Senator McCain’s Universal Health Insurance Proposal?

By :: October 27th, 2008

When TPC analyzed Senator McCain’s proposal to replace the income tax exclusion for employer-sponsored health insurance with flat refundable tax credits of $2,500 for single coverage and $5,000 for family coverage, we found  only modest net effects on coverage.  Our model predicted that more than 21 million people would gain insurance coverage in the individual nongroup market by 2013 while 16 million would lose employer-based coverage.  Despite a $1.3 trillion price tag over the next decade, the proposal would yield only modest and temporary gains.

A couple of factors drove that result.  One was the $7-10 billion per year that Senator McCain’s campaign says it would spend on its Guaranteed Access Plan (GAP). That’s a fraction of the $100 billion annual cost we estimated for covering those with serious health problems who’d otherwise lack insurance.  Ignoring the campaign’s statements about its own plan, John Sheils of the Lewin Group assumed that the government would provide $470 billion in subsidies over ten years ($47 billion per year) for the GAP, half of it financed by a new assessment on insurance premiums.  By Sheils’s estimate, 5.8 million people would gain coverage under that plan.  Unlike Sheils, we judged the funding proposed to be inadequate and the plan’s details too nebulous, so we did not model the GAP’s effect on either cost or coverage. 

Sheils also concluded that Senator McCain’s proposals to limit health care costs would be effective, something my colleagues in the Urban Institute’s health policy center doubt.  Moreover, Sheils appears to assume that firms are less sensitive to changes in the price of health insurance than TPC does, which means that fewer firms drop coverage.  All told, Sheils’s more optimistic scenario produces much more coverage.  Lewin estimates that the number of uninsured would fall by 21 million people in 2013.

There is one way that McCain’s plan might really boost coverage:  if just about anything could be labeled as “insurance.”  With no minimum standards, insurers could design products that cost less than the tax credit amounts, even for people with serious pre-existing conditions.  For example, they might sell a single policy that covers the first $2,000 of medical expenses for a $2,500 premium.  This sounds like a bad deal, but if the entire tab is paid by the federal government and it is all a sick person can find, it’s better than nothing.  State regulators couldn’t block such policies because Senator McCain’s plan would allow insurers to market products across state lines, meaning that shady insurers could just set up shop in a state with no regulation.

Of course, token insurance that doesn’t cover major costs would be cold comfort to those with expensive health problems, but it would make the statistics on coverage look better.  And if you think that insurers would not offer such products or that consumers would not use their tax credits to purchase them, consider the experience with the short-lived health EITC, a small, but poorly designed subsidy intended to help low-income families acquire health insurance coverage for their children.  Unscrupulous insurers sold nearly worthless policies—often using fraudulent methods—to credit recipients according to a 1993 Congressional investigation (summarized by CBPP).

And, despite its limited value, the coverage gains would carry a heft price tag.  If all uninsured people bought non-group coverage qualifying for the tax credits, the cost of the plan could almost double, from our estimated $1.3 trillion to $2.5 trillion. 

All that said, it is remarkable that a conservative Republican is proposing more than a trillion dollars in refundable tax credits for health insurance. Those seeking a bipartisan compromise that could significantly expand health insurance coverage might take heart from that.  But then again, Senator McCain also insists that his plan, in fact, has no budgetary cost over ten years, suggesting that he might not really be serious about the tax credits.



  1. Anonymous  ::  9:52 pm on October 29th, 2008:

    meaning that shady insurers could just set up shop in a state with no regulation.
    And which state is it that has NO regulation?

  2. Anonymous  ::  10:15 pm on October 30th, 2008:

    You're right that all states regulate insurance companies. For example, they impose solvency requirements and bar outright fraud. But states vary tremendously in terms of how or whether they regulate what insurers offer, what they have to cover, how they set premiums, whether pre-existing conditions are excluded, etc. I probably should have said that insurers would gravitate to the states with no such limitations.
    A nice summary of state regulations is here.
    Interestingly, Senator McCain's home state of Arizona seems to include no “protections in individual insurance markets.” It might become a mecca for health insurers if McCain is elected.

  3. Anonymous  ::  9:07 am on December 30th, 2009:

    Normally first time home buyers use FHA home purchase leads to purchase new home. For those owners who are facing some financial difficulties this is the best program that can be used for loan modification. FHA home purchase leads have some guidelines and the guidelines that should get the help you need. FHA home purchase leads saves time and ensures that you and all other applicants receive consistent treatment. If you are interested in an FHA home purchase leads you may sure that you have received complete requirements. You are also required to follow certain rules, regulations and other guidelines. This is a critical step to help those who are struggling for their bad credit and have no funds to buy a house. You fill out all forms properly due to meet the requirements of lenders and banks.
    FHA Home Purchase Leads

  4. Anonymous  ::  5:47 pm on March 23rd, 2010:

    It would be interesting to see how this plan would shake out in comparison with what was signed today – and if modified to the same scope of coverage. The most interesting question, of course, would be the impact of tax increases on the average family.

  5. Anonymous  ::  5:11 am on March 26th, 2010:

    Review of your work skills by your Coach Trainer and practical application. Coaching theory is wonderful to see but without practical covering you may find yourself a bit lost on how to apply what you have learned. Look for a work upbringing school that offers in-class work or a railcar upbringing practicum. Thanks for sharing.
    Coach Training

  6. Pandaranol  ::  11:36 am on May 24th, 2011:

    Je trouve que ce site est extra clair et très sympa

  7. Beat the Bookstore  ::  8:02 pm on October 27th, 2011:

    Websites you should visit……

    […]below you’ll find the link to some sites that we think you should visit[…]…

  8. Download Music for Free for iPod  ::  11:31 am on October 29th, 2011:

    Cool sites……

    […]we came across a cool site that you might enjoy. Take a look if you want[…]…

  9. Apps for android zoom  ::  2:40 pm on July 4th, 2013:

    Thank you for the good writeup. It in fact was a amusement account it.
    Look advanced to far added agreeable from you!

    However, how can we communicate?