Why not delay the individual mandate, too?

“Unlike delaying the employer mandate, postponing the individual mandate would start a domino effect with consequences ranging from millions more people without insurance to those who do purchase insurance having to pay much higher prices,” Blumberg said. “The disruptions and pressures that would be created by a delay could lead us back to square one with people being denied coverage based on what conditions they have and plans not covering all the necessary services.”

Most of the employers that would be affected by the employer mandate already offer group health benefits, and delaying their mandate would probably have a small effect on the number of people with group health coverage, the analysts said.

In the individual market, PPACA designers tried to make up for the cost of requiring insurers to sell coverage on a guaranteed-issue, mostly community-rated basis by using a coverage mandate to increase the number of healthy people with health coverage.

Pushing back the effective date of the individual mandate could cut the number of healthy people with health coverage enough to throw off insurer pricing models, the analysts said.

Insurer claims costs and hospital uncompensated care costs could soar, and “this reduced stability could lead to political pressure for changes in consumer protections,” the analysts said.

See also:

• IRS struggles to combine PPACA reports
• PPACA eludes young adults
• House GOP presses delay in health care law