How Obamacare premiums penalize smokers
The law aims to discourage tobacco use with a surcharge. Critics say that will fall most heavily on the people who can least afford it.
Smokers could face sticker shock when shopping for individual or small-group health insurance in the new state health marketplaces scheduled to open this fall, due to a controversial clause in the Affordable Care Act, or ACA, that allows insurers to penalize smokers by continuing to charge higher rates to tobacco users.
President Barack Obama's landmark health insurance reform legislation ends decades of advantageous underwriting practices by barring insurers from, among other things, limiting lifetime benefits and denying coverage due to pre-existing conditions.
But the law widely known as Obamacare also aims to discourage tobacco use, the nation's largest preventable health hazard, which kills some 443,000 Americans each year at an annual cost to the nation of $193 billion in medical care and lost productivity, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
How do you combat tobacco use without discriminating against smokers? The ACA attempts this balancing act by allowing insurers to continue their practice of charging tobacco users a so-called "smoker surcharge" but limiting it to 50% above the rates they charge customers who do not use tobacco, beginning in 2014.
Groups question smoker surcharge
"Smoking and tobacco use are the only pre-existing conditions that the Affordable Care Act still allows insurers to discriminate against," says Erika Sward, assistant vice president of national advocacy at the American Lung Association.
Combine the smoker surcharge with another health reform rule that prohibits low-income applicants from using federal tax subsidies to offset the surcharge, and consumer advocates fear older smokers could be priced out of the market.
"While not all health plans charge higher premiums for smokers, we are concerned that, if they do, people who may really need access to health care could be left uninsured because they can't afford coverage," says Gerry Smolka, senior strategic policy adviser for the AARP Public Policy Institute.
The American Lung Association also opposes penalizing smokers for a different reason. "There is absolutely no evidence that surcharges are effective in encouraging smokers to quit," explains Sward.
Critics say surcharge hits the poor
According to the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation, the smoker slam would work like this: A 50-year-old, low-income smoker (earning $15,000 for the purposes of this example) would be quoted an annual premium of about $8,100, including a nearly $2,700 tobacco surcharge. The federal low-income subsidy would bring her premium down to about $3,000. But if she didn't smoke, her premium would be just $300. Subsidies can't make the surcharge go away.
Advocates fear she would remain uninsured under this scenario and choose to face the tax penalty in 2014 for failing to carry coverage as required under Obamacare's "individual mandate." The penalty for individuals will be $95 next year, and it will rise to $695 by 2016.
The larger public policy concern is that the surcharge that penalizes smokers could disproportionately put health insurance out of reach for a key group that health reform aims to help: the millions of poor Americans who currently lack coverage.
"There's that sense that any variation in premium constitutes a kind of income discrimination because it is lower-income people and nonwhite people who are most likely to smoke," says Deborah Chollet, a senior fellow at Mathematica Policy Research in Washington, D.C.
Administration says law helps smokers
A representative for the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, says that, despite the media kerfuffle, Obamacare benefits smokers.
"Before the ACA, insurance companies could charge far more than 50% more for smokers or simply deny them coverage altogether because they smoke. The ACA puts limits on how much more smokers can be charged," says the representative, who spoke under condition of anonymity.
CMS notes that tobacco users can avoid 50% smoker surcharges in two ways: by enrolling in a tobacco-cessation program; or through state-adopted insurance standards that set lower limits on surcharges or prohibit any premium differences between smokers and nonsmokers. As of June, three states have adopted lower limits, and six states plus the District of Columbia have prohibited any price rating based on tobacco use. The latter group includes the nation's most populous state, California.
"The concern in California was that smoking is so linked to poverty and chronic disease that insurers were going to use it basically as a proxy for rating by disease status," says Dylan Roby, an assistant professor of health policy and management at UCLA's Fielding School of Public Health.
Glitch crimps smoker penalty, for now
Some smokers are temporarily getting something of a reprieve from the threat of steep premiums. In June, the Obama administration told insurers that a glitch in health insurance reform would hold down premiums for older smokers.
Chollet says that even when things are working properly, market forces alone will likely keep Obamacare's smoker surcharges well below the 50% cap.
"The average surcharge now is around 15%, and for a simple reason: They don't necessarily want the business to go away," Chollet says. "I don't think we're going to see 50%. States allow that now, and you don't see it happen."
Rick Curtis, the president of the Institute for Health Policy Solutions, a nonpartisan research group, agrees that Obamacare is unlikely to penalize smokers too harshly.
"Long story short, smokers generally will not see a rate increase compared to current or previous years' individual insurance premiums," he says. "Individuals who are smokers will . . . generally have improved access and more affordable premiums under ACA restrictions."
More from Bankrate.com:
Unfortunately Obummer who is a smoker won't be penalized becasue he doesn't have to obey any of the madates in this worthless insurance plan.
Quit recently after a heart attack, so it's no longer an issue for me. I would not recommend this method of quitting, as it is expensive and hurts like hell.
As for the example shown for the 50 year old smoker, here's my thoughts on that one. I don't see someone making 15,000 a year choking up 3,000 for insurance. They will just take their chances and if they are hit with a major medical bill, good luck collecting the debt.
proofs that Oboma, Nancy and old Harry are communists and want control of people's lives. They do not give a damn about anyone except themselves and their own arrogance. This is no longer a free country. Stalin and Hitler lost but Oboma won!!!!
"Obama Blows Half of Obamacare Deadlines"
I hope people head to the WH next year and protest Obamacare by throwing their 'Affordable Care I.D.cards' over the fence by the thousands if not millions.
If you are earning $15,000/year and wasting money on cigarettes, I don't feel sorry for you. In fact, if your income is sufficiently low you require any type of government (aka TAXPAYER) subsidy to live, yet you still find money to buy smokes, dine out, drink alcohol, gamble, etc, you pretty much disgust me. If you are living even partially on MY tax dollars, you should be respectful enough to not waste it away on desires and vices but rather focus purely on your NEEDS so you can eventually quit living on my tax dollars.
That said, I don't support this provision anymore than I support tobaco taxes. As much as I hate smoking, the government does not have a right to create punitive damages to try and dictate how one lives. It started with tobaco, now people want to tax soda, fast food, candy, etc. This is supposed to be a free country. As long as I am not breaking the law, I shouldn't be penalized by the government. Land of the FREE people. We have gone way too far from that point.
So isnt this a vicious circle.
The person smokes and pays excess of $2.00 per pack tax to smoke.
His premium is higher, but thats OK because Obama is going to give them free healthcare.
So the goverment pays for this guy to smoke cigarettes, then gets a two dollar tax rebate back.
Then the goverment turns around and gives him the free healthcare insurance.
Looks like the only winner here is the insurance company.
The tax payer is the big loser.
Go Commarade OBAMA, you may still detsroy this country in 3 years.
Man, he wants our guns AND cigarettes.
"You can pry my bottle of Tequila from my dead, cold hands"....
"Critics say surcharge hits the poor", The poor can afford smokes but receive food stamps to eat? I wonder how much food they can purchase for the cost of a pack of cigs? A carton?
"Administration says law helps smokers
A representative for the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, says that, despite the media kerfuffle, Obamacare benefits smokers."
This more likely the picture. Obdumbo wouldn't want to anger his voters.
This is where it starts. With the smokers.
Then it will be the drinkers.
Then the obese.
Then those with pre-existing conditions.
How long will it take before it gets to YOU?
Copyright © 2014 Microsoft. All rights reserved.
ABOUT SMART SPENDING
LATEST BLOG POSTS
You don't always have to sacrifice quality when you buy secondhand.
VIDEO ON MSN MONEY
BLOGS WE LIKE
MUST-SEE ON MSN
A charcuterie master shares his process for cold-smoking meat at home.
- Jetpacks about to go mainstream
- Weird things covered by home insurance
- Bing: 70 percent of adults report 'digital eye strain'