the latest.

Republicans have released their long-secret healthcare plans; don’t get all excited as it’s going nowhere, mostly because Congressional Republicans aren’t all behind it.

This legislation will have to pass the House and Senate.  It will not pass the Senate as is, because four Republican Senators have publicly stated they will not vote for the bill due to concerns over Medicaid coverage.  Three other Republican Senators have expressed concern with the cost of the bill, and appear reluctant to vote in favor.

For the bill to pass, at least 7 Democrats would have to get behind it- which is highly unlikely.

Republicans will not ask CBO to score the bill – thus we don’t know what the impact on federal deficits would be.  There’s also no estimate of how many would gain or lose insurance.

And, Freedom Caucus members in the House are denigrating the bill as “Obamacare Lite”, demanding a “clean repeal” instead of a replacement.

So, this is mostly an academic exercise, but does provide a starting point for the GOP.  Here are the key points from the bills, with my quick take appended:

  • Eliminates subsidies, replacing them with age-based tax credits ranging from $2000 to $4000
    MCM – this does little to help lower-income Americans; the current subsidies haven’t been enough to drive participation, so these lower amounts won’t do much.  Also, these aren’t income-based, so it amounts to a giveaway to wealthier Americans who don’t need the subsidy. UPDATElate change to the bill adds income levels that would change credits.
  • Eliminates premium-support and deductible/copay funding 
    MCM – these subsidies help poorer Americans pay for deductibles; eliminating them is a major concern of insurers, and several insurers have said they will immediately move to end coverage without the subsidies
  • Roll back Medicaid expansion, capping payments to states
    MCM – Anathema to many GOP Governors and several Senators from expansion states.
  • Delays the Cadillac Tax
    MCM – this would reduce tax receipts, leading to higher deficits
  • Ends most of tax provisions of ACA, reducing taxes to wealthiest Americans
    MCM – this will result in higher federal deficits, a key issue with at least three R Senators
  • Eliminates the individual mandate requirement and tax penalties for failure to maintain coverage
    MCM – this would likely reduce the number of young members who subsidize older and sicker people, leading to higher costs for older members.
  • Requires people to maintain coverage or be subject to a 30 percent penalty.
    MCM – Many would likely face this penalty as 24%+ of people 26-64 have a pre-existing condition, and those who lose employer-based coverage would have a tough time paying the entire premium themselves without a job
  • Ends all federal funds to Planned Parenthood
    This troubles some Republicans as PP provides a lot of healthcare to lower-income women.

The legislation is exposing splits among and between Republicans on ACA and health reform.  Republicans opposed ACA, but for diverse reasons; costs too high, mandate, tax provisions, Planned Parenthood.

But there is no unity around a solution.  It’s easy to rally opposition to a complex issue; many Democrats have been pointing out problems with ACA for years. It’s far harder to come up with a new solution because everyone has different priorities and ideologies.

What does this mean for you?

The ACA Deathwatch clock moved forward a bit – but not much…

ACA Deathwatch UPDATE: Three problems for the GOP

Republicans have three problems with their promise to “repeal and replace” ACA.

The net – Republicans’ risk – and it is a very real one – is their efforts may blow up the entire healthcare system as it tries to address one narrow slice of the insurance market.

The first problem is internal division.  

Republican Representatives and Senators have committed to “repeal” ACA, but haven’t reached any consensus, agreement, or framework about what the “replacement” is going to be. And there is no indication they are making any progress.

As the Democrats found when constructing ACA six years ago, reaching consensus about healthcare is incredibly difficult as each “wing” in the party wants its own version to prevail. The GOP is learning once again it is MUCH easier to tear down than to build.

UPDATE – Politico reported this today...

disagreements spilled over Wednesday at a closed-door meeting with Vice President-elect Mike Pence that had been intended to unify the Senate GOP. Instead, multiple senators stood up to express concern that the party’s plans to repeal and replace the law could blow massive holes in the budget ... Newly ascendant Republicans are reckoning with the reality that dismantling a nearly seven-year-old law that reshaped a $3 trillion health sector and covers millions of Americans is more daunting than simply campaigning against it.” [emphasis added]

Especially when the “problem” the GOP publicly committed to fix – the individual insurance market – is a relatively small part of the healthcare market – and ACA itself.

Second, without a credible replacement, those individual insurance markets will implode as carriers leave the market. Cost shifting to privately insured patients from hospitals that a) agreed to lower Medicare payments and b) have more uncompensated care will increase dramatically.

Any major problems in the insurance or healthcare provider markets that come after a repeal are going to cost the GOP dearly.  There is no question those people who lose coverage – and there will be millions under ANY of the scenarios now under consideration – will be really, really angry. (Pre-ex is just one issue the GOP has no real solution for)

Third, a repeal and replacement is going to cost hundreds of billions of dollars.

Under the best case scenario, repealing ACA increases the deficit by $350 billion over ten years.  That’s causing major heartburn among GOP deficit hawks, and is a big reason there’s no consensus on what to do. (thanks Brandon Miller for correcting my mistake!)

What’s the net?

Republicans’ pledge to immediately repeal ACA was a winning campaign promise. It may well be a loser in the next election.

 

ACA Deathwatch – The Problem with Pre-Ex

Back in the bad-old pre-ACA days the 27% of us who have pre-existing medical conditions often found it hard if not impossible to get insurance coverage in the individual and small group insurance markets.

As a result;

  • people didn’t leave their job to try something new – aka job lock
  • small employers’ costs went up dramatically if workers got sick or had specific conditions

For those not deep into the health insurance world, think of pre-existing medical conditions as:

  • houses that just had a fire,
  • people with dogs that just bit neighbors,
  • businesses that just had someone slip and fall on their premises, or
  • cars that just hit pedestrians.

No way you’d insure that house/person/business/car.

That’s the problem with requiring health insurers to cover people with heart disease, high blood pressure, bad knees, obesity, or any other condition. You’re insuring the car just after it crashed.

When considering ACA replacements, there are three general approaches.

1. Require everyone have health insurance – the so-called “mandate”.  That way the healthy people help pay for those with pre-ex conditions. Yes, this is a “subsidy”, using money from some to pay for services for others.  It’s spreading the cost across a larger population, while ensuring the currently-healthy are protected from bankruptcy if they get hurt or sick.

The GOP seems averse to this requirement.

Issue – people may not like paying insurance costs when they are at lower risk – which is why there are “age bands” that keep younger folks’ premiums substantially lower than we old folks.

2.  Require insurers to cover anyone who has had “continuous coverage.” That is, the person switches from one insurer to another with NO gaps in coverage. The idea is people will keep their insurance up out fo fear they will need it one day.

Issues:

  • if you lose your job, you have to pay the entire cost of insurance for you and your family yourself.  This is typically more than $1000 a month for a family.  Many people just can’t afford to pay this while they are between jobs.
  • if your job doesn’t offer insurance, you have to buy it – and pay for it – on your own. With wage stagnation affecting many, it’s just not affordable. 

3.  High risk pools – a few states used to have high risk pools; these ended with ACA. These pools were intended to cover people with major diseases or conditions who could not get insurance elsewhere and weren’t eligible for Medicaid or Medicare.

While a good idea, in reality these pools were a financial disaster.  They were very expensive and had a really small political constituency. Legislators continuously cut funding or restricted coverage to ever-smaller groups of patients.

The issue is simple – 1% of the population accounts for almost a quarter of health care costs.  Put another way, about 3.3 million people spend $800 Billion annually.

What does this mean for you?

Pay attention to ACA replacement plans if you or a loved one has a pre-existing condition. Or, for that matter, if you may have one some day…

If you aren’t sure, here’s a list.

ACA Deathwatch – UPDATE on budgetary block

UPDATE – There’s some confusion about what the pending vote to defund ACA will mean

  • defunding essentially repeals a big chunk of ACA by ending funding for key components
  • “repeal” will NOT go into effect for at least 2, and perhaps 4 years.
  • there is NO replacement legislation ready to go – don’t expect to see legislation for months

As reported last week, public and private sources indicate the new Congress will start the push to defund ACA as early as this week as part of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 budget.  The Federal government has been funded under continuing resolutions, with the latest set to expire in late April.  The FY runs from October 1 to September 30.

Here’s how this would work. (caveat – as noted last week, this is way more complicated than one might think, and there is NO consensus within the GOP on how to handle critical “details”)

House passes new rules next week that will allow it to defund ACA.  There’s some complex stuff involved here which may well make this a difficult and protracted process.

Late in January the House and Senate will work on a bill to repeal much of ACA – including:

  • eliminating premium support and cost-sharing subsidies (helping lower-income people buy insurance and pay deductibles and copays)
  • ending Medicaid expansion
  • eliminating ACA taxes (medical device, surcharge on very high incomes, etc)
  • increasing Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement

This is where things may well fall apart.  A key problem is a repeal will increase the Federal deficit, a major issue for many Republicans.  Also, there’s a real fear among some Republicans that changing ACA will cause major market disruption – and Republicans will own that.  That’s why the GOP will delay implementing the “repeal” for several years.

I spoke with friend and colleague Bob Laszewski on this – here’s his take:

they will vote budget instructions early Jan. Some may claim that is the vote to repeal but it’s just a procedural vote with budget instructions for the committees with jurisdiction—Senate HELP and Finance. Then HELP and Finance pass a 2016 budget with ACA defunded. The House is the easy part but they will have to reconcile any differences in the 2016 budget with Senate. Then both houses pass the final. Then Trump signs that. The timeline is about 6 weeks from reconvening to actually defunding.

Here’s where it gets really messy.  Laszewski:

they [the GOP] only have 50%+1 for defund (repeal). They have no consensus for anything thereafter. Some have talked about don’t defund unless they have the replace deal in place.

Replace will take 60 in the Senate. They have 52 seats. They don’t have 52 Senate votes or even a simple majority in the House for any replacement plan right now—or likely anytime soon.

I think we are headed to one hell of a “cliff” as time ticks down on the two or three year extension of the current system.

The summer and fall of 2017 will be frantic to get a deal of some sort. Odds are not great with a few on the right in the Republican Party, and the Dems closing ranks [and] not motivated to cooperate.

Key issues:

  1. don’t buy into press reports sure to come next week that will describe these preliminary rule-change steps as a “repeal”.  ACA repeal will take 60 votes in the Senate, and that is NOT going to happen anytime soon.
  2. IF a defunding bill is rammed thru via reconciliation and signed it will happen quickly. But there are major issues with that – market disruption and voter backlash the two most critical.

What does this mean?

Opposing an administration is easy and has no risk; actually passing legislation that will directly affect people and business is hard and very risky.

Oh, and there’s this…

ACA Deathwatch; What to watch for when Congress convenes next week

News reports indicate Speaker Ryan will be moving quickly to pass ACA repeal legislation when Congress reconvenes next week.

While most elected Republicans are in agreement that ACA should be “repealed”, that’s about where the agreement ends.

And therein lies the problem.  Here’s a brief summary of where legislators stand.

First, the kill-it-dead camp.

Some budget hawks want a total repeal and defunding, much of which can be accomplished via reconciliation.  This prevents a possible Democratic filibuster in the Senate.

There are about 40 Representatives in the so-called Freedom Caucus that hew to this line with possibly a couple dozen more votes to repeal-and-be-done-with-it. Make no mistake, emboldened by the election results these people are in no mood to compromise. As these are the same people who refused to fund the government we should fully expect them to push very hard for total repeal and defunding.

Implications: do NOT assume these folks will compromise.  They will fight tooth-and-nail to kill ACA and damn the consequences.

Second, the fiscally prudent

Related to this group are the fiscally-focused.  These Senators and Congresspeople are quite concerned that a repeal will also do away with about a trillion dollars in revenue and taxes over the next decade which will result in:

  • budget shortfalls
  • bankruptcy of the Medicare Hospital Trust Fund
  • elimination of premium support for about 75% of those buying insurance via the Exchanges

Add to that the reductions in Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement embedded in ACA, and you have another $879 million in additional spending if ACA is repealed.

Implication these folks are going to be cautious, and they will likely end up in the “repeal and replace” camp.

Repeal and replace camp

There are two different groups here – one calling for a repeal then construction of a replacement over time, and one that wants both bills passed simultaneously.

In either case the far-righters are going to come up against more pragmatic Representatives and Senators, notably Lamar Alexander, Chair of the Health Education Labor and Pensions Committee, the Senate Committee that will have significant influence on any legislation going thru that chamber. Alexander’s been quoted saying a GOP bill must “do no harm.”

Alexander and his allies are pushing hard for a much more measured approach that couples repeal with a replacement bill, thereby giving insurers and other stakeholders some confidence and predictability.  Essentially their approach leaves much of today’s ACA in place while sunsetting the bill in 3 or perhaps as many as 4 years.

Alexander, Olympia Snowe et al are of the mind that this gives them enough time to work thru the calculations, political and financial, necessary to replace ACA without blowing up the insurance and healthcare industries in the process.  Among the provisions that have been mentioned favorably by this group are:

  • guaranteeing coverage for pre-ex conditions if individuals maintain insurance coverage
  • maintaining some form of government tax subsidies to help different groups of Americans cover their premium costs and
  • funding for expanded Medicaid coverage for low-income adults and children.

Notably, Alexander et al’s position has been challenged by House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, who wants to repeal THEN replace.  McCarthy’s colleague, Speaker Ryan has also outlined a replacement plan that keeps many of the popular provisions of ACA. Notice the word “outlined”; there is NO replacement legislation that is ready to be introduced anytime soon.

Implication – the House and Senate leadership have different views, and the House is going to be pretty internally-conflicted. This is a LONG way from being resolved.

Back to the good old days camp

Finally, HHS Secretary designate Tom Price has his own ideas, which include repealing cuts to Medicare and ending much of the financial and practice controls and oversight put in place by ACA.  Price’s bill, while it has not been scored by CBO, will almost certainly result in higher costs.

Implication – I don’t see Price’s proposal going very far.

The wild card – Senate Democrats.

There are 48 Democrats in the Senate, and some will have to be co-opted to get a non-reconciliation repeal-and-replace bill thru.  Leader Chuck Schumer is pragmatic, a bunch of Dems are up for re-election in two years and will likely work hard to keep key provisions in any new bill.  However, there are many of his fellow Democrats who are in no mood to compromise.  Hell, the take-no-prisoners approach worked for McConnell…

And this means…what?

Notably, NONE of the GOP bills presently under consideration will address the fundamental, underlying issue – cost.  US health care costs average almost $10,000 per person. In fact the Alexander-Snowe approach and Price’s bill would increase health spending. 

Notably, there is another option.  Republicans could come up with whatever changes they want, and not bother to fund them or do anything about the increased deficit.  While that may seem heretical, one must remember that a Republican House, Senate, and President gave us Medicare Part D, a totally unfunded benefit that the Medicare Actuary calculates has added $16 trillion to the federal deficit.

Note – Paul Ryan was one of the “Yes” votes on that bill.

 

ACA Deathwatch: The real reason the GOP can’t – and won’t – “Repeal” ACA

For the GOP, the problem with repealing ACA is not practical, legislative, or financial.

It’s psychological.

Humans are hard-wired to hate losing stuff, a principle known as loss aversion. We humans strongly prefer avoiding losses to acquiring gains: We get much more upset if we lose a five dollar bill than happy if we find $5.  

With over 20 million more Americans insured now due to ACA and record enrollment going on now, there are millions of voters who will be enormously upset if they lose their health insurance.

The five states with the most people enrolling for coverage on Healthcare.gov through Monday were ones Trump won: Florida – 1.3 million plan selections, Texas (776,000), North Carolina (369,000), Georgia (352,000) and Pennsylvania (291,000). (thanks to NYT).

The GOP has boxed itself in, and has an impossible task ahead – how to

Not surprisingly, many Trump backers who gained health insurance under ACA are now scared he’s going to deliver on his promise to kill ACA. And not nervous scared – really, really scared.

This adds a whole new dimension to loss aversion – this isn’t a five dollar bill, this is a new liver, diabetes medications, knee replacement surgery.

There’s no way any ACA “replacement” that doesn’t require coverage of pre-existing conditions, have significant subsidies for the poor and near-poor, and mandate insurance is going to prevent these people from losing coverage. Oh, and do that while reducing medical costs and not increasing the national debt.

That’s why the GOP isn’t going to repeal ACA.

For a very thorough discussion of just how many – and who – stand to lose coverage if the GOP does repeal ACA, there’s no better source than Charles Gaba.