Charles Gaba's blog

via the Connecticu Insurance Dept:

Health Insurance Rate filings for 2020

The Connecticut Insurance Department has posted the initial proposed health insurance rate filings for the 2020 individual and small group markets. There are 14 filings made by 10 health insurers for plans that currently cover about 242,000 people.

Two carriers – Anthem and ConnectiCare Benefits Inc. (CBI) – have filed rates for both individual and small group plans that will be marketed through Access Health CT, the state-sponsored health insurance exchange.

The 2020 rate proposals for the individual market are on average lower than last year while the small group market is on average slightly higher than last year.

Graphic credit to @MikeEMort

So, earlier today, as I've been hyping for several weeks now, I participated in a healthcare panel at Netroots Nation with five other healthcare activists: Laura Packard, Elena Hung, Matt Cortland, Dr. Sanjeev Sriram (aka "Dr. America") and German Parodi. It was even livestreamed via Facebook (you can watch the replay here, and you can download a full PDF version of the slideshow).

For the most part it went pretty well--we had a pretty full house and only went a bit over time, which is pretty impressive given that we were trying to cram about 10 hours' worth of wonky data about three different healthcare policies and a federal lawsuit into a single hour. The feedback I received from both those in attendance as well as comments on Twitter and Facebook from people who watched the livestream seemed extremely positive.

However, there was one incident which marred the event, and it was my fault.

The Minnesota Commerce Dept. just posted their preliminary 2020 Individual and Small Group rate changes. The actual rate changes are pretty straightforward...a mere 1.6% average rate increase on the ACA Individual Market, and a 5.5% increase on the Small Group market.

Unfortunately, the actual effectuated enrollment for each carrier (which I use to calculate the weighted average) was provided in either the MN Commece website post or even in the currently-available raw SERFF rate filing forms, so I had to put together estimates based on last year's market share numbers, modified for 2019 based on the on-exchange portion of the total enrollment for the Indy market (for the small group market I just went with the straight 2018 shares).

OK, it feels a bit surreal to post about California's 2020 ACA premiums--and especially mentioning the fact that they're reinstating the ACA individual mandate penalty at the state level--on the very same day that the entire ACA itself is on the brink of complete oblivion (again), due specifically TO the fact that Congressional Republicans repealed the federal mandate penalty..

And yet, here we are:

California’s Initiatives Will Lead to Hundreds of Thousands Gaining Health Care Coverage With Lower Premiums and New Financial Help

In March 2019, Linda J. Blumberg, Matthew Buettgens, John Holahan and Clare Wang Pan of the Urban Institute ran a detailed analysis to determine what the impact on healthcare coverage would be in every state if the Texas vs. U.S. lawsuit (aka Texas vs. Azar or #TexasFoldEm) caused the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (ACA) to be repealed with immediate effect.

They also attempted to calculate how much federal funding every state would lose each year if the ACA were to be repealed. Nationally, they concluded that the U.S uninsured rate would increase by nearly 20 million people, while the 50 states (+DC) would collectively lose out on nearly $135 billion in federal funding.

A few months back I posted a request for folks to vote for a healthcare panel I was hoping to be included at this summer's Netroots Nation conference in Philadelphia.

I'm happy to report that our panel did indeed make the final cut, and will be happening this Friday, July 12th:

FIX THE DAMN HEALTHCARE: SORTING OUT ACA 2.0, MFA, MED4AM AND MORE!

  • Friday, Jul. 12 4:30 PM, Room: 118C

The healthcare landscape is confusing and exciting in 2019. Reining in Big Pharma, strengthening the ACA, adding public options, “Medicare for America” or “Medicare for All”… the alphabet soup of plans can be confusing. Can improvements be implemented before 2021 at the federal level or is it all up to the states? And what about the latest lawsuit looming over everything? We’ll go beyond the slogans and into the details: How are the proposals similar and different, and what do patients, caregivers and other invested parties think.

Over the past few years I've had a somewhat contentious relationship with some die-hard single payer/"Medicare for All" activists over the feasibility, logistical practicality, fiscal and political realities and so forth of transitioning to a "pure" universal single payer healthcare system versus other healthcare expansion/improvement measures.

However, I've also developed great relationships with a few M4All activists, including friendships.

With that in mind, I wanted to share with you the story of Rebecca Wood and her adorable daughter Charlie. I've had the opportunity to meet Rebecca twice and Charlie once so far, and they're both remarkable people.

This Just In from the Delaware Insurance Dept...

Dover, DE -- Highmark Blue Cross Blue Shield of Delaware (Highmark BCBS) has submitted its required annual rate filing to the Delaware Department of Insurance. After years of substantial increases, Delaware’s Marketplace has stabilized and premiums have decreased. Highmark BCBS, the only insurer continuing to offer insurance coverage in Delaware’s individual market, has proposed a 5.8% decrease for 2020. The proposed 2020 rate decrease will affect over 20,000 Delawareans.

The decrease comes after last year’s 3% rate increase and the Department’s decision to silver load. By applying the rate increase to silver level plans only, a practice known as ‘silver-loading,’ Delaware’s Marketplace received more federal subsidies, helping to assist in stabilizing the market and lowering premiums.

via University of Michigan Law Professor and all-around mensch Nicholas Bagley (this is all via Twitter...I've reformatted to clean it up a bit):

The Justice Department has filed its supplemental brief with the Fifth Circuit. In it, the Department clarifies that a case or controversy still exists because, "critically," the government "continues to enforce the ACA."

The Justice Department nonetheless thinks that neither the House of Representatives nor the blue states have standing. And if the Fifth Circuit dismisses the appeal, the Department says that O'Connor's opinion should *not* be vacated.

Significantly, the Justice Department now says that it will continue to enforce the ACA "pending a final judicial determination of the constitutionality of the individual mandate as well as the severability of the ACA's other provisions."

Huh. This is an interesting development...

Republican attorneys general suing to strike down the Affordable Care Act asked the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to delay oral arguments in the case, which are set to take place on July 9.

The Republican states said they need more time to file a supplemental brief on whether the U.S. House of Representatives and the Democratic states that are defending the landmark healthcare law have standing to intervene in the case and if not, what that means for the appeal. The Republican attorneys general asked to extend the July 3 deadline to file the brief by 20 days and reschedule oral arguments for after that date.

...The Democratic states and the House urged the court to deny the request, arguing that moving ahead with the case would reduce uncertainty in the healthcare sector.

...except that the court has already responded with a big, fat bucket of Nope:

Pages

Advertisement