Bill Overview
Title: Ensuring Child Health Coverage Compensation in Divorce Act of 2022
Description: 2 This bill requires health insurance plans to permit custodial parents of children covered by the plan of a noncustodial parent, including a stepparent, to access such plan, including to submit payments and claims, without the approval of the noncustodial plan-holder parent.
Sponsors: Del. Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC-At Large]
Target Audience
Population: Children of divorced parents with noncustodial parental health insurance coverage
Estimated Size: 10000000
- The bill pertains to health insurance coverage, specifically in the context of divorce.
- Children of divorced parents, where the noncustodial parent holds the health insurance, are directly impacted.
- Custodial parents who need access to the health plan for their children are also impacted.
- There are millions of divorces globally that involve children; in the U.S., about 40-50% of marriages end in divorce, with many having children.
- The bill impacts families where health coverage is provided by one parent (typically the noncustodial parent) which is a common scenario.
Reasoning
- The simulated population includes a mix of custodial parents who will directly benefit from the new policy, as well as individuals who will not be affected to provide context and contrast.
- The budget constraints imply that not all affected children can be supported, but a significant portion will see improved access to health services as administrative barriers to accessing insurance are lowered.
- Consideration is given to the demographic spread and distribution of divorced families across different socio-economic backgrounds in the US.
- The potential increase in wellbeing scores will largely depend on access to timely healthcare for children, reducing stress for custodial parents managing healthcare logistics.
- The diversity of states and individual circumstances are considered, noting the disparity in healthcare access and divorce family dynamics.
Simulated Interviews
Teacher (New York)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Accessing the insurance has been a headache; I've missed claiming some reimbursements because my ex wouldn't cooperate.
- The policy will simplify my life significantly. I won't have to argue about healthcare anymore.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Software Engineer (California)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As the noncustodial parent, I believe the policy is beneficial. My ex should not have to depend on me to handle every health-related issue.
- It might reduce some friction between us, which is good for our child.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Freelancer (Florida)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could change how I handle my child's healthcare—it'll make scheduling appointments easier without having to loop in another person all the time.
- I feel like it'll empower me more as the custodial parent.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Nurse (Texas)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy doesn't really affect me as I already manage the kids' health insurance.
- It's a great initiative for others in a tough spot though.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Construction Worker (Illinois)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't see a direct impact, things are running smoothly as is.
- If it helps my ex handle healthcare better, I'm all for it.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Business Owner (Washington)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy doesn't affect me, but it's good to hear steps are being taken to help those who need it.
- Any policy improving child welfare gets my approval.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Accountant (Ohio)
Age: 31 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy will ensure there's no lapse in coverage if I can't be reached immediately for approval; peace of mind for my child's health.
- It resolves logistical issues potentially harming child health.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Waitress (Georgia)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Finally, I won't have to chase my ex down anymore to get necessary approvals for my kids' doctor's visits.
- This policy will help me focus on my job and kids rather than paperwork.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Truck Driver (Arizona)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think any support for families managing these transitions is positive, but it doesn't change my situation.
- It's reassuring that my co-parent will have the tools needed if I am on the road.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Retail Manager (Michigan)
Age: 36 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 9.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- With this policy, the stress just melts away; not having to negotiate every health visit is priceless.
- Allows me direct control over my children's healthcare which is a huge relief.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $150000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $200000000)
Year 2: $150000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $200000000)
Year 3: $150000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $200000000)
Year 5: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The bill affects divorced families, which is a substantial demographic in the U.S., with about half of marriages ending in divorce.
- Insurers may need to update systems to facilitate direct access for custodial parents, leading to administrative costs.
- Potential efficiency gains in claim processing might slightly reduce long-term administrative costs for insurers.