Yesterday I posted about Healthcare.Gov's new "Rate Review" tool, and how, while it's very handy for seeing which comapanies are trying to jack up their premium rates by more than 10% next year (and allowing public comment on them), it's essentially useless for trying to calculate the overall average rate increase in a given state (or in some cases, even for a given company in that state).

I used Connecticut as an example: The actual statewide, weighted average increase request is around 7.7%, but if you only use the Rate Review database as your source it makes it look like it's over 18%.

Here's an even better example: Washington State.

This isn't quite as big of a shocker as it would have been if The Hill's Sarah Ferris hadn't already posted a related story about a week ago, but it's still a nice scoop by Louise Radnofsky and Stephanie Armour:

Officials from states across the nation flew to Chicago in early May for a secret 24-hour meeting to discuss their options if the Supreme Court rules they have to operate their own exchanges in order for residents to get health-insurance subsidies.

Over the course of an evening reception, a day’s presentations and a Mexican buffet at the O’Hare International Airport’s Hilton hotel, some of those officials concluded their options are likely unworkable.

Unfortunately, for all the Top Secret Urgency, their conclusion was pretty grim...

The new Rate Review searchable database added to Healthcare.Gov should make it much easier to figure out the weighted average rate change requests for every state. It's clean, simple to use, includes all 50 states (plus DC and even throws in U.S. Territories to boot!), lets you filter out transitional policies and pre-2016 years and so on. In addition, the layout is consistent and doesn't require downloading 6,000 page PDF files (!)

Yes, in terms of following the requirements of the HHS Dept, it's very useful for people to look up their particular company in their state, see what their "average" rate increase request is and submit cranky public comments (which will in most cases probably be ignored, but hey, you never know).

Over the past few weeks, I've dug deep into the 2016 individual and small group market rate request filings for about a half-dozen states, including Michigan, DC, Washington State, Oregon, Connecticut, Maryland and Vermont. However, readers may have noticed that I kind of stopped after that, mainly because when I got to Virginia, I found an insane 6,000 page filing request and blanched.

As it happens, Healthcare.Gov has set up a nifty new section devoted to displaying a searchable database of exactly this type of data, RateReview.Healthcare.Gov:

Last week I noted that the HHS Dept. has provided a handy zipcode-by-zipcode spreadsheet of Healthcare.Gov QHP enrollments across all 37 states using the federal exchange.

This has already been proven to be highly useful for things like this Enroll America map which breaks out private exchange enrollment by county, as well as my own entry which provides the tools for breaking out roughly how many people an adverse King v. Burwell ruling would lose their federal tax credits in each state/county/zip code (I've only done this by state; doing the actual county/zip code work would take a tremendous amount of work).

Well, today the Kaiser Family Foundation has whipped up another handy tool:

OK, I kind of stole the headline from Jonathan Cohn, but really, that's all this amounts to:

GOP hits another roadblock on Obamacare repeal

The GOP’s months-long debate over when and how to send a repeal of Obamacare to the president’s desk now appears to have an answer.

They can’t do it all at once.

Repealing the law “root and branch” is probably out of the question, the chamber’s parliamentarian is hinting, because some parts of Obamacare don’t affect the federal budget. That’s a must in order to use the obscure procedure known in Senate parlance as reconciliation, which allows lawmakers to avoid the 60-vote filibuster hurdle and pass bills on a simple majority vote.

That’s not the GOP’s only problem. Under those rules any Obamacare repeal has to reduce — not increase — the deficit. So Republicans will have to pick and choose which parts of the Affordable Care Act they most want to ditch.

How to avoid higher administrative expenses under the ACA: 1. Single payer. 2. Increase loss ratios. 3. Don't give insurance to more people.

— Larry Levitt (@larry_levitt) May 29, 2015

• CALIFORNIA: Scaled-back immigrant healthcare bill clears key fiscal panel

A sweeping measure to offer state-subsidized healthcare coverage to people in the country illegally was significantly pared back Thursday in an effort to rein in costs as it cleared a key legislative hurdle.

Rather than extend Medi-Cal--California's healthcare coverage for the poor--to all eligible adults regardless of immigration status, as originally proposed, the amended bill by state Sen. Ricardo Lara would set up a limited enrollment healthcare program.

• CONNECTICUT: Access Health increases fee on insurers

The board of Connecticut’s health insurance exchange approved a 22 percent hike in the fee it charges insurers to help fund its operations, a cost that’s likely to be passed on to insurance customers.

Over the past 3 weeks, I've written not one, not two, but 5 different lengthy screeds about Luis Lang of Fort Mill, South Carolina.

My first three posts pretty much tore him and his wife to pieces.

The fourth post, written in response to an interview he did with my colleague Harold Pollack over at healthinsurance.org, was a bit more forgiving, but still brought out my nasty snark.

Then, a few days later, Lang dropped the bombshell: He and his wife were renouncing the Republican Party and openly calling for Single Payer healthcare.

Reading this story by Sarah Ferris at The Hill reminded me of the closing scene from Glengarry Glen Ross (starting at around 2:50 in).

WILLIAMSON: Where have you been, Shelly? Bruce and Harriet Nyborg?? Do you want to see the memos...? They're nuts... they used to call in every week. When I was with Webb. And we were selling Arizona...they're nuts...did you see how they were living? How can you delude yourself??

LEVENE: I've got the check...

WILLIAMSON: Forget it. Frame it. It's worthless.

LEVENE: The check is no good?

WILLIAMSON: You stick around; I'll pull the memo. I'm busy now.

LEVENE: Wait a minute...their check's no good? They're nuts...?

WILLIAMSON: You wanna call the bank, Shelly?  I called them.  I called them four months ago when we first got the lead. (pause) The people are insane. (pause) They just like talking...to salesmen.

From the Hill article: