WASHINGTON, DC: Administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Mehmet Oz. He is favoring more use of catastrophic health plan coverage to lower premiums. (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
Getty Images
Mehmet Oz, Administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, is actively promoting catastrophic health plans, characterized by high deductibles and lower premiums. These plans are designed to protect patients from substantial healthcare costs, but only after significant deductibles are met. Critics label these policies as “junk insurance,” arguing they still pose considerable financial risks to patients.
Recent changes to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) regulations by CMS now allow for higher out-of-pocket maximums, increasing them by 30%. This adjustment means individuals with certain low-tier or bronze plans may face up to $15,600 in out-of-pocket costs for individual coverage, or $31,200 for families, before insurance coverage begins. These changes are set to take effect in 2027.
Additionally, CMS is broadening criteria for hardship exemptions, previously limited to individuals with low income or those under 30. Now, people of all ages and income levels can access these catastrophic plans. Moreover, insurers can now offer multi-year contracts up to a decade long.
CMS describes these changes as providing Americans with greater “flexibility” and enhancing access to “affordable healthcare coverage.” However, critics contend that these moves effectively endorse “junk” insurance, leaving individuals vulnerable to high out-of-pocket costs if they experience serious illness.
Opponents of the ACA argue that the law has failed to resolve the healthcare affordability crisis in the U.S. Premiums have consistently risen, particularly for those who do not qualify for subsidies. The standardized options have resulted in increased premiums and deductibles, creating a challenging financial landscape for patients. Proponents of catastrophic plans argue that they offer cheaper alternatives, despite the large deductibles and potential coverage gaps, addressing affordability without undermining the ACA.
Supporters of these plans claim they provide consumers with previously unavailable choices. Wendell Potter from HEALTH CARE un-covered suggests that the notion of choice is misleading, as many Americans are financially pressured into selecting less comprehensive coverage due to the unaffordability of robust insurance. Potter warns that people often realize the limitations of their coverage only after facing significant life disruptions.
The primary purpose of health insurance is to manage financial risks associated with unforeseen health events. Even healthy individuals face uncertainties about their future health. One could be well today but suffer a heart attack tomorrow, or be diagnosed with a chronic illness requiring ongoing treatment and care. Bearing a massive deductible and other high out-of-pocket costs can be financially devastating, as evidenced by the rising medical debt and bankruptcy rates in the U.S.
The main criticism of high-deductible health plans, including those advocated by Oz, is that they require substantial out-of-pocket payments when individuals fall ill, costs that many Americans cannot cover with their savings or cash.
From 2028, some ACA consumers will have the option to select plans without dedicated networks of doctors and hospitals. Instead, they will need to find providers willing to accept the payment amounts their insurers will cover for non-emergency care. Regulators claim this policy aims to lower overall healthcare costs by encouraging consumers to “shop for lower prices and negotiate directly with providers.” However, experts caution that these non-network plans might weaken ACA protections that guarantee adequate numbers of healthcare providers in specific areas and prevent patients from incurring surcharges if their chosen doctors or hospitals charge more than what the insurer reimburses.
Julie Appleby of KFF Health News notes that the new provisions could reduce ACA enrollment by as many as two million individuals.
There is debate over whether these changes represent a further erosion of the ACA in the absence of a formal Congressional repeal.
