 Favorites |
 Google |
 Digg |
 Del.icio.us |
 Twitter |
 Facebook |
>> More...
How Effectively Does the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Help Laid-Off Workers and States Cope with Health Care Costs?
A new analysis from the Urban Institute concludes that these provisions are likely to achieve only partial success.
Published: March 18, 2009
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) sought to strengthen the country’s ailing economy by enacting a broad range of policies, two of which are the subject of this paper. One helps laid-off workers obtain health coverage, and the other provides fiscal relief to state Medicaid programs.
The first policy pays 65 percent of premiums for coverage offered by former employers under the Comprehensive Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA). These subsidies are likely to be too small to make coverage affordable to many people who have lost their jobs. An existing program that pays 65 percent of premiums for workers laid off because of trade liberalization—the Health Coverage Tax Credit program—enrolls only 12 to 15 percent of eligible workers. ARRA almost certainly will raise participation above those levels, but enrollment is likely to remain quite limited.
Furthermore, ARRA does not cover uninsured, laid-off workers who are ineligible for COBRA. Some worked for companies that have gone out of business or were too small to be governed by COBRA or similar state laws; others did not receive health coverage from their former employers. Many without access to COBRA would have been helped by House-passed Medicaid expansions that covered two groups of uninsured, unemployed workers: recipients of unemployment insurance, no matter how high their income, and low-income laid-off workers and their families, who have the least access to coverage and care. These Medicaid expansions, however, were not included in the final legislation.
By providing state Medicaid programs with $87 billion in fiscal relief, ARRA is likely to be effective in preventing many large Medicaid cutbacks. Targeting 35 percent of assistance to states with particularly high unemployment rates, ARRA will provide more “bang for the buck” in preventing state cutbacks and stimulating the economy than did fiscal relief legislation in 2003–2004, which gave all states the same level of help. Nevertheless, since most of the fiscal relief is distributed without regard to each state’s economic situation, the states with the most serious fiscal problems may not obtain sufficient assistance to avoid reducing health care services.
Share:
Recommended
- Do Individual Mandates Matter? (Issue and policy briefs)
- Health Coverage Tax Credits: A Small Program Offering Large Policy Lessons (Issue and policy briefs)
- The Failure of SCHIP Reauthorization: What Next? (Issue and policy briefs)
- Health Insurance Coverage of Young Adults (Issue and policy briefs)
- High Costs, Low Incomes and SCHIP Reauthorization (Issue and policy briefs)
- SCHIP Reauthorization: How Will Low-Income Kids Benefit Under House and Senate Bills? (Issue and policy briefs)
- Show more
Related Web sites
Do Individual Mandates Matter?
By:
Blumberg LJ and Holahan J
Publication date:
January 30, 2008
Summary:
In this Urban Institute analysis, health economists contend that it is not possible to achieve universal coverage without an individual mandate.
Health Coverage Tax Credits: A Small Program Offering Large Policy Lessons
By:
Dorn S
Publication date:
Feb 5, 2008
Summary:
This Urban Institute policy brief analyzes how current tax credits can be restructured to reach more workers who qualify and how future tax credits could be designed to serve millions of uninsured Americans more effectively.
The Failure of SCHIP Reauthorization: What Next?
By:
Kenney G
Publication date:
March 18, 2008
Summary:
In this issue brief, the Urban Institute reflects on important House and Senate compromises that resulted in passage of a bipartisan bill to expand SCHIP in 2007, only to repeatedly face President Bush's veto pen. SCHIP was ultimately extended through March 2009, but...
Health Insurance Coverage of Young Adults
Publication date:
June 2008
Summary:
An Urban Institute analysis looks at why young adults, accounting for 28 percent of America's uninsured population, are disproportionately uninsured and what policies could address their coverage gaps.
High Costs, Low Incomes and SCHIP Reauthorization
By:
Kenney G and Pelletier J
Publication date:
January 12, 2009
Summary:
This Urban Institute analysis compares current costs of living and costs of employer-sponsored insurance with figures from a decade ago.
SCHIP Reauthorization: How Will Low-Income Kids Benefit Under House and Senate Bills?
By:
Kenney G, Cook A and Pelletier J
Publication date:
September 18, 2007
Summary:
This policy brief discusses findings from empirical work examining the likely income distribution of children who would gain and/or retain health insurance coverage through the proposed Senate and House SCHIP bills.
Eligible But Not Enrolled: How SCHIP Reauthorization Can Help
By:
Dorn S and The Urban Institute
Publication date:
September 29, 2007
Summary:
According to an analysis from the Urban Institute, SCHIP reauthorization could give states the flexibility to draw on lessons from strategies recently developed by Medicare for providing Medicaid and SCHIP to eligible low-income kids.
Concerns About Parents Dropping Employer Coverage to Enroll in SCHIP Overlook Issues of Affordability
By:
Zuckerman S, Perry C and The Urban Institute
Publication date:
October 02, 2007
Summary:
The analysis from the Urban Institute documents that low-income families have difficulty affording employer-sponsored insurance when measured on CMS' affordability scale and that by limiting premiums and other out-of-pocket spending, Medicaid and SCHIP make health care...
