Last year, Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) warned that the implementation of President Obama’s health-care law would be a “train wreck.” He was right. The cost and confusion continue to mount as Americans face greater financial burdens and fewer health-care choices. Instead of lower premiums, which the President promised would drop by $2,500 on average, families and individuals are spending more of their hard-earned dollars on health-care coverage.

The sticker shock will only worsen. In recent weeks, several states have announced preliminary estimates for next year’s premiums. The Wall Street Journal reports that many of these states’ largest health insurers plan to increase premiums between 8.5 percent and 22.8 percent. For many Americans, this means either paying more or losing coverage completely. Although the Obama Administration has tried to downplay costs, the increases are yet another example of the health-care law’s failure to live up to its advertising.

Lack of Competition

States with low enrollment among young adults and with few insurers in their exchanges are particularly vulnerable to higher premiums next year. In Mississippi, where 94 percent of enrollees are eligible for federal subsidies, there is little competition to drive down rates. According to this year’s numbers, our state already has the third-highest premiums in the country.

Competition cannot flourish when the government is involved in setting mandates for benefits and controlling rates. Without market-based reforms, consumers lose out on choice and cost.

Bipartisan Reform

One important reform to the President’s health-care law could involve the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program. The program penalizes hospitals based on readmission rates, unfairly targeting many Mississippi hospitals that provide high-quality care to low-income populations. Often these patients cannot afford outside care or do not have access to it.

A bipartisan bill I have introduced with Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), and Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) would change the way the government determines readmission penalties. Under our proposal, hospitals serving vulnerable populations would be given more flexibility. This would reform the law’s one-size-fits-all approach to reflect the needs of patients and the care offered by providers.

Impact on Women

One part of the Obamacare law was recently overturned by the Supreme Court, which ruled that closely-held, family-owned businesses should not be forced by the federal government to pay for emergency contraceptives if it violates their religious beliefs. I applauded this decision because I do not believe the government has the right to make Americans violate their religious convictions. The court ruling was based on a statute protecting religious liberty and has little to do with a woman’s access to contraception.

In truth, it is the Obamacare law itself that is causing disproportionate harm to American women. For example, women are more likely to pay higher out-of-pocket costs under plans with high deductibles because they typically visit the doctor more. As 57 percent of the part-time workforce, they are also more likely to have their hours cut because of the employer mandate. Additionally, the law’s limited physician networks have forced many women to choose different specialists and doctors for their children.

Women make approximately 80 percent of health-care decisions in their family. More choices and lower costs are important to giving them the flexibility they need to choose the right health-care plan. Obamacare has made these decisions more difficult. Congress must pursue patient-centered policies that produce truly affordable and accessible health care.