Red ink, inequity and pain

UPDATED NOV. 20*

redink-capitol

To dive into an ocean of red ink for a tax cut that will do little to boost the economy is one thing. To pretend it benefits middle-class families is, at the least, cynical.

It is impossible to view either the Senate or House tax bills moving in Washington as anything but a boost to the wealthy.

Responsible analysis by respected research organizations makes this apparent. The wealthy don’t just do the best in this legislation — they are the clear focus of it.

New data released by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy offer several key illustrations of how the Senate Republican proposal approved last week by the Finance Committee, which includes Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley, will affect Iowans:

  • The middle 20 percent of families, people making between $59,300 and $87,080 (average $72,400) receive only 12 percent of the overall tax cut in 2019. Meanwhile, the top 20 percent receive more than half — 62 percent.
  • In 2019, the top 1 percent has a larger overall tax cut than the bottom 60 percent, $483.1 million (average $32,200) to $407.9 million (average $450).
  • In 2027, as the small benefits at the middle phase out and structural changes at the top are made permanent, the bottom three-fifths of Iowa taxpayers will see $58.7 million in tax increases averaging $60, while the top 1 percent will keep an average $4,770 tax cut at a cost to the treasury of $67.7 million.

Those who are promoting this bill should at least have the honesty to call it what it is: a new handout to the wealthy — one that everyone will pay for, to the tune of $1.5 trillion over 10 years, and an almost certain loss of critical services that benefit all.

* Note: The original post from Nov. 14 has been updated with figures from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy analysis of the bill passed by the Senate Finance Committee.

2017-owen5464Mike Owen is executive director of the nonpartisan Iowa Policy Project.

mikeowen@iowapolicyproject.org

 

Iowa can fix health marketplace

After withdrawing its waiver, Iowa can now turn to more practical and less disruptive proposals to improve affordability and increase competition in its insurance market.

Guest post by Sarah Lueck, senior policy analyst at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. She wrote this piece originally for CBPP’s “Off the Charts” blog. Find the original post here.

Iowa Can Strengthen Health Insurance Market Without Harming Consumers

October 24, 2017

Now that Iowa has withdrawn its request for a federal “1332 waiver” to allow it to change its health insurance market, some state officials are blaming what they say are overly strict federal requirements for approving such waivers. But, in reality, those requirements served their intended purpose of protecting consumers. While Iowa’s individual market faces challenges, Iowa consumers will benefit from the fact that the marketplace coverage on which they have come to depend will still be available when open enrollment begins on November 1.

In its waiver, Iowa proposed eliminating the Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplace that consumers have used since 2014 to apply for coverage and subsidies, creating one standard health plan for all individual market consumers, providing a flat premium credit based on age and income to every enrollee (including those with high incomes), and establishing a reinsurance program to shield insurers from the financial risk of high-cost enrollees.

Federal law requires states to show that their section 1332 waivers will provide coverage that’s at least as affordable and comprehensive as under current law and will cover as many people, without increasing the federal budget deficit. These “guardrails” helped protect consumers from Iowa’s severely flawed proposal:

  • Iowa’s waiver would have made it harder to sign up for coverage. The waiver would probably have raised the number of uninsured individuals by making enrolling far more cumbersome. Iowans now use HealthCare.gov to receive a federal determination of eligibility, pick a plan, and then go directly to the insurer’s website to pay the first month’s premium — often in one sitting. Under the waiver, enrollees would have had to visit a new website to complete an eligibility application, wait up to ten days for the state to respond by mail, and then find an insurer or an insurance agent to actually help them enroll in a plan.It was far from clear that the state’s website would be ready in time, or that thousands of Iowans could complete this lengthy, multi-step process in the six-week open enrollment period. On top of that, the waiver would have eliminated automatic re-enrollment for current marketplace consumers.
  • Iowa’s waiver would have made health care less affordable for many. The waiver would have required everyone with incomes over 200 percent of the poverty line to enroll in a plan with a $7,350 deductible. Under the ACA, Iowans with incomes up to 250 percent of poverty can get cost-sharing reductions, which lower their deductibles and co-payments. And Iowans at all income levels can buy a “gold plan” with a $1,000 deductible in 2018, which wouldn’t have been an option under Iowa’s waiver.
  • The state’s unrealistic funding assumptions would have put coverage and care for even more Iowans at risk. The waiver relied on unrealistic assumptions about the cost of the proposed changes, as outside analysts found and the Trump Administration’s response to Iowa implied. Had the waiver received federal approval, the federal government would have been legally precluded from providing more funding than Iowa would receive under current law. That would likely have left the state with a funding shortfall, forcing it to make cuts in 2018 by reducing people’s coverage, raising premiums or cost-sharing charges, or reducing enrollment.

Iowa’s marketplace will be open for new enrollment on November 1. Iowa’s decision to drop the waiver clarifies that individual market consumers can shop for coverage using HealthCare.gov, just as they have for several years. An insurer, Medica, has proposed plans in all of the state’s 99 counties, and most of the available plans have lower deductibles than those that would have been available under the waiver.

While Iowans are understandably concerned about reported premium increases, an estimated 75 percent to 80 percent of Iowans in the ACA-compliant individual market will be eligible for premium tax credits that grow in response to premium increases, limiting consumers’ costs to a set percentage of their incomes. Also, many people with low incomes can enroll in a “silver plan” with reduced deductibles and other cost sharing due to the ACA’s cost-sharing reductions.

After withdrawing its waiver, Iowa can now turn to more practical and less disruptive proposals to improve affordability and increase competition in its insurance market. Like other states’ individual markets, Iowa’s market has been hurt by Trump Administration actions that undermine the ACA marketplaces. For example, Medica reports that about one-fifth of its proposed rate increase reflects the risk that the federal government would stop reimbursing insurers for cost-sharing reductions, as the Administration has chosen to do. In addition, Iowa’s individual market has experienced greater challenges than most other states’, in part reflecting Iowa’s policy choices. To address these challenges without undermining coverage for current marketplace consumers, Iowa should consider:

  • Creating a reinsurance program similar to Alaska’s, which would reduce premiums for Iowans with incomes too high to qualify for marketplace subsidies. A reinsurance program was one element of the Iowa waiver, but the state could easily implement it without the waiver’s harmful changes.
  • Phasing out more pre-ACA plans (“transition” and “grandfathered” plans) as soon as possible. These plans are exempt from many of the ACA’s consumer protections and continue — several years after the law’s implementation — to keep healthier enrollees away from the ACA marketplaces. About 76,000 Iowans are expected to remain in these plans in 2018, compared to 51,000 to 55,000 who are expected to enroll in the marketplace. That pushes up premiums for ACA-compliant plans because these plans attract fewer of the healthier potential enrollees than otherwise, and it thus creates an uneven playing field for insurers that might otherwise participate.
  • Avoiding actions that would further skew Iowa’s risk pool. Gov. Kim Reynolds said Monday that “short-term” health insurance that doesn’t meet ACA standards could be a solution for Iowa consumers in 2018. That refers to President Trump’s recent executive order< directing federal agencies to (among other things) consider ways to make short-term plans, which currently may last no more than three months, last nearly a full year, which would make them a full-scale alternative to the ACA market — even though they don’t have to cover the ACA’s essential health benefits such as maternity care and mental health treatment, and even though they can base premiums on people’s health status. That’s not a good solution for Iowa. Making short-term plans more widely available would pull even more healthy consumers out of the ACA market, dramatically increasing the state’s already serious challenges while leaving many consumers in extremely skimpy plans and leaving those in ACA-compliant plans with even higher premiums.

Another reason to support IPERS

How bad might this identity theft case have been for retirees with their IPERS benefits in one of any number of privately managed accounts?

An estimated 103 beneficiaries of the Iowa Public Employees’ Retirement System (IPERS) were recent victims of identity theft — about 0.09 of 1 percent of all retirees receiving IPERS benefits. The system reacted quickly and transparently to support its retirees.

IPERS is cautioning all beneficiaries to make sure their October payments were made properly, and has issued new payments to those affected by this theft, in which criminals used personal information to redirect payments for a group of retirees.

All of this leaves a burning question for 2018: How bad might this have been without the IPERS system looking out for these retirees?

Put another way, what if all 115,000 of IPERS retiree beneficiaries and 350,000 IPERS members overall had been forced to private retirement plans, instead of the traditional pensions they have, as some lawmakers and hard-right activists would do with the future of IPERS?

By early news coverage, IPERS appears to have reacted very quickly to handle this security breach. IPERS had the backs of its beneficiaries, funds recovered and benefits on track to those counting on them, according to these early accounts.

It is unfortunate that this is not the emphasis of such stories. It should be. Identity attacks and threats are commonplace, and how the retiree’s account is protected is a critical issue.

Could you count on the manager of your private retirement account, such as a 401k, to respond so quickly, and with such accountability? Maybe. 

The new story about this identity theft assault on IPERS beneficiaries is one more reason — along with the positive performance of IPERS investments and retirement security offered by the program — to be putting the brakes on any attempt to rush through major changes to IPERS.

Privatization advocates make ideological arguments. In practical terms proposed changes would allow private outfits to profit unnecessarily from comparatively unaccountable management of public workers’ retirement investments, causing extra costs to employees and perhaps to the state.

So-called “reforms” have never been about making retirements more secure for those whom we as taxpayers employ to provide essential public services. This security, not private profit, is fundamental to the purpose and commitment of IPERS.

Mike Owen, executive director of the nonpartisan Iowa Policy Project

mikeowen@iowapolicyproject.org

Tax Foundation’s Waste of Time Index

All of the same problems remain with the Tax Foundation’s unreliable comparison of state business tax “climates.”

Biz-tax rankings unworthy of attention

The Tax Foundation today released its 2018 State Business Tax Climate Index (SBTCI). All the same problems with this unreliable measure remain:

  1. The State Business Tax Climate Index purports to measure a state’s “tax competitiveness” but the index turns out to bear very little relationship to what businesses actually pay in taxes in one state vs. another. Read more.
  2. Scoring well on the SBTCI does not mean a state will experience more growth; the Tax Foundation provides no evidence that its index actually predicts growth and research has generally found that it does not. Read more.
  3. The index is a combination of over 100 components of state tax systems, giving substantial emphasis to some components that cannot plausibly affect tax competitiveness, while ignoring features that have a large impact on business taxes (single-factor apportionment and deduction of federal corporate income taxes). Read more.

The methodology is unchanged from the 2017 edition, with only slight changes in the weights applied to the five sub-indexes and a couple of tweaks to specific taxes that affect a handful of states.

Peter Fisher, research director of the Iowa Policy Project.

pfisher@iowapolicyproject.org

See IPP’s Grading the States website for more insightful analysis of business tax rankings — www.gradingstates.org

About those 10 reasons, Senator …

At stake is health care access for millions, including people with pre-existing conditions. Surely these would be at the top of any list of concerns about Cassidy-Graham.

Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa has made the point himself: The Cassidy-Graham bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has many deficiencies.

“I could maybe give you 10 reasons why this bill should not be considered,” he told Iowa reporters.

So, let’s look at some of the reasons, on the merits, why people might have concerns about Cassidy-Graham.

  1. People with pre-existing conditions would lose access to health care. Protection of these people assured now under the ACA would be left to state decisions, with states already cash-strapped.
  2. Many who became eligible for coverage through the Medicaid expansion of the ACA would lose it. In Iowa, about 150,000 people gained coverage by this expansion.
  3. It would change Medicaid expansion to a block-grant program that provides states no flexibility to deal with recessions or prescription drug price increases.
  4. Medicaid for seniors, people with disabilities, and families with children would be capped on a per-person basis. Anything higher would be left to the states to provide. There is neither any assurance states would want to do that, or even be financially able to do so.
  5. Iowa would be marched to a $1.8 billion cliff in 2027 under this bill, with federal support dropping sharply. For context, that is the equivalent of about one-fourth of the current state budget.
  6. Millions would lose insurance coverage. While we’re still waiting for the estimate from the Congressional Budget Office, past repeal proposals show this. And, since this bill offers nothing beyond 2027 for the Medicaid expansion, via block grant or otherwise, the prospect of 32 million people losing coverage (as demonstrated in estimates in previous ACA repeal legislation) is very real.

In Iowa? The graph below shows how Iowa’s uninsured population has dropped with the advent of the ACA, or Obamacare. Census data show uninsurance in Iowa dropped by nearly half in just three years, by about 116,000 — from 8.1 percent uninsured in 2013 to 4.3 percent in 2016.

So, this is a good start on why Iowans might be concerned about Cassidy-Graham — a last-ditch effort to rush into law radical changes in the way millions nationally and over 100,000 in Iowa gained access to health care in just three years.

We invite Senator Grassley to add to the list and get us to the full 10 reasons he suggested that might cause concerns about this bill.

Or better yet, maybe together in a deliberative process that involves everyone, we can come up with a list of 10 things that any health care policy should address.

Surely the list would include insuring more people, assuring more with practical access to health care when they need it, improving public health and reducing costs. We invite Senator Grassley to that discussion.

Mike Owen, Executive Director of the  Iowa Policy Project
mikeowen@iowapolicyproject.org

Protect Iowa taxpayers from bad spin

Let’s protect taxpayers from thumb-on-the-scale rules that give a minority viewpoint a decided and sometimes insurmountable advantage over the majority.

“Protecting Iowa’s taxpayers,” reads the headline on the newspaper column, but the column contradicts that.

On the pages of major state newspapers this week, Iowans for Tax Relief (ITR) is offering its predictable and tired promotion of tax and spending limitations that are neither necessary nor fair.

Instead of protecting taxpayers who live in Iowa and do business here, these gimmicky limitations promote an ideological agenda that fails to offer prosperity — ask Kansas — and is a poor solution to imagined problems invented by its authors.

The limits advocated by ITR never are necessary or fair, but this is especially so where we see K-12 school spending held below needs, where higher-education spending is cut and tuitions raised, and where worldwide corporate giants are taking bites out of Iowa millions of dollars at a time — over $200 million in the case of Apple last week.

By all means, let’s protect taxpayers from thumb-on-the-scale rules that give a minority viewpoint a decided and sometimes insurmountable advantage over the majority. The big money put behind these ideas make elections less meaningful, and erode Iowans’ ability to govern themselves.

The real path to prosperity for Iowa is a high-road path that rests upon sensible investments in education and public infrastructure that accommodates commerce and sets a level playing field for business and individuals. It means promoting better pay to keep and attract workers who want to raise their families here, and sustaining critical services.

Time and time again, we and others have shown irrefutably that Iowa is a low-tax and low-wage state. We already are “competitive” to the small degree that taxes play a role in business location decisions; even conservative analysts such as Anderson Economic Group and Ernst & Young put Iowa in the middle of the pack on business taxes.

Suffice it to say, you are being peddled a load of garbage by the far right and the privileged, who take what they can from our public structures and policies, and attempt to deny others not only public services, but also a say in the funding of programs that promote opportunity and prosperity for all.

The same suppression mindset prevailed in the Iowa Legislature in 2017 as a majority bullied public workers and decimated workers’ rights. Now they are taking on tax policy in 2018, plus the possibility of new assaults on retirement security and renewed neglect of our natural assets of air and water.

Shake your head at the headlines, throw a shoe through the TV if you must, but only by engaging these issues at every step of the political process will we turn Iowa back from our low-road course.

This is the battle of the 21st century. We are living it. May we survive it.

Mike Owen, executive director of the nonpartisan Iowa Policy Project

mikeowen@iowapolicyproject.org

Focus on fixing insurance exchange

The problems with the insurance exchange in Iowa are fixable — and not a good excuse to fund tax cuts to the wealthy by forcing tens of thousands of Iowans off health insurance.

It’s time for Iowa’s congressmen and senators to start working on immediate measures to strengthen the health care system, and specifically the health insurance exchange, or marketplace. The obsession of some with bills to repeal and replace Obamacare has been a distraction from that task.

In recent days, bipartisan groups have sprung up in both the House and the Senate to begin developing legislation to stabilize the insurance market. These groups recognize the immediate need for measures to ensure that federal payments continue for cost-sharing reductions (CSRs) that help low-income people afford their copays and deductibles. Without the assurance that these payments will continue, premiums will rise sharply.

The president has threatened to continue his efforts to sabotage the Affordable Care Act (ACA) by ordering an end to CSRs. This threat has already prompted Medica, the only Iowa health insurance company still offering plans on the exchange, to plan for another premium increase.

The bipartisan efforts to shore up the insurance exchanges could include another important measure: a reinsurance program that would reduce the risk that a small number of high-cost customers will cause insurance company losses. The “million-dollar customer” has been cited as a factor contributing to the decisions of Wellmark and Aetna to exit the Iowa exchange. Reinsurance would establish a national pool to cover high-risk cases; this would allow companies to remain in the exchanges without drastic premium increases on everyone to pay for those few cases.

The Senate’s attempts to repeal and replace failed because they were wildly unpopular. These measures would have resulted in over 200,000 Iowans losing health insurance; would have effectively ended the expansion of Medicaid that covers thousands of low-wage workers; would have reduced Medicaid benefits for thousands of seniors, children, and people with disabilities; would have raised premiums and deductibles; would have gutted protections for persons with pre-existing conditions; and would have provided billions in tax cuts to wealthy individuals and corporations.

Another attack on coverage: Graham-Cassidy

Pragmatic efforts to stabilize the health insurance market stand in stark contrast to a last-ditch attempt to repeal and replace Obamacare that surfaced this week: the Graham-Cassidy plan. Like the previous failed bills, this plan would end the Medicaid expansion that now covers 150,000 Iowans.

Unlike previous repeal and replace bills, the Graham-Cassidy plan would also end the premium assistance that makes health insurance affordable to tens of thousands of low and moderate income Iowa families. While it replaces ACA funding of premium assistance and Medicaid expansion with a block grant, it provides no guarantee that the states will use that block grant to make health insurance affordable to those who need help the most. And the bill would further destabilize the insurance market by ending the mandate to purchase insurance, while making it more expensive, leaving insurance companies with the sickest and costliest customers.

The problems with the insurance exchange in Iowa are fixable. Let’s see if our Senators and Representatives actually try to fix those problems instead of using them as an excuse to fund tax cuts to the wealthy by forcing tens of thousands of Iowans off their health insurance.

Peter Fisher is research director of the Iowa Policy Project.

pfisher@iowapolicyproject.org