via the Oklahoma Insurance Dept:

Oklahoma Consumers to Have More Health Options for 2021 ACA Plans

OKLAHOMA CITY – Insurance Commissioner Glen Mulready announced today the 2021 preliminary rate filings for health insurance plans under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Insurers that currently offer coverage through the Oklahoma Marketplace filed plans requesting average statewide increases of 2.7 percent.

The same three insurers that offered individual health plans on the 2020 Exchange will return for 2021 — Blue Cross Shield of Oklahoma (BCBSOK) , Bright Health and Medica Insurance Company. In addition, Oscar Health, UnitedHealthCare (UHC) and CommunityCare Oklahoma (CCOK) will join the marketplace in Oklahoma for 2021 allowing consumers to have more choices. BCBSOK and Medica offer statewide plans while Bright Health, CCOK, Oscar and UHC serve limited areas of the state.

Moderate rate increase requests and new insurers looking to offer plans in Oklahoma revealed that the Oklahoma insurance market is stable and able to offer multiple health insurance options for all Oklahomans.

I've written several times about how Republican Senator Cory Gardner of Colorado has repeatedly shown sickening levels of chutzpah and gaslighting when it comes to the Affordable Care Act:

In a pathetic attempt to gaslight Colorado voters, Gardner is now trying to paint himself as supporting healthcare expansion, going so far as to try to claim credit for passage and approval of last year's Section 1332 Reinsurance Waiver program which dramatically reduced premiums for unsubsidized individual market enrollees throughout Colorado...even though a) he didn't have a damned thing to do with it and b) the reinsurance program was only able to be developed thanks to the Affordable Care Act...which Gardner has repeatedly voted to repeal.

The data below comes from the GitHub data repositories of Johns Hopkins University, execpt for Rhode Island, Utah and Wyoming, which come from the GitHub data of the New York Times due to the JHU data being incomplete for these three states. Some data comes directly from state health department websites.

This week there are two important changes to the list:

• First, the Johns Hopkins Github archive has finally started breaking out New York City's data into the five separate boroughs/counties

• Second, I've finally gone through and separated out swing districts. I'm defining these as any county which where the difference between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton was less than 6 percentage points either way in 2016. There's a total of 198 Swing Counties using this criteria (out of over 3,200 total), containing around 38.5 million Americans out of over 330 million nationally, or roughly 11.6% of the U.S. population.

With these updates in mind, here's the top 100 counties ranked by per capita COVID-19 cases as of Saturday, September 5th (click image for high-res version). Blue = Hillary Clinton won by more than 6 points; Orange = Donald Trump won by more than 6 points; Yellow = Swing District

Way back in April (a lifetime ago, I realize), I noted that my prediction from over a year ago regarding the massive Medical Loss Ratio rebates which would likely be paid out this year to 2019 individual market enrollees was dead on target:

If you use Anderson's 7% and assume the final, national weighted average for 2020 comes in at around 0.5%, that means roughly 6.5% of that $93.2 billion could end up having to be rebated to enrollees....or potentially 1/3 of up to $6 billion.

The three-year rolling average means that the actual amount paid out would be 1/3 of that...perhaps $2 billion in September 2020.

Back in March & April, I wrote a lot about COVID-19 Special Enrollment Periods...and especially about the fact that the largest ACA exchange of all, HealthCare.Gov, kept refusing to do so in spite of massive pressure from governors, members of Congress and nearly every advocacy group under the sun, as well as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and even the health insurance industry itself...which is especially remarkable given that it was BCBSA & AHIP who insisted on cracking down on Special Enrollment Periods in the first place a few years earlier.

On March 31st, I posted the following:

As I just noted with my Arizona post, the federal Rate Review database website heavily redacts the rate filing forms submitted by insurance carriers, making it impossible to run a weighted average even when all of the individual and small group market carrier rate change requests are readily available.

Fortunately, in the case of Florida, the Office of Insurance Regulation has at least provided the weighted average for me in each market, even though they still hide the actual enrollment numbers for each carrier:

The good news is that the federal Rate Review database has now posted the preliminary avg. 2021 rate filings for the individual and small group markets for every state. This makes it very easy to plug in the average requested rate changes in 2021 for every carrier participating in both markets.

The bad news is that most of the underlying filing forms are heavily redacted, meaning I can't use the RR database to acquire the other critical data I need in order to run a proper weighted average: The number of people actually enrolled in the policies for each carrier.

This means that in cases where this data isn't available elsewhere (either the state's insurance department website, the SERFF database or otherwise), I'm limited to running an unweighted average. This can make a huge difference...if one carrier is requesting a 10% increase and the other is keeping prices flat, that's a 5.0% unweighted average rate hike...but if the first carrier has 99,000 enrollees and the second only has 1,000, that means the weighted average is actually 9.9%.

The data below comes from the GitHub data repositories of Johns Hopkins University, execpt for Rhode Island, Utah and Wyoming, which come from the GitHub data of the New York Times due to the JHU data being incomplete for these three states. Some data comes directly from state health department websites.

Here's the top 100 counties ranked by per capita COVID-19 cases as of Saturday, August 29th (click image for high-res version):

via the New Hampshire Insurance Dept:

Large Decreases in 2021 Premium Rates Expected in Individual Market

CONCORD, NH – The federal government has published information on proposed rates for New Hampshire’s health insurance exchange (https://ratereview.healthcare.gov/) in 2021.

The New Hampshire Insurance Department is reviewing 2021 forms and rates for individual health plans. For 2020, the second lowest cost silver plan was $404.60. The 2021 second lowest cost silver plan proposed premium rate is $318.95. This represents a 21.2% decrease.

It's important to note that the 21.2% decrease only refers to the difference between the 2020 benchmark and the 2021 benchmark plans. They aren't necessarily from the same carrier, and even if they are, that's not the same as the weighted average rate changes for all policies at all metal levels from all carriers.

Back in late June, I noted that the Maine Insurance Dept. had issued the preliminary 2021 rate filings for the state's individual and small group market carriers. At the time, the individual market carriers were averaging rate reductions of around 4% while the small group carriers were looking to raise premiums by around 6.2%.

It was recently brought to my attention that revised rate filings have been submitted by Maine carriers for 2021...and while these still aren't the final/approved rates, they're significantly lower than the original filings.

Two of the three indy market carriers (Anthem and Harvard Pilgrim) have reduced their rates dramatically. The third (CHO) only reduced theirs by a couple of points, but the net result is that they're now averaging a 13% reduction...9 points lower than the 4 points they were already being knocked down.

The small group market carriers didnt' change their requests by as much, but they're still lower: A 4.4% average increase instead of 6.2%.