Health insurance mandate

• 1. Introduction

  ›

  A health insurance mandate is a legal requirement that people obtain health insurance coverage, either individually or through an employer. The idea sounds simple enough, but the politics behind it have twisted through decades of ideological reversals, court battles, and genuine philosophical disagreement about what governments owe their citizens.

  In the United States, the individual mandate did not begin as a left-wing idea. It was born at The Heritage Foundation in 1989, proposed as an explicitly conservative alternative to single-payer health care. How that origin story collided with the presidency of Barack Obama, a 5-4 Supreme Court ruling, and a complete reversal by the Republican Party is one of the stranger journeys in recent American political history.

  But the mandate debate is also a global one. Australia, Japan, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Germany, and France each built their own answers to the same underlying problem: how do you prevent a health insurance market from collapsing under the weight of sick people and reluctant healthy ones? Their answers reveal how differently societies balance personal freedom against collective risk.

• 2. The Problem Mandates Solve

  ›

  Adverse selection is the engine that makes health insurance mandates feel necessary to their supporters. When people can choose whether to buy insurance, healthier and younger individuals often opt out, leaving a pool of sicker, older customers. Premiums rise. More healthy people leave. Premiums rise again. This cycle, which policy analysts have called a "death spiral," can push a voluntary insurance market toward collapse.

  The logic of a mandate breaks that cycle by forcing healthy people into the pool, which spreads the risk more evenly and holds premiums down. This is why insurance industry groups in the United States argued the mandate was "absolutely necessary" as a precondition to universal coverage, and why they described any non-compulsory reform as certain to fail.

  Not everyone accepts this diagnosis. University of Chicago economist Casey B. Mulligan argued that an individual mandate is unnecessary and reduces efficiency as long as insurance is subsidized enough. In his view, people who decline subsidized plans are actually saving federal taxpayers money. A cost-benefit analysis supporting his position appeared in the 2019 Economic Report of the President. Some research also suggests that risk aversion among consumers and what is called propitious selection may naturally balance the threat of adverse selection, even without a mandate.

  The community rating and guaranteed issue rules that typically accompany mandates are the real pressure point. Those rules require insurers to charge the same rates to everyone and to cover everyone who applies. Without a mandate, healthy people can simply walk away, leaving insurers stuck with expensive customers they must still serve. The mandate is designed to close that exit.

• 3. A Conservative Idea

  ›

  Stuart Butler of The Heritage Foundation put the case for an individual mandate in a phrase that captured exactly why conservative thinkers once found it appealing. He wrote: "If a young man wrecks his Porsche and has not had the foresight to obtain insurance, we may commiserate, but society feels no obligation to repair his car. But health care is different." His point was that emergency rooms treat people regardless of insurance status, so uninsured individuals are already free-riding on the system.

  From the early 1990s onward, the individual mandate attracted support from Republican politicians including Charles Grassley, Mitt Romney, and John Chafee. They saw it as a free-market approach that avoided government-run single-payer insurance while still addressing the coverage gap. The mandate resonated with the conservative value of individual responsibility.

  President Bill Clinton's 1993 health care proposal included both an employer mandate and an individual mandate, built around a regulated marketplace of health maintenance organizations. That plan failed, brought down by concerns about complexity and a sustained campaign of negative advertising from conservative groups and the insurance industry. Notably, Republican senators at the time responded with a counter-proposal that would have placed the insurance-buying obligation on individuals rather than employers.

  By 2006, Republican Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts signed an individual mandate into law with broad bipartisan support. Two years later, Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina praised Romney for taking "good conservative ideas, like private health insurance, and apply them to the need to have everyone insured." Romney himself said he was proud of what Massachusetts had done, and described it as a potential model for the nation.

• 4. The Massachusetts Experiment

  ›

  Massachusetts enacted its individual health-insurance mandate in 2005, with Romney signing the implementing legislation in 2006. Before that law passed, per capita health care costs in Massachusetts were the highest in the country outside of Washington, D.C.

  In the three years before and two years after the law took effect, from 2003 to 2008, Massachusetts insurance premiums continued to rise faster than those in the rest of the United States. But the year-to-year rate of growth slowed as a result of the law, which its supporters counted as a success. More than 97 percent of Massachusetts residents became insured, giving the state the lowest uninsured rate in the country.

  The state mandate survived the passage of the federal Affordable Care Act, meaning Massachusetts residents faced both a federal and a state mandate for several years. When the federal penalty was reduced to zero in 2019, Massachusetts kept its own requirement in place.

  The mandate drew criticism on a different front, one that the national debate rarely addressed. Post-ACA, Massachusetts maintained Medicaid estate recovery rules broader than the federal minimum, recovering from the estates of recipients aged 55 and older all medical expenses paid on their behalf, not just long-term-care costs. Critics argued that people in this group were subject to the mandate and would face penalties for declining Medicaid or expanded Medicaid coverage, yet ultimately received no risk-pooling benefit since they could be required to repay all of their medical bills. New Jersey and the District of Columbia adopted their own individual mandates effective the 1st of January 2019, and California, Rhode Island, and Vermont followed effective the 1st of January 2020.

• 5. Reversal and the ACA

  ›

  Barack Obama campaigned against an individual mandate during the 2008 Democratic primaries, attacking Hillary Clinton and John Edwards directly over their support for it in debates and television advertising. His position shifted after he took office, and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, signed in 2010, placed an individual mandate at its center, with the requirement taking effect in 2014.

  Republicans reversed course just as completely. In 2009, every Republican Senator, including Bob Bennett of Utah who had co-written a 2007 bill that included a mandate, voted to describe the mandate as unconstitutional. Bennett later explained that he had not focused closely enough on what the amendment actually said and probably would have voted differently had he realized the individual mandate was at its core. The New York Times observed that it had become difficult to remember the mandate's origins in conservative thought, given how fiercely Republicans were by then attacking it as an assault on freedom.

  The Supreme Court upheld the ACA's individual mandate on the 28th of June 2012, in a 5-4 decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts. The Court ruled that the mandate could not be sustained under the Commerce Clause but was valid as a tax under Congress's authority to lay and collect taxes. Legal scholar Randy Barnett of Georgetown University Law Center had argued beforehand that enforcing the mandate was equivalent to "commandeering the people," and that penalizing inaction was only defensible when a fundamental duty had been established.

  The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 set the ACA's individual mandate penalty at zero dollars effective 2019, effectively eliminating it without repealing the legal text. District Judge Reed O'Connor of Texas ruled on the 14th of December 2018 that the now-penaltyless mandate was unconstitutional. The Fifth Circuit affirmed part of his opinion in December 2019. The Supreme Court took up the case as California v. Texas during the 2020-21 term, and on the 17th of June 2021 ruled 7-2 that the states challenging the mandate lacked standing because they had not demonstrated past or future injury from the provision.

• 6. Global Approaches

  ›

  Japan built a health system that mandates all residents carry insurance, either through an employer or a local community insurer, but imposes no penalty on individuals who do not comply. Around 10 percent of residents evade the compulsory premium; those who do simply do not receive an insurance card, which providers require for service. The Japanese health ministry negotiates a fixed price for every medical procedure and every drug with doctors every two years. That price control held premiums for an average Japanese family to around $280 a month at the time of reporting. Total health spending runs around half the American level, and taxpayers subsidize the poor. Insurers cannot deny claims, cannot deny coverage, and cannot generate profit; any surplus rolls over to the following year and reduces the next premium.

  The Netherlands built its mandate around for-profit competition. Private insurers compete to provide minimum coverage plans, though mutual non-profit insurers also operate. The government runs a risk equalization mechanism that transfers funds to insurers who cover relatively more expensive customers. About 40 percent of the population qualifies for a premium subsidy. An estimated 1.5 percent of the legal population remains uninsured. The architects of the Dutch mandate anticipated near-universal compliance and created few enforcement mechanisms initially, leaving the government to develop them later.

  Switzerland's design resembles the Dutch model but with a key difference: premiums are not linked to income. The government provides direct subsidies to lower-income households to help them afford coverage. About 40 percent of households received some form of subsidy in 2004, and virtual universal coverage, around 99 percent, resulted. The legal framework behind the Swiss system dates to 1996.

  Australia does not impose a general individual mandate but uses financial incentives and penalties to push higher earners toward private insurance. Individuals with annual incomes above A$70,000, a threshold set in the 2008 federal budget, who lack specified private hospital coverage pay an additional 1 percent Medicare Levy Surcharge. Private insurers must comply with guaranteed issue and community rating, but may limit coverage of pre-existing conditions for up to one year.

• 7. Employer Mandates in Europe

  ›

  France and Germany, the two largest economies in the European Union, built their health systems around employer mandates rather than individual ones. Workers in both countries make compulsory contributions to statutory sickness funds, which are non-profit entities that originated with trades unions and later received formal legal status. Personal contributions in both countries are tied to income level rather than health status.

  In Germany, only 0.2 percent of the population is uninsured, a group made up mainly of self-employed individuals, some wealthy and some poor residents, and people who have fallen behind on contributions to either the statutory or private insurance system. High earners in Germany have the option to leave the statutory system for private insurance, but anyone who reaches age 55 while enrolled in private insurance cannot switch back to the statutory system.

  France shifted the financing of its statutory health insurance significantly over the decade from 1990 to 2000. Direct employee salary deductions fell from about 30 percent of the system's income to just 3 percent, and direct employer contributions also declined. Government tax revenue filled the gap, broadening the mandatory contribution base. Private health insurance in France is voluntary and primarily used to increase reimbursement rates above what the statutory system provides, rather than to replace it.

  The United States ACA employer mandate requires all businesses with 50 or more full-time employees to provide minimum affordable health insurance to at least 95 percent of their full-time workers and their dependents up to age 26, or pay a fee, with that requirement fully in effect by 2016.