Patient Power

How many parents will drop insurance in response to SB 08-160?

Last June Governor Ritter signed Colorado Senate Bill 08-160, which expanded eligibility for the the Colorado Children’s Health Program Plus (SCHIP in Colorado) to 225% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL), “adjusted for family size.” Now check out the following graphic from the Heritage Foundation.  It shows Congressional Budget Office data of the percentage of children with private health insurance for different levels of household income.  The figure is 50% for household income between one and two times the FPL and 70% for houshold income two to three times the FPL.  So do you think this will unfairly compete with private insurance?  The Congressional Budget Office says so:

SCHIP provides an alternative source of coverage that is less expensive and that often provides a broader
range of benefits than private insurance. As a result, some parents who otherwise would have enrolled their children in private coverage may prefer instead to switch their coverage to SCHIP. In addition, to the extent that SCHIP makes private coverage less important for some low-income families, parents might be more inclined to take jobs that offer higher cash wages rather than health insurance. Moreover, if employers of low-wage workers believe that SCHIP reduces the value of private health insurance in attracting employees, some might reduce their contribution to the premiums for family coverage, reduce the benefits offered, stop offering family coverage, or stop offering insurance altogether. …

On the basis of a review of the research literature, CBO concludes that the most reliable estimates currently available suggest that the reduction in private coverage among children is between a quarter and a half of the increase in public coverage resulting from SCHIP. In other words, for every 100 children who enroll as a result of SCHIP, there is a corresponding reduction in private coverage of between 25 and 50 children.

The available evidence, which is quite limited, suggests that the bulk of the reduction in private coverage occurs because parents choose to forgo private coverage and enroll their children in SCHIP (because of better benefits, lower costs, or some combination thereof ), rather than employers deciding to drop coverage for such children.

• Denver Post misleads readers about government insurance
• Government insurance expansion wastes taxpayer dollars
• GOP’s Mike Coffman supports welfare state
• Nanny state expansion passes in House
• Hawaii ends “Keiki Care” (You know, for kids!)