OK, I could be dead wrong about this; if so, I've provided a second Hobby Lobby-related item to justify having this blog entry. Let me put the 2nd item out there just in case:
The Washington State Insurance Commissioner just issued an interesting immediate response to the SCOTUS Hobby Lobby decision...interesting, because I'm a bit surprised that a state insurance commissioner (which I generally thought of as a fairly non-partisan job...although this jackass from Georgia obviously proved me wrong on that one) would post something like this, especially so quickly:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – June 30, 2014
Media contact: Public Affairs (360) 725-7055
Kreidler: Supreme Court dealt a blow to women’s reproductive rights today
OLYMPIA, Wash. – Today, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling that threatens women’s access to contraceptives in Burwell vs. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.
Let’s start with this howler: “Actually, the Obama administration never said that they’d reach 7 million paying customers by March 31st.”Seriously? Has Mr. Gaba really not read the September 5, 2013 memo from Marilyn Tavenner (chief of Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services) titled Projected Monthly Enrollment Targets for Health Insurance Marketplaces in 2014? Table 2b of that memo clearly shows an enrollment target of 7,066,000 for March 31, 2014. End of story.
The other day, Paul Krugman posted a short blog entry over at the New York Times in which he laid out 6 of the biggest anti-ACA attack points which have been, in his view, completely obliterated by reality:
1) "No one will sign up!"
2) "But how many have PAID????"
3) "OMG!! 5MM POLICIES CANCELLED!!!"
4) Rate Shock
5) "Not enough YOUNG INVINCIBLES to avoid a DEATH SPIRAL!"
6) "Overall healthcare costs will skyrocket!!"
In response, Chris Conover has posted a piece over at Forbes which claims to rebut Prof. Krugman point by point, basically calling him full of beans on 4 points and "generously" giving him a split decision on 2 others.
The other day, Paul Krugman posted a short blog entry over at the New York Times in which he laid out 6 of the biggest anti-ACA attack points which have been, in his view, completely obliterated by reality:
1) "No one will sign up!"
2) "But how many have PAID????"
3) "OMG!! 5MM POLICIES CANCELLED!!!"
4) Rate Shock
5) "Not enough YOUNG INVINCIBLES to avoid a DEATH SPIRAL!"
6) "Overall healthcare costs will skyrocket!!"
In response, Chris Conover has posted a piece over at Forbes which claims to rebut Prof. Krugman point by point, basically calling him full of beans on 4 points and "generously" giving him a split decision on 2 others.
Today, Maryland issued their latest report, which brings their data up through May 31st. After entering the new data, the overall projection chart has jumped dramatically and now stands at between 270K - 360K per month:
As I noted this morning, the Maryland Health Exchange has released an updated enrollment report running through the end of May (the June report will be out at the end of July):
As of May 31, 300,310 individuals have gained Medicaid coverage in 2014 and remain active in Medicaid. This includes the 95,889 PAC enrollees who were automatically converted on January 1, 2014 to full Medicaid coverage.
As of May 31, 72,207 individuals have enrolled in a qualified health plan.
Compared with the previous report, MD had a 4,300 QHP increase from 5/10 - 5/31, and an increase of 4,450 since the end of the open enrollment period. This means that they're averaging around 106 per day, or 31% of their average rate during open enrollment...which has had a significant impact on the Off-Season Projection Chart that I started posting yesterday (as you can see, MD had been only running 2% of the OE rate until now).
The Obama administration on Thursday plans to issue much-anticipated instructions for Americans to reenroll for next year in the new federal health insurance marketplace — a set of rules intended to make it easy for consumers but that nevertheless will require some people to reapply through HealthCare.gov to preserve their subsidies or coverage.
Under the rules, people will need to do very little to remain in their health plans if their incomes and covered family members are not changing and their plans are offered again for 2015.
All 17 of the insurance companies participating in the federal ACA exchange this fall for Year Two of open enrollment have released their preliminary rate requests for 2015. It's important to stress preliminary, since the rates still have to be approved by the HHS Dept.Update: State insurance commissioner.
There could be some sticker shock, but some welcomed price cuts as well, when consumers go shopping for insurance this fall on the Michigan Health Insurance Marketplace, according to numbers the state released earlier today.
Overall, it appears that Michigan’s proposed average rate increase of just 2.2% is modest compared to changes in some other states, according to an ongoing analysis by consultant PricewaterhouseCoopers that so far has compared insurance pricing on more than a dozen state marketplaces.
That means the average premium cost in Michigan — $326.74 — remains lower than the national average premium of $360.
...At least four companies propose boosting premiums 9% or more, while others plan to slash those monthly costs by double-digit percentages. (See table: 2015 Michigan health insurance rates)
I gave a general overview of the reasoning behind my 200K - 300K per month off-season QHP enrollment estimate a couple of weeks ago, but I didn't get around to actually plugging the numbers into a spreadsheet and running the calculations until today. Here's where things currently stand:
As you can see, just as I did with my enrollment period projections (which were consistently proven to be 99%+ accurate), I'm using the data provided by the state-run exchanges since April 19th as the basis for my "off-season" projections. Unfortunately, not only is the HHS Dept. refusing to provide their monthly enrollment reports during the off season (which I've ranted about several times), but New York isn't doing so either (I already asked), and so far there's no word from California, Connecticut, Rhode Island or Vermont.
