The Wall Street Journal focuses on the issue of “age rating” and how much difference the costs of coverage can vary for young individuals versus older Americans.
Here are some key excerpts:
“The bill would limit how much insurers can vary premiums based on the age of the person buying the policy. The narrower the range, the lower the premiums for older people, a help to those who currently pay some of the highest rates for insurance and often need coverage the most. But such a limitation tends to raise premiums for younger folks, who are sometimes reluctant to buy coverage.”
In the House bill, the ratio can only be as much as 2 to 1, meaning older people could pay no more than twice what the youngest customers are charged.
“…a calculator on the Kaiser Family Foundation Web site gives a rough sense. It suggests that under the House’s 2-to-1 cap, a 20-year-old would pay $3,169 in annual premiums and a 60-year-old would pay $6,339 for comparable plans, if they both had incomes above the subsidy-eligible level. Under a bill passed by the Senate Finance Committee, which had a 4-to-1 age-rating ratio, the 20-year-old would pay $2,258 and the 60-year-old would pay $8,357.”
“Industry officials argue that if young people are asked to pay more, fewer of them will buy insurance, and many may opt instead to pay the penalty for being uninsured.”
(AHIP COVERAGE NOTE: If this happens then the cost of coverage for everyone could dramatically increase. Click here to find out more about why a workable coverage requirement is a critical part of health care reform.)
For the full article, click here.
