Ultimately, the blame lies with the voters for failing to care about their own interests, but I do want to say one thing about Democratic candidate Jack Conway's campaign.
Last month, HealthCare.Gov announced that they'd be including several handy new tools in their Window Shopping database. Some are working already, but a few were held back due to not having all the kinks worked out yet. One of those is the much-needed "In Network" tool, to make sure that your preferred doctors, hospitals, specialists etc. are all covered by whichever policy you're interested in for 2016.
Beginning today, HealthCare.gov is piloting a new beta feature that allows consumers to search plans by their preferred provider or health facility. Some consumers will be part of a pilot that allows them to use the beta Doctor Lookup feature as they compare their coverage options in window shopping or when selecting a plan.
MNsure, the Minnesota ACA exchange (which isn't included in the HC.gov analysis above, of course), just posted their own independent analysis of their 2016 rate offerings, and while the picture is pretty ugly for current enrollees who don't shop around, it's actually pretty damned good for those who do so:
This is a good sign, believe me. HOWEVER, it's important to remember that applications are NOT enrollments, and in fact are not even plan SELECTIONS, which is the main number that I'm keeping track of here.
An application simply means that someone either created an account and filled out their personal info (name, address, age, social security number, etc) or that someone with an existing account updated their personal info (income changes, new baby, whatever) and re-submitted it to the HC.gov website.
Every year, plenty of people (including reporters who should know better) confuse applications with plan selections.
I'm not name-dropping for the heck of it here; my point is that I've been a little jumpy about that particular projection (12-13% overall) getting so much attention because I honestly had no clue how accurate it was.
HELENA, Mont. (AP) — Montana will become the 30th state to expand its Medicaid program after federal health officials on Monday approved provisions that include requiring beneficiaries to pay premiums that amount to 2 percent of their income.
Gov. Steve Bullock announced the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' approval of the federal waiver needed for state officials to start enrollment this fall and begin coverage on Jan. 1.
The governor's office has said 70,000 people or more would be eligible for coverage under the expansion, but legislative fiscal analysts predicted about 45,700 would actually participate over the next four years.
Actually, if the past 2 years of Medicaid expansion in the other 29 states are any guide, Montana will probably hit 50-60K easily within the first year. Many other states ended up maxing out by the end of 2014.
I've mentioned tomorrow's Kentucky gubernatorial election, and the fact that Republican candidate Matt Bevin is not just a staunch opponent of the ACA (not exactly a shocker) but that he's repeatedly stated that if elected, he'd repeal the state's implementation of Medicaid expansion, which is currently providing healthcare coverage for about 400,000 people (around 350K enrolled in 2014, and another 50K or so this year).
However, I was a bit shocked this morning when I realized that I've only mentioned the KY race in passing via my "Short Cuts" link roundups.
With the election just one day away and my plate filled with other OE3-related stuff, I don't really have time to do a full write-up. Fortunately, John Oliver of Last Week Tonight has done an excellent job of explaining the whole situation (there's actually three state elections tomorrow where Medicaid expansion is theoretically an issue, but Kentucky is the only one where it's at risk of being taken away). Watch the whole thing:
I've given a lot of interviews to various media outlets over the past 2 years. Most of them are fairly neutral ideologically; some are obviously left-of-center; and once in a blue moon, I'll even provide input to a right-of-center outlet which seems to be intellectually honest about how they present themselves.
Until today, the only anti-ACA media outlet I've ever trusted to be honest about how they present my work is, ironically, one which has also not only mangled my data in the past but which once actually posted a hit job on me, insinuating that I was "cooking my books" in some sort of collaboration with the HHS Dept. to try and "hide" the infamous DentalGate debacle a year ago. The irony, of course, is that not only was this utter bullshit, I was actually the one who discovered and reported the "missing" exchange enrollment problem in the first place. I reported that exchange QHPs had likely dropped to 6.8 million or lower in October beforeAlex Wayne broke the "DentalGate" story a week or so later. (Wayne's story was still a genuine scoop, however; I knew the numbers didn't match up, but I had no idea why until he wrote his story about CMS inadvertantly double-counting several hundred thousand standalone dental plans).
The thing is, while Investor's Business Daily is mostly full of shit, they do have one honest reporter by the name of Jed Graham, who I actually have a lot of respect for. For instance, just yesterday he wrote a story about the same topic (how much have effectuated exchange QHPs dropped since June) in which he cites my work properly:
