Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4892813
Abstract:
The authors investigated how the use of bankruptcy as an implicit health insurance varies across households, focusing on heterogeneity by asset holdings, race, marital status, and educational attainment. Using a difference-in-differences design based on the 2005 bankruptcy reform, the authors found that the reform modestly increased health insurance coverage among middle-income households unlikely to lose assets under Chapter 7, with stronger effects for married and less educated households. The reform primarily affected White households, suggesting racial disparities in bankruptcy use. Treated households also showed increased healthcare utilization and spending. These heterogeneous effects highlight how the reform may have deepened existing health and financial inequalities.
Commentary:
The recently released paper “Debtor Protection and Health Insurance: Evidence From Personal Bankruptcy Reform” adds rigorous empirical support to something consumer bankruptcy lawyers have understood intuitively for decades: for a meaningful slice of middle-class households, bankruptcy functions as a form of implicit health insurance. When that protection is weakened, families respond—sometimes by purchasing or retaining health insurance, and sometimes by forgoing care or absorbing greater financial risk.
Using the 2005 BAPCPA reforms as a natural experiment, the authors show that tightening access to Chapter 7 modestly increased private health insurance coverage—but only for a narrow group: middle-income households with few or no non-exempt assets, particularly married and less-educated households. At the same time, the reform increased health-care utilization and spending, largely through private insurance rather than out-of-pocket payments.
The takeaway is not that BAPCPA “worked,” but that bankruptcy protections and health insurance are substitutes at the margin. Reduce one, and households scramble—if they can—to shore up the other.
1. Policy Implications: Why This Paper Strengthens the Case for Higher Bankruptcy Exemptions
Particularly from a North Carolina policy perspective, this paper is gasoline on a fire that has already been smoldering for years.
Bankruptcy exemptions are health policy
The authors confirm that asset exemptions matter. The households most affected by BAPCPA were those who did not expect to lose property in Chapter 7. In other words, bankruptcy provided a credible safety net only because exemptions were sufficient to protect basic household stability. When that safety net was weakened, households responded by reallocating risk—often at significant cost.
This matters enormously in a state like North Carolina, where:
- Homestead, vehicle, and wildcard exemptions lag well behind inflation;
- Medical debt remains a dominant driver of financial distress; and
- Health insurance coverage is increasingly fragile as premiums rise and subsidies phase out.
If bankruptcy operates as implicit health insurance, then inadequate exemptions are effectively a cut to consumer health protection, especially for families living one diagnosis away from insolvency.
The ACA subsidy cliff makes this urgent
The paper’s findings land at exactly the wrong moment for consumers. With Affordable Care Act subsidies expiring or shrinking, many middle-income households face sharply higher premiums. The paper suggests that when formal insurance becomes less affordable, families will predictably lean more heavily on bankruptcy as a risk-management tool—unless bankruptcy itself is made less protective.
That combination—weaker insurance support and weak exemptions—is a recipe for deeper inequality, delayed care, and worse financial outcomes. The authors explicitly warn that BAPCPA’s effects “extended well beyond filing behavior,” reshaping health and financial inequality.
A clear legislative lesson
For legislators, especially in North Carolina, the message is straightforward:
Raising exemptions is not a giveaway. It is a stabilizer.
Adequate exemptions reduce the need for households to make destructive tradeoffs between health, debt, and shelter. This paper provides empirical backing for what consumer advocates have long argued: bankruptcy policy is inseparable from health policy, whether lawmakers acknowledge it or not.
2. Practice Guidance: What Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys Should Do with This Data
This paper is not just academic. It should meaningfully shape how consumer bankruptcy attorneys identify risk, counsel clients, and prepare cases—especially in the coming ACA transition period.
Spotting clients at heightened risk
The households most sensitive to changes in bankruptcy protection look very familiar:
- Middle-income families,
- Limited non-exempt assets,
- Often married,
- Often without a college degree,
- Reliant on employer-based insurance or ACA plans.
When such clients present with:
- Rising medical debt,
- Lapsed or downgraded health insurance,
- Hesitation to seek care due to cost,
That is a bankruptcy red flag, not just a budgeting issue.
Health insurance belongs in the intake—and the Means Test
The paper reinforces the importance of health insurance as a core component of bankruptcy analysis, not an afterthought.
Under 11 U.S.C. § 707(b)(2)(A)(ii)(I), debtors are entitled to deduct the cost of “reasonably necessary” health insurance. As premiums rise post-subsidy, that deduction will matter more, not less. Consumer attorneys should:
- Rigorously document actual premium costs,
- Anticipate increases when subsidies expire,
- Push back on artificial caps or skepticism about “reasonableness.”
This research supports the argument that health insurance is not discretionary consumption—it is a risk-management necessity, especially when bankruptcy protections have already been narrowed.
Counseling beyond the petition
Perhaps most importantly, the paper validates a broader counseling role for bankruptcy attorneys. The authors show that insurance coverage increases preventive care and reduces out-of-pocket exposure. That means:
- Advising clients on maintaining coverage post-discharge is part of competent representation;
- Timing of filing may matter when insurance transitions are imminent;
- Chapter choice and exemption planning intersect directly with health-care access.
In short, bankruptcy lawyers are already operating at the intersection of health, debt, and family stability. This paper simply provides the data to prove it.
Bottom Line:
This study confirms what decades of consumer practice have revealed: bankruptcy fills gaps left by a fragmented and expensive health-insurance system. When lawmakers weaken bankruptcy protections without strengthening health coverage, households absorb the shock—unevenly, and often painfully.
For North Carolina, the policy lesson is clear: raising exemptions is a necessary response to rising medical and insurance costs, not an indulgence. For practitioners, the lesson is equally clear: health insurance status is bankruptcy analysis, especially as ACA subsidies fade and premiums climb.
The law may pretend these systems are separate. This paper shows they never were.
With proper attribution, please share.
To read a copy of the transcript, please see:
Blog comments