Research Library

Half of Texans who are eligible for premium subsidies under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and who looked for health plans in the ACA's Health Insurance Marketplace said cost was the main reason they didn’t enroll in a plan. That’s just one of the findings in a report released today by Rice University's Baker Institute for Public Policy and the Episcopal Health Foundation. The report specifically looked at lower- to middle-income families in Texas who don’t have access to health insurance through an employer and who earn too much to qualify for public programs. That group includes approximately 2 million uninsured Texans and is a key target population of the ACA. The report found that virtually all of the target population knew about the ACA Marketplace and the available subsidies for health insurance premiums. In addition, the report found that one-third of those aware of the marketplace looked for information on health insurance plans. Another one-third planned to look for that information in the future. However, many Texans who looked for plans in the ACA Marketplace still didn’t enroll in a health insurance plan. The report found half of those who did not enroll said costs were the main reason – either costs were too high or they didn’t have enough money to enroll at that time. The report is the sixth in a series on the implementation of the ACA in Texas. It was co-authored by Elena Marks, the president and CEO of the Episcopal Health Foundation and a health policy scholar at the Baker Institute, and Vivian Ho, the chair in health economics at the Baker Institute, a professor of economics at Rice and a professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine. “The affordability of Health Insurance Marketplace plans, even with subsidies, has been an open question from the outset,” Marks said. “Perceptions about affordability may be preventing some Texans from enrolling in a plan. The intense, politically charged dialogue around the ACA in the state may have created misconceptions about the costs.” Uninsured Texans may also think health coverage is too expensive because the cost is new to them, the report found. Even with subsidies, some families still would pay some amount for coverage – an added expense, regardless of the amount, not previously part of the family budget. Also, the report found there’s evidence many uninsured don’t value health insurance or believe they can still use charity care programs that offer free or discounted medical care on a pay-as-you-go basis. As the report showed, most of the uninsured knew about the ACA Marketplace and two-thirds looked, or planned to look, for information on health insurance plans. However, the report also discovered 29 percent not only hadn’t looked for marketplace information, they also didn’t plan to look for information in the future. “Many of those who didn’t buy insurance will pay a penalty of $95 or 1 percent of income on their 2014 tax return,” Ho said. “That penalty rises to $695 or 2.5 percent of income in 2016, which will likely lead to more people enrolling in coming years.” The Health Reform Monitoring Survey (HRMS)-Texas report is based on a national project that provides timely information on implementation issues under the Affordable Care Act and changes in health insurance coverage and related health outcomes. The Episcopal Health Foundation and Baker Institute are partnering to fund studies of and report on key factors about Texans obtained from an expanded representative sample of Texas residents. Today's report contains responses from 1,595 Texans in September 2013 and 1,538 in March 2014. The survey was developed by the Urban Institute, conducted by the company GfK and jointly funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the Ford Foundation and the Urban Institute. The analyses and conclusions based on HRMS-Texas are those of the authors and do not represent the views of the Urban Institute, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation or the Ford Foundation.

Half of Texans who are eligible for premium subsidies under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and who looked for health plans in the ACA's Health Insurance Marketplace said cost was the main reason they didn’t enroll in a plan. That’s just one of the findings in a report released today by Rice University's Baker Institute for Public Policy and the Episcopal Health Foundation. The report specifically looked at lower- to middle-income families in Texas who don’t have access to health insurance through an employer and who earn too much to qualify for public programs. That group includes approximately 2 million uninsured Texans and is a key target population of the ACA. The report found that virtually all of the target population knew about the ACA Marketplace and the available subsidies for health insurance premiums. In addition, the report found that one-third of those aware of the marketplace looked for information on health insurance plans. Another one-third planned to look for that information in the future. However, many Texans who looked for plans in the ACA Marketplace still didn’t enroll in a health insurance plan. The report found half of those who did not enroll said costs were the main reason – either costs were too high or they didn’t have enough money to enroll at that time. The report is the sixth in a series on the implementation of the ACA in Texas. It was co-authored by Elena Marks, the president and CEO of the Episcopal Health Foundation and a health policy scholar at the Baker Institute, and Vivian Ho, the chair in health economics at the Baker Institute, a professor of economics at Rice and a professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine. “The affordability of Health Insurance Marketplace plans, even with subsidies, has been an open question from the outset,” Marks said. “Perceptions about affordability may be preventing some Texans from enrolling in a plan. The intense, politically charged dialogue around the ACA in the state may have created misconceptions about the costs.” Uninsured Texans may also think health coverage is too expensive because the cost is new to them, the report found. Even with subsidies, some families still would pay some amount for coverage – an added expense, regardless of the amount, not previously part of the family budget. Also, the report found there’s evidence many uninsured don’t value health insurance or believe they can still use charity care programs that offer free or discounted medical care on a pay-as-you-go basis. As the report showed, most of the uninsured knew about the ACA Marketplace and two-thirds looked, or planned to look, for information on health insurance plans. However, the report also discovered 29 percent not only hadn’t looked for marketplace information, they also didn’t plan to look for information in the future. “Many of those who didn’t buy insurance will pay a penalty of $95 or 1 percent of income on their 2014 tax return,” Ho said. “That penalty rises to $695 or 2.5 percent of income in 2016, which will likely lead to more people enrolling in coming years.” The Health Reform Monitoring Survey (HRMS)-Texas report is based on a national project that provides timely information on implementation issues under the Affordable Care Act and changes in health insurance coverage and related health outcomes. The Episcopal Health Foundation and Baker Institute are partnering to fund studies of and report on key factors about Texans obtained from an expanded representative sample of Texas residents. Today's report contains responses from 1,595 Texans in September 2013 and 1,538 in March 2014. The survey was developed by the Urban Institute, conducted by the company GfK and jointly funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the Ford Foundation and the Urban Institute. The analyses and conclusions based on HRMS-Texas are those of the authors and do not represent the views of the Urban Institute, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation or the Ford Foundation.

This working paper constructs a new general equilibrium model of the U.S. economy that is better able to analyze energy and gross receipts taxes than previous models.

This issue brief identifies the four main reforms that the new Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government must undertake to revive the manufacturing industry in India.

On May 22, the House of Representatives passed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, which specifies the budget and expenditures of the United States Department of Defense and sets the policies under which money (somewhat in excess of $600 billion) will be spent on our country’s defense. However, an amendment added to the bill will keep the Department of Defense from preparing for or performing any military activities that include any construction related to climate change.

Under proposed legislation to implement Mexico’s energy reforms, Pemex will remain a privileged state operator supporting exploration and production in most of the country's proven onshore and shallow water fields. It is not known if energy reform will effectively turn Pemex into a firm able to compete without policy bias against private investors.

Energy regulation under Mexico's energy-sector reforms are of great interest to investors, since autonomous regulators—protected from political pressures and able to make and sustain technical decisions—can guarantee greater legal consistency than government authorities exposed to political pressures. The difficulty was finding an alternative model that ensured the institutional strengthening of the agencies without relinquishing too much control of the executive branch.

Mexico's organized crime groups have expanded into areas that include the theft of crude oil, gas and gasoline. The impact of organized crime on the energy sector is a real threat to the intended effects of Mexico's energy reforms.

Fossil fuel subsidies have allowed energy exporting countries to distribute resource revenue, bolstering legitimacy for governments, many of which are not democratically elected. But subsidy benefits are dwarfed by the harmful consequences of encouraging uneconomic use of energy. Now, with consumption posing a threat to long-term exports, governments face a heightened need to raise prices that have come to be viewed as entitlements. While reforms of state benefits are notoriously politically dangerous, previous experience shows that subsidies can be rolled back without undermining government legitimacy — even in autocratic settings — given proper preparation.

In 2012, the Drug Policy Program at Rice University’s Baker Institute and the South Texas College of Law (STCL) established a unique agreement to work together on model legislation for the decriminalization and regulation of marijuana in Texas. The collaboration was initiated by students and supported by the administrations and faculties of both educational institutions. South Texas College of Law students produced 19 separate statutes for their public law course in the spring 2013 semester. They were asked to write model legislation regarding some aspect of marijuana policy and provide well-reasoned commentary for their statutes. Experts from the Baker Institute’s Drug Policy Program gave guest lectures on drug policy issues and worked with STCL professor Drury Stevenson to provide a general direction for the course. The goal of the collaboration between the STCL and the Baker Institute was to create a variety of statutes that legislators and government officials can consult and learn from as marijuana policy is increasingly debated over the next decade. Neither the Baker Institute nor the South Texas College of Law endorses any particular policy. The model legislation has not undergone editorial review by the Baker Institute.