Has anyone come across age-specific advice giving details on how young adult eligibility and premiums will be figured through the exchanges?
Consider this no-so-hypothetical ER scenario...
Married parents are in their 50's, with DH's employment HI providing family coverage for the couple. There is a 19-year-old child in college and another self-sufficient 24 y.o. child presently qualifying for the "under 26 on his parents policy" provision in the ACA.
If the parents begin early retirement in 2014, from the IRS link posted I think it's clear that just as long as he remains a dependent on the parents tax return the 19 y.o. will be part of the household and therefore an exchange-eligible insured as part of the family.
It's not so clear for the older child. I have seen information on under-30's being eligible for a lower-premium, high deductible catastrophic policy, for example on the KFF calculator page:
Children and young adults under age 30 are eligible to purchase catastrophic coverage. Catastrophic coverage does not provide coverage for essential health benefits until you reach the annual limit on cost sharing ($12,500 in 2014).
The reason I ask is the Colorado / Berkeley and KFF calculators have very different input screens for children. KFF has a single check-box for "children 20 and younger". The other calculator has one box for "under 21" and a second for "children 21-15".
I ran a scenario on the Colorado calculator for a 3-person, $60,000 household with two 55 y.o.'s and a 19 y.o. The premium after subsidy was $475 /mo. ($1468 unsubsidized). Adding in a 24 y.o. while keeping the rest of the entries the same, the unsubsidized premium goes to $1756 and the premium after subsidy remains $475.
Restating these numbers, the government subsidy covers 100% of the 24 y.o.'s incremental cost of $288.
When I plug in a solo 24 y.o. at $20,000 income I get a $288 unsubsidized Silver premium, but the 24 y.o.'s premium after subsidy is $85.
I found no data on catastrophic policy premiums, but it's won't be zero.
My takeaway: I cannot see a scenario where it makes sense to do anything other than keep a 24 y.o. on the family policy.