Individual Mandate for healthcare

Individual Mandate for Healthcare
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation

Abstract
An individual mandate is a healthcare requirement under the Affordable Care Act which aims to increase the enrollment of Americans to a health care insurance plan as a way of spreading the cost of medical care. Currently, policymakers are contemplating its elimination given the fact that it has failed to achieve its objective since many uninsured Americans are not enrolling in the program. Therefore, this paper discusses the available alternatives to the individual mandate that would accomplish the same goal. Policymakers can consider offering a plan with varying premium rates for different ages, conduct public awareness campaign, or impose a tax to cater for the uncompensated care. The paper also discusses the pros and cons of using an incentive system versus an individual mandate. An incentive system is less advantageous than an individual mandate because it penalizes individuals who fail to pay after a specified duration. The last section of the paper identifies incentive systems that have led to the successful enrolment of people in other ACA programs such as Medicaid. Policymakers should, therefore, focus on modifying the individual mandate program to increase its effectiveness.

Individual Mandate for Healthcare
An individual mandate is a healthcare policy that was implemented under the Affordable Care Act on January 1, 2014 (Teitelbaum & Wilensky, 2016). The provision requires mandatory purchase of insurance coverage for people who lack employer-provided insurance.

The individual mandate was implemented to encourage a large number of American that is unlikely to purchase an insurance place to get covered especially for the individuals who perceive premiums as irrelevant and a waste of money. Thus, the government hoped that the premiums would be low if it could get such people under the Obamacare’s marketplaces. Given the fact that individual mandate is constitutional under the federal government, Americans are expected to comply with the provision, failure to which they may incur a heavy penalty (Teitelbaum & Wilensky, 2016). Hence, the individual mandate was primarily implemented to reduce the number of uninsured Americans who were contributing to the rising cost of health insurance in the market.
Alternatives to Individual Mandate
Simpson (2011) explains that there are several alternatives to the Individual mandate which can solve the problem of uninsured Americans without causing political turmoil.
Alternative 1: Adopting a Program whose Premium Rates vary Widely based on Enrollee’s Age
Evidently, a majority of the uninsured Americans are young adults who have less health complication and unstable income (Simpson, 2011). It is, therefore, practical to offer low premiums to the younger individuals to get health insurance cover that is slightly affordable than that of the older population which is most vulnerable to diseases and injuries and has a stable income. This approach will encourage uninsured individuals to seek coverage.
Alternative 2: The Imposition of Tax to Cater for the Uncompensated Care
Currently, the people eligible for the individual mandate is expected to comply with the requirement failure to which they incur a heavy penalty. Instead of penalizing this group of beneficiaries, the government could instead impose a tax on all Americans who pay a fee to cover the costs of uncompensated care and emergency room charges (Simpson, 2011). However, the problem with this alternative is that the individuals who do not pay taxes may not be affected. The government should, however, ensure that people compensate for it the moment they start paying for tax.
Alternative 3: Conduct Outreach Campaigns and Public Awareness Education
Many young Americans are uninsured because they believe they are healthy and there is no need to waste their money on getting a healthcare insurance cover. Conducting a public awareness campaign will help this group of people to voluntarily enroll in a healthcare insurance plan because they will learn its importance (Simpson, 2011). For the campaign to be effective, however, the government will have to give incentives to the public to encourage enrolment.
In my opinion, it could be challenging for policymakers to introduce an incentive system that is better than the individual mandate because a continuous coverage only ensures individuals pay for health coverage when in need (Eibner & Saltzman, 2014). This incentive penalizes people who go for over two months without an insurance cover.
The Pros and Cons of using Individual Mandate Versus an Incentive Program
Similar to the individual mandate, the function of the continuous coverage incentive system is to discourage Americans from waiting until their health status becomes critical for them to get a health insurance cover. Republicans argue that this system will ensure all the people who fail to pay for their coverage are penalized for encouraging timely payment and that everyone is covered to reduce the healthcare burden (Eibner & Saltzman, 2014). This system is advantageous over individual mandate because it encourages people to purchase a health insurance plan to avoid penalties or the risk of losing their health coverage.
However, the individual mandate remains to be the best option for Americans because it gives people a grace period to get insured (Teitelbaum & Wilensky, 2016). On the contrary, very many individuals might miss the chance to get insured if policymakers implement the continuous coverage system since not very many people might afford to pay regularly for the plan.
The continuous coverage plan is also less advantageous than the individual mandate because its implementation might significantly affect financially vulnerable households in the future due to the temporary unavailability of a health insurance cover (Eibner & Saltzman, 2014). People will lose lives or seek alternative methods of treatment which may be detrimental to their health.
The implementation of the Obamacare significantly increased the number of insured households in the US. For instance, Florida runs the Enhanced Benefits and Reward Program which provides credits of up to 125 dollars yearly to encourage regular checkups and screening. Additionally, West Virginia also implements a two-tier incentive program that allows enrollees to choose between a basic and an enhanced healthcare plan (Blumenthal et al., 2013). Thus, policymakers can improve the individual mandate by liaising with states and the public to determine the best way to increase healthcare insurance coverage in the country.
Conclusion
Policymakers implemented the individual mandate to spread the cost of medical care. This provision aims to especially enroll young individuals who fail to acknowledge the importance of getting a health insurance plan yet they are not ill. The individual mandate has faced resistance, especially from the Republicans, who insist the adoption of a continuous coverage incentive system. Evidently, individual mandate may not be eradicated because it has more advantages than disadvantages. Policy makers only need to consult the public and the states to modify the policy.

References
Eibner, C., & Saltzman, E. (2014). Assessing alternative modifications to the Affordable Care Act: impact on individual market premiums and insurance coverage. Rand Corporation.
Blumenthal, K. J., Saulsgiver, K. A., Norton, L., Troxel, A. B., Anarella, J. P., Gesten, F. C., … & Volpp, K. G. (2013). Medicaid incentive programs to encourage healthy behavior show
Simpson, A. (2011, March 29). 9 Alternatives to Individual Health Insurance Mandate; Will they work? Retrieved from https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2011/03/29/192080.htmTeitelbaum, J. B., & Wilensky, S. E. (2016). Essentials of health policy and law. Massachusetts: Jones & Bartlett Publishers.