New Analysis Finds Leading State-Based Marketplaces Have Performed Well, and Highlights the Impact of the Federal Mandate Penalty Removal
The report examines the impact that federal and state actions have had on state-based marketplaces and the federally facilitated marketplace (FFM).
Cumulative premium increases in California, Massachusetts and Washington are less than half of the increases seen in FFM states, but 2019 premium increases spiked in California and Washington compared to Massachusetts, which continued its state-based penalty.
WASHINGTON D.C. — A new report highlights the benefits of state-based exchanges, particularly in the areas of controlling premium costs and attracting new enrollment. The report, which was produced by Covered California, the Massachusetts Health Connector and the Washington Health Benefit Exchange, found that premiums in these states were less than half of what consumers saw in the 39 states that relied on the federally facilitated marketplace (FFM) between 2014 and 2019.
It's been pretty obvious for the past two years that the states which fully control their own ACA exchanges (including their own marketing and outreach budgets and their own exchange website platform) seem to be outperforming the states hosted by the federal exchange, HealthCare.Gov, in terms of open enrollment numbers year after year.
However, this can be a bit tricky to compare because some of the states have shifted back and forth...four states which ran their own platform for the first one to three years (Hawaii, Kentucky, Nevada and Oregon) moved home to the mothership in later years, while one state (Idaho) did the reverse--they stuck with HC.gov for 2014 but then broke off onto their own platform after that.