I'm seeing a lot of people calling for those who choose not to #GetVaxxed to have higher insurance premiums.
I understand your frustration, but this is explicitly prohibited by the #ACA.
In fact, "community rating" is one of the most popular provisions of the #ACA. 1/
I understand your frustration, but this is explicitly prohibited by the #ACA.
In fact, "community rating" is one of the most popular provisions of the #ACA. 1/
Under the #ACA, health insurance premiums *for the same policy* can only vary based on 3 things:
1. Where you live (rating areas, usually composed of several counties within a state)
2. How old you are (but limited to a 3:1 range)
3. Whether you smoke (up to a 50% surcharge).
1. Where you live (rating areas, usually composed of several counties within a state)
2. How old you are (but limited to a 3:1 range)
3. Whether you smoke (up to a 50% surcharge).
Smoking is the ONLY medical/behavorial factor which is insurers can charge more for (and that 50% surcharge doesn't get to take advantage of the financial subsidies either).
Now, perhaps refusing to #GetVaxxed *should* be added as well, but that's a slippery slope scenario. 3/
Now, perhaps refusing to #GetVaxxed *should* be added as well, but that's a slippery slope scenario. 3/
FWIW, last I checked, there are several states which don't even allow the smoker surcharge (CA, MA, NJ, NY, RI & VT, along with DC), and several others which limit it to less than 50% (AR is 20%, CO is 15%, and KY, of all states, is 40%...I'm surprised they allow it at all).
In fact, there've been a couple of #ACA 2.0 bills over the past few years which proposed eliminating the smoker surcharge altogether as well...in part because it doesn't seem to be doing much to reduce smoking anyway:
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
