The Case of the Missing Middle-Class Tax Cut

If you’re looking for a real middle-class tax cut in the Senate plan, you’d better put Sherlock Holmes on the job.

If Sherlock Holmes were a United States Senator, he’d be on it: “The Case of the Missing Middle-Class Tax Cut.”

We’ve all heard about the suspicious tax cut. It’s been in all the papers, all the social media posts, anywhere the spin merchants can find a way to promote the idea that the proposed massive and permanent tax-cut giveaway to millionaires, billionaires and corporations is somehow a “middle-class tax cut.”

Puh-leeze.

No reliable information can justify the billing. Middle-class and lower-income taxpayers ultimately will — on average — pay more as a result of this legislation if it becomes law.

In Iowa, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) has shown that despite some minor benefits upon enactment, the bill when fully phased in will actually result in a tax increase, on average, for the bottom 60 percent of Iowa taxpayers. Higher up the income scale, tax cuts will remain. (In the graph below, average tax changes for the bottom three quintiles of Iowa taxpayers are shown as increases, above the line.)

Someone in Iowa making $1.5 million in 2027 would get about a $4,800 benefit under the ITEP analysis — not a lot to people at that income, maybe a good payment on luxury box rent at the ballgame.

But that break for the top 1 percent would total about $68 million — a hit to services on which the money could be spent on behalf of all.

Millions of Americans — an estimated 13 million — would lose health insurance under this bill, a large share of those not giving up insurance voluntarily, but because they could no longer afford it.

Billion-dollar estates that already have $11 million exempt from tax under current law would see a doubling of that exemption, as if the first $11 million free and clear is not enough while the millions of working families struggle to get by, some at a $7.25 minimum wage that has not been raised in over eight years (in Iowa, 10 years).

A Child Tax Credit designed to help working families with the costs of raising children would be extended to families earning $500,000 a year — as if those families need the extra help, when families making $30,000 get little from the deal. By the way, that is one of the changes billed as a middle-income break, and even it would expire in 2025.

There is no expiration, meanwhile, on the estate-tax break or on new giveaways to corporations.

If you’re looking for a real middle-class tax cut in this legislation, you’d better put Sherlock Holmes on the job. Even then, anything you find has an expiration date, plus tax increases. And the millionaires’ cuts that remain will clamp down on resources for the essential things that government does to protect and assure opportunity for us all, and our nation’s future.

You cannot afford to do both — provide critical services and also cut resources to pay for them.

It’s elementary.

Mike Owen, executive director of the 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.

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

Health exchanges: Why not fix?

Iowa’s insurance exchange has only one insurance company offering policies. But instead of fixing that, our representatives are using it as an excuse to repeal Obamacare, including the Medicaid expansion.

What would be your response if someone said to you: “The transmission in my car needs an overhaul. This just proves vehicular transportation doesn’t work, so I am going to get rid of my car and my pickup, even though the truck is still running fine.” You would probably think they were crazy. Why not just fix the car’s transmission?

Yet this is the logic being put forward by Senator Grassley and many others as they seek to repeal Obamacare. Yes, we have a problem with the insurance exchange in Iowa, where we now have just one insurance company offering policies. But instead of pursuing solutions to that problem, our representatives are using it as an excuse to repeal Obamacare, including the Medicaid expansion, which has nothing at all to do with the insurance exchange and in fact is still in good running order.

The lack of insurers in the Iowa exchange is largely a self-inflicted problem. Insurers have left the market in part because the state of Iowa did so little to encourage people to sign up, and to provide assistance in navigating the exchanges. Iowa was also extremely generous in allowing people to continue with existing poor-quality insurance.

The problem was worsened by President Trump’s efforts to sabotage the exchanges during the final weeks of the annual sign-up in January by banning all advertising and encouraging people to think Obamacare was going to end. As a result, the number enrolling in the exchanges, which had been on a pace to exceed that of the previous year, ending up falling short.[1] Too few younger and healthier people enrolled, leaving the insurance companies with older and sicker people.

There are solutions to this problem. Both the Iowa Insurance Commissioner and Iowa Democrats have proposed measures to solve the exchange problem at the state level. But the House and the Senate bills repealing and replacing Obamacare, instead of shoring up the exchanges, repeal the individual mandate. Analyses of their replacement provisions predict that they would worsen the problem instead of solving it, leaving the exchanges with even fewer healthy individuals.[2]

Now about the pickup truck. The Senate’s Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA) would likely result in 232,000 Iowans losing health insurance coverage over the next five years.[3] Three-fourths of them would become uninsured because of the loss of Medicaid, the rest because of cuts in premium assistance for policies purchased on the exchange.

Iowa expanded Medicaid eligibility (with 90 percent federal funding under Obamacare) to include low-income non-elderly adults, most of whom are working in low-wage jobs with little or nothing in benefits. The BCRA would effectively end the Medicaid expansion for about 177,000 Iowans.[4] This will hit rural Iowa the hardest, and it will undermine the finances of rural hospitals.

The Medicaid expansion has nothing to do with the health insurance exchanges. Our representatives should stop using a fixable problem with the exchanges as an excuse for passing a broad bill that ends health insurance for tens of thousands of Iowans.

[1] Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Sabotage Watch: Tracking Efforts to Undermine the ACA. http://www.cbpp.org/sabotage-watch-tracking-efforts-to-undermine-the-aca

[2] Jacob Leibenluft and Aviva Aron-Dine. Senate Health Bill Can’t Be Fixed; Reported Changes Would Not Affect Bill’s Core Features. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, July 10, 2017. http://www.cbpp.org/research/health/senate-health-bill-cant-be-fixed

[3] Linda Blumberg et al. State-by-State Coverage and Government Spending Implications of the Better Care Reconciliation Act. http://www.rwjf.org/content/dam/farm/reports/issue_briefs/2017/rwjf438332

[4] Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Urban Institute. The Impact of Per Capita Caps on Federal and State Medicaid Spending. March 2017.

Peter Fisher, Research Director, Iowa Policy Project & Iowa Fiscal Partnership

pfisher@iowapolicyproject.org

Any way you cut it — Americans lose health coverage

The stakes for some 200,000 Iowans are significant, jeopardizing recent health-care coverage gains and putting vulnerable Iowans at risk.

First, let’s make no mistake: Both the Senate and House bills to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA) represent substantial cuts in health coverage, including Medicaid.

People will lose coverage, have less coverage, and/or pay more for it. This is a public policy choice being offered in the drive to repeal ACA’s enhancement of insurance coverage for millions of Americans. In Iowa alone, uninsurance dropped from over 8 percent to 5 percent in just two years.

It is at best disingenuous for anyone to suggest otherwise, or to downplay the cut. Those who want to promote this legislation, for whatever reason, have to own the impact. If they’re afraid of the political disadvantage of admitting it, that’s another story.

The stakes for some 200,000 Iowans are significant, jeopardizing recent health-care coverage gains and putting vulnerable Iowans at risk. An Iowa Fiscal Partnership report from Peter Fisher of the Iowa Policy Project sets the context for this week’s discussions in the Senate.

A new report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (see graph at right) shows how the Senate bill would drive up costs for the 31 states that — along with Washington, D.C. — expanded Medicaid under the ACA.

For Iowa, the estimates are daunting: In 2021, Iowa would have $54 million more in costs, and in 2024, $395 million more — a 315 percent increase.

That CBPP report is part of the exceptionally good information available even in the short time frame we have to understand what is emerging from the backrooms of Washington, out of public view.

See these reports, just produced in the last couple of days by tremendously reputable organizations:

This is our business. We can demand to know the facts and we might just want to know them before the Senate votes — even if some in the Senate might be uncomfortable with that.

By Mike Owen, Executive Director of the Iowa Policy Project

mikeowen@iowapolicyproject.org

Kansas experiment yields valuable lessons

Kansas learned the hard way. Iowa and other states do not have to.

GUEST BLOG
By Heidi Holliday, Kansas Center for Economic Growth

You’re welcome, America.

Our state, Kansas, just wrapped up a five-year experiment in governance from which the other 49 states can now glean some important lessons. The Kansas Legislature has voted to roll back much of the 2012 package of tax cuts that sent the state into a downward spiral of financial instability and weakened the Kansas’ public schools, universities, Medicaid program, and virtually everything else that the state funds.

With the state facing yet another budget shortfall of $900 million, government leaders decided that enough was enough. Governor Brownback, who heralded the 2012 experiment, was proposing yet more temporary band-aid approaches and more cuts deal with the shortfalls. The Legislature chose a different path and instead sent the Governor a bill that would raise more than $1.2 billion in new revenue over two years by, among other things, repealing a costly tax break for pass-through income, rebalancing individual income tax rates by reinstating a third tax bracket, and reversing course on the Governor’s plan to eliminate our state income tax. Brownback vetoed the legislation but, with bipartisan support, the House and Senate quickly overrode the veto.

Our state has begun the path to fiscal stability and is closer to becoming a model of good policy choices as much as it is a cautionary tale. The damage done to Kansas from this reckless experiment will not be undone overnight, but other states need not wait to act upon the lessons learned.

Put simply, revenue matters. You can’t get something for nothing. We all want and deserve thriving communities with great schools, parks, and modern roads and bridges; and we chip in to pay for that. That’s what taxes are for.

Because of the scope of the 2012 changes, it didn’t take long before Kansans in every corner of the state began connecting the dots between the actions of state lawmakers and the quickly eroding quality of the things that make for a good economic foundation in every community. With every subsequent shortfall, the picture became more clear.

Meanwhile, the promised economic boom — and the revenue rebound that would supposedly follow — never happened (as economists predicted). In the last few election cycles, voters have viewed candidates and their promises through a different lens, and the 2017 Legislature had the experience and public backing to chart a new course.

Most state tax codes, including ours, need further reform, but it’s high time that state tax policy adhere to one basic, proven (and now proven once again) principle — states need revenue to invest in the things that create thriving communities and a prosperous economy. Kansas just learned this lesson again, the hard way, so that your state doesn’t have to.

You’re welcome.

————

The Kansas Center for Economic Growth is part of the State Priorities Partnership (SPP), a nationwide network of policy analysis groups coordinated by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The Iowa Fiscal Partnership — a joint initiative of the Iowa Policy Project and the Child & Family Policy Center — also is a member of SPP.

Iceberg ahead — but how big?

When the decisions come to cut health care to Iowans, Governor Branstad won’t be around to make the tough choices. Is that what state legislators signed up for?

060426-capitol-swwThe Des Moines Register disclosed Wednesday afternoon in a copyright story that the private, for-profit companies now running Iowa’s Medicaid program are finding big problems in the first year.

With big policy decisions ahead on the future of Medicaid, not only in Iowa but in Washington with a new administration, it is reasonable to wonder if Governor Terry Branstad’s go-it-alone Medicaid privatization is only the tip of the iceberg — and how big the iceberg may be.

Besides the great uncertainty for health-insurance coverage for millions if Congress repeals the Affordable Care Act (ACA) without a replacement, there is the idea that Congress might block-grant Medicaid. The goal would be to save the federal government money — not to assure health care for the most vulnerable as Medicaid now provides.

A block-grant approach means states would be allotted a share of funds for Medicaid, and when it is gone, that’s it — services would be cut. In that scenario, the decisions would be made in the states. As noted by Edwin Park of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities:

Such a block grant would push states to cut their Medicaid programs deeply.  To compensate for the federal Medicaid funding cuts a block grant would institute, states would either have to contribute much more of their own funding or, as is far more likely, use the greater flexibility the block grant would give them to make draconian cuts to eligibility, benefits, and provider payments.

Maybe someone can provide the campaign literature from the 2016 legislative races that illustrates successful candidates’ thoughts on whose coverage would be the first to go. Who gets cut off? Someone will have to decide that if we go to a block-grant program.

It probably won’t be Governor Branstad making that tough decision, by the way. The new ambassador-to-be will be off doing diplomatic stuff in China when these hard decisions are made.

Is that what these new legislators signed up to do when they put their names on the ballot? But they could check in with Senator Grassley and Senator Ernst to find out if Iowa Statehouse job descriptions might change in the months ahead.

owen-2013-57Posted by Mike Owen, Executive Director of the Iowa Policy Project
Contact: mikeowen@iowapolicyproject.org