I don't write about Idaho much, which is a bit surprising when you think about it because it's kind of a unique state when it comes to the ACA exchanges. Most states never set up their own exchange platform. A dozen or so set them up and are still using them. Two states (Massachusetts and Maryland) scrapped their original, failed platforms and completely overhauled them.

Three states started out with their own platform but gave up when they failed, moving home to the mothership (HealthCare.Gov). One state, New Mexico, was supposed to move off of HC.gov after the first couple of years, but changed their mind and is still hosted by the federal platform. Oh, and there's also Kentucky, which is scheduled to scrap their perfectly-functioning tech platform for absolutely no good reason other than the petty whim of their new Governor, Matt Bevin.

And then there's Idaho.

Idaho is unique for a couple of reasons: Not only is it the only state to start off hosted by HC.gov and then move off of the federal tech platform onto it's own system, it's also the only state running it's own full exchange which hasn't expanded Medicaid as well.

UPDATE 10/27/16: See below for FINAL update (for real!)

UPDATE 10/19/16: As you can see, I've locked in the approved weighted average rate hikes for 40 states plus DC, leaving 10 states to go. I do plan on filling in the remaining approved rate hikes as the data for those 10 states comes in, but at this point it's quite clear that 25% is the magic number. The weighted average has been hovering between the 23-26% range since the first few approvals started being publicized in mid-August, and has stabilized in the 24-25% range for the past month. Over 77% of the total U.S. population is represented by these 40 states (+DC); unless there's some dramatic final rate changes in the remaining 10 states, that national 25% average isn't likely to budge by more than a rounding error.

As proof of this, I assumed that the requested rate hikes are approved exactly as is for all 10 states.

Result? The national, weighted average rate hikes went from 25.25%...to 25.36%.

OK, make that four states in which at least one major carrier has submitted an updated rate filing request since I originally estimated the statewide average.

Back in June, Connecticut's insurance dept. announced that the half-dozen carriers offering individual policies in the state were requesting an average rate hike of 21.3%:

Shortly after that, however, HealthyCT became the latest ACA-created Co-Op to fail, meaning their 16,000 or so current enrollees will have to shop around for new coverage next year. I revised the numbers accordingly and the average request bumped up a bit to 22.2%...

Maryland was one of the first states I ran a weighted average rate request on back in May. At the time, it looked like around a 15.0% average request for the individual market state-wide:

However, as with Arizona and Tennessee, the largest carrier in the state has since submitted revised rate requests:

BALTIMORE – Commissioner Al Redmer, Jr. will be conducting a second public hearing on Monday, August 15th from 11 am – 1 pm at the Maryland Insurance Administration located at 200 St. Paul Place, 24th floor Hearing Room, Baltimore, MD 21202 to receive public input on a revised filing made by CareFirst. On July 26, CareFirst refiled its 2017 proposed rates for the individual market and requested a 27.8% rate increase for HMO plans and a 36.6% rate increase for PPO plans. CareFirst previously requested a 12.0% and 15.3% rate increase, respectively.

I noted back in February that Vermont Health Connect, VT's ACA exchange, has remained essentially silent since last fall, issuing only 2 press releases since Open Enrollment started last November (one of which was about a new plan comparison tool, the other of which was about some sort of Medicaid-related dealine). In other words, they haven't publicized their 2016 enrollment numbers whatsoever...the only reason I have data for VT at all is thanks to the official ASPE reports from the HHS Dept. This is a stunning 180º turnaround from 2015, when they were issuing detailed reports on a regular basis.

I noted a few days ago that the Tennessee Dept. of Insurance is allowing 2 major carriers, Cigna and Humana, to re-submit filings for the 2017 individual market.

I noted at the time,

Cigna and Humana would have to revise their requests up to 50% apiece in order for the statewide average to end up hitting the 60% threshold, but that's not exactly a vote of confidence when it's already in the 56% range to begin with.

Well, neither one quite hit the 50% mark, but they both came close:

In its latest filing, Cigna is proposing an average 46 percent increase — double its first 23 percent increase request.

Humana, which requested a 29 percent average increase in June, is requesting an average 44.3 percent increase, according to a filing with the state regulators.

Here's what that looks like on the weighted average table:

Rhode Island, in addition to being one of the smallest states, is also one of the first states I crunched the rate hike numbers for back in late May. It was actually pretty easy to run a weighted average hike request since there are only 2 carriers even operating on the individual market next year: Blue Cross Blue Shield of RI and Neighborhood Health Plan (UnitedHealthcare is dropping out of the RI indy market entirely, but only has about 1,400 people enrolled to begin with).

Anyway, BCBS was asking for a 9% increase, while Neighborhood is among the very few carriers to actually request a rate decrease...of around 5%. As a result, Rhode Island has the honor of having the lowest average rate hike request of all 50 states (+DC) next year...a mere 3.6% overall, which is awesome.

Well, nearly 3 months later, the RI Insurance Commissioner has weighed in with even more good news: Rates will be going up even less than that in 2017:

Thanks to Dan Goldberg for the heads up:

NY State of Health: The Official Health Plan Marketplace 2016 Open Enrollment Report August 2016

It's a whopping 64 pages long. Some of it is stuff like "how many people speaking Cambodian called the support lines?" (answer: 6) and the like, but there's also a whole bunch of handy data regarding actual healthcare policy/program enrollment in the Empire State. I don't mean to be ungrateful, as this is extremely comprehensive...but it would've been far more useful if the report had included data from the end of March (or even later), as opposed to cutting off at the end of the 2016 Open Enrollment period (January 31st). Due to attrition due to people who never pay their first premium, are denied policies for legal reasons (residency status, etc) and so on, only around 82% of the 272,000 people who selected QHPs in NY during OE3 were still actually enrolled as of two months later. A good 10-12% or so never paid in the first place and another 6-8% were kicked off involuntarily for one reason or another...none of which is reflected in this report.

Still, that aside, let's take a look!

According to the official HHS Dept. ASPE Report, 55,183 New Hampshire residents "selected a Qualified Health Plan" from the ACA exchange during the 2016 Open Enrollment Period.

Of course, as I (and others on both sides of the political spectrum) have written about many, many times, not everyone who selects a QHP (either on or off the exchanges) actually pays their first premium, and therefore is never actually enrolled in an active, effectuated policy. This amounted to roughly 12-13% of all QHP selections in 2014, but got a bit better over the next two years as people got used to how the system works and technical improvements were made. In addition, another chunk of QHP selections were scrapped by the HHS Dept. or state exchanges at later points thorughout 2014 for a variety of reasons ranging from legal residency issues to other data matching problems. Again, this percentage has been gradually whittled down as improvements to the system have been made.

With all the concern about the ACA exchange risk pool being sicker than expected as well as plenty of grumbling about how the ACA's Risk Adjustment program is working out in practice, earlier today Kevin Counihan, the CEO of the Health Insurance Marketplace (i.e., the guy in charge of HealthCare.Gov) posted a blog entry laying out some changes that CMS has in mind for the RA program going forward. It's interesting stuff for health insurance wonks, but to be honest, I was more interested in a different document also released today (referenced in the RA blog):

Changes in ACA Individual Market Costs from 2014-2015: Near-Zero Growth Suggests an Improving Risk Pool