U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

80–802 2014

UNAFFORDABLE: IMPACT OF OBAMACARE ON 

AMERICANS’ HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARCH 15, 2013 

Serial No. 113–17 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Chairman 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Chairman Emeritus 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

Vice Chairman 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Missouri 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

Ranking Member 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

Chairman Emeritus 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

Chairman 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

Vice Chairman 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio) 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

Ranking Member 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California (ex officio) 

(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Joseph R. Pitts, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth 

of Pennsylvania, opening statement ................................................................... 1 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 3 

Hon. Henry A. Waxman, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, opening statement ............................................................................. 4 

Hon. Michael C. Burgess, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Texas, opening statement .................................................................................... 5 

Hon. Phil Gingrey, a Representative in Congress from the State of Georgia, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 6 

Hon. Lois Capps, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 7 

WITNESSES

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Former Director, Congressional Budget Office ................ 9 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 11 

Wendell Potter, Senior Analyst, The Center for Public Integrity ........................ 18 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 20 

Christopher Carlson, Actuarial Principal, Oliver Wyman ................................... 29 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 31 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Study entitled, ‘‘Why the ACA’s Limits on Age-Rating Will Not Cause ‘Rate 

Shock’: Distributional Implications of Limited Age Bands in Nongroup 

Health Insurance,’’ March 2013, Urban Institute, submitted by Mr. Pallone 79 

Article entitled ‘‘Analysis: Mass. individual health premiums highest in nation,’’ August 9, 2011, Boston Herald, submitted by Mr. Burgess ................... 90 

(1) 

UNAFFORDABLE: IMPACT OF OBAMACARE ON 

AMERICANS’ HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS 

FRIDAY, MARCH 15, 2013 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9 a.m., in room 2123, 

Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Joseph R. Pitts (chairman of 

the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Pitts, Burgess, Hall, Whitfield, 

Shimkus, Murphy, Blackburn, Gingrey, Lance, Cassidy, Guthrie, 

Griffith, Bilirakis, Ellmers, Pallone, Engel, Capps, Green, 

Butterfield, Barrow, Christensen, Sarbanes, Waxman (ex officio). 

Staff Present: Clay Alspach, Chief Counsel, Health; Matt Bravo, 

Professional Staff Member; Paul Edattel, Professional Staff Member, Health; Steve Ferrara, Health Fellow; Julie Goon, Health Policy Advisor; Debbee Hancock, Press Secretary; Carly McWilliams, 

Legislative Clerk; Katie Novaria, Legislative Clerk; Monica Popp, 

Professional Staff Member, Health; Andrew Powaleny, Deputy 

Press Secretary; Chris Sarley, Policy Coordinator, Environment 

and Economy; Heidi Stirrup, Health Policy Coordinator; Jeff Baran, 

Minority Senior Counsel; Alli Corr, Minority Policy Analyst; Elizabeth Letter, Minority Assistant Press Secretary; Karen Nelson, Minority Deputy Committee Staff Director for Health; Roger Sherman, Minority Chief Counsel; and Matt Siegler, Minority Counsel. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH R. PITTS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH 

OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. PITTS. The subcommittee will come to order. The chair recognizes himself for 5 minutes for an opening statement. 

During the 2008 campaign and run-up to passage of The Affordable Care Act in March of 2010, President Obama repeatedly promised the American people that their healthcare premiums would go 

down by an average of $2,500 before the end of his first term in 

office. Unfortunately, he broke that promise. In fact, Americans’ 

premiums have already risen by more than $3,000, and the expensive part of the ACA hasn’t even been implemented yet. 

It is basic common sense that if you require individuals to buy 

a one-size-fits-all government-mandated health plan that covers everything, rather than allowing individuals to pick the plan that 

best fits their needs, choice will be limited, and premiums will rise. 

When Obamacare adds mandatory benefits, regulations like guarVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:34 May 27, 2014 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 113\113-17 CHRIS
2 

anteed issue and community rating, and new taxes and fees on insurance plans, premiums will only grow more unaffordable for 

Americans, so unaffordable, in fact, that the authors of the law decided the only way to get people to buy health coverage was to force 

them to buy it or face a fine from the IRS. 

Now, my friends on the other side of the aisle will point out that 

the ACA includes subsidies to help individuals buy these more expensive health plans, and they are correct. More than $1 trillion 

in subsidies is available for this purpose. However, households 

earning as little as $46,000 will be ineligible for premium assistance. Even after receiving subsidies, Americans earning as little as 

$25,000 will still pay more for their health insurance than they 

would if the ACA had not been enacted. 

Making low-income and everyday Americans pay more for private health coverage is not health reform. It is making their life 

harder at a time when our fellow citizens face sluggish economic 

growth, slow job creation and little disposable income. 

I recommend to all of you a report released last week by Energy 

and Commerce majority staff entitled ‘‘The Price of Obamacare’s 

Broken Promises: Young Adults and Middle-Class Families Set to 

Endure Higher Premiums and Unaffordable Coverage.’’ The report 

compiles data from over 30 studies and analyses that examine the 

effect of Obamacare provisions on healthcare premiums in the individual and small-group market. It also includes a State-by-State 

analysis of estimated increases in individual market premiums 

that can be directly attributed to Obamacare. 

My home State of Pennsylvania can expect to see premiums in 

the individual market rise about 39 percent. States such as Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Missouri, 

Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Wisconsin and Wyoming could see individual market premiums rise as much as 100 percent or higher 

due to the Affordable Care Act. 

The increases for young adults in the individual market are 

much higher. One analysis estimates that 80 percent of young 

Americans earning over $16,000 will pay more for their coverage 

once the law is fully implemented than they pay today. And we 

don’t have to rely merely on estimates of what is going to happen 

to premiums; many of the provisions of Obamacare, such as an individual mandate, guaranteed issue and community rating, have 

been tried before. Premiums skyrocketed, choice was limited, and 

these Obamacare-style reforms made it harder to find affordable 

coverage. 

In today’s economy, American families simply cannot afford to 

pay higher out-of-pocket health costs than they would if Obamacare 

had never been enacted. Our young people, many of whom cannot 

find jobs, cannot afford triple-digit increases in their health premiums. A central promise of the an Affordable Care Act is that 

health care would be more affordable under the law. For many 

middle-class families and young adults, that turns out to be a broken promise. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today. I am interested in what their research shows will happen to premiums when 

Obamacare is fully implemented in 2014. 

Thank you. 

3 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pitts follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH R. PITTS

During 2008 and the run up to passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 

March 2010, President Obama repeatedly promised the American people that their 

health care premiums would go down by anaverage of $2,500 before the end of his 

first term in office. 

He broke that promise. 

In fact, Americans’ premiums have already risen by more than $3,000, and the 

expensive part of the ACA hasn’t even been implemented yet. 

It is basic common sense that if you require individuals to buy a one-size fits all, 

government-mandated health plan that covers everything, rather than allowing individuals to pick the plan that best fits their needs, choice will be limited and premiums will rise. 

When Obamacare adds mandatory benefits, regulations like guaranteed issue and 

community rating and new taxes and fees on insurance plans, premiums will only 

grow more unaffordable for Americans. 

So unaffordable in fact that the authors of the law decided the only way to get 

people to buy health coverage was to force them to buy it or face a fine from the 

IRS. 

Now, my friends on the other side of the aisle will point out that the ACA includes 

subsidies to help individuals buy these more expensive health plans. And they are 

correct. More than $1 trillion in subsidies is available for this purpose. 

However, households earning as little as $46,000 will be ineligible for premium 

assistance. Even after receiving subsidies, Americans earning as little as $25,000 

will still pay more for their health insurance than they would if the ACA had not 

been enacted. 

Making low-income and everyday Americans pay more for private health coverage 

is not health reform. It’s making their life harder at a time when our fellow citizens 

face sluggish economic growth, slow jobcreation, and little disposable income. 

I recommend to all of you a report released last week by Energy and Commerce 

Majority Staff, entitled ‘‘The Price Of Obamacare’s Broken Promises: Young Adults 

and Middle Class Families Set to EndureHigher Premiums and Unaffordable Coverage.’’ 

The report compiles data from over 30 studies and analyses that examine the effect of Obamacare provisions on health care premiums in the individual and small 

group market. 

It also includes a state-by-state analysis of estimated increases in individual market premiums that can be directly attributed to Obamacare. 

My home state of Pennsylvania can expect to see premiums in the individual market rise about 39 percent. 

States such as Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Wisconsin, and Wyoming could see individual 

market premiums rise as much as 100 percentor higher, due to the Affordable Care 

Act. 

The increases for young adults in the individual market are much higher. 

One analysis estimates that 80 percent of young Americans earning over $16,000 

will pay more for their coverage once the law is fully implemented than they pay 

today. 

And we don’t have to rely merely on estimates of what is going to happen to premiums. 

Many of the provisions of Obamacare, such as an individual mandate, guaranteed 

issue, and community rating have been tried before. Premiums skyrocketed, choice 

was limited, and these Obamacare style reforms made it harder to find affordable 

coverage 

In today’s economy, American families simply cannot afford to pay higher out-ofpocket health costs than they would if Obamacare had never been enacted. 

Our young people, many of whom cannot find jobs, cannot afford triple digit increases in their health premiums. 

A central promise of the Affordable Care Act is that health care would be more 

affordable under the law. 

For many middle class families and young adults, that turns out to be a broken 

promise. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today. I’m interested in what their 

research shows will happen to premiums when Obamacare is fully implemented in 

2014. 

4 

# # # 

Mr. PITTS. I yield the balance of my time to—is Dr. Gingrey 

here? 

Anyone seeking 1 minute? If not, I yield back the balance of my 

time, and at this point the chair recognizes the ranking member of 

the full committee Mr. Waxman for 5 minutes for an opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank Mrs. 

Capps for letting me go ahead of her and making my opening statement. 

My Republican friends want to ignore the broken healthcare system we had before the Affordable Care Act. They want to ignore 

the tens of millions of Americans who will finally have access to affordable care coverage in 2014. And they want to ignore the fact 

that for the overwhelming majority of Americans, health reform 

will result in much more affordable coverage. I think ignoring these 

facts is an exercise in willful ignorance. 

In the world before the Affordable Care Act, nearly 50 million 

Americans have been uninsured. Millions have been losing coverage every year. Millions more were excluded from coverage because of insurance company discrimination, and lacking coverage 

was a life-threatening condition. While tens of millions of Americans suffered in this broken market, a tiny segment of the population was able to purchase cut-rate, low-quality coverage. When 

insurance companies have to provide real coverage to every American, this small group of people will no longer benefit from insurance companies’ rampant discrimination. 

Republicans and their allies in the insurance industry have 

taken deeply flawed studies of this issue and tried to argue that 

health reform will drive up everyone’s premiums. Well, that is a 

false claim, and I think it is irresponsible. The claims are false because they are based on studies that ignore key pieces of the 

health-reform legislation. 

Under the Affordable Care Act, consumers will be able to purchase far more valuable and dependable coverage, and there will 

be limits on the overall out-of-pocket spending that insurance companies can demand. Ignoring these reforms gives a deeply misleading picture of the true cost of coverage. For young people in 

particular, the subsidies in the Affordable Care Act, the law’s new 

catastrophic plan, and the ability to stay on a parent’s plan until 

age 26 will all help keep costs low. Studies that ignore these factors 

do not reflect reality. The reality is that the vast majority of Americans will see their premiums stay stable or decline dramatically in 

2014. 

Prior to reform Americans could be locked out of coverage entirely based on a preexisting condition. They were routinely asked 

to pay 5 or even 10 times more than their neighbors for coverage 

because of their age, their gender or their health status. For these 

millions of people, the reforms in the Affordable Care Act will bring 

5 

costs down dramatically. That is the true story of how premiums 

will change under the Affordable Care Act. 

We all know how important it is that every American sign up for 

health insurance. They will have this opportunity at the beginning 

of next year. It has been documented again and again that people 

who go uninsured are more likely to get sicker and to die younger 

than people with insurance. We need to be encouraging our constituents to get covered, not scaring them off with warnings about 

government-run health care and a radical spike in premiums. 

It is past time that we in Congress work together to help smoothly implement this law. I hope that after this hearing we can move 

beyond political messaging to carry out the real work that the people sent us here to do. Certainly we ought to exercise our oversight, 

but oversight is looking at what is happening and trying to change 

the situation to make the laws work, not to still complain about the 

laws that you fought against and lost. 

This law has been adopted by the Congress and signed by the 

President, it has been reaffirmed by the Supreme Court of the 

United States, and, more importantly, the people’s votes in this last 

election reelected President Obama and Democrats to continue to 

support this legislation. 

I don’t think the majority in this House ought to see its job to 

continue to relitigate the legislative fight. Let us learn from realities as they will now unfold and try to make things better for everybody. 

I yield back my time. 

Mr. PITTS. The chair thanks the gentleman and now recognizes 

the vice chairman of the subcommittee Dr. Burgess for 5 minutes 

for an opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL C. BURGESS, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. BURGESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Of course, listening to the ranking member does remind me of 

everything that has happened over the past 3 years’ time, and, yes, 

I will admit guilty as charged to having opposed bad policy at every 

turn. But isn’t it interesting as we sit here this morning on the eve 

of the third year of the signing of this bill into law that the greatest obstacle to its implementation is actually the administration 

itself? 

Why do I say that? Well, first off, when the law was crafted, it 

was special interests down at the White House who actually wrote 

the law, the insurance companies, the pharmaceutical companies. 

Where were the Governors? Why weren’t they involved? Governors 

have a big footprint in their States as far as healthcare delivery is 

involved. Why were they not consulted? 

Of course, you had the game of hide-the-ball. Gary Cohen all but 

admitted it when he came to our committee a few weeks ago—a 

few months ago and said the administration did not want to put 

out the rules about the essential health benefit until after the election because they didn’t want to distract people. Well, Governors 

needed to know that information. That is why none of them signed 

up for the State exchanges. 

6 

Then finally to get someone from the administration in here to 

our committee to do the proper oversight of the implementation, I 

just do not understand why it is so hard. 

But to the business at hand this morning, we have all talked 

about how the Affordable Care Act was supposed to decrease 

health insurance premiums. I am going to tell you, in health care 

you don’t get something for nothing. There is always a cost, and 

someone always pays it. 

The Congressional Budget Office and organizations on both side 

of the dais have predicting drastic increases in insurance premiums 

for the coming years. The Congressional Budget Office predicted 

average premiums will rise 27 to 30 percent because of the Affordable Care Act. And we don’t just have to rely on their projections. 

History demonstrates the negative impact of such insurance provisions. The 1990s saw huge premium increases after enacting policies that we now know as guaranteed issue and community rating. 

When the Federal Government subjects health insurers to price 

controls, excess regulations and mandated coverage requirements, 

insurers must make up for the added costs, because, unlike the 

Federal Government, health insurers cannot run perpetual deficits, 

so they turn to their ratepayers to provide the additional funds. 

Those with the highest uninsured and unemployment rates in the 

Nation, individuals under the age of 40, will see their premiums increase the most, 40 to 200 percent according to some estimates. 

The Congressional Budget Office and a wide range of experts 

have warned us from the beginning of the impending rate shock, 

yet Congress has failed to act. Today we will see another way the 

President’s Affordable Care Act is anything but affordable for all 

Americans. 

I would now like to yield the balance of the time to Dr. Gingrey. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PHIL GINGREY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA 

Mr. GINGREY. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank 

the chairman for calling this hearing today. 

I commend the committee for again looking at how Obamacare 

will impact our country’s health care. Earlier this week we heard 

how various provisions raised the cost to do business. Today we 

will now hear how it raises costs on individuals looking to purchase 

insurance. 

The economic downturn and slow recovery has hit young Americans particularly hard. The unemployment rate for young individuals has risen higher than the national average. If a 20-something 

is lucky enough to have a job, he or she is likely to be underemployed with little prospect for advancement. Many are left with 

the inability to obtain health insurance through an employer, his 

or her parents or Medicaid. 

The grim reality has left young people with few affordable options when it comes to healthcare coverage. In fact, more than 5 

million Americans in their twenties are presently without health 

insurance. Five million Americans in their twenties are presently 

without health insurance. 

The age-band compression in President Obama’s health law will 

exacerbate this problem. And I ask you, Mr. Chairman, if our goal 

7 

was to improve the rate of individuals who have insurance in this 

country, why on Earth would we deliberately make it more expensive to obtain? The fact is that a 27-year-old earning as little as 

$33,500 a year will see her premiums jump nearly $800 next year. 

We need to implement real reforms and bring healthcare costs 

under control. We need to lower costs for young healthy adults, not 

force them to subsidize costs for the older and more established 

Americans who can better afford. 

Mr. Chairman, finding a way to lower healthcare costs for young 

people is not a partisan issue; it is a patient issue. We must continue to work together to ensure a healthier future for all Americans, and I look forward to working with this committee to repeal 

this discriminatory provision of age banding, and I will do that 

with the LIBERTY Act, and I ask for bipartisan support in cosponsoring my LIBERTY Act. It does just that. 

Thank you, and I yield back. 

Mr. PITTS. The chair thanks the gentleman and now recognizes 

the gentlelady from California Mrs. Capps for 5 minutes for an 

opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LOIS CAPPS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I welcome our witnesses for appearing today and look forward to your testimony. 

Today we are rushing to fit in yet another hearing on 

Obamacare, citing fuzzy figures and speculation, and ignoring the 

context of the failings of our previous healthcare system and the 

opportunities that we now have, thanks to Obamacare. Now we 

have the opportunity to work together on this committee to make 

sure that the ACA is implemented correctly. 

I am sensitive to the fact that this law changes the landscape of 

health care, and that is the point. Our previous system was fundamentally flawed, as this committee found in detail on numerous 

hearings. It was a system that allowed insurers to routinely deny 

coverage for even the most minor preexisting conditions like previous injuries, pregnancy, or even hay fever. It was a system that 

would drop coverage when families needed it most, or imposed arbitrary lifetime coverage limits, leaving families who thought they 

had coverage in serious medical debt worrying about how to pay 

the bills more than how to get better. And it was a system that allowed insurers to discriminate against the elderly and against 

women, charging them dramatically different rates or refusing to 

cover them at all, even when the vast majority of those plans offered no substantial special benefits even such as basic maternity 

care. 

It seems like we have already forgotten just how dysfunctional 

our previous system was for millions of Americans who were denied 

any coverage, whether it was affordable or not. So I am hopeful 

that both sides will use this opportunity today to highlight the vast 

consumer protections that help affordable healthcare coverage become a reality for millions of Americans. 

Now, starting in just a few months, health insurance companies 

cannot any longer deny coverage or refuse renewal if you happen 

to get sick, and, thanks to the law, they have to actually use your 

8 

premiums to provide health care or give it back. These rebates 

have already reached 13 million Americans. And women will no 

longer be legally discriminated against and charged more for their 

premiums just because they are a woman. 

The title of today’s hearing implies health insurance premiums 

are somehow only now a problem, conveniently ignoring the fact 

that premiums have been rapidly increasing for many years. Yes, 

in the prereform market premiums were held down artificially low 

for some policyholders, but that came at the expense of people having no real coverage at all when the unexpected medical bills arrived and at the expense of millions of Americans being excluded 

from any coverage at all. So looking only at premiums is shortsighted and misleading. 

Moreover, premium costs are far from the full story. Low premiums are an illusion that routinely mask high deductibles and 

cost-sharing amounts that are just as significant if not more costly 

than the premiums themselves. New out-of-pocket maximums will 

limit total spending, and consumers are now guaranteed a minimum set of benefits like preventive benefits without cost sharing, 

which means that plans are now more valuable. These plans now 

value and support our health and wellness instead of just waiting 

for us to get sick, and premium tax credits, reducing cost sharing 

and provisions directed specifically for young adults will help keep 

insurance affordable. 

On top of all these benefits, the facts are simple: The ACA has 

not caused widespread premium increases. The vast majority of 

consumers will see continued premium stability, and millions will 

see lower total costs right away. 

So I hope today we can keep the issue in perspective and don’t 

simply resort to the scare tactics that have become so commonplace. I believe we should continue to move forward with reform. 

The millions of Americans who have been waiting for health insurance cannot afford for us to go backward. 

Since I have a minute remaining, I will just remind the previous 

speaker Dr. Gingrey that now under the coverage of the ACA, 

young people under 26 can stay on their parents’ plan, and many 

thousands of them have already been taking advantage of that 

basic coverage within the ACA. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. BURGESS [presiding]. The gentlelady yields back. 

I would like now to introduce today’s witnesses. We are very 

happy to have with us this morning a very erudite and experienced 

panel. Dr. Douglas Holtz-Eakin is the former Director of the Congressional Budget Office and serves as the president of the American Action Forum. Mr. Wendell Potter is a senior analyst at the 

Center for Public Integrity. Christopher Carlson is an actuarial 

principal for Oliver Wyman. 

Dr. Holtz-Eakin, you are recognized for 5 minutes for the purpose of an opening statement. 

9 

STATEMENTS OF DOUGLAS HOLTZ-EAKIN, FORMER DIRECTOR, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE; WENDELL POTTER, 

SENIOR ANALYST, THE CENTER FOR PUBLIC INTEGRITY; 

AND CHRISTOPHER CARLSON, ACTUARIAL PRINCIPAL, OLIVER WYMAN 

STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS HOLTZ-EAKIN 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. Chairman Burgess, Congresswoman Capps 

and members of the committee, thank you for the chance to be here 

today. I do have a written testimony that I have submitted. Let me 

just make three points briefly, and then I look forward to your 

questions. 

Point number one is that there are provisions of the Affordable 

Care Act that would lead one to believe that it would have an upward impact on premiums; and that, point number two, in order 

to see the magnitudes involved, we have actually undertaken some 

survey research and asked insurers what their actuaries are telling 

them about the implications for those in individual and small-employer markets; and then finally, given the evidence that there will 

be upward pressure on a large number of premiums, what are the 

implications of that more broadly for the Affordable Care Act and 

for the Federal budget. And I want to talk a little bit about each 

of those. 

First, the provisions, I think, the committee is quite familiar 

with. There is the combination of guaranteed issue; the inability to 

exclude on the basis of preexisting conditions; community rating, 

which excludes rating on the basis of health status or gender, and 

limits age-rating bands to a 3-to-1 ration; the new essential health 

benefits, a minimum benefit package that must be adhered to; and 

then the overall mandate for individuals’ employers to provide coverage and to carry coverage for the individuals. 

Those provisions, plus some others in the Affordable Care Act, 

the basic coverage itself will increase demand for medical services, 

raise pressure on prices from providers across the Nation and thus 

on the underlying trend of cost care growth, and a whole series of 

taxes that are included in the Affordable Care Act which will be 

embedded into the premium structure and raise premiums as well. 

If you take all of those, no individual one is particularly novel. 

We have seen some of this, as the chairman mentioned in his opening statement, in the States, but the experience there is not one 

that would lead you to think that there is going to be downward 

or stable premium pressures. Instead, the experience has been one 

of upward premium pressures where these have been tried in the 

past. 

That is all either history or conjecture, and we have done modeling, and others have as well, but we thought the useful thing 

would be to go find out. So in the testimony I submitted are the 

results of a survey. That survey was sent to large insurers in the 

United States. The insurers were asked to fill out very specific 

questions about individuals; a young healthy individual in six particular States and markets, Chicago, Illinois; Phoenix, Arizona; Atlanta, Georgia; Austin, Texas; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and also for 

older, less healthy individuals in either the individual market; and 

then we did the same exercise for the small-group market. 

10 

The insurers who were asked to fill this out covered the vast majority of covered lives in the United States. So while I don’t represent this as some sort of representative sample of the insured 

population, this is a good indicator of what is going on out there. 

I won’t belabor every single number in the results, but in the tables we find that if you look at the younger and healthier workers 

across those markets, the average premium increase is going to be 

about 149 percent. And, as has been noted, not every premium is 

guaranteed to go up. Some of those provisions will, in fact, subsidize older, sicker workers, and we see modest reductions in their 

premiums. Our estimate is 26 percent. In the individual market 

you get even bigger impacts, a 189 percent increase for the young, 

healthy workers; less modest redistributions, small downward, 18 

percent, in the premiums for the older and sicker workers. 

So I think that tells us that the basic intuition about the structure of the Affordable Care Act is playing out in the market. We 

are going to have a combination of legislative provisions plus market pressures that will lead to higher premiums for certainly the 

plurality of the insured, who are the young and healthy, once the 

act is fully implemented in 2014. 

And I guess I would say that there are a couple of implications 

for that. Implication number one is the question about individual 

take-up. The law relies heavily on a tax penalty to enforce the individual mandate to carry insurance. Given the sharp increases in 

premiums and the basic calculus that individuals can do, will they, 

in fact, take up the insurance and enter the risk pool, or will they 

remain outside of it and pay the tax penalty? If so, the experience 

will be much like the States, who had guaranteed issue, and community rating and sharp premium increases. 

For employers the sharp premium increases increase a second 

piece of the calculus which says, you know, we are not going to provide the coverage. We will instead send our employees off to the 

exchanges to get insurance. And to the extent that that takes 

place, we will see the Congressional Budget Office estimates of the 

cost of the Affordable Care Act to be lower bounds. Instead, larger 

exchange take-up will lead to expanded budget costs, and the higher premiums will increase the subsidy per person, exacerbating the 

overall budgetary impact of the Affordable Care Act. 

So I think this is an important issue, and I am privileged to have 

the chance to be here today, and look forward to answering your 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Holtz-Eakin follows:] 

11 


80802.001
12 


80802.002
13 


80802.003
14 


80802.004
15 


80802.005
16 


80802.006
17 


80802.007
18 

Mr. BURGESS. The gentleman yields back his time. 

Mr. Potter, you are recognized for 5 minutes for the purpose of 

an opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF WENDELL POTTER 

Mr. POTTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. It is a honor to be here today. 

If I may, I would like to begin with an apology to the family of 

Leslie Elder. Leslie died an untimely death at age 83 last summer, 

uninsured and facing foreclosure. I owe her family an apology because Leslie might be alive today had it not been for the work that 

I used to do. You see, I helped create the same kind of deceptive 

PR campaigns that are being waged today to weaken the consumer 

protections in the Affordable Care Act. 

The campaigns I helped create intentionally misled the American 

people and their elected officials into believing that the reform of 

our health insurance system would do more harm than good. 

Among the tactics we used was hiring consulting firms and think 

tanks to conduct studies and surveys using questionable methodology and disclosing only the findings that could be useful talking 

points. These campaigns helped maintain an unacceptable status 

quo in which too many Americans have had to declare bankruptcy, 

lose their homes, and, like Leslie Elder, die much too young. 

Leslie’s daughter believes her mother would be alive today if she 

had been able to get health insurance. No company was willing to 

sell her an affordable policy because of her age, her gender and ultimately her serious but treatable illness. 

There have been an untold number of Leslie Elders who have 

died prematurely because of insurance company practices that the 

Affordable Care Act thankfully is ending. The latest scare campaign has insurance companies professing concern about young 

adults, but what they really worry about is no longer being able to 

cherry-pick the youngest and healthiest. In most States today insurance companies are able to charge older people like Leslie 5, 6, 

or even 10 times more for the same coverage they gladly will sell 

to younger, healthier people. In some States there is no limit at all. 

One of the reasons we are here today is the Affordable Care Act 

prohibits insurers from charging older people more than three 

times as much as they charge young adults. This new age-rating 

band foils attempts by insurance companies to deny coverage to 

people they want to avoid, people like Leslie Elder. 

Of course, the current coordinated attack on the law fails to consider many important factors, and, as a result, the studies being 

cited in this campaign intentionally mislead the public. Here are 

some factors that the insurance industry is not talking about, but 

that a recent and unbiased Urban Institute analysis confirmed. 

Only a small percentage of young adults will be affected, while 

many people at the other end of the age band will see enormous 

benefits that allow them to stay covered and maintain their health. 

There are many serious deficiencies in today’s coverage, especially 

in the low-value, minimal-benefit coverage that is being marketed 

to young people. Banning junk insurance policies, those that are offered even by the biggest companies, while maintaining access to 

low-cost policies will mean that Americans will be able to purchase 

19 

real coverage that protects them from financial ruin if they happen 

to fall ill. 

Discriminatory practices have for years priced many people out 

of the market, allowing for artificially low premiums for others. 

And finally, premium tax credits will soon be available that will 

dramatically reduce costs for many consumers. 

In fact, coverage under the Affordable Care Act will be more affordable for the vast majority of young people because of the Medicaid expansion, the premium tax credits for low- to moderate-income earners, and the ability of young people to remain on their 

parents’ policies until age 26 if they don’t have jobs with health 

benefits. Adults under 30 will also be able to purchase catastrophic 

coverage with lower premiums and higher deductibles. Keep in 

mind that millions of young adults who have employment-based 

coverage will not be affected at all. 

The title of today’s hearing is Unaffordable: Impact of Obamacare 

on Americans’ Health Insurance Premiums. The title implies that 

before the Affordable Care Act came along, premiums were stable, 

but now are on the verge of skyrocketing because of the reform law. 

Nothing could be further from the truth. But my former colleagues 

in the insurance industry are hoping that you will either have amnesia or turn a blind eye to the fact that premiums truly were skyrocketing before the Affordable Care Act. 

The average family premium increased an astonishing 131 percent between 1999 and 2009. That is more than three times worker 

wages, four times general inflation, and considerably faster than 

overall medical inflation. 

I ask Congress not to buy into the insurance industry’s PR campaign. The vast majority of young adults will benefit from the law. 

Many for the first time will able be able to get decent, affordable 

coverage that will enable them to stay healthy without fear of financial ruin. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, many of your constituents have been counting the days until January 1, 2014, when 

insurance companies will no longer be able to deny them coverage 

or charge them far more than their family budgets can handle. 

Please do not dash their hopes. If you change the Affordable Care 

Act to enable insurance companies to meet profit goals—and that 

is what is really going on here, helping them to meet profit goals— 

then the results will be tragic, and many of your constituents will 

continue to be at risk of dying prematurely like Leslie Elder. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Potter follows:] 

20 


80802.008
21 


80802.009
22 


80802.010
23 


80802.011
24 


80802.012
25 


80802.013
26 


80802.014
27 


80802.015
28 


80802.016
29 

Mr. BURGESS. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The chair recognizes Mr. Carlson for 5 minutes for purposes of 

an opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER CARLSON 

Mr. CARLSON. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, 

thank you for this opportunity to testify on the impact of the Affordable Care Act on health insurance premium rates. My testimony will focus on two topics that I and the other actuaries at Oliver Wyman have studied extensively: first, the estimates we have 

developed on the increase in premiums that will be required to 

fund the health insurer taxes beginning in 2014; and, second, the 

analysis that we performed to measure the impact of the 3-to-1 age 

rating limitation of the ACA on nongroup policies. 

Regarding the first topic, Oliver Wyman has researched extensively the impact of the health insurer taxes. We and others, including the CBO, believe that these fees will be passed through directly to policyholders in the form of higher premiums. Overall we 

anticipate that these taxes will increase premiums by between 1.9 

and 2.3 percent in 2014, increasing to between 2.8 and 3.7 percent 

in 2018. 

For the second topic, Kurt Giesa and I coauthored a article published in the American Academy of Actuaries magazine. The purpose of this article was to assess the impacts of age-rating limitations required by the ACA. Currently in most States health insurance premium rates are allowed to vary by a ratio of at least 5 to 

1 based on the age of the individual. This is relative to actual costs, 

which may vary by as much as 6 or 7 to 1 based on age alone. 

Therefore, health insurers must compress the rates at the high and 

low ends to maintain the correct ratio of premiums based on age. 

There are certain things that our report says, and there are 

other things that our report does not say. To be clear, our report 

assumes that the average overall impact of age-rating compression 

is a zero-sum game. Certain policyholders, those at the youngest 

ages, will pay more. Certain policyholders, those at the oldest ages, 

will pay less. But in the aggregate for all policyholders, premiums 

collected with and without age-rating compression will be the 

same. 

We do not say in our report that the premiums for everyone in 

the individual market will increase by 40 percent, as has been 

quoted. In fact, we expect that most people will see a decrease in 

the amount of premiums they pay, primarily due to the premium 

subsidies offered through the ACA. 

Our report is intended to measure the impact of age-rating compression; however, we also make an assumption to the impact of 

all other provisions of the ACA. Specifically the CBO provided an 

analysis of the health insurance premiums under the ACA in a letter to Senator Evan Bayh in 2009. In it the CBO estimated that 

nongroup premiums would increase by 10 to 13 percent relative to 

current law. This amount represents increases due to factors such 

as the actuarial value of benefits, competitive factors and the enrollment of uninsureds. For our analysis we assumed that the impact of these other factors would be at the low end of this range 

or 10 percent. 

30 

Our report illustrates the impact on premiums for those individuals that are not eligible for the subsidies. What our report shows 

is that for individuals in the lowest age bracket, ages 21 to 29, premiums would increase by 42 percent due to age rating and other 

factors, or 29 percent due to age-rating compression alone. Further, 

individuals at ages 30 to 39 would see an increase of 31 percent, 

or 19 percent due to age-rating compression only. At the other end, 

individuals at ages 60 to 64 would see their premiums increase by 

1 percent for all factors, or decrease by 8 percent due to the agerating compression. 

There are several factors that should be considered when understanding the results in our report. First, our purpose was to illustrate one of the unintended consequences of the ACA. While most 

individuals will see their premiums decrease as a result of the premium subsidies available on the exchanges, there are certain individuals, primarily those under the age of 40 and that are not eligible for any premium subsidies, whose premiums may increase substantially due to the limitations on the age rating. 

Second, individuals under the age of 30 have an alternative to 

purchasing at premium rates that are affected by the age-rating 

compression. They may purchase a catastrophic policy, which, 

under the rules set by the Department of Health and Human Services, may have a rating factor that adjusts the premium to reflect 

the expected demographics of the enrollees. However, this severely 

limits the options available to younger individuals in selecting a 

policy. 

Mr. Chairman, again I thank you for the opportunity to speak, 

and I look forward to answering any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Carlson follows:] 

31 


80802.017
32 


80802.018
33 


80802.019
34 


80802.020
35 


80802.021
36 


80802.022
37 


80802.023
38 


80802.024
39 


80802.025
40 


80802.026
41 


80802.027
42 


80802.028
43 


80802.029
44 

Mr. BURGESS. The gentleman yields back. 

We will now proceed to questions. I recognize myself first for 5 

minutes for the purpose of questions. 

Mr. Carlson, let us stay with you. We have all seen the stories 

in the newspapers warning of premium increases as a result of the 

Affordable Care Act. The Associated Press reported that premiums 

could more than double in some markets and States. We are asking 

you here today as an actuary, and we want to know about several 

provisions of the law and whether you believe that they will generally increase or decrease premiums. Do they make life better or 

worse? 

I have got limited time, so I was hoping for one-word answers 

here. Premiums higher or lower, life better or worse. Your choice 

on how you respond. But provisions such as guaranteed issue. 

Mr. CARLSON. Yes, it will increase premiums. You know, it will 

certainly make life better for some, but from the perspective of the 

premiums, yes, it will increase premiums. 

Mr. BURGESS. Coverage for rehabilitative services. 

Mr. CARLSON. Yes, it will increase premiums. 

Mr. BURGESS. Coverage for habilitative services. 

Mr. CARLSON. Yes, it will increase premiums. 

Mr. BURGESS. Coverage for oral and vision care. 

Mr. CARLSON. Yes. 

Mr. BURGESS. Limitations on cost sharing. 

Mr. CARLSON. Yes, it will increase premiums. 

Mr. BURGESS. Limitations on out-of-pocket maximums. 

Mr. CARLSON. Yes, it will increase premiums. 

Mr. BURGESS. Coverage for emergency services at in-network 

cost-sharing levels with limitations on things like preauthorization. 

Mr. CARLSON. Yes, it will increase premiums. 

Mr. BURGESS. Requirements related to annual limits. 

Mr. CARLSON. Yes. 

Mr. BURGESS. Requirements related to lifetime limits. 

Mr. CARLSON. Yes. 

Mr. BURGESS. Federal and State exchange administrative fees. 

Mr. CARLSON. It may increase premiums. 

Mr. BURGESS. Medical device tax. 

Mr. CARLSON. Yes. 

Mr. BURGESS. Health insurance tax fee. 

Mr. CARLSON. Yes. 

Mr. BURGESS. And, you mentioned this in your testimony. I 

mean, I guess the assumption of the people who were writing this 

was that things like the medical device tax and the health insurance fee, those dollars would be taken from the chief executives of 

the company. But that is not the way the world works, is it? Those 

monies are actually collected from the ratepayers ultimately; are 

they not? 

Mr. CARLSON. Yes, they are. I mean, if you increase the benefits, 

the premiums will go up, and if you increase costs to the insurers, 

those will have to be funded somehow. 

Mr. BURGESS. Well, let us look at, you know, proponents of the 

Affordable Care Act say the premiums spike as a result of these 

Affordable Care Act provisions will be offset by subsidies. You mention that in your testimony. Let us set aside for a moment the 

45 

question of whether it makes sense to borrow $2 trillion from foreign nations to pay for a new entitlement when current Medicare 

and Medicaid programs are in trouble. Let us also set aside that 

lowering healthcare costs, according to some on the other side of 

the dais, means placing expensive regulations on what Americans 

must buy and offsetting some of the costs for people with dollars, 

and all of that comes from the taxpayers. Your study addressed 

this claim. At what income level are some younger Americans expected to start paying more as a result of the healthcare law? 

Mr. CARLSON. Well, our study looks at the age-rating compression, and individuals who are under the age of 30 who are at a 

Federal poverty level of 225 percent, which is roughly about 

$25,000, they will pay higher premiums as a result of the age-rating compression. 

Mr. BURGESS. So that is sort of the break point for an individual 

is $25,000? 

Mr. CARLSON. Yes. Yes. And anyone above that level, their premiums will be affected by the age rating. 

Mr. BURGESS. Very well. 

Dr. Holtz-Eakin, some supporters of the Affordable Care Act 

argue that the law’s most expensive requirements will only fall on 

the individual market. I remember the discussions in this room 

when leading up to it, it seemed like our whole focus should be on 

people in the individual and small-group market, but it looks likes 

we made things tougher for them; does it not? 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. Certainly these premium increases are going 

to be dramatic in the individual market for healthy individuals. 

Certainly. 

Mr. BURGESS. We also heard from Ranking Member Waxman 

when he was giving his opening statement about the number of 

people who fall in the category of preexisting condition and can’t 

get insurance. Now, in the large-group market, that was really 

much less of a problem; was it not? 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. The HIPAA provisions were intended to solve 

that problem years ago. 

Mr. BURGESS. So when he gives a figure of tens of millions of 

people who are unable to get insurance for a preexisting condition, 

that number is probably a little bit overstated; is it not? 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. Some of the high-end dramatic ones simply 

are beyond the realm of possibility. 

Mr. BURGESS. We know this, that it was a problem in the smallgroup and individual markets, and some States have risk pools and 

reinsurance to provide help there. The Federal Government set up 

a new program. I remember looking at these numbers right before 

the Supreme Court ruled, because I thought the Supreme Court 

was going to rule differently, as Mr. Waxman pointed out, and I 

thought we needed to be able to start talking about what happens 

to those folks who are in the Federal preexisting pool, and the 

number was startlingly small. It was not that they are not important people, but it was 65,000, nowhere near the tens of millions 

that have been talked about during the rhetoric. Is that a fair 

statement to make? 

46 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. Certainly that is a fair statement. I mean, as 

you know, I spent a lot of time looking at the high-risk pool design, 

and we didn’t see anything like the take-up that was claimed. 

Mr. BURGESS. Very well. My time is expired. I recognize the 

ranking member of the subcommittee, Mrs. Capps from California. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Carlson, the chairman asked you if the provisions in the 

ACA make life better or worse, and your first answer was that, yes, 

that guarantee issue will make life better for many people. I just 

want to make sure that was clear for the record. 

Thank you, Mr. Potter, for your powerful story about Leslie 

Elder. As you know, your fellow witnesses today have produced 

faulty studies that ignore specific and key policies in the Affordable 

Care Act which actually do help lower costs for all Americans, 

young and old. But the key thing they ignore is that the vast majority of this Nation will benefit from an end to insurance company 

discrimination. 

A report by the National Women’s Law Center detailed the pervasive discrimination women currently face in today’s insurance 

market. The report revealed that the same health insurance policy 

can cost a woman 30, 50, even 85 percent more than a man of the 

same age, even if maternity care is not covered, which is in itself 

discriminatory. These higher premiums can have a significant impact on their budget, women’s budgets, costing a 40-year-old 

woman as much as $1,250 more each year than a man of the same 

age getting the exact same coverage. And let us not forget women 

have often been denied all coverage just because they have a previous existing condition, such as pregnancy, or having had a C-section, or being victims of domestic violence. 

The Affordable Care Act ends these abuses by implementing 

landmark new protections for women and banning discrimination 

by insurance companies on the basis of gender or preexisting conditions. 

Mr. Potter, can you tell us about the way insurance companies 

approached covering women, both young and old, prior to reform? 

You are knowledgeable on that topic. 

Mr. POTTER. I certainly can, and the approach was to discriminate against women and people because of their age. What is important to keep in mind is that as we talk about community rating 

in this country, that is how health insurance began. Virtually all 

of the Blue Cross plans initially were—their plans were based on 

community rating, which meant that everyone, regardless of age or 

gender or health status, paid the same amount. That changed 

when large insurance companies began to come into the market 

and see that they could cherry-pick the youngest and the healthiest 

and make a substantial amount of money. That is what has happened, and as a consequence of that, even the Blue Cross plans had 

to change the way they did business. 

As a result, over the years we have got a system that really discriminates, especially against people as they age and against 

women. You are exactly right. And they do this because when you 

are segmenting the population that way, and you are often charging some people so much that they don’t buy insurance, and that 

is why we have 50 million people in this country without coverage 

47 

right now, and that helps their profits. When you have people who 

are discriminated against, and they simply can’t afford the policies 

because they happen to be born with a preexisting condition called 

being female, then they can make a lot of money. 

Mrs. CAPPS. What do you think we can expect to happen to women’s premiums after the ACA really kicks in? 

Mr. POTTER. They will go down. Insurance companies will no 

longer be able to single them out and say, just because you are a 

woman, you have to pay more than your brother or some other person who is of similar age, but just happens to have been born male. 

Mrs. CAPPS. And do you expect this fall in premiums will be limited to women, or are there men and children, other issues will also 

be covered in the same way in the ACA? 

Mr. POTTER. Absolutely. Virtually everyone; in fact, I do think 

everyone will benefit from the Affordable Care Act and get some relief from price gouging. 

Keep in mind, too, it is important as we are talking about the 

individual market, we are talking about 14 million people. There 

are 315 million people in this country. That means we are talking 

about a population that is slightly more than 4 percent of the total 

population. And of that 4 percent, most of the people in that individual market will stand to benefit, become able to get coverage 

through the expansion of the Medicaid program, through the tax 

credits or subsidies for low-income earners, and for relief at the 

other end of the spectrum for people who have been charged up to 

10 times or more for coverage in the past to the point that many 

of them can’t buy coverage. But at least we are talking about a 

very small segment of the population to begin with. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you very much, and I yield back the balance 

of my time. 

Mr. BURGESS. The gentlelady yields back. 

The gentleman from Texas Mr. Hall is recognized for 5 minutes 

for questions. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Holtz-Eakin, beginning in 2014, the Affordable Care Act, the 

Obama act, imposes a new tax on health insurance of at least $100 

billion. That is an accurate figure; is it not? 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HALL. I think that our committee got that from the Joint Tax 

Committee, so we can live with that figure. That is good to go with. 

Probably none of the three here deny that figure. 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. In fact, one of the unprecedented features of 

that tax is that it demands that a fixed amount of revenue be 

raised regardless of the circumstances in the industry. So $8 billion 

in 2014 no matter what. 

Mr. HALL. And the tax begins at $8 billion in 2014 and rises to 

$14.3 billion in 2018, and thereafter it increases annually based on 

a premium growth. 

I think we are all aware that the tax is going to fall on all individuals and businesses that purchase healthcare insurance. Maybe 

less well known or less well admitted by the writers of this act is 

that the tax law hits seniors enrolled in the Medicare Advantage 

plans, State Medicaid programs and Medicaid health plans serving 

low-income families. Right? 

48 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. HALL. Can you explain for the committee what kind of impact beneficiaries enrolled in the private Medicare and Medicaid 

plans can expect to encounter after the tax is fully phased in? 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. If you look at the structure of the tax, I think 

there is broad agreement that the tax itself will end up being embedded into premiums; that insurers will have to recover that cost, 

and the way to do so is to raise premiums. 

A unique feature of the tax is that it is not deductible for purposes of paying corporation income taxes, something that I have 

never seen before in the tax law. So if you are not a tax-exempt 

insurer, if you have to pay a dollar of premium tax and you raise 

your premiums by a dollar to do it, you will still come up short because you have to pay tax on that dollar as well. So you have to 

raise premiums by more than a dollar, actually $1.54, to cover that 

provision. That is a lot of upward pressure on premiums. Not everyone will be subject to that, so you start to see shuffling in coverage, shuffling in lines of business. The Medicare Advantage 

plans, the managed Medicaids are going to be subject to the same 

thing. That means disruption in provider networks, higher premiums across the board. 

Mr. HALL. I thank you for that. 

I didn’t hear you say Medicaid programs. How will the tax impact State Medicaid programs? Our Governor was in town yesterday and discussed with the Republican Members—— 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. It is exactly the same. All these lines of insurance are subject to this, and all will see premium pressures as a 

result. 

Mr. HALL. Then the ‘‘yes’’ answers that were extracted earlier by 

the chairman were based on services that increase or become more 

expensive, and either of those situations are what you glean from 

reading the act itself? 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. I mean, the tax is a cost that businesses have 

to cover for, if I understand the question right. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you. I yield back my time. 

Mr. BURGESS. The gentleman yields back. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas Mr. Green for 5 

minutes for questions. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And this is not directed 

at you, but I guess I am frustrated, because I have been on this 

committee since 1977, and the Affordable Care Act was passed 3 

years ago and upheld by the Supreme Court, and last session all 

we did was try and repeal it, and that is not going to happen. It 

won’t pass the Senate. Yet every hearing this week we have had 

is to talk about how bad it is. 

I would hope our committee would sometime get to the point 

where, OK, let us see what we can do to fix it. Instead of just making political points, we can actually pass legislation. I think that 

is what everybody in the country would like us to do. 

But in this panel is a good example. You know, we have some 

great witnesses, and I have heard them before on some cases. But, 

you know, the Affordable Care Act is the law, and there are things 

in it I would like to change, and I know everybody on the comVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:34 May 27, 2014 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 113\113-17 CHRIS
49 

mittee would, but we are not going to repeal because it is not going 

to happen, at least for 4 years. So that is the frustration. 

Let us make it work. And there are some things that are really 

successful, and we really won’t know until next year on the success 

of it and when we see some of the requirements go in. 

There was a report released yesterday by my colleagues, my Republican colleagues, on prediction of premium increases under the 

Affordable Care Act, and the Republican report ignores the fact 

that over 90 percent of insured Americans have employer or public 

coverage, which is Medicaid or Medicare. And even an unbiased observer, including the CBO, has said that 240 million people will not 

see their premiums increase under the ACA. 

Second, the American Action Forum study totally ignores the effect of premium tax credits. These credits will go directly to the 

cost of coverage, immediately lowering premiums each month, and 

the CBO has estimated the majority of the individuals getting coverage in the exchanges would receive subsidies. And it is deeply 

misleading to ignore the impact of those on affected premiums. 

Let me get to my questions now. Mr. Potter, is it accurate to 

compare a low-premium plan in today’s market with the type of 

quality coverage that will available under the Affordable Care Act? 

Mr. POTTER. No, not at all, because a lot of the policies that are 

sold to people, and often people enroll in these unwittingly, are 

plans with very, very limited benefits or very high deductibles, and 

people often find out when it is too late that they are woefully 

underinsured. 

And one of the objectives of the Affordable Care Act is to make 

sure that people are getting value for what they buy, and that will 

be something that we will see as a result of full implementation of 

the law. We will no longer see people who are in junk policies, because they will be a thing of the past. 

Mr. GREEN. Well, I have a district, and one of the highest in the 

country, at least the 2000 census—we haven’t seen the numbers 

from the 2010 census—of people who work, and yet they don’t have 

insurance through their employers. It is a very urban area in Houston, an industrialized area. And for decades, outside of their job opportunities, the next thing they ask once they get a job is, what 

kind of health care can I get? And some employers offer very good 

health care. Some offer, as you said, very limited amounts with 

high deductibles. Now, those are cheaper in premiums, but they 

also don’t really establish what we hope in our healthcare world is 

a medical home where people feel comfortable going to instead of, 

even with a high deductible, are still going to show up at our emergency rooms because they don’t have the coverage that will cover 

them. 

I know you worked in the insurance industry for a long time. 

Just out of curiosity, did the industry ever support outside research 

to help generate its public relations and drive its public policy 

agenda? 

Mr. POTTER. The insurance industry spends a considerable 

amount of their premium dollars on various public relations and 

lobbying efforts, but not so much on research that is all that reliable. The research is intended to make a point. 

50 

You know, it is not necessary for anyone’s premiums to go up, 

we need to understand that, because we are talking about changing 

the way these companies will do business. There will not be quite 

as much need, maybe not nearly as much need, for underwriting. 

McKenzie & Company did a study of health care costs around 

the world in 2008, and it showed in the U.S., of the administrative 

expenses of insurance companies, by far the largest component of 

that are marketing and underwriting expenses. And that is just not 

going to be all that necessary, because you are not going to be 

needing to use all of those resources. 

Mr. GREEN. I am almost out of time. Again, having served in the 

Texas Legislature and trying to deal with the uninsured, it was almost impossible. We created high-risk plans, but the only people 

that went to them were high risk. And the State wouldn’t put any 

money in, so nobody could afford the coverage. So one of the best 

reforms in the Affordable Care Act is the 80 percent requirement 

that they have to pay out in medical benefits. I know physicians 

like that, hospitals like that, because they actually know that they 

are going to receive the payments. 

Mr. Chairman, I know I am out of time, and I appreciate your 

patience. 

Mr. BURGESS. The gentleman yields back. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois Mr. Shimkus, 5 

minutes for questions. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I know my friend 

from Texas is still in the room. I would just like to remind him that 

we had not one hearing on this healthcare law before it was passed 

on the floor. There was not one. 

Then number two I will say, as ranking member of the Health 

Subcommittee, the remaining part of that year, every week I asked 

for the chairman of the Health Subcommittee to have hearings on 

how this law would be implemented, and we were never offered 

one. 

So what we are trying to do now is at least—is the whole ‘‘we 

got to pass the bill before we know what is in it.’’ Now we are trying to figure out what is in it, and that is what these hearings are 

part of. 

Everybody is going to get a chance to ask our witnesses, and we 

are going to be able to make our points about the benefits and the 

disadvantages. But don’t trash the system that legislators need to 

do, which is our oversight role in this body. 

So I wouldn’t respond forcefully except for I was the ranking 

member of the Health Subcommittee when this law got passed. Nathan Deal was—when the law was passed, Nathan left to run for 

Governor. I assumed that role, and for the final part of that Congress, every week I asked for a hearing on this piece of legislation, 

and every week it was denied. 

Mr. GREEN. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I would be happy to yield. 

Mr. GREEN. Well, you understand how it feels to be in the minority. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I definitely do. 

Mr. GREEN. My quote was—and you remember we had literally 

hours and hours, including very late markups on the bill. Now, 

51 

having said that, we should have had follow-up hearings on the implementation. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Just reclaiming my time, the bill that was passed 

was the Senate bill, without hearings, without movement through 

the committee. It was picked up from the Senate and passed on the 

floor. 

Mr. GREEN. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I am just telling you the facts. 

Mr. GREEN. And again, I agree that that happened. The problem 

is that we didn’t have an alternative. Believe me, the majority, no 

matter who is in the majority, does that same thing. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Reclaiming my time, it was the Speaker at that 

time who said the American people, we have to pass the bill before 

we know what is in it. 

Mr. GREEN. That wasn’t my—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. All we are trying to do now is to find out what is 

in this piece of legislation, so I applaud this series because it is not 

even rolled out. It is not in full implementation yet. So that is— 

I mean, again, that is what we are trying to do. And I wanted to 

ask just Mr. Potter, and it is kind of key to this last comment 

about 80 percent, you know, has to go to services in the plan and 

part of that debate was an analysis about how much administration planned that our Medicare system funds during the debate. Do 

you know what that percentage is of the overhead cost is the bureaucracy of Medicare? 

Mr. POTTER. Well, the medical loss ratio, the equivalent of that 

in the Medicare program is considerably lower. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Do you know what that percentage is? 

Mr. POTTER. I have heard that the administrative expense is 

about 3 percent in the Medicare program. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And that is the numbers that I used. That is the 

numbers my friends on the other side used. 

Now, can you tell me which health insurance plan the private 

sector of the market or the government run market is actually unsound and going broke? 

Mr. POTTER. I think the current commercial system is absolutely 

unsustainable. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. OK. The question is, Medicare or the private 

health insurance market, which one is going broke? 

Mr. POTTER. I don’t know, sir. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. OK. Let me ask Mr. Carlson. Do you have an idea? 

Mr. CARLSON. Well, I certainly think that the commercial market 

is not going broke, and that is why they have actuaries to 

make—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Right. And we haven’t asked you that is why they 

have actuaries to make sure they don’t go broke. 

Dr. Holtz-Eakin. 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. The government has actuaries but it is still 

going broke, sir. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And that is really this part of this fight we are 

having in Washington and how we can actually reform the entitlement programs so that we are not in a $16 trillion debt. 

Obamacare makes the program even worse because it creates a 

new entitlement that is not funded that makes actuarially, sir, Mr. 

52 

Potter, our Nation less sound today, next year and in the foreseeable future. 

I yield back my time. 

Mr. BURGESS. The gentleman yields back. The chair recognizes 

Mr. Sarbanes of Maryland 5 minutes for purposes of questions, sir. 

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Holtz-Eakin, do you think the Affordable Care Act can work? 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. I am sorry, sir? 

Mr. SARBANES. Do you think the Affordable Care Act can work? 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. I am skeptical, to be honest, sir. 

Mr. SARBANES. OK. Mr. Carlson, do you think it can work? 

Mr. CARLSON. I think there are things within the law that could 

be changed, but you know, I can’t comment overall whether it is 

going to work and—— 

Mr. SARBANES. It could work. 

Mr. CARLSON. It certainly could work but it may not work. 

Mr. SARBANES. Americans could make it work. 

Mr. CARLSON. Potentially, right. 

Mr. SARBANES. How would you define work? 

Mr. Potter, do you think it can work? 

Mr. POTTER. I do. I think it can work. I think that we will—as 

you bring more people into coverage, you make a big difference and 

you begin to end some of the cost shifting that is so problematic 

in this country, and that contributes to all of us paying more in insurance premiums as a consequence. 

Mr. SARBANES. Do you think the system we had before was workable over time? 

Mr. POTTER. Not at all, not at all workable, nor was it sustainable either. You cannot keep raising premiums, as I said. They increased 131 percent between 1999 and 2009. You can’t keep doing 

that and you can’t—and at the same time insurance companies 

were shifting more of the cost of care from them and from employers to employees and dependents. You can’t keep doing that and expect that that system is sustainable. It is simply not. 

Mr. SARBANES. What I am concerned about is there are—we can 

all agree that there is going to be some increases for some portion 

of the population as a result of implementation of this, but we are 

talking about increases within that individual market for younger 

healthier people who are more in a position to afford those increases than their peers might be because if their peers can’t afford 

it, they are going to be able to take advantage of these Affordable 

Care credits, these tax credits when they go into the exchanges, so 

you are talking about a relatively small number of people who may 

experience, and I think arguably in an affordable way, an increase 

in their premiums, but based on that, we keep getting this phrase 

of a rate shock and so forth being bandied about, and I am trying 

to figure out why that is happening. Like, what is afoot with it? 

So if the industry is the one that is putting out this rate shock 

narrative when in fact there is going to be good stability for the 

great majority of consumers out there and actually reduce premiums for many, if the industry is doing it, subscribing to this narrative, I can only surmise that they are doing it because they are 

getting ready or setting the table for some potential rate gouging. 

53 

Now, if the industry is not intending to do that, and I will give 

them the benefit of the doubt for the moment that they don’t want 

to rate gouge, that they do just want to present the straight story 

on it, then what is really happening is that long time critics of the 

Affordable Care Act are putting that narrative out as a way of just 

fear mongering about the Act generally. 

Do you, Mr. Potter, you have been there, you have been inside 

that, that mindset. What is going on here? Why are we getting this 

sort of rate shock narrative being pushed out to Americans right 

now? What do you think that is all about? 

Mr. POTTER. Well, insurance companies spend a lot of money trying to influence public opinion to influence public policy, and that 

is what is going on is to create an impression of something that is 

not reality and is not likely to be reality. 

Keep in mind, too, that these may be, the increases we are talking about may be what they would like to get and they would be 

able to get in the absence of the Affordable Care Act, but we 

have—there are provisions in the law that will require reviews of 

excessive rate increases, and—— 

Mr. SARBANES. Thank goodness for that. 

Mr. POTTER. Yes. So, just because they say they want to do this 

or plan to do this doesn’t mean they are going to be able to do this. 

Mr. SARBANES. So, at the end of the day, it is a completely nonconstructive exercise. 

Mr. POTTER. It is. 

Mr. SARBANES. The key is nothing to do this, to put that narrative out. It just puts people on edge and it is going to make it 

harder for us to make this thing work, and it can work if we put 

our heads behind it. 

Mr. POTTER. You are right. And keep in mind again, we are talking, as you noted, about a very small segment of the population. 

But the intent here when you talk about rate shock, which is a 

crock, if you ask me, is nothing more than to try to get the impression that we are talking about the whole population, and it is not 

that at all. It is a small percentage of the population. 

Mr. SARBANES. Rate shock is a crock. Thank you. I appreciate 

that. 

Mr. BURGESS. Gentleman’s time has expired. 

Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Cassidy. 

Mr. CASSIDY. OK, Mr. Potter, if rate shock is a crock, why does 

Massachusetts, which has the beta version of Obamacare, which 

has exchanges, nonprofit insurance companies; i.e., no marketing 

apparently and no need to do actuarial testing and has MLR requirements, they have the highest small business premiums in the 

Nation? Now, it doesn’t make sense to me that if the beta version 

is giving us this, that there won’t be a rate shock. 

Mr. POTTER. Massachusetts is a great State. It is a prosperous 

State. It also has some of the best medical facilities in the country. 

Health care in Massachusetts is expensive. It is much more expensive in Massachusetts than in many other States. 

Mr. CASSIDY. So you don’t draw a connection between the fact 

that they have Mass Health and the fact that they have higher premiums is just a function of the providers charging more. 

54 

Mr. POTTER. Providers have always charged more in Massachusetts, so that is—— 

Mr. CASSIDY. They have had a rate of growth that exceeds the 

rest of the Nation since putting in Mass Health, I think that is 

what it is called, so again, it is your position, though, that there 

is nothing inherent. They have got nonprofit insurance companies, 

et cetera, that there is nothing inherent in the plan that contributes to the upward pressure. 

Mr. POTTER. I think that in the plan, the things that are in the 

Affordable Care Act to mitigate the cost increases, you are not 

going to see necessarily, as I said, a lot of cost increases in this 

country. 

Mr. CASSIDY. Well, I guess we have to agree to disagree because 

Mass Health seems to belie what you are saying. 

Secondly, you spoke negatively of the plans that people would afford, suggesting that they are basically catastrophic, and let me 

just hold up the Kaiser Family Foundation, and Kaiser is kind of 

all in for Obamacare, but it points out that the average small business or the average business has an 80 percent actuarial value. We 

know from McKenzie that about a 30 percent of businesses will 

dump their employees into the individual market. I mean, that is 

according to the McKenzie survey, and so then they will probably 

choose the bronze plan. And the Kaiser Family Foundation study 

shows that these people will go from something of higher actuarial 

value to something of lower actuarial value and that deductibles in 

the employer plans are about $1,900, but their deductibles, their 

out-of-pocket will be as much as 6,000 and higher for a family in 

the exchange. 

And they compare the bronze level plan, Kaiser Family Foundation does, with that of a catastrophic policy. So I guess if your position is the catastrophic policy is no good and yet people will most 

likely be on a bronze level plan with the catastrophic-type coverage, are you indicting the bronze level plan? 

Mr. POTTER. Not at all. The catastrophic plan, while not as generous and will have higher deductibles, you are right, than the 

other plans. It still will be far better than a lot of the policies that 

are being marketed in this country. I have met people—— 

Mr. CASSIDY. But again—— 

Mr. POTTER. Congressman, I have met people who are $50,000 

a year families, policies with $50,000 annual deductibles. They 

pray every night they don’t get sick. 

Mr. CASSIDY. So the nice thing about an HHA plan currently is 

that you can actually prefund on a tax preferred basis, and you actually have that to meet your front-end cost. Under the bronze 

plan, there are actually deductibles and copays that will have to be 

hit up to $4,000 before you get complete coverage. There is no first 

dollar coverage. I suppose the employer could elect to go to an 

HHA. The current rules are prejudiced against that. I think that 

we are hearing a mixed message from what you are saying and 

what the facts are. 

Dr. Holtz-Eakin, at a later time you can tell me why your name 

is hyphenated, but that is OK. 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. It is a long story. Maybe another time. 

55 

Mr. CASSIDY. Listen, let’s assume that what our colleagues say 

on the other side of the aisle, which I actually agree with, as long 

as President Obama is President we are not going to repeal 

Obamacare. I mean, he has got too much invested. What could we 

do—if it is the law of the land, what could we do to bring premiums down. 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. Certainly the pressures and premiums come 

from the underlying growth in health care costs, and I think there 

is now a bipartisan consensus that nothing has really been done to 

break that trend. There is the layer that comes from taxes and 

mandates to raise those premiums, and one could modify those as 

well, and then the rest of the plan is just large amount of puts and 

takes because, you know, some people will do better and worse because they are going to redistribute from one group to another. 

Mr. CASSIDY. Let me ask you—— 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. And that is that—— 

Mr. CASSIDY. I think empirical data shows that consumer-driven 

health care have lowered cost. 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. Sure. 

Mr. CASSIDY. Would you agree that if we could more encourage 

consumer driven health care that we would have the same trend 

we have been having that that this is lowering cost if that could 

continue under the ACA? 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. Allowing people greater choice for plans that 

match their needs and provides some competitive pressure has always worked. 

Mr. CASSIDY. OK. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. BURGESS. Gentleman yields back his time. 

The chair recognizes Dr. Christensen 5 minutes for purposes of 

questions. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And while we all 

agree that we could work to build on what the Affordable Care Act 

needs to strengthen Medicare, I just want to make it clear for the 

record that Medicare is not going broke. Costs have grown by less 

than 2 percent over the past 3 years and private insurance costs 

have really always grown much faster than that. 

Let me see if I can get two questions in. The Affordable Care Act 

takes a number of steps to ensure that Americans have access to 

quality affordable coverage, that it is there when they need it, and 

these new protections has been discussed with me and you, Mr. 

Potter and Mr. Green, offers stark contrast to some of the junk insurance that is on the market today, some of which is in my district, unfortunately. 

All the plans sold in the exchange will have an actuarial value 

of 60, 70, 80, or 90 percent, and plans will have to cost essential— 

cover essential health benefits and also offer preventive care with 

no cost sharing. So these requirements will significantly increase 

the value of insurance coverage for millions of Americans. The cap 

on out-of-pocket spending guarantees that individuals with serious 

health needs will never again face endlessly increasing cost sharing. In order to receive needed care, the end of lifetime limits on 

coverage and the phase out of annual limits ensure that coverage 

56 

remains intact even if an individual’s health care needs increase 

dramatically in a given year or as the individual grows older. 

So, Mr. Potter, all of these seem to me like common sense elements of quality insurance. So can you tell us why, in your experience, the insurance companies you used to work for are opposed to 

these reforms? 

Mr. POTTER. They make a great deal of money selling policies 

that are inadequate, and if you are selling policies you don’t have 

to pay very much out in claims, that goes right to the bottom line, 

and you are able to increase your profit margins, and why—— 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. And I guess that is why they are not going 

broke either. 

Mr. POTTER. That is why they are not going broke and they are 

able to maintain their profit margins because of pressure from Wall 

Street they do these things, but they—and they have invested quite 

a lot of money, some of the biggest companies buying smaller companies that specialize in limited benefit plans that can almost 

guarantee that someone is going to be underinsured if they get 

sick. 

Leslie Elder didn’t plan to get breast cancer. My son didn’t plan 

to break his hand last year and find, because he is in a high deductible plan, that he is paying a lot of money out of pocket. He, 

by the way, before the Affordable Care Act was passed, was told— 

he was in the individual market—that his policy was going to be 

increasing 66 percent unless he switched policies and go into a policy that had a deductible that is 10 times what he had been paying. 

So, again, we—hindsight is a lot clearer than looking ahead. We 

know what has been happening and the price gouging that has 

been going on, and really we are talking about profits here. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. So when the insurance companies say they 

want to offer choice and provide new low cost options, you are talking about these junk things—— 

Mr. POTTER. That is exactly right. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN [continuing]. That are being sold on the market for big profits. 

For consumers young and healthy enough to be able to afford 

coverage in the individual market prior to reform, the coverage 

they had was really only an illusion. Insurance raised rates, high 

cost sharing disappeared when the consumers really needed them, 

and we saw this in many of the hearings that we had leading up 

to health care reform, of which there were many. 

A recent analysis found that the premiums in the individual 

market are so unstable that 80 percent of plans raise premiums 

above the price consumers were quoted when they applied for the 

coverage. This so-called affordable option that my Republican 

friends think existed before health reform are really unstable and 

unreliable. It is also wrong to call today’s low premium plans affordable because of all of the other charges that hit consumers as 

soon as they actually need the insurance. 

And these plans set hard annual and lifetime limits on the 

amount of care coverage which leaves consumers completely in the 

lurch if they ever have a serious medical need as the person you 

spoke about. 

57 

So, Mr. Potter, the studies my Republican friends are relying on 

today are focusing on comparing low premium plans available to 

day to premiums and plans that will be available under the Affordable Care Act. Would these premiums likely have stayed stable and 

provided real coverage if a person got sick? 

Mr. POTTER. Not in the old world. Not in today’s world. They 

would not have remained stable. We have seen premium increases 

over the years, and they would continue. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. So, this is just another reason that comparing past premiums in the individual market to future premiums 

makes no sense. My Republican friends ignore the subsidies available to consumers, they ignore the key limits on cost sharing when 

they compare real quality coverage to the bait-and-switch insurance available today. 

So, thank you for your answers, and thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I yield back. 

Mr. BURGESS. Gentlelady yields back. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Lance, 

5 minutes for the purposes of questions. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning to the 

panel. 

To you, Mr. Potter, I am concerned about pre-existing conditions, 

as I know you are from your testimony, and I think we should 

work together regarding that issue. 

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services recently announced that they were no longer accepting applications for the 

pre-existing condition program created by the health care law and 

I think that this is a challenge that we have to work together to 

solve. I think this could lead to countless chronically ill Americans, 

including the vast majority of the rare disease community from not 

receiving treatments, and I have the honor of chairing with Congressman Crowley of Queens in New York City the Rare Disease 

Caucus, and recently our leadership here in the House on the Republican side, Speaker Boehner, Majority Leader Cantor, Whip 

McCarthy, Conference Chair McMorris Rodgers, who serves on this 

committee, Chairman Upton, Chairman Pitts, and Dr. Burgess sent 

a letter to the President regarding the fact that the Centers for 

Medicare and Medicaid Services announced that they were no 

longer accepting applications for the pre-existing conditions program. 

I am wondering what your thoughts might be as we move forward to try to address this issue together since one of the promises 

of the Health Care Act was that this program would be put in place 

and that we would have solved this problem but clearly we need 

to do more work on the area. 

Mr. POTTER. When you are segmenting—pardon me. When you 

are segmenting people with pre-existing conditions into high risk 

pools, by their very nature they are going to have people who are 

sicker and who will have higher medical cost, and one of the reasons why it is important to move to at least a modified community 

rating approach to providing health coverage is that you can broaden the risk for everyone. 

Keep in mind that people who are sick, who have pre-existing 

conditions and might look to get coverage through a high risk pool 

58 

often may not be able to work. They may not have the ability to 

buy into a high risk pool. One of the reasons why maybe we 

haven’t seen as much uptake in the high risk pools in the States 

is because the premiums are expensive and the people who are sick 

and who need them just often simply can’t afford to buy them. So 

we do need to make sure that people who have pre-existing conditions are taken care of. 

We are all in this together. I think that if we can look beyond 

our own current circumstances, we might realize that a friend of 

ours or a brother or a daughter or a son might have a pre-existing 

condition and have need for medical care, so we have got to look 

beyond our own current situation sometimes. 

Mr. LANCE. The $5 billion program created by PPACA was intended to help individuals with pre-existing conditions through 

January 1st of next year, and as I understand it, despite lower 

than expected enrollment, CMS announced it would no longer enroll individuals, and it seems to me this is a reminder, and there 

have been several, that the cost of PPACA are significantly understated, and those who may need help are no longer going to be able 

to enroll in the program. 

Mr. POTTER. It is possible, but also there is not a great deal of 

awareness, I don’t think, of coverage that is available or the high 

risk pools. Leslie Elder, as CNN reported, conceivably could have 

been enrolled in a high risk pool in Florida, but she and her husband just simply were not aware of the existence of it, so at the 

end of her life, conceivably she died after the Affordable Care Act 

was passed and she might have been able to have enrolled in a 

plan that they could have afforded but it just wasn’t something 

that was available or they were aware of its existence. 

Mr. LANCE. It might have been available, but from your perspective, she was not aware that it was available. 

Mr. POTTER. That is what was reported and her husband said he 

was not aware of it as well. I talked to him just recently and he 

wasn’t aware that it could have been available to them. So these 

are not—you know, States don’t necessarily have large marketing 

budgets like insurance companies do. 

Mr. LANCE. I think we have to work on this issue together, and 

I am sorry that PPACA has not reached its promise in this regard, 

particularly regarding the rare disease community of great interest 

to me since I chair that caucus with Congressman Crowley of the 

neighboring State of New York, and I think we have to work together and do a better job, and I think that was the intent of the 

leadership position in the letter written by Speaker Boehner and 

our other leadership to the President as we try to solve this issue 

together. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BURGESS. The gentleman yields back. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey, 

5 minutes for questions, sir. 

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, think you. I want to reflect back 

just for a minute on the line of questioning between Mr. Sarbanes 

from Maryland and also Mr. Cassidy from Louisiana with Mr. Potter, and I think, Mr. Potter, I am going to paraphrase this a little 

bit but the quote being rate shock claims are a crock. I wonder how 

59 

he feels about the President’s claims about the effects of sequester 

as he went around the country several weeks before sequester went 

into effect and indeed closing the White House tours for our families and young people who are coming to the Nation’s capital to see 

the people’s House and have an opportunity during upcoming 

spring break. 

That being said, I am going to direct my first remarks to Dr. 

Holtz-Eakin. Dr. Holtz-Eakin, as a former Director of the Congressional Budget Office, you are well aware of how legislative decisions are scored and how they affect our economy. Your current organization, American Action Forum, released a survey which found 

that for a 27-year-old in Atlanta, where I hang out, the age band 

compression to a 3-to-1 rating would result in a 27 percent increase 

in premiums. Now, these are young people above the age of 27, by 

the way. Ms. Capps earlier stated that I was ignoring the fact that 

young people up to the age of 26, many of them are on their parents health insurance policy, but we are talking about people that 

are beyond that. 27 percent increase in premiums. 

These individuals, as you are aware, Dr. Holtz-Eakin, face uncertain job prospects and record education debt. Many of them, of 

course, stayed in school because they couldn’t find a job and they 

continued on Stafford loan program and, you know, building up 

more and more education debt, hoping at the end of that time to 

be able to find a job. 

Well, the penalty for not purchasing insurance next year will be $95, and many of these 27-year-olds, 28-year-olds haven’t found a 

job yet. In some cases, a 27-year-old making only $33,500 a year 

will see premiums increase roughly $800. So, Dr. Holtz-Eakin, in 

your opinion, will young people be more likely to purchase expensive health insurance or pay the relatively low fine next year? 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. Well, thanks for your question. If I could at 

the outset, can I just for the record make it clear that this survey 

was entirely my idea. Mr. Potter insinuated that all such studies 

are bought by insurance companies. We thought it up, we designed 

it, we requested the information because of our longstanding interest in this legislation, and the results were delivered in a blind 

fashion. I have no idea who responded, and the aggregate data 

were released by us as a matter of public information. 

What the data say are pretty clear that if these rate increases 

take place in markets, it will be cheaper to pay the penalties than 

to purchase the insurance. 

Mr. GINGREY. Thank you, Dr. Holtz-Eakin. 

Mr. Carlson, I am aware that you have decades of experience as 

a health care actuary. In fact, without you, insurance companies 

would go broke. In your opinion, if these young people that Dr. 

Holtz-Eakin referenced failed to purchase health insurance, how 

would premiums react for the rest of the population if fewer and 

fewer of these young people, beyond the age of 26, particularly, 

stay out of the market? 

Mr. CARLSON. Well, even with the current age rate and limitations in most States, which is 5-to-1, there is a bit of a subsidy 

going from the younger generation to the older generation, so we 

would expect that their—if those younger individuals do not enroll, 

if their premium rates are higher than what they are willing to 

60 

pay, there would be an impact of increase in the rates for the rest 

of the industry. 

Mr. GINGREY. Well, let me interrupt you for just a second and 

thank you for that answer. I have been chiefly concerned about the 

effects of the age band compression provisions on these young people we are talking about, and as you know, the 3-to-1 rating does 

not reflect the true difference in cost of care. You are an actuary. 

Right now, 42 States have age rating bans of 5-to-1 or more. 

Do you think that a federally directed age band is the best way 

to direct costs or should the States themselves be allowed the option to make actuarially accurate age band laws, and I say that because I feel very strongly that the States should be able to do that, 

and that is what this bill, the Liberty Act, Letting Insurance Benefit Everyone Regardless of Their Youth is the acronym to—if the 

States don’t go and deal with this, then the default should be 5- 

to-1. 

If you—Mr. Chairman, if you will bear with me and let the gentleman answer that question. 

Mr. CARLSON. I can’t comment specifically on the policy of whether we should allow States to set their own limitations, but I will 

say that if States are allowed to use the 5-to-1 age rate and as 

many of them do now, you know, the results of our study would 

be in effect reversed to say that the rates for the younger individuals would be significantly less. 

Mr. GINGREY. And Mr. Chairman, this is a bipartisan bill. I 

would like to again urge my colleagues to sign on to it. It solves 

the problem, and I yield back. 

Mr. BURGESS. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. 

Butterfield, 5 minutes for questions, sir. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and 

thank the three witnesses for their testimony today. Today we have 

another hearing, ‘‘Impact of Obamacare on America’s Health Insurance Premiums.’’ 

The title makes a lot of sense, Mr. Chairman, if we are talking 

about how Obamacare brings down the affordable premiums that 

millions of Americans faced before the Affordable Care Act, but trying to sell us the story that banning insurance company discrimination and creating a free and fair marketplace will raise premiums, that is just wrong. 

Now, let’s just take a look at a story that will not be uncommon 

in my district or most districts across the country. Let’s say a 35- 

year-old single man who doesn’t smoke and is just above the poverty line, making about $12,000, that is 1,000 bucks a month, 

$12,000 a year, he doesn’t have much savings and any medical bills 

would put him in real trouble. 

Before Obamacare, that constituent could have gone online and 

found a plan from a big insurance company that cost him $1,400 

a year and had a $10,000 deductible and he would have to pay 30 

percent coinsurance on every dollar of medical care he received. 

But now let’s look at the options after Obamacare. If the Governor of my State had been wise enough to expand Medicaid and 

the legislature wise enough to expand Medicaid, the constituent 

would have had the option of Medicaid, but on the exchange, the 

61 

constituent will get a tax credit to keep his premiums at about 2 

percent of his income, which means he will pay $250 a year instead 

of the $1,400 he would pay for the current plan. He would also be 

eligible for cost sharing subsidies that will cut his out-of-pocket 

spending to around $2,000. 

So what does that mean? Instead of paying more than $1,400 in 

premiums, a $10,000 deductible and 30 percent of all costs, the constituent will see his premiums drop to about $250 a year and he 

will have a real quality insurance that caps his out-of-pocket 

spending around $2,000. 

Now, that is a real savings. And so that is my lead up to my 

question, Mr. Potter. Let me ask you about this. This constituent 

that I have been using as a hypothetical will be paying a lot less 

for coverage under Obamacare, but even if another plan out there 

offered lower premiums, would it really offer dependable coverage 

of the way plans will under the Affordable Care Act? 

Mr. POTTER. The Affordable Care Act is really important to make 

sure that people are getting, again, value more than they are 

today. I mean, we need to, as we are looking at this, to understand 

that when we are talking about the cost of insurance, we also—and 

the cost of care, we have to go beyond just looking at the cost of 

premiums, too. We have to look at what people’s obligations are to 

pay out of pocket, and so there are limitations in the law that 

would make these $50,000 family deductible plans a thing of the 

past. 

And you are right about your individual that you are using as 

an example, that that individual would be paying less. And also, 

frankly, most of the people in this that we are talking about, the 

young people will also be getting benefits and not be facing these 

increases unless, for some reason, insurance companies decide and 

can get away with the price gouging that they seem to be intending 

to get away with, but most young people will get—either they will 

be eligible for the Medicaid program or subsidies because most of 

these folks have relatively lower income. 

Another thing to keep in mind, too, is that young people don’t 

necessarily want to be uninsured. Many of them don’t have coverage now because they haven’t been able to afford it. This law will 

enable many of those people to come into coverage for the first 

time, so they will be able to get coverage. It is not that they want 

to remain naked as they say in the insurance industry or consider 

themselves young invincibles necessarily. They want to get coverage, and I can also say, guarantee you this, the insurance companies will be spending a lot of money marketing to attract young 

people. That is where you will see, when the advertising starts, 

that is a target market they are going to go after to make sure that 

they sign up for policies. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. So not only does this guy save money on front 

end, he saves money on back end with co-pays and all of the other 

stuff. 

Mr. POTTER. That is correct. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Well, thank you, and thank all of three of you. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BURGESS. The gentleman yields back. 

62 

The chair recognizes Mr. Griffith from Virginia 5 minutes for 

questions. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

In keeping with what Mr. Shimkus said in regard to, you know, 

we are trying to figure out, since we didn’t have hearings before, 

trying to figure out now where the problems are and where we can 

fix things. I have been brought to my attention by a constituent at 

a Farm Bureau dinner that his daughter had a serious problem 

and it was brought on in part by Obamacare. 

She is living at home and is a full-time student, but because she 

is an industrious young lady, she is also a full-time employee. So 

she is carrying a full load in college, she is paying for her own way, 

she is a full-time employee, and because of that she is not eligible 

to stay on her parent’s insurance because there is insurance offered 

through her employment, which she would be able to stay on her 

parent’s insurance as a part of the family plan at no cost to herself 

because they are already paying for mom, dad and other siblings, 

but it will cost her, and I don’t remember the exact dollar amount, 

but I recall it being in excess of several hundred dollars per person, 

or excuse me, per this young lady, it is going to cost her per month 

and is of great expense to her, and so I guess I would ask you, Mr. 

Carlson, have you heard of similar incidences where, you know, the 

best intentions of the Obamacare or PPACA plan have actually led 

to, in this case, this young lady having to spend a lot more money 

in order to be insured because she is out working hard, going to 

school and living at home? 

Mr. CARLSON. Well, I am not aware of any specific instances, but 

what you are describing there certainly is a case that would sound 

like it makes sense to me and is possible. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Yes. And you know, we are just trying to figure 

out where the problems are, and one of the real concerns, and I will 

turn to you, Mr. Holtz-Eakin, is—and Mr. Lance referenced it earlier. The Washington Post recently reported that they are not 

being—a lot of these folks with pre-existing medical problems are 

going to be blocked from the program that was designed to help 

them, and particularly the Post story highlighted the plight of a 60- 

year-old Virginia woman who wished to only be known as Joyce 

who is battling Stage IV breast cancer, and because she didn’t 

know earlier that the plan was available for pre-existing conditions 

and a high risk or high expense, she was trying to fill her paperwork out when she discovered that there was a new deadline that 

had been applied, and, you know, the question is, are we making 

promises we can’t fulfill when we say we are going to cover everybody, and then this lady at the time was swinging in the balance, 

they don’t know whether she got her application in in time or not, 

but the Postarticle says they were going to stop taking new applications no later than March 2nd, and I contrast that with the fact 

that the House Republicans had a plan at the time of the passage 

of this bill that would fully fund high risk pools to ensure Americans got the treatment that they needed. 

Now, I guess my question is, if we don’t have the money currently to take care of these high risk individuals with pre-existing 

conditions, such as this lady who wished to be known as Joyce, do 

you believe that we should divert funding from other parts of the 

63 

so-called Affordable Care Act towards these high risk pools that offset the cost of coverage for chronically ill so that we can actually 

address the real problems that have been existed in our health care 

system? 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. I certainly believe that this story, while tragic, 

is hardly a surprise. From the beginning I have been concerned 

about the design of the high risk pools. There were incentives for 

people to go uninsured, believe it or not, before they could be eligible to come in these pools. They operated side by side with State 

pools that were often much better designed and got better enrollment, and now they have stopped enrollments entirely. So, obviously there needs to be both a redesign in the criteria for eligibility 

in the way that the pools are offered, but also the funding, and getting funding out of elsewhere in this law I think would be a sensible thing to do. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. And also, I would have to say that if this funding 

mechanism didn’t work as it was promised to work and it that 

didn’t have the ability to follow through because they are running 

out of funding, we also saw the long-term care insurance didn’t 

work exactly the way they thought it was going to. They never got 

it off the ground because of that, which I appreciate pulling the 

plug when it wasn’t going to work. Doesn’t that call into question 

for both you and for just the average human being that if two high 

profile parts of the plan didn’t fit in the model that they said it was 

going to fit, that the entire PPACA plan is probably going to cost 

us a lot more money than what the American people were told 

when it was passed? 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. I think that is right. I mean, there are two 

perspectives on that. The first is the notion of fulfilling the promise 

of affordable care, and here the fundamental problem has not 

changed. Americans spend not quite 20 cents out of every national 

dollar on health care, the Affordable Care Act defines affordable as 

10 percent of your income, which means, by definition, not all of 

us can have affordable health care, and the only way to get people 

under 10 percent is to raise someone else’s cost up perhaps a lot, 

and that is done through a variety of taxes, mandates, premium increases, and the law will never add up for everybody in the United 

States. It cannot. 

The budgetary costs are extraordinary, and my fear is that it will 

vastly outstrip the resources that have been devoted to it, particularly if employers follow their incentives and put many more people 

in the exchanges and higher premiums than we anticipated. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. BURGESS. Gentleman’s time has expired. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. Engel, 

for 5 minutes for questions, sir. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you 

for holding today’s hearing, Mrs. Capps as well. 

Mr. Potter’s testimony is an excellent reminder of the terrible 

practices routinely employed by the private health insurance industry prior to the passage of the Affordable Care Act. Denying children with pre-existing conditions health insurance policies, canceling coverage for people once they became ill, applying lifetime 

64 

limits to care, these practices were commonplace in the individual 

insurance marketplace before we passed the law. 

There were terms we legislators have all used countless times 

over the last several years, but Mr. Potter’s testimony which I 

read, reminds us these things were done to people. Our constituents, they needed health care and they were denied and some of 

them died because of it. 

Their stories are a sad reminder. It is unacceptable to return to 

the status quo of the private health insurance industry by repealing the Affordable Care Act, and I wanted to say that before I 

asked my question. 

Now, let me ask this. Private insurance companies have been interested less in insuring those who might actually need care, instead have worked hard to insure the healthiest and least likely to 

incur major medical expenses and that is why I supported a public 

option in the Affordable Care Act, but unfortunately we weren’t 

able to get it through, but for my way of thinking, we wanted to 

ensure that those who were ill or one of the estimated 129 million 

Americans with pre-existing conditions, that they have health care 

coverage. 

In the absence of a public option, I am very pleased that the 

strict consumer protection found in this law will be fully implemented by next year. So, Mr. Potter, as someone who has worked 

in the health insurance industry, do you believe any of the consumer protections, including the age rating requirements as outlined by the ACA, should be changed? 

Mr. POTTER. I do not. They are very important consumer protections and they need to stay in place. They need to be implemented. 

The insurance companies can accommodate. The law will change 

the culture of the insurance business for the better. 

One of the objectives of the Affordable Care Act is to try to get 

us to a fairer system. The United States certainly has some of the 

best health care facilities in the world, some of the best doctors in 

the world. I don’t think anyone would dispute that. The problem 

we have is access to those great facilities and those good doctors. 

We have one of the most inequitable health care systems on the 

planet. We rank below Bangladesh when it comes to fairness. 

So we need to change that. That is one of the objectives here, and 

end some of these discriminatory practices that have been prevalent in the industry for many, many years that have led to situations in which people, when they get sick, just can’t get coverage, 

and that could be every one of us in this room or someone we 

know. We need to keep that in mind. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you. Let me also say that I am glad that the 

ACA included rate review requirements for those companies looking to raise their rates by more than 10 percent. I think it is worth 

noting that since the rate review provisions went into effect, the 

proportion of proposed rate increases, over 10 percent declined from 

75 percent in 2010, to 34 percent in 2012, to less than 15 percent 

so far in 2013. And I am also pleased that the law established clear 

medical loss ratio, MLR requirements which have resulted in $1.1 

billion being returned to 13 million Americans. 

So, let me ask you, Mr. Potter, I believe the combination of these 

two provisions are helpful for health premium pricing transVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:34 May 27, 2014 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 113\113-17 CHRIS
65 

parency. Are there additional steps that Congress should take to 

better ensure significant portion of patients’ premium dollars being 

used to in medical care and not PR campaigns like the ones you 

discuss in your written testimony? 

Mr. POTTER. I think even more transparency is in order. It is a 

very good start but to be able to know how these companies spend 

our premium dollars. Pardon me. When the individual mandate becomes effective, we are going to be, as you said, we don’t have the 

option of enrolling in a public option. We will have to be buying 

coverage from private insurance companies. We ought to know a 

heck of a lot more about how those companies are spending our 

premium dollars, so even greater transparency, in my view, greater 

granularity about where our premium dollars are going would be 

something I think that this committee might want to look into. 

Mr. ENGEL. Well, thank you very much, and let me say in conclusion that status quo of health insurance plans before the ACA, as 

far as I am concerned, was unacceptable, and therefore, I think 

when we analyze any impact on premiums, it should a true applesto-apples comparison fully taking into consideration the quality 

and comprehensive nature of plans as well as taking into account 

the availability of subsidies for those making below 400 percent of 

the Federal poverty level. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. BURGESS. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The chair recognizes the gentlewoman from North Carolina, Mrs. 

Ellmers, 5 minutes for questions. 

Mrs. ELLMERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to our 

panel. 

Mr. Potter, my line of questioning is for you. Are you a health 

care professional? 

Mr. POTTER. I have been. I am not now. 

Mrs. ELLMERS. You were. What was your level? What was your 

title? 

Mr. POTTER. I was vice president of corporate communications for 

CIGNA Corporation. Before that I was with Humana. 

Mrs. ELLMERS. Are you a physician? 

Mr. POTTER. No, ma’am. 

Mrs. ELLMERS. Are you a nurse? 

Mr. POTTER. I am not. 

Mrs. ELLMERS. OK. So you don’t—actually, you have not earned 

a degree in any type of health care profession? 

Mrs. ELLMERS. That is correct. 

Mrs. ELLMERS. OK. Well, I am a nurse, OK, I have been for over 

21 years. And I want to go to your example, Ms. Leslie Elder, because I, too, have a mother and—had a mother, my mother died 

at age 73. How old was Mrs. Elder when she died? 

Mr. POTTER. Sixty-three. 

Mrs. ELLMERS. She was 63. And you had mentioned that she had 

a treatable—chronic but treatable condition and then I think later 

you mentioned that she had breast cancer. 

Mr. POTTER. She did. 

Mrs. ELLMERS. And that she had died of breast cancer. 

Mr. POTTER. She died of Hodgkin’s lymphoma, as I recall. 

Mrs. ELLMERS. So she had cancer, a form of cancer. 

66 

Mr. POTTER. That is correct. 

Mrs. ELLMERS. Now, I am assuming that she had gotten a diagnosis. She didn’t have health care insurance prior to this point? 

Mr. POTTER. What happened is her husband is a small—was a 

small business person. He owned an auto repair business. 

Mrs. ELLMERS. Did she have—yes or no, did she have health care 

insurance at the time of her diagnosis? 

Mr. POTTER. She did when she was first diagnosed, but after she 

was—after her initial treatment, the insurance companies raised 

their rates on the policy, so they had drop to it. 

Mrs. ELLMERS. I had the opportunity very recently to actually 

visit the cancer center in my hometown of Dunn, North Carolina, 

and I actually had this very conversation with them. They are 

doing excellent work. 

And one of the things that I wanted to clarify was that what happens with someone who gets a diagnosis of cancer if they are not 

insured, you know, where does that go and unable to work. And, 

you know, oddly enough, Medicare disability is something that they 

can receive. 

Now, you mentioned also high risk pools and that they—that she 

and her husband were not aware of that; is that correct? 

Mr. POTTER. That is correct. 

Mrs. ELLMERS. And you also mentioned that this was something 

that she was receiving treatment. Now, it is curious to me as to 

how she could have been receiving treatment and yet not know 

about high risk pools and also not know about the possibility of 

being put on Medicare. 

Mr. POTTER. The high risk pool was eligible for her toward the 

end of her life. She was diagnosed with breast cancer earlier. 

Mrs. ELLMERS. OK. When was she diagnosed with breast cancer? 

Mr. POTTER. I don’t know the exact year. I think it was around 

2002 or something like that. 

Mrs. ELLMERS. And she died? 

Mr. POTTER. She died last summer. 

Mrs. ELLMERS. OK. So she actually had—I mean, she—her—she 

lives—— 

Mr. POTTER. She had a pre-existing condition, that is right, and 

that is why their premiums went up so much that they had to drop 

it because they couldn’t afford it. 

Mrs. ELLMERS. But the availability to get coverage after that was 

there. 

Mr. POTTER. Ultimately it was. 

Mrs. ELLMERS. And they did not take part in it. 

Mr. POTTER. They didn’t know about it, that is correct. 

Mrs. ELLMERS. They didn’t know because the health care providers did not—I mean, you know, we have discharge planners, we 

have social services, we have physicians, we have nurses that are 

giving treatment. I have a hard time believing that this was all 

taking place and that they did not understand this. 

Mr. POTTER. Well, Congresswoman, I would suggest you might 

talk to Mr. Elder and ask him these questions. I don’t know, but 

I am told—— 

Mrs. ELLMERS. And you mentioned the daughter and that the 

daughter said, and if I can quote you, that if she felt that if 

67 

Obamacare had been in place, that her mother would not have 

died; is that correct? 

Mr. POTTER. That is correct. 

Mrs. ELLMERS. Do you have a mother? 

Mr. POTTER. I certainly do, and she is 88 years old. 

Mrs. ELLMERS. And you would like to see her live a good long 

life, wouldn’t you? 

Mr. POTTER. And she has. I have been very blessed. 

Mrs. ELLMERS. And that is a blessing. And again, my mother 

died at age 73, unfortunately. She had Alzheimer’s, but she also received very good care, excellent care because she had very good coverage. She was also on Medicare, but she still died, and that is a 

loss, and I understand that Ms. Elders’ family is experiencing a 

loss as well, but I find it curious that you used her as an example 

of why Obamacare would be such a good plan to be put in place 

and that somehow this would have saved her. Is that not what you 

are claiming? 

Mr. POTTER. The point of telling her story was to point, if you 

look at the written testimony, that they were priced out of being 

able to offer coverage. 

Mrs. ELLMERS. But there was other coverage that—in fact, and 

that is understandable. But those of us in health care—— 

Mr. POTTER. Not during most of the time that was available to 

her. 

Mrs. ELLMERS [continuing]. Understand that these are forms 

that have needed to be put in place for a long time and we are 

ready to work on those things for health care solutions; however, 

there was other availability there, so I just—— 

Mr. POTTER. Not during most of the time. 

Mrs. ELLMERS. I am not quite sure I am understanding. 

Mr. POTTER. Not during most of the time, Congresswoman. 

Mrs. ELLMERS. Not Medicare? 

Mr. POTTER. I can give, if you would like, I can tell you more 

about their situation so you can get—— 

Mrs. ELLMERS. Well, no, I don’t think we need to do that, and 

my time has expired, but I find your testimony disingenuous. 

Thank you, sir. 

Mr. BURGESS. And the gentlelady yields back. 

And the chair recognizes the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Pallone, 5 minutes for questions. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My questions are of 

Mr. Potter. Insurance warn that if they are allowed to charge seniors only three times more for coverage than they charge younger 

people rather than five or six or 10 times more, they will substantially increase premiums on young people, and the Urban Institute 

recently completed an in-depth analysis of age rating in the ACA 

and determined these insured claims to be unfounded. 

I was going to ask unanimous consent if we could enter into the 

record this study, Mr. Chairman, by the Urban Institute, which I 

gave you there. 

Mr. BURGESS. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you. So, anyway, this Urban Institute compared the likely results of allowing insurers to charge older AmeriVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:34 May 27, 2014 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 113\113-17 CHRIS
68 

cans five times more for coverage rather than only three times 

more and found that it would, quote, have very little impact on outof-pocket rates paid by the youngest non-group purchasers once 

subsidies are taken into account. And the study found that premiums would stay stable for young people because the ACA provides unique coverage options that specifically benefit young Americans. The law provides for a low cost catastrophic health plan that 

is available only to people under 30 and it requires that it insures, 

allow adult children to stay on their parents’ plan until age 26, a 

policy that has already extended coverage to more than 3 million 

young people, and most important in this study was the fact that 

young people are some of the most likely to benefit from the ACA’s 

Medicaid expansion and premium tax credits. 

So, Mr. Potter, were young people served well by the insurance 

products on the market before reform, or will they be better off because of the ACA’s new reforms and consumer protections? And 

then I would ask if insurers get their ways and change the age rating band, do you think they will stop there or will they push for 

other changes? 

Mr. POTTER. Young people were not well served, have not been 

well served and were not before the Affordable Care Act was 

passed. They have not, obviously, had the benefit of getting subsidies or tax credits or the ability to enroll in Medicaid because of, 

you know, the way that the programs are structured right now. So 

they are going to be much more advantaged as a result of the full 

implementation of the law than they have in the past. They will 

be able to get coverage that is affordable and it is decent. A lot of 

the policies that insurance companies market to young adults are 

limited benefit plans or plans with very high deductibles. Young 

people are not immune from getting seriously ill or injured, so 

many of them find themselves, if they bought these policies, at 

great risk of themselves having to file for bankruptcy and their 

lives being ruined as a consequence. 

Mr. PALLONE. Let me ask you another question. The health insurance marketplaces that will come online in a few months time 

are a key new tool to help consumers and small businesses shop 

for coverage. They finally make it easy to compare plans, you know, 

apples to apples, so consumers can purchase dependable quality 

coverage. Plans will be forced to compete on price and quality, they 

provide one-stop shop, reduce transaction costs, increase transparencies. The CBO estimates that these factors alone will drive 

premiums down 7 to 10 percent and there is a potential for much 

more savings. 

I know my Republicans friends like to talk about how the application for premium tax credits will be too long and complicated, but 

have they looked at insurance company paperwork recently? The 

ACA eliminates the fine print loopholes that insurers would hide 

in their 100-page contracts and said it guarantees quality coverage 

and requires plans to provide a four-page plain language summary 

of benefits and coverage. 

So, Mr. Potter, when you worked in the insurance industry, 

would you say the industry was transparent and consumer friendly, and what do you think reforms like those in the new health insurance marketplaces will do to consumer costs? 

69 

Mr. POTTER. Insurance companies were anything but transparent 

and forthcoming in the information that they were providing to 

prospective customers. There was nothing like what has to be 

available now. You can now make some apples-to-apples comparisons among policies. You could not do that, and you hardly could 

be able to decipher information except the slick marketing materials you would get from insurance companies, but now, as you 

noted, they have to have summaries that are—— 

Mr. PALLONE. When you say now, you mean with the ACA? 

Mr. POTTER. With the ACA, that is right. 

Mr. PALLONE. You know, I mean, look, my own experience, you 

know, I understand what you are saying, and I really want to emphasize that, you know, part of what the ACA is trying to accomplish is to basically make it easier, you know, with the exchanges 

that you can actually figure out what is going on. 

Mr. POTTER. You can. 

Mr. PALLONE. And simplify it. And if you want to just comment 

on that again. 

Mr. POTTER. You can be a much better informed consumer now 

than you ever had been in the past by coverage from insurance 

companies because they do have to be more transparent, they have 

to give you some understanding or better understanding of exactly 

what they will cover and what you might be having to expect in 

terms of out-of-pocket expenses if you enroll in one plan versus another. 

And you can do that online. In fact, you can get that kind of information now because that kind of transparency was required as 

of the first of this year. So, again, I said earlier that these changes 

are going to be changing the culture of insurance companies in the 

industry and for the better, and one of the ways that it is changing 

these in the culture is through this greater transparency, which by 

the way, the insurance industry fought. They did not want to do 

this because they have benefited significantly over the years from 

keeping us in the dark. 

Mr. BURGESS. OK. 

Mr. POTTER. They were buying things that weren’t necessarily to 

our best advantage. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BURGESS. We have a lot of members who are ready to question before votes, so the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Bilirakis, 5 

minutes for questions, please. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it very 

much, and I thank the panel for their testimony today. 

Mr. Carlson, as we discussed earlier, how the $100 billion, at 

least $100 billion tax on health insurance will drive premiums 

higher, and I know that you have analyzed the tax’s cumulative 

impact in depth. Can you explain what it means when you say that 

the Affordable Care Act constructed this tax to be non-deductible 

and why is it a non-standard treatment of taxes? 

Mr. CARLSON. Well, in very simple terms, the tax is not considered an expense in the, you know, in an income statement, so it 

won’t be charged against the company until, you know, after their 

taxes are taken out of their income or what the profitability is. So, 

in effect, that means that not only do they have to fund the tax, 

70 

but they also need to fund an additional amount to reflect the taxes 

that they will have to pay on that. So, you know, as Dr. HoltzEakin said earlier, you know, you have to collect $1.50 in premium 

in order to pay the dollar of the insurer fees. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you. Again, Mr. Holtz-Eakin and Mr. Carlson, the tax on health insurance is one of many factors that will 

cause premiums to rise. I think we have established that there is 

a real threat that small employers will be forced to terminate employee coverage and send their workers to the exchange subsidized 

coverage. 

What will the repercussions be if this happens, and if both of you 

can give me an answer, I would appreciate it. 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. Well, certainly, if you do the arithmetic for 

any employer whose employees are under 3 percent of the Federal 

poverty line, it is a no-brainer to stop offering insurance, send individuals to the exchanges. You can give them a raise. They can use 

the after tax raise and subsidies to buy better insurance than you 

could offer them. You can pay a penalty on top of that and still 

make more money. 

And so there are overwhelming economic incentives for a vast 

numberof employees then after the exchanges. The implications of 

that, I think, are pretty straightforward. Number one, the Federal 

budget cost is going to be radically higher than it has been estimated to date. 

Number two, if in fact we see the premiums increase at the same 

time, those subsidies will increase per person, so again we get a 

second hit on the budget cost. This will change the provider networks that many of these individuals will be accessing so they will 

get disruptions in their care, and the labor market turmoil, I think, 

will be substantial, and we are beginning to see that with the large 

number of employers who are moving people to part-time status instead of full-time in order to accommodate the mandate. It is just 

one of the many potential labor market manifestations of the big 

implications of this law. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you. Mr. Carlson? 

Mr. CARLSON. Yes. And I will just add the $8 billion that starts 

in 2014, it is a fixed number. So if the pool of fully insured premiums that that amount is charged against goes down, in effect the 

rate will go up. So if you look at our study we have a high estimate 

and a low estimate, and the high estimate for the percentage is 

based on the assumption that employers, especially in the small 

group market, will drop their coverage and put their employees out 

into buying in an exchange or other alternatives. So we relied upon 

industry studies which in fact said that is a possibility going forward. So the more employers that drop their coverage from the 

fully insured market, the more likely it is that that premium rate 

increase will continue to go up further. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. I appreciate it. 

Mr. BURGESS. The gentleman yields back. 

The chair recognizes the gentlelady from Tennessee, Mrs. 

Blackburn, for 5 minutes for questions, please. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

being with us today. We appreciate this. 

71 

Mr. Potter, I want to be sure I understood you right. You said 

that we were charging people so much for health insurance that 

they couldn’t afford to buy it before. You made that as a statement 

that took place before Obamacare. People were being charged so 

much that they couldn’t afford to buy health insurance. 

Did I understand you right on that? 

Mr. POTTER. You are right, Congresswoman. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Let me ask you this then. I have some stats 

from people in my district of how their health insurance premiums 

have gone up since the passage of Obamacare, and I want to just 

read through these. I have a car dealership down in Fayetteville. 

They dropped coverage because the increase was so much. An insulation company with 36 employees in Nashville, they dropped it 

due a multiple year large rate increase and administrative burdens 

on their plan. A consulting firm with two employees, a 56 percent 

rate increase in 2013, and that followed a 15 percent in 2012. A 

restaurant over in Springfield, employees no longer allowed to work 

more than 29 hours a week. That is a jobs program for you, isn’t 

it? 

An auto parts company over in La Vergne, they had had a management carve-out, but let’s see, a 30 percent increase last year, 

not going to be able to offer coverage to everyone that works 30 

hours or more a week. I mean the list goes on and on. We have 

got a flooring company with 30 employees, a 21 percent increase, 

and a law firm with three employees, a 16 percent increase this 

year, 38.5 percent last year. A physician’s office, seven employees, 

a 21 percent increase. A commercial printing company, 25 percent 

increase. A manufacturer with six employees, a 25 percent increase. A construction company with nine employees, 15 percent increase this year followed on top of a 42.5 percent increase last year. 

Oh, here is a private school with 68 employees, a 17 percent increase, and a retail flooring store with five employees, they had a 

123.27 percent increase that is taking place next month. 

Sir, what do you tell these employers who are trying to do the 

right thing? You thought health insurance was expensive before, 

but what do you tell them now, it is exorbitant? 

Mr. POTTER. I might tell them the story of Jim and Leslie Elder, 

and I don’t think it is disingenuous. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. No, we are not going to go there. You have sat 

there and told that story over and over and over. And I have great 

compassion—— 

Mr. POTTER. Because it is an important story. And I am from the 

Great State of Tennessee and my mother gave—— 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. No, sir, it is my time and we are not going to 

tell it again. I have great compassion for anyone whole loses a parent through such a situation. I have just lost my father and I understand what people go through. But I have got to tell you something right now, I think that what we have to do is look at what 

is happening to these insurance costs. 

And here is one I have got. You know, these are all in my district. These are real live numbers that are coming back in. I can 

tell you something right now. Have you ever heard of TennCare? 

Mr. POTTER. I have. 

72 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. OK. We had that in Tennessee and you know 

what happened there, don’t you? It was a disaster. It was such a 

disaster that a Tennessee Governor, a Democrat Governor, had to 

go in and completely reshape the program. 

And let me ask you this. Have you ever heard of any, is there 

any public option health care program that you can point me to 

that actually saved money and increased access? 

Mr. POTTER. Public option? We don’t have any public options in 

this country. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Oh, that is not what you call TennCare. It was 

a test case for Hillary Clinton’s health care. Well then, let me ask 

you this about guaranteed issue. Right here, I have got in ’93 a 30- 

year-old woman in New York had an average premium, let’s see, 

of $1,800 a month. New York passed guaranteed issue and community rating, and guess what that premium went to? $3,240. So you 

go from $1,800 to $3,240. That is a $1,400 a year increase after you 

insert government control. So if we don’t have public option, then 

have you ever seen a government-run health care system that has 

increased outcomes, decreased costs and increased access? 

Mr. POTTER. Many systems around the world have done a much 

better job of increasing access and controlling costs. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. My time is about up. Mr. Holtz-Eakin, are 

there any examples you can point to there that have lived up to 

promises? 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. There are no U.S. examples of that type, 

ma’am. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Carlson? 

Mr. CARLSON. I have none. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. You have none. I yield back. 

Mr. BURGESS. The gentleman’s lady time has expired. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Guthrie, 

5 minutes for your questions, please, sir. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Thank you very much. I thank the panel for being 

here. I would like to build on what some of my colleagues have 

talked about today and deep concerns over the rising cost of health 

insurance. 

The President when he was pushing the health care law said it would reduce premiums on a family of four by $2,500, and we have 

now seen it has increased by 3,000 per year and the most expensive portions of the law haven’t been put into place, has not gone 

into effect yet, I should say. 

I come from Kentucky and in the early 1990s we actually were 

trying to be, before Tennessee, to try to set the standard. In the 

1990s our entire insurance market collapsed in Kentucky. We attempted a guaranteed issue, guaranteed portability, modified community rating. Immediately like half our insurance providers left. 

We were down to one. We had to go back and redo the whole law 

just to get—individuals were completely wiped out of the market. 

Most companies went self-insured just so they could provide health 

insurance to their employees who couldn’t afford it. They had to be 

in the ERISA category instead of the other category. And I would 

like to think that Kentucky just wasn’t isolated. I think we just 

heard from Tennessee’s example and one from New York that my 

friend brought up. 

73 

Dr. Holtz-Eakin, Kentucky, Tennessee, are they the only examples? 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. There are numerous other examples, the State 

of New York, the State of New Jersey. You can go around the country and look at Kentucky, Vermont, Washington State, all of whom 

experimented with this and had big premium problems, and in 

some cases, such as Kentucky, reversed course, having gone 

through it. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. We had to. You couldn’t get insurance. None would 

even offer it, much less pay the price that it cost. So we have been 

there and it didn’t work, and now we are trying to do this on a 

Federal level. And I believe even Jerry Brown, the Governor of 

California in his state of the budget, so it is not a Republican sitting here trying to say this is an issue. Jerry Brown, I don’t think 

anybody would call him a Republican or a conservative, said in his 

state of the budget that large rate increases in individual markets 

are likely, and that is when he put in when he accounted for his 

budget. 

So the way groups will react to the market is something, Dr. 

Holtz-Eakin, that I am interested in. There is an Oliver Wyman 

study from 2009 that highlights some significant red flags about 

the impact of the health care law, and one of the few things is as 

the prices rise, obviously less healthy people have to maintain coverage and they are least likely to drop coverage even if they absorb 

the cost because they are less healthy. So then healthy individuals 

are least likely. 

I used to say that the only person, a healthy young person over 

26 that will have insurance in America, are people who just want 

to abide by the law because there is no financial incentive to do it 

because you have guaranteed issue. Then it changed. The law was 

rewritten by the Supreme Court, as you know, so you are not even 

violating the by not violating health insurance, you are paying a 

tax in lieu of health insurance. So there is no penalty any more. 

That was changed by the Roberts court. 

But I don’t see how premiums won’t spiral. The whole concept, 

Dr. Holtz-Eakin, and I will give you the remainder to talk on this, 

is you bring young people into the market by mandating coverage 

and by younger healthier people in the market it brings down the 

premiums for everybody. You are sharing the risk. But then there 

is not a financial incentive at all or even a health incentive because 

of the guaranteed issue for a young person to enter the market. 

And they are not even mandated to do any more. They can pay a 

tax in lieu of going into the market. So can you just comment on 

how that is going to affect premiums, this premium spiral I am getting at. 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. This is a serious issue. The whole notion is 

that you have a base level of premium cost that comes from the 

cost of health care and there is no way to change that with the insurance provisions. And then you want to have a large risk pool to 

take that national health care bill and distribute it across people. 

The experience in States has been one in which the combination of 

guaranteed issue-community rating caused the healthy to opt out, 

and in some cases it led to insurance state pool death spirals, the 

74 

continuing higher premiums, people leave. And that has been the 

concern about the construct in the Affordable Care Act. 

Massachusetts has a—that is a similar design and it has now 

been widely noted that costs have continued to go up there and we 

are now seeing individuals hop in and out of coverage. The mandate is not working, and I am worried about this. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Potter, do you see the construct of the law, the 

premium spiral, you don’t see this as a threat? The construct of the 

law for young people to buy health insurance, the incentive is not 

there for them to buy health insurance. Do you think young people 

are going to opt out of the market and the premiums are going to 

go up? You don’t think that is a real concern? 

Mr. POTTER. I think what the real experience is we can speculate, but I think that, as we said before, young people will benefit 

from being able to get subsidies. They want to have coverage. I 

think most people will be wanting to enroll in a benefit plan. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. With guaranteed issue? 

Mr. POTTER. If there is guaranteed issue and a requirement to 

purchase. The thing that you have to keep in mind is that in some 

of the States you talked about, if you have guaranteed issue without any kind of a mandate, which is why the Affordable Care Act 

was developed as it was—— 

Mr. GUTHRIE. But the mandate, you can pay a small tax in lieu 

of paying a premium. 

Mr. POTTER. We can argue as to whether or not it is an enforceable or a large enough mandate. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. If it is not enforceable, they are not going to be in 

the system. That is the point. 

Mr. POTTER. Again, I will say most people want to be covered. 

It is not that they want to go without—— 

Mr. GUTHRIE. As prices rise and they can get it when they need 

it, why would you pay for it if you can get it when you need it, as 

prices rise. 

Mr. POTTER. Because you don’t know when you going to need it. 

I might get sick tomorrow or my son might. My son is not an idiot. 

He will want to have coverage because he knows that he might get 

injured. I think most young people realize that they are not bulletproof. They will be getting coverage because they know things like 

that happen to people. 

Mr. BURGESS. The gentleman’s time has expired. I appreciate the 

attendance of everyone who has been at this subcommittee. It has 

been a good attendance. The ranking member and I will offer one 

last question to the panel. I recognize the gentleman from New Jersey for 5 minutes. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Chairman. 

My colleague asked if we know of any public health care system 

that improved outcomes and controlled costs, and I will certainly 

give you one, and that is Medicare. It has lower administrative 

costs than private insurance and it provides great coverage, in my 

opinion. 

But I wanted to ask Mr. Potter a question. Opponents of guaranteed issue have tried to compare the ACA’s guaranteed issue requirement to previous State experiments of guaranteed issue and 

I think this is very misleading. The ACA contains significant preVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:34 May 27, 2014 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 113\113-17 CHRIS
75 

mium subsidies and responsibility requirements for individuals and 

employers. By expanding the pool of who gets covered, the costs increases that critics have tried to associate with the ACA disappear. 

Massachusetts health reform is probably an appropriate example. In 2006 when it enacted its comprehensive health reform, Massachusetts already had guaranteed issue in place. When the State 

enacted health reform similar to the ACA, premiums in the State’s 

individual market fell by 40 percent while they rose by 14 percent 

nationwide. 

So, Mr. Potter, requiring that insurance companies provide coverage to all who apply represents a big change to these companies’ 

business models, isn’t that correct? 

Mr. POTTER. That is absolutely correct. Most of them these days, 

their business models are based on underwriting and being able to 

try to cherry pick and exclude as many people from coverage as 

possible. 

Mr. PALLONE. So do you think there is any comparison between 

the rise in premiums in States that required guaranteed issue in 

the nineties and the comprehensive nationwide reforms representing by the ACA? 

Mr. POTTER. What the ACA does, Congressman, is taking an approach that is different from what some of the other States took 

and made the circumstances in those States different from what 

they will be with the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. 

Mr. PALLONE. Do you want to just elaborate on that a little 

more? 

Mr. POTTER. Again, if you have a mandate without—I mean if 

you have guaranteed issue without incentives to purchase insurance or without a requirement, then there will be people who will 

opt out, and that does increase the cost of coverage, and that is 

why the Affordable Care Act was constructed as it is, to make sure 

that more people will have that incentive to purchase insurance. 

Mr. PALLONE. Let me ask you one more thing. Opponents of the 

ACA are attempting to spread fear that the law is going to increase 

costs for millions of Americans. However, the CBO and other analysis have shown that this notion of market-wide premium increases 

is simply a myth. First of all, 95 percent of the insured population 

in this country has either public coverage or employer insurance, 

and that is over 240 million people. Every objective analyst agrees 

that employer coverage will not become significantly more costly 

under health reform and a recent study found that increased employer costs associated with health reform were equal to.0003 percent of wages, which is simply too small to legitimately lead to 

large premium increases. Even the faulty Republican studies discussed today agree that only a subset of that remaining 5 percent 

of the market even has the potential to see a premium increase 

under health reform. 

So, Mr. Potter, you worked on messaging and public relations at 

insurance companies. Does it surprise you that this attention and 

fear mongering is occurring over such a small segment of the marketplace and was the individual market before reform a profitable 

sector for insurance companies? 

Mr. POTTER. It doesn’t surprise me at all, because it is just a continuation of the same kind of tactics they have used a lot and that 

76 

I have written about quite a bit. So what they want to do is create 

an impression of something that is bigger than it is or even will 

exist and it might not. So it is exactly what they have done in the 

past. And the marketplace will change significantly, these companies will change a great deal as well as a result of this, and I think 

we will be seeing that coverage will become more affordable. 

Your point is very well taken, too. It doesn’t apply. The vast majority of people in this country, if they get coverage through the 

workplace or through a public program, will not see the—they are 

not in the individual market, so the effects will be very limited. 

Mr. PALLONE. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BURGESS. The gentleman yields back his time. 

Mr. Carlson, you are the numbers guy, so very quickly, in your 

experience has there been any industry where the industry has 

been force-fed Federal dollars that results in lower costs to consumers at the other end? 

Mr. CARLSON. Not that I am aware of. 

Mr. BURGESS. Student loans come to mind, don’t they, and then 

some of the problems with the bubble in the housing industry. 

Force feeding Federal dollars into an industry actually can be quite 

deleterious, although it seems like it is a compassionate and good 

thing to do. 

Mr. Potter, I just have to say I am so grateful that the gentlelady 

from North Carolina posed the questions to you that she did. I 

must say I was reading the testimony last night and I thought this 

just doesn’t sound like reality. I practiced medicine for almost 28 

years, Parkland Hospital, Texas Medical Center, over 20 years in 

private practice in North Dallas. I cannot—I mean, you are an insurance company. If an insurance company leaves a patient, the 

doctor, the cancer center, those people don’t just turn people away. 

You may think they do, but they don’t. We took care of patients 

every day who had no realistic means of ever paying their bill. 

Even if it wasn’t altruism involved, there is always the threat of 

medical liability for abandoning a patient. A family might bring a 

cause of action. 

So I just have been wracking my brain to think of a comparable 

clinical situation that I encountered in almost 30 years, and there 

is not one. Ms. Ellmers is exactly right. The cancer centers that I 

know, they would never turn away a patient. They would find a 

way to work with them, maybe find a program at the medical 

school in the center of the State, maybe find a facility like M.D. 

Anderson Hospital to participate. But you wouldn’t just say well, 

I am so sorry about your financial situation, I hope things work out 

for you. In reality that just does not happen. 

Now, I will say this. You worked for CIGNA. In the late 1990s 

CIGNA, I think all of the large insurance companies were involved 

in what were called black box edits; slow pay, no pay, down coding 

of bundling and lowering reimbursement rates to physicians. The 

insurance industry during the nineties, I am glad that they are not 

that way anymore, but they were responsible for some serious 

stresses on the system, certainly from the perspective of a provider. 

In fact, providers, really we could do them a great favor if we 

would say when you take care of a person who is in this situation 

where you are not going to be paid, we will allow you a credit toVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:34 May 27, 2014 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 113\113-17 CHRIS
77 

wards your taxable income. And those will have to be negotiated 

rates, but I think there are ways to deal with the problem. There 

is always going to need to be safety nets. Safety nets are important. 

Dr. Holtz-Eakin, this $16.5 trillion debt, that is not just a theory, 

that is an application, right? And what happens when the music 

stops? What happens when the administration goes down to the 

Bureau of Public Debt to peddle paper on a Tuesday at noon and 

nobody shows up to buy? 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. It is not something you want to contemplate, 

Congressman. 

Mr. BURGESS. Right. The interest rates begin to go upward, and 

they can go upward in a quite dramatic way. You and I will be inconvenienced. It will cost us more to buy a car or buy a house. People who depend on social safety nets, they are going to be clobbered 

when that day happens. So it is important when we talk about 

things in terms of Federal spending and debt, it is not just an esoteric, it is reality that people, no one of us, the President, no one 

in the Senate, no one in the House of Representatives knows when 

that day of reckoning is going to occur. 

The President came and talked to House Members earlier this 

week and he said I don’t think you all should worry about it so 

much. That is going to be way in the future. I don’t know. I don’t 

have the same confidence that the President has that he can continue to run trillion dollar deficits every year for another 4 years 

and there is no effect on the larger economy and there is no effect 

on the dollar being the reserve currency of the world. I think there 

is going to be an effect. 

But I find this hearing fascinating because we are perched on the 

brink of the final rollout of the Affordable Care Act. It is something 

that is very difficult to contemplate. I don’t think HHS is ready by 

any stretch of the imagination. You talk about people who are left 

in the lurch. I think you are going to have a lot of people who go 

to sign up on their 21 page application on October 2nd or 3rd and 

find that the system is not ready for them, the system does not 

work. You can only get one chance to make a first impression. 

I wish the agency would be more forthcoming to come to this 

committee and talk to us about where they are in the construction 

of the informatics piece, in the development of the Federal exchanges that are going to have to take place because 26 Governors 

say we don’t trust the administration enough to set up a State exchange. 

I thank everyone for their forbearance during this hearing. I 

think it has been a good and informative hearing. 

I have a unanimous consent request, Mr. Ranking member, to insert an article from the Boston Herald into the record. The headline is ‘‘Mass. individual health premiums highest in the Nation.’’ 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. BURGESS. I remind members they have 10 business days to 

submit questions for the record and I ask the witnesses to respond 

to the questions promptly. Members should submit their questions 

by the close of business Monday, April 1st, and that is no joke. 

Without objection, the subcommittee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:25 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

78 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

79 


80802.030
80 


80802.031
81 


80802.032
82 


80802.033
83 


80802.034
84 


80802.035
85 


80802.036
86 


80802.037
87 


80802.038
88 


80802.039
89 


80802.040
90 

Æ 


80802.041