Remember the CLASS Act? Probably not, but the CLASS Act was a cause of the late Senator Kennedy. It was added to Obamacare to provide long-term care coverage for Americans. Long-term care is not included in Medicare or private health insurance.
Long-term care is included in the Medicare-for-all program championed by Bernie Sanders; without deductibles, co-pays or limits. Long-term care is expensive, young people don’t want to spend money on such insurance and many insurers have abandoned the private market because of potential liabilities down the road.
The Obama administration figured out the long-term care offered as part of Obamacare was not feasible, not affordable. HHS simply declined to implement that part of the law. See below.
Not so Sanders with his one dimensional view of the world. He pushes on with any number of proposals with little regard for anything except the perception of doing good. Oh, the unintended consequences😳
In order to implement CLASS, we need to be able to identify a benefit design that is actuarially solvent (so that premiums are sufficient to fund the program given an assumed rate of participation), marketable (so that the assumed take up rate is reasonable), and consistent with the authorizing CLASS statute.
The design and implementation of the CLASS program involve two areas of tremendous uncertainty. First, because there is no precedent for the CLASS program in either the private market or in other government programs, such as Social Security or Medicare, there is great uncertainty around the assumptions used in the actuarial modeling to assess solvency. Second, while the CLASS statute requires that the CLASS plan be actuarially sound, and that no taxpayer funds may be used to pay plan benefits, it is silent about what would happen if, at some future point, actuarial soundness could no longer be achieved. It is uncertain whether, if the program could no longer go forward, those holding policies could be assured of receiving the benefits they had purchased, or could transition to other long-term care insurance programs (especially since some might have developed medical conditions that mean they no longer can meet the underwriting requirements of private long-term care insurance). In light of these two types of uncertainty, it is critical that there be a high degree of confidence that the designated CLASS plan is fiscally sound and consistent with the statutory requirements.
We developed a broad range of alternative CLASS benefit plan options and used independent actuarial models and analysis by the CLASS Office Actuary to compute premium estimates and assessments of the actuarial soundness of the plans. These analyses indicate that the premium for the Basic CLASS Benefit Plan, which is the benefit design that follows from the most natural reading of the statute, produces a benefit costing between $235 and $391 dollars a month, and may cost as much as $3,000 per month, if adverse selection is particularly serious. Moreover, the benefit in this plan, which calls for an average fifty dollar per day benefit for a beneficiary’s lifetime, diverges significantly from the design most buyers in the private market choose. Most buyers prefer higher daily benefits over a few years. The benefit package described in the CLASS Act will make it difficult to attract purchasers who could otherwise meet underwriting requirements and obtain policies in the private market. If healthy purchasers are not attracted to the CLASS benefit package, then premiums will increase, which will make it even more unattractive to purchasers who could also obtain policies in the private market. This imbalance in the beneficiary pool would cause the program to quickly collapse.
We have identified potential benefit plans that could be actuarially sound and avoid the risk of adverse selection. These plans have benefit designs and premiums that appear marketable. Some of the characteristics of these plans include, for example, phased enrollment, higher earnings requirements for enrollees, and improved benefit design. All of these design options rely on the following strategies: they significantly increase the minimum earnings requirement specified in the statute, modifying it from $1,120 to at least $12,000 per year; they alter the benefit package so that it more closely resembles the typical package in the private market; and they phase enrollment in the plan, initially limiting eligibility to groups with better-than-average health risk profiles. While these benefit plan options show some promise in achieving actuarial solvency, they may be inconsistent with other provisions of the statute. There is concern regarding the legal authority for some of the plan features expected to increase solvency, and the more of those features that are incorporated into the plan, the greater the legal risk. In other words, as we take necessary steps to mitigate solvency risks, we concomitantly raise the legal risk that the plan could be found impermissible under the statute. If some of these solvency enhancements have to be changed, it is highly likely that the CLASS program could no longer continue and, as noted above, it is not clear whether the program could deliver on its commitment to those participants who had already enrolled.
For the reasons stated above, I do not see a path to move forward with CLASS at this time. I recommend that we work with Congress and stakeholders, including consumers, insurers, and employers, to continue exploring all of the options to address the critical long-term care needs of Americans.