wpostServer: http://css.washingtonpost.com/wpost

A win for the individual mandate

at 11:44 AM ET, 08/30/2011

Health reform’s individual mandate does not get a lot of love. The mandate - which requires most Americans to purchase health insurance come 2014 - polls horribly, is thought by many to be unconstitutional and, from a policy perspective, often derided as too weak to actually prod us into buying coverage.

But, today, there’s some new evidence that health reform’s individual mandate will be a powerful policy tool. Seventy-six percent of the uninsured say they would rather purchase insurance than pay the law’s penalty.

That number comes from Oliver Wyman, a consulting firm that has put together the first major market survey of the uninsured, looking at who will buy coverage under the health reform law. When asked to choose between paying a penalty and purchasing coverage, 76 percent of the uninsured said they’d rather purchase coverage. That would reduce the number of people without insurance to 5 percent of the population and have 25 million Americans purchasing through the exchanges, just slightly higher than the 24 million that the CBO projected.

This is surprising and it isn’t. On the one hand, health reform’s penalty for not purchasing health insurance - which will rise to $695 by 2016 - is a lot less than the cost of buying health insurance coverage. But on the other, Massachusetts - the only state that has implemented an individual mandate - has seen very high take up.

One other interesting finding to point out here: those with the lowest incomes turned out to be the most likely to comply with the mandate:

The health reform law includes higher subsidies for those with lower incomes. So who decides to purchase insurance will have a big impact on how much the federal government spends on implementing the Affordable Care Act. And any changes to subsidies that Congress makes, Oliver Wyman’s Terry Stone says, will likely matter most to the lowest income Americans.

“In today’s political and economic climate, we can expect pressure to reduce subsidies,” says Stone, a partner with the firm’s Health and Life Sciences practice. “If that happens we’re likely to see more people go without insurance—and unable to purchase coverage on their own. And the group most affected will not be the poorest, but middle-income Americans.”

Loading...

Comments

Add your comment
 
Read what others are saying About Badges

    Blog Contributors

    Ezra Klein

    Ezra Klein

    Ezra Klein is the editor of Wonkblog and a columnist at the Washington Post, as well as a contributor to MSNBC and Bloomberg. His work focuses on domestic and economic policymaking, as well as the political system that’s constantly screwing it up. He really likes graphs, and is on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook. E-mail him here.

    Neil Irwin

    Neil Irwin

    Neil Irwin is a Washington Post columnist and the economics editor of Wonkblog. Each weekday morning his Econ Agenda column reports and explains the latest trends in economics, finance, and the policies that shape both. He is the author of “The Alchemists: Three Central Bankers and a World on Fire.” Follow him on Twitter here. Email him here.

    Sarah Kliff

    Sarah Kliff

    Sarah Kliff covers health policy, focusing on Medicare, Medicaid and the health reform law. She tries to fit in some reproductive health and education policy coverage, too, alongside an occasional hockey reference. Her work has appeared in Newsweek, Politico, and the BBC. She is on Twitter and Facebook.

    Brad Plumer

    Brad Plumer

    Brad Plumer is a reporter focusing on energy and environmental issues. He was previously an associate editor at The New Republic. Follow him on Twitter. Email him here.

    Dylan Matthews

    Dylan Matthews

    Dylan Matthews covers taxes, poverty, campaign finance, higher education, and all things data. He has also written for The New Republic, Salon, Slate, and The American Prospect. Follow him on Twitter here. Email him here.

    Section:/blogs/ezra-klein