Double enforcement with dual mechanisms creates confusion and undercuts compliance.
Blumberg ’12 [Linda and Lisa Clemans-Cope; December 2012; PhD in Economics from the University of Michigan, former Health Policy Advisor to the Clinton Administration; Senior Fellow in Health Policy at the Urban Institute; Urban Institute for Social and Economic Policy Research, “Reconciling the Massachusetts and Federal Individual Mandates for Health Insurance: A Comparison of Policy Options,” http://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/26301/412718-Reconciling-the-Massachusetts-and-Federal-Individual-Mandates-for-Health-Insurance-A-Comparison-of-Policy-Options.PDF]
Keeping the state’s individual mandate in place alongside the federal mandate beginning in 2014 would avoid all of the concerns detailed above that are associated with the elimination of the MCC standard. However, the potential for double penalties could be widely perceived as being unfair or overly punitive. The different penalties and their application under different circumstances—for example, an individual could satisfy the federal requirements but still face a state penalty—could create significant confusion, particularly if the federal government pursues strong public outreach and education related to the federal law as 2014 approaches. Relying on federally provided information, some households might believe they are complying with all relevant laws when in fact they are not meeting state requirements. Explaining the intersection of the two sets of rules and their components to a broad audience is likely to be challenging.