With the latest official enrollment data out of the CMS division of the HHS Dept., I've had to make some modifications to The Graph to make it more accurate.

First, here's the old version, updated through yesterday (click either one to load full-size version in new browser window):

And now, the NEW version!

I talked about this in my "overperformers/underperformers" entry last night, but I think this point got kind of lost in the shuffle, so I'm devoting a full entry to it.

Yesterday's giant data dump from the CMS division of the HHS Dept. noted that as of March 31st, 2015, 6,387,790 people were receiving APTC (Advance Premium Tax Credits) across the 34 states at risk of losing those credits due to the King v. Burwell court case. That's the number of people who were actively enrolled in paid-for, effectuated policies as of 3/31/15. Fair enough.

Today's massive data dump from CMS confirmed that my estimate a week or so ago of around 6.4 million people currently receiving federal tax subsidies in the 34 states at risk from an adverse King v. Burwell SCOTUS decision was dead-on target.

I've gone ahead and plugged the actual 3/31/15 effectuated enrollment numbers for each individual state into the spreadsheet so I can compare them against my own estimate for that state. Below is how it turned out. As you can see, overall I was pretty damned close: 10.08 million vs. 10.19 million, a difference of around 110,000 people, or just 1.05%. Better yet, I underestimated the effectuated enrollments by a smidge (much better than overestimating them).

However, there's an important caveat to keep in mind: The CMS numbers are as of March 31, while my own estimates are projections as of July 1st, the first day which the tax credits could potentially be removed.

NOTE: LIVE UPDATING, CHECK BACK OFTEN!!

OK, now that I've posted about CMS's actual "effectuated enrollment snapshot" and posted the most important/relevant piece of data from their report (confirmation that 6.4 million people will lose their tax credits if the King v. Burwell plaintiffs win later this month), now I can take a look at the other important data included in the report.

Some Guy, May 26, 2015:

With all that done, here's the state-by-state breakdown of how many people I expect will be receiving federal tax credits for their ACA exchange-purchased healthcare policy as of July 1st, 2015:

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid, just moments ago:

March 2015: Average Advanced Premium Tax Credit by State

Consumers with household incomes between 100 percent and 400 percent of the FPL may qualify for an advance premium tax credit, which helps make their coverage more affordable throughout the year by lowering their share of monthly premium costs. Consumers who qualify for APTC may choose how much of the advanced premium tax credit to apply to their premiums each month, up to the maximum amount for which they are eligible.

This actually isn't as much of a surprise to me as you might think. Between the increased transparency during the 2nd Open Enrollment Period (weekly state-by-state snapshot reports for HC.gov) and especially with the King v. Burwell Supreme Court decision coming up later this month, I was expecting HHS to release some sort of update about just how many people are currently enrolled in exchange-based private policies...in particular, the number who are receiving Advance Premium Tax Credits across the 34 states at risk of losing theirs.

HOWEVER, even I wasn't expecting this level of comprehensiveness and detail, and I applaud HHS for doing so. I'll be posting a separate post with a detailed analysis, but for the moment, here's the press release:

March 31, 2015 Effectuated Enrollment Snapshot

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: