They may not be crunching all the numbers associated with health insurance, but folks whose incomes are three to four times the federal poverty level may be doing enough math to decide they'd rather pay the penalty for not having coverage than pay the premiums required to have exchange coverage.
Avalere released an analysis of the pay-vs.-penalty scenario established by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and theorized that one reason individuals with certain incomes continue to resist purchasing coverage is that the mandate's going-bare penalty is substantially lower than annual premiums for insurance.
Avalere notes that this sort of decision making is flawed, since it doesn't take into account the savings those with insurance may realize if they do require medical care. But particularly with those in their 20s, paying the penalty instead of buying coverage is a choice many are making.
Continue Reading for Free
Register and gain access to:
- Breaking benefits news and analysis, on-site and via our newsletters and custom alerts
- Educational webcasts, white papers, and ebooks from industry thought leaders
- Critical converage of the property casualty insurance and financial advisory markets on our other ALM sites, PropertyCasualty360 and ThinkAdvisor
Already have an account? Sign In Now
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
Dan Cook
Dan Cook is a journalist and communications consultant based in Portland, OR. During his journalism career he has been a reporter and editor for a variety of media companies, including American Lawyer Media, BusinessWeek, Newhouse Newspapers, Knight-Ridder, Time Inc., and Reuters. He specializes in health care and insurance related coverage for BenefitsPRO.
