Can Republicans avoid the dreaded health-care death spiral?
Maybe — but they'll have to freeze out the old, sick, and poor


A free daily digest of the biggest news stories of the day - and the best features from our website
Thank you for signing up to TheWeek. You will receive a verification email shortly.
There was a problem. Please refresh the page and try again.
Ever since ObamaCare passed, the "death spiral" has hung over debates about health reform like some wonk prophecy of doom.
A death spiral occurs when a health insurer's pool of paying customers contains too many sick people. That drives up the insurer's costs, which then drives up customers' premiums, which then drives away customers. And since healthy customers are the ones most likely to risk going without insurance, the sick customers increase as a portion of the insurer's pool. And so the deadly cycle continues, until the insurer collapses.
ObamaCare tried to prevent death spirals by requiring insurers to offer everyone coverage no matter how sick they are, while simultaneously requiring everyone to buy coverage. The first part of that — the ban on denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions — saddled insurers with more sick customers. But the second part — ObamaCare's individual mandate — gave insurers more healthy customers to balance things out. The two rules require one another.
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
The individual mandate, however, is arguably the most hated part of ObamaCare. And Republicans are really eager to get rid of it.
On Monday, the GOP released their ObamaCare replacement plan, the American Health Care Act (AHCA). Sure enough, the individual mandate's tax penalty is toast, while the rule against denying coverage because of pre-existing conditions remains in effect. So how is the AHCA going to avoid causing a death spiral?
Well, it may not. But it's going to try, using several different provisions.
The first is what's called the "continuous coverage" requirement. Americans will no longer pay a tax penalty simply for not having health insurance. But if they go more than 63 days without coverage of some sort, and then try to buy a new plan, the insurer can charge them a 30 percent additional fee on top of their premium for a full year. The idea is to incentivize people to stay covered, and not skip out when they're healthy and then buy back in when they're sick.
There are a few problems here. For one thing, people can easily lose their coverage through no fault of their own — for instance, if they're covered through their employer and then suddenly lose their job. On top of that, poor and working-class Americans are much more likely to lose their jobs in an economic downturn, and they'll have the toughest time buying their own plan in the 63-day window.
This brings us to the next provision, which is the refundable tax credits the AHCA offers to help people pay their premiums.
ObamaCare has a similar provision, but its subsidies phase out pretty quickly as households rise up the income ladder. This caused plenty of problems, since a lot of healthy middle-class Americans — who the system needs to buy insurance to keep ObamaCare's insurance markets stabilized — are simply going without coverage because premiums are unaffordable and their subsidies are skimpy. At the same time, ObamaCare's tax credits are actually very generous to poorer households and older insurance customers.
The AHCA has the opposite problem. Its tax credits give much more help to healthy middle-class people than ObamaCare does. But the AHCA's tax credits are also relatively stingy and the same flat rate for everyone — they're only adjusted slightly for age. That leaves poorer and older Americans in the lurch.
ObamaCare also requires that the premiums insurers charge old people could be at most three time as big as premiums for young people. The GOP wants to scrap that rule entirely. This would probably encourage young people (who tend to be healthier) to sign up. But it would also make coverage far more expensive for older people, who badly need the care. Vox's Sarah Kliff reported that "this particular policy would lower premiums for a 24-year-old from $2,800 to $2,100. But premiums for a 64-year-old would rise from $8,500 to $10,600."
Lastly, the AHCA includes funding for something called high-risk pools. These are separate insurance markets specifically for sick people with pre-existing conditions. ObamaCare had put those customers into the same insurance market as healthy people, while high-risk pools quarantine the sick people in their own market. High-risk pools avoid raising premiums for healthy people, but they also require really big subsidies to help sick people buy coverage. And the funding the Republicans propose in the AHCA isn't anywhere near enough to fund the high-risk pools properly.
Let's not forget the basic purpose of ObamaCare: Lots of Americans who badly needed health care either couldn't afford coverage or were actively denied coverage. ObamaCare is not perfect, but it made progress in solving both those problems. The Republican plan, meanwhile, opens up a bunch of new cracks in the health system through which poorer, sicker, and older Americans can be quietly pushed out of the health insurance markets.
That's how the GOP plan is trying to avoid a death spiral — by creating new versions of the problems that ObamaCare tried to solve.
Continue reading for free
We hope you're enjoying The Week's refreshingly open-minded journalism.
Subscribed to The Week? Register your account with the same email as your subscription.
Sign up to our 10 Things You Need to Know Today newsletter
A free daily digest of the biggest news stories of the day - and the best features from our website
Jeff Spross was the economics and business correspondent at TheWeek.com. He was previously a reporter at ThinkProgress.
-
School's out: are term-time holidays acceptable?
Talking Point Parents struggle to afford summer travel price hikes, but face threat of fines and disrupted education
By Harriet Marsden Published
-
Corruption in Kyiv: how Zelenskyy is taking on Ukraine's other big enemy
The Explainer Ukranian president has purged his Ministry of Defence as Kyiv looks to shore up support in the West
By Richard Windsor Published
-
Privacy
Cartoons
By The Week Staff Published
-
Trump surrenders in Georgia election subversion case
Speed Read
By Catherine Garcia Published
-
Rep. Hakeem Jeffries chosen to succeed Pelosi as leader of House Democrats
Speed Read
By Brigid Kennedy Published
-
GOP leader Kevin McCarthy's bid for House speaker may really be in peril
Speed Read
By Peter Weber Published
-
Are China's protests a real threat for Beijing?
opinion The sharpest opinions on the debate from around the web
By Harold Maass Published
-
Who is Nick Fuentes, the white nationalist who dined with Trump and Kanye?
Speed Read From Charlottesville to Mar-a-Lago in just five years
By Rafi Schwartz Published
-
Jury convicts Oath Keepers Stewart Rhodes, Kelly Meggs of seditious conspiracy in landmark Jan. 6 verdict
Speed Read
By Peter Weber Published
-
A look at the White House's festive and homey holiday decor
Speed Read
By Brigid Kennedy Published
-
Bob Iger addresses 'Don't Say Gay' bill, says inclusion is part of Disney's values
Speed Read
By Justin Klawans Published