Health insurance mandate

• 1. Global Mandate Models

  ›

  In 2008, the Australian federal budget set an income threshold of A$70,000 for a specific Medicare Levy Surcharge. This surcharge applied to individuals with high annual incomes who did not purchase specified levels of private hospital coverage. The system relies on general taxation and does not make use of Medicare compulsory. Those who buy private insurance receive a government-funded rebate on their premiums instead. People earning average or below-average incomes may qualify for subsidies but face no penalty if they decline to buy insurance. Private insurers in Australia must follow guaranteed issue rules and community rating requirements. They can limit coverage for pre-existing ailments for up to one year to discourage adverse selection.

  Japan maintains a universal health care system that mandates all residents have insurance through work or local community-based insurers. No penalties exist for individuals who fail to obtain this coverage. The Japanese health ministry tightly controls prices down to the smallest detail. Every two years doctors and the ministry negotiate fixed prices for every procedure and drug. These negotiations keep premiums around $280 a month for the average family. Insurance premiums are set by the government with guaranteed issue and community rating. Insurers cannot deny claims or coverage and cannot make profits since net revenue carries over to the next year. Around 10% of the population evades the compulsory premium because municipal governments do not issue them insurance cards. Voluntary private insurance accounts for only about 2% of total health care spending.

• 2. American Political Origins

  ›

  The Heritage Foundation proposed an individual mandate to purchase healthcare in 1989 as an alternative to single-payer systems. Stuart Butler served as an early supporter of this individual mandate within the organization. The foundation changed its position in 2011 and called the individual mandate unconstitutional. From its inception, Republican politicians championed the idea of an individual mandate as a free-market approach to reform. Supporters included Charles Grassley, Mitt Romney, and John Chafee. Conservative groups felt the concept resonated with principles of individual responsibility. They recognized that the healthcare market possessed unique characteristics requiring specific solutions.

  President Bill Clinton proposed a health care reform bill in 1993 that included mandates for both employers and individuals. This plan failed amid concerns regarding complexity and unrealistic expectations. An unprecedented barrage of negative advertising funded by politically conservative groups and the health insurance industry contributed to its failure. At the time, Republican senators proposed a bill requiring individuals rather than employers to buy insurance. Hillary Clinton's plan in 2008 also included an individual mandate component. The federal or state mandates aim to avoid free-rider problems and adverse selection issues in insurance pools. Excessive adverse selection can cause premiums to rise to extreme levels known as death spirals.

• 3. Massachusetts State Precedent

  ›

  Governor Mitt Romney signed an individual mandate into law in Massachusetts during 2005. Strong bipartisan support facilitated this enactment of the 2005 Massachusetts health care reform law. Before the law passed, per capita health care costs in the state were the highest anywhere except Washington D.C. From 2003 to 2008, insurance premiums continued to outpace the rest of the United States. However, the rate of growth year-to-year slowed significantly after the law took effect. More than 97 percent of Massachusetts residents became insured following implementation. This made it the state with the lowest percentage of people without health insurance.

  The Massachusetts state mandate remained active even after the federal mandate stopped in 2018. Post-ACA, the state kept Medicaid estate recovery regulations broader than federally required minimums. These regulations recover from estates all medical expenses paid on behalf of Medicaid recipients age 55 and older. People affected by these rules must pay back full medical expenses rather than just a premium equivalent. Critics argue this creates unfairness since those subject to the mandate have no risk pooling for themselves. The state mandate continues to exist alongside the federal framework that once covered its residents.

• 4. Federal Implementation And Repeal

  ›

  President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law in 2010 which included an individual mandate effective in 2014. Final regulations for the mandate appeared in the Federal Register on the 30th of August 2013. Minor corrections were published later on the 26th of December 2013. By the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, the mandate penalty was set at zero dollars effective 2019. The act did not repeal the individual mandate because doing so would violate the reconciliation process. District Judge Reed O'Connor ruled the mandate unconstitutional on the 14th of December 2018.

  California and several other states led an appeal of the case to the Fifth Circuit Court. The Fifth Circuit affirmed part of O'Connor's opinion regarding unconstitutionality in December 2019. The Supreme Court heard California v. Texas during its 2020, 21 term. A 7, 2 decision issued on the 17th of June 2021, ruled that Texas and other challenging states lacked standing. They had not shown past or future injury related to the provision. The Supreme Court otherwise declined to rule on the constitutionality of the individual mandate itself.

• 5. Constitutional Legal Battles

  ›

  Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the majority opinion in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius on the 28th of June 2012. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the provision as constitutional by a 5, 4 vote. Although the individual mandate component was not constitutional under the Commerce Clause, it was reasonably construed as a tax. This made it valid under Congressional authority to lay and collect taxes. Randy Barnett of Georgetown University Law Center argued in September 2010 that the mandate is unconstitutional under the doctrine of the Commerce and Necessary and Proper Clauses. He asserted enforcing it equates to commandeering the people.

  Barnett also claimed Congress fails to enforce the mandate under its taxing power because the penalty does not generate revenue according to the Act itself. Insurance lobbyists like AHIP advocate that the mandate supports guaranteed issue and community rating limits. Insurers propose the mandate prevents adverse selection by ensuring healthy individuals purchase insurance. This broadens the risk pool for everyone involved. Without mandates, for-profit insurers rely on risk aversion to charge premiums over expected risks. Mandates eliminate this constraint allowing insurers to charge more than they otherwise could.

• 6. Economic Adverse Selection Theory

  ›

  The purpose of federal or state mandates to carry coverage avoids free-rider problems and adverse selection issues. When there is excessive adverse selection, premiums can get very high leading to death spirals. Only the sickest people remain in the pools causing extreme premium increases. Some studies suggest the threat of adverse selection is exaggerated. Risk aversion and propitious selection may balance these effects. Several US states have guaranteed issue and limits on rating without individual mandates. Massachusetts remains an exception with its specific mandate requirement.

  University of Chicago economist Casey B. Mulligan argues an individual mandate is unnecessary if insurance is subsidized enough. Consumers who turn down government aid are owed gratitude by Federal taxpayers according to his view. A cost-benefit analysis confirming Mulligan's argument appeared in the 2019 Economic Report of the President. It concludes adverse selection is not sufficient economic justification for prohibiting unsubsidized plans. These plans often exclude essential benefits like maternity or mental health coverage. Governments imposing mandates must subsidize those unable to afford it shifting costs onto taxpayers.

• 7. Employer Mandate Structures

  ›

  The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act includes both employer and individual mandates effective in 2014. Businesses with 50 or more full-time employees must provide minimum affordable health insurance to at least 95% of their workforce. They face a fee if they fail to meet this requirement by 2016. In France and Germany, statutory sickness funds require employers and employees to pay into them. Private health insurance remains voluntary in France to increase reimbursement rates from the statutory system. The same applies in Germany where high earners can opt out of statutory insurance into private plans.

  Persons reaching age 55 in the private sector must remain covered by that plan without opting back into statutory insurance. Unemployed persons usually continue payments through social insurance while the very poor receive support from the government. Most workers are insured through compulsory membership of non-profit sickness funds established originally by trades unions. Only 0.2% of Germans remain uninsured mainly due to self-employment status or failure to pay contributions. Between 1990 and 2000 the share of French SHI income from employee salaries fell from around 30% to just 3%. Government taxation made up the difference widening the mandatory contribution base.