List date(s) this work was published or aired.
21-Jul-11
Provide a brief synopsis of the story or stories, including any significant findings.
This story was the first to uncover a major glitch in the healthcare reform law that threatens to undermine the law’s promise of affordable insurance for millions of American families. In order to prevent employers from dumping their workers into federally subsidized exchanges when they go online in 2014, the law created a so-called “firewall” restricting the subsidies only to workers who can’t afford their company’s plan. The affordability test only applies to individual coverage, however, not family coverage – meaning workers’ families will not be eligible for exchange subsidies, even if they cannot afford an employer’s family plan. Fixing the glitch could cost billions of dollars a year and turn the law into a deficit buster. Meanwhile, federal regulators say their hands are tied by the statutory language even as consumer advocates continue to lobby Treasury officials to adopt more generous regulations.
Explain types of documents, data or Internet resources used. Were FOI or public records act requests required? How did this affect the work?
In order to figure out how regulators were interpreting the law, I had to examine not only the statute itself but also the Joint Committee on Taxation’s initial analysis of its cost.
Explain types of human sources used.
I first heard about the glitch from sources in the advocacy community who were reluctant to go on the record because they were close to the administration and did not want to appear critical of the health law. Once one agreed to go on the record, however, I was able to persuade others, until finally those closest to the administration agreed to share their concerns and their discussions with federal officials to get the law changed. I also talked to the Joint Committee on Taxation’s legal counsel on background to confirm the story behind the firewall and how it was interpreted when the legislation was initially scored.
Results:
The story brought the issue to the attention of the general public and to many more advocacy groups, leading to an uptick in efforts to get federal regulators to address it. The story was also one factor that sparked the House Oversight Committee’s health subpanel to hold a hearing last fall examining whether the health law unintentionally penalizes married couples because of the way subsidies are calculated.
Follow-up (if any). Have you run a correction or clarification on the report or has anyone come forward to challenge its accuracy? If so, please explain.
None.
Advice to other journalists planning a similar story or project.
Major legislation such as the healthcare reform act are a treasure trove of hidden glitches, special deals and other nuggets buried beneath the stated policy goals that reporters tend to focus on. I would advise keeping a keen ear out for any tidbits about such flaws when talking to sources, especially since the ones most likely to talk may only have second-hand information and may not be able to pinpoint what exactly is wrong. That was the case with this story: My initial source wasn’t directly involved in trying to fix the glitch so I had to look for other sources and persuade them to explain the issue to me, on the record. I also found that the nonpartisan staffers with the Joint Committee on Taxation were more than willing to take the time to explain the law’s intricacies to me, and were much more accessible than their colleagues at the Congressional Budget Office.