Negotiators Prepare To Determine Details of Individual Mandate

Negotiators Prepare To Determine Details of Individual Mandate

Democratic leaders in the Senate and House included provisions in their health care reform bills that would require most Americans to buy coverage, an idea that Gov. Schwarzenegger had endorsed in his own health care overhaul plan.  Will he stump for the individual mandate in a national plan?

On Jan. 12, the Sacramento Bee editorial board called on Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) to speak out in favor of the individual mandate — a proposal included in both the House and Senate health care reform bills that would require most people to buy health insurance.

It’s an idea that the governor championed as part of his own push for health care reform in California in 2007, and the Bee is holding it out as an element of national health care overhaul plans that Schwarzenegger still can stand behind, despite his vociferous criticism of elements of the bills that would expand Medicaid.

How would the Senate and House bills go about requiring people to maintain health insurance coverage?

Both bills would require the overwhelming majority of U.S. residents to have health insurance and would provide subsidies to help some low-income people purchase coverage. 

The Senate and House bills both would exempt members of some religious groups from the requirement, as well as prisoners, undocumented immigrants and other people who are not citizens or permanent U.S. residents.  The House bill also specifically waives the requirement for U.S. citizens living abroad and residents of U.S. territories.

In addition, both bills would carve out exemptions for people who could not afford coverage, with the Senate defining that threshold as:

People who do not qualify for exemptions laid out in the bills would be subject to penalties.

Under the House bill, people who do not buy health insurance coverage would be subject to a tax of 2.5% on either the national average premium for coverage or their annual modified adjusted gross income in excess of the minimum income level required to file a federal tax return.  The 2.5% tax would apply to the lesser of the two amounts.

The House bill’s penalties would take effect in fiscal year 2014 and would generate $33 billion through 2019, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Meanwhile, the Senate bill would impose penalties of $95 in 2014 and $350 in 2015.  A Commonwealth Fund analysis of the Senate bill indicates that beginning in 2016, penalties would increase to the greater of the two scenarios below:

CBO projects that penalties would generate about $15 billion through 2019.

Both the Senate and House bills go into greater detail on the specifics of their respective individual mandates than Schwarzenegger’s plan did.  A report by the California Legislative Analyst’s Office indicated that the governor’s proposal did not spell out exemptions to the requirement or what would constitute a minimum level of coverage, but instead would have left those definitions to the regulatory process.

Will the national bills’ specificity move Schwarzenegger to advocate for the individual mandate, or will the governor maintain his combative tone against the proposals unless something is done to scale back what California would be expected to contribute toward a Medicaid expansion? 

While these events play themselves out, here’s an update on the Obama administration’s efforts to boost support for the bill among Democratic governors, and other health care reform news.

Administration News

Merging the Legislation

What’s in the Bills

Dollars and Cents

Shaping the Debate

Poll

Exit mobile version