Greg Ruben / Axios

Republicans on the Hill are taking a close look at an idea they believe could actually expand health coverage: just enroll everyone in a health plan unless they opt out.

Hill staffers and conservative health wonks have been tossing the idea around for awhile as a way to replace Obamacare's individual mandate while continuing to cover everyone with pre-existing conditions — something that becomes too expensive without healthy people to cover the costs. Many now point to auto-enrollment as one of the best ways to cover more people without bleeding federal dollars.

The goal: By automatically enrolling people into a basic insurance plan, some Republicans hope to create a new system where coverage is the default for everyone. The idea is a feature of some of the leading Obamacare replacement plans, including a bill by Sen. Bill Cassidy and Rep. Pete Sessions and a white paper by the American Enterprise Institute.

Trump's HHS nominee: Tom Price included auto-enrollment in employer coverage in his Obamacare replacement plan, another sign the idea could gain traction.

There's no consensus that this is the way forward, but "there's a lot of work being done to look into it," said a senior GOP aide.

How it would work: People who don't get health insurance from another source, like an employer, would be enrolled in a bare-bones plan.

It would have the same value as the financial help uninsured people would get — meaning the federal government would cover the cost of the premium, so enrollees would get coverage for free. But they could buy better coverage if they want it.

The catch: This could be a workable policy idea, but it's a political and logistical nightmare. While some Republicans are on board with the idea already, it's going to take some clever messaging to convince small-government conservatives an automatic enrollment policy is less intrusive than an insurance mandate.

The key, supporters say, is to cover the costs. As long as that's done, "it's not viewed as a harmful mandate, because there's no consequence" to someone who doesn't enroll, said the GOP aide.

Here are some outstanding questions and concerns, raised by both liberal and conservative health wonks:

  • Figuring out who to automatically enroll is an insane task. Basically, it would require coming up with a list of everyone in the country and then comparing that to the list of everyone who has private insurance, Medicare or Medicaid.
  • Private insurers have to agree to participate. Figuring out how it actually works — and how insurers can turn a profit — would be complicated. "You'd have to find a way to make sure, if there's more than one insurer, that the actual expenses of covering these upper-end costs for people pretty much balances out with a reasonable profit margin," said Joe Antos, a conservative health economist and a member of the Axios board of experts.
  • Liberals still think the mandate is the better option. "I think more people would opt out of enrollment than would take a fine with the individual mandate," said Jonathan Gruber, an MIT economics professor who consulted on Obamacare. But "it's better than nothing."
  • The default health plan would be very skimpy coverage. Deductibles would probably be at least $10,000, and many services wouldn't be covered — meaning people would have to pay for a lot of medical costs themselves. "I don't think that's going to fly with the American public," since high deductibles are already one of the biggest complaints about Obamacare, Gruber said.
  • It probably would help keep the individual market balanced. That's not nothing — it's better than a market meltdown. But don't expect the customers to be happy with what they're getting. "The best case scenario is a stabilized market for shitty insurance," Gruber said.
  • This isn't a money-saving idea for the government. At least not if it's going to work, Antos said. "It's a way of stabilizing the individual market. But if it's also going to be used as a way to save billions of dollars, then it's not going to save the individual market."

Our thought bubble: This seems to solve the GOP's biggest problems, but if there's a reason it doesn't go anywhere, it's because not enough members know about it or understand it.

Go deeper

Updated 2 hours ago - Politics & Policy

Coronavirus dashboard

Illustration: Sarah Grillo/Axios

  1. Global: Total confirmed cases as of 9:45 p.m. ET: 19,282,972 — Total deaths: 718,851 — Total recoveries — 11,671,491Map.
  2. U.S.: Total confirmed cases as of 9:45 p.m. ET: 4,937,441 — Total deaths: 161,248 — Total recoveries: 1,623,870 — Total tests: 60,415,558Map.
  3. Politics: Trump says he's prepared to sign executive orders on coronavirus aid.
  4. Education: Cuomo says all New York schools can reopen for in-person learning.
  5. Public health: Surgeon general urges flu shots to prevent "double whammy" with coronavirus — Massachusetts pauses reopening after uptick in coronavirus cases.
  6. World: Africa records over 1 million coronavirus cases — Gates Foundation puts $150 million behind coronavirus vaccine production.

Warren and Clinton to speak on same night of Democratic convention

(Photos: Abdulhamid Hosbas/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images, Sean Rayford/Getty Images)

Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Hillary Clinton both are slated to speak on the Wednesday of the Democratic convention — Aug. 19 — four sources familiar with the planning told Axios.

Why it matters: That's the same night Joe Biden's running mate (to be revealed next week) will address the nation. Clinton and Warren represent two of the most influential wise-women of Democratic politics with the potential to turn out millions of establishment and progressive voters in November.

Trump considering order on pre-existing condition protections, which already exist

Photo: Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images

President Trump announced on Friday he will pursue an executive order requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions, something that is already law.

Why it matters: The Affordable Care Act already requires insurers to cover pre-existing conditions. The Trump administration is currently arguing in a case before the Supreme Court to strike down that very law — including its pre-existing condition protections.