More Lessons from Massachusetts
Yesterday the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation released a policy brief providing additional information about the remaining uninsured in Massachusetts after the enactment of that state’s health insurance expansion. Two particular items of note:
- First, the study admits that the uninsured “were more likely than those with insurance coverage to be male, young, and single;” elsewhere it points out that “young adults continue to represent a disproportionate share of the uninsured in Massachusetts.” The report confirms earlier findings that individuals in Massachusetts were paying the tax penalty when healthy, only to obtain insurance when they got sick and needed coverage – thus raising premiums for all residents. Because the mandate tax penalty under the Massachusetts law is actually higher than the new federal statute (at least $1,068 in Massachusetts versus only $695 when the federal law is fully phased-in), “young invincibles” will have an even greater incentive to drop coverage under the federal mandate.
- Second, the study finds that “at least 42 percent of uninsured adults in Massachusetts were potentially eligible for MassHealth [i.e., Medicaid] or Commonwealth Care [i.e., government-subsidized health insurance] in 2008.” While some may question whether those who can obtain taxpayer-subsidized health coverage at any time are truly uninsured, it’s important to note this finding in the context of the spiraling costs to the Commonwealth’s taxpayers for the existing coverage expansions. If costs to taxpayers are rising to the point that Massachusetts has contemplated dropping coverage for some individuals, how much greater will the Commonwealth’s fiscal burden be if all the uninsured citizens who are actually eligible for taxpayer-funded coverage enroll in government programs? Just as important, how great will the unfunded mandates on all states be if the same scenario occurs as a result of the federal law?