CBO weirdness with HR3962
Compare and contrast Table 2 from the CBO analysis of HR3962, the new House healthcare bill. Specifically note that non-group /other net enrollment increases from 24 million to 30 million between 2015 and 2019. Now compare this to the bill itself, Title II, Section 202, Page 94:
Individual health insurance coverage that is not grandfathered health insurance coverage under subsection (a) may only be offered on or after the first day of Y1 as an Exchange-participating health benefits plan.
How can enrollment go up if new enrollment is disallowed outside the Exchange?
The problem is further exacerbated when you realize the new dependents born after “Y1” (A-1-B, page 91) are not allowed onto their parents’ plans and that individual business generally has a 30-40% lapse rate annually. Granted, people may not be willing to part with the relatively cheaper grandfathered plans, so the lapse rate is likely to fall. But it can’t go negative.
Perhaps the circle is squared by the ephemeral “other” category in the analysis. But I doubt it. Compare the HR3962 score with the Baucus bill score, which separated “other” from “non-group”. In that score, those two categories moved in tandem under “current” law, and it seems reasonable to presume that the “other” category is mostly unaffected by reform (I presume it is Medicare disability, etc.).
There are many such examples like this, where you just want to shake the CBO and ask “What are you smoking? And … Can I have some of that?” I think I’ll need it.