(sigh) I thought the dust had settled on the Risk Corridor Massacre, but apparently not:

~67,000 need to find new 2016 coverage, SC DOI tells me. CCHP is the ninth co-op to announce closure so far.

— Rachel S. Karas (@rachelkaras) October 22, 2015

Consumers’ Choice Health Insurance Company Agrees to Wind Down Its Operations

COLUMBIA, SC – Consumers’ Choice Health Insurance Company (Consumers’ Choice) has agreed to a voluntary run-off and will not offer health insurance coverage in 2016.

“This was a difficult decision for the insurer and this agency, but this is what is in the best interests of South Carolina consumers and health care providers,” said Ray Farmer, Director of the South Carolina Department of Insurance.

“The recent announcement of a risk corridor reimbursement of just 12.6% cast doubt on the collectability of tens of millions of dollars through the federal risk corridor program and led to an unavoidable outcome,” said Jerry Burgess, President and CEO of Consumers’ Choice.

Wyoming

12 days ago, private Wyoming health insurer WINhealth, in business since 1996, was among the 5 (and counting) victims of the horrific Risk Corridor Massacre, which has already taken the lives of at least 4 ACA-created CO-OP insurers:

WINhealth sent along this release saying: As of October 8, 2015, WINhealth has chosen not to participate in the individual market, to include the federal exchange, for the 2016 plan year. The decision not to participate stems from a recent announcement from the federal government regarding the risk corridor program .

UPDATE: I'm promoting this to the top of the front page for a bit. I didn't think this particular bit of nonsense from the Heritage Foundation would gain much traction because it sounded so absurd, but it apparently is being spewed via FOX News, Hot Air and other right-wing outlets, so debunking it has taken on a higher priority. I've also tidied up some of the wording for better readability.

Before I get into this, let me make one thing clear: I have made plenty of factual data mistakes myself over the past two years, and there have been times when I've made overzealous claims which were later proven to be false.

I posted about the House v. Burwell federal lawsuit (aka "The Return of the King...vs. Burwell", or "King v. Burwell Part 2") twice before: First in July (only a week after the Supreme Court's King vs. Burwell decision), and then again in early September:

Nick Bagley, a University of Michigan law professor, said it's not an "earth shattering surprise" that the court is allowing part of the lawsuit to go forward.

But the judge also opened a pathway to the part of the lawsuit that could be most damaging to the law, he said.

"Holding that the administration lacks the authority to cover the cost of those reductions would create a real mess on the ground," Bagley said.

"It inserts the court into the middle of a political food fight," he said.

When I updated my #OE3 state-level enrollment projections yesterday, I came across this official projection for #OE3 from Your Health Idaho's Sept. 18th board meeting minutes:

Rep. Rusche asked what our target enrollment is for this cycle and what barriers we see in making those targets. Mr. Kelly said the team is focused on the 80% goal of 92,000 as our enrollment target.Premium increases are a potential barrier. Net premium is a relatively small increase for most consumers, and each consumer will experience something different depending Page 5 of 14 on their plan, their location, their carrier, etc. We feel that while the premiums are increasing the relatively small net premium increase will mitigate this barrier to a large degree.

When I asked for clarification, they informed me that:

We currently have 86,659 effectuated enrollments with Your Health Idaho, as of September 15. The 92,000 would also refer to effectuated enrollments.

Last week I noted that AccessHealthCT, the Connecticut ACA exchange, reported that as of October 1st, they had exactly 95,601 people enrolled in effectuated exchange policies.

This article in the Hartford Courant gives additional, up-to-date data on CT's insurance coverage rate:

Connecticut has its lowest percentage of people without health care coverage ever, according to Lt. Gov. Nancy Wyman and Access Health CT.

Access Health, the state's Obamacare exchange, said 3.8 percent of Connecticut residents, or 137,000 people, are without any form of health insurance.

The U.S. Census reported in September that the number of uninsured Connecticut residents fell sharply in 2014, by 85,000 to 245,000, or 6.9 percent. That was down from 9.4 percent in 2013.

The Census number is the lowest figure it has reported in at least 20 years, and Access Health said its number — determined through an analysis of 2015 coverage by Acturus of Farmington — is an all-time low.

As I noted in my #OE3 projection methodology breakdown the other day, among the 32.3 million uninsured individuals in the country, around 4.9 million of them aren't legally allowed to receive federal financial assistance (tax credits/CSR) to enroll via the ACA exchanges because they already have a standing offer of ACA-compliant health insurance from their employers, but have (so far) refused to sign up for said coverage. The New York Times explains why many of them haven't done so:

But 10 months after the first phase of the mandate took effect, covering companies with 100 or more workers, many business owners say they are finding very few employees willing to buy the health insurance that they are now compelled to offer. The trend is especially pronounced among smaller and midsize businesses in fields filled with low-wage hourly workers, like restaurants, retailing and hospitality.

Two big ACA-related stories in the New York Times this morning; each is worthy of a full entry, but I don't have time today so I'm lumping them together:

First up: The Times' editorial board has blasted the GOP over the CO-OP failure debacle. They give a concise summary of how the CO-OPs were created and why they're facing so many problems now:

[GOP critics] neglect to mention that the nonprofit plans, known as health insurance cooperatives, were created as a weak, underfunded alternative to a much stronger option that the Republicans blocked from passage.

...Their problems have been attributed to wrong estimates for how many people might enroll and to setting premiums too low to cover the cost of care, as well as severe reductions in the amount of money available to the co-ops from federal loans and for risk adjustment payments, both the result of Republican opposition to supporting the plans.

Just 3 days ago, Colorado HealthOP was stunned by the announcement by the state insurance division that they were pulling the plug on the ACA-established CO-OP:

Dear Member,

It is with a heavy heart that I write to you today. This morning, the Colorado Division of Insurance (DOI)announced Colorado HealthOP will not be selling plans through the Connect for Health Colorado marketplace.

Please be assured that, as a Colorado HealthOP member, your coverage will remain in effect through December 31, 2015, so long as you continue to pay premiums. In two weeks, on November 1, 2015, the Connect for Health Colorado marketplace will open and you will have the opportunity to find another health insurance provider that will begin coverage for you on January 1, 2016.

Needless to say, we are astonished and disappointed by the DOI’s decision. We believe it is both irresponsible and premature.

Pages

Advertisement