The CEO of Access Health CT, Connecticut's ACA exchange, just issued a press release:

Hartford, Conn. (May 5, 2015) – Access Health CT (AHCT) today announced that they enrolled 1,429 Connecticut residents during the Special Open Enrollment Period which began April 1, 2015 and ended April 30, 2015. The special enrollment period was open to individuals who did not have health care coverage in 2014 and were subject to a penalty on their 2014 federal taxes.

It's important to bear in mind that this number specifically does not include "normal" off-season QHP enrollees via marriage, birth, job loss and so forth.

1,429 over 30 days = about 48 per day. My final estimate of 3,000/day nationally would scale down to just 28/day for Connecticut specifically based on their Open Enrollment Period percentage, so this is actually pretty good.

NOTE: A few days ago there were 2 ACA-related stories which caused me some concern: The initial 2016 rate request filings out of Oregon and a new report from Standard & Poors which seems to indicate troubled waters ahead for ACA-compliant policy premiums. Unfortunately, a lot of this stuff goes way over my head. Fortunately, actuary Rebecca Stob has offered to explain why there's more (or possibly less) than meets the eye in the S&P report:

Disclaimer: I am an actuary at Group Health Cooperative in Seattle WA - this represents my personal opinion and not that of Group Health.

The new S&P report makes 3 key assumptions:

Just over 1 year ago I posted a long, rambling entry which boiled down to: A bunch of thank-yous to those who helped get me through Year One; a reminder that I never intended this project to continue past the 2014 Open Enrollment period; and a committment to keeping the site, blog, graph and spreadsheets cranking along through Year Two as well.

Now that we're past the official 2015 Open Enrollment period (#OE2), the "In Line by Midnight" overtime period (#ACAOvertime and the Tax Filing Season Special Enrollment Period (#ACATaxTime), it's time for me to finally let folks know what my plans are for the site for Year Three.

One week ago I posted en entry titled "Color me shocked: Michigan GOP State Senator spewing nonsense", which documented an appallingly erroneous Op-Ed by Republican State Senator Patrick Colbeck riddled with basic mathematical errors about the Affordable Care Act.

Among the many factual errors included in Colbeck's essay were such gems as:

  • He claimed that the ACA is costing $1.35 trillion per year. It's actually priced at less than 1/10th that price ($120 billion per year).
  • He claimed that the ACA has insured an additional 19 million people, which is oddly generous as compared with my own estimate of 14 million or even the Obama administration's estimate of 16.1 million.
  • He claimed that the ACA is "still leaving 36 million people" without insurance, while failing to acknowledge that 4 million of those are stuck in the Medicaid Gap created by Republican-run states, while another 6.3 million are undocumented immigrants who aren't legally eligible for coverage under the law.
  • He claimed that the ACA is costing over $71,000 per enrollee per year, when the actual number is closer to $5,000 per person.
  • He claimed that a "high quality policy" can be purchased on the non-ACA market for $6,000/year, which may or may not be true depending on the person.
  • He claimed that "159 organizations" which stand "between a patient and a doctor" were created by the ACA, which is utter nonsense.
  • He claimed that the state of Washington launched a program which magically cut both costs and hospitalization rates in half, without citing any source or providing any information about what this mystery program might be.

So, in my piece I carefully debunked all of these lies (or misstatements, assuming he was just ignorant). My response garnered quite a few retweets and a generally positive response...so positive that several people suggested that I write up a simplified version and submit it to the Detroit News Op-Ed page myself as a rebuttal.

WHICH I DID.

From Allison Bell at LifeHealth Pro:

Analysts at Standard & Poor's Ratings Services say the effects of funding restrictions on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) risk corridors program may cause the program to hurt small and midsize health insurers.

Drafters of PPACA created the risk corridors program in an effort to make selling health insurance under PPACA rules less risky, by using cash from health insurers with good underwriting results for 2014, 2015 and 2016 to help insurers that get poor results for those years.

Read this article/interview over at FiveThirtyEight and tell me if it doesn't sound awfully familiar:

When Talking Points Memo, The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post needed data on how often police officers are charged with on-duty killings, they all turned to the same guy: Bowling Green State University criminologist Philip M. Stinson.

Stinson, 50, has become an indispensable source for researchers and reporters looking into alleged crimes and acts of violence by police officers because he has built a database tracking thousands of incidents in which officers were arrested since 2005. His data has shown that even the few police officers who are arrested for drunken driving are rarely convictedand that arrests spike for cops who have been on the force 18 years or longer, contrary to prior research showing it was mostly new officers who were acting out.

I haven't actually done Short Cuts in awhile, letting dozens of significant ACA-related stories disappear into the Memory Hole. Will try to be better about this going forward:

Normally this is exactly the sort of story which I'd post a full point-by-point debunking of (see McConnell, Mitch), but frankly I've had a lousy weekend and am just too damned tired to bother. It's like playing whack-a-mole, anyway; sometimes it's just not worth the effort.

Fortunately, Jason Easley of PoliticsUSA clears up at least a couple of the whoppers John Boehner spewed this morning:

So, the good news is that new Democratic Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf, who has already scrapped his predecessor's unnecessarily confusing "alternative" Medicaid expansion plan in favor of regular expansion, has officially submitted a latter to the HHS Dept. stating that yes, if the Supreme Court does rule against the government in the King v. Burwell case, PA will indeed establish their own ACA healthcare exchange.

HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) - Gov. Tom Wolf's administration advanced plans Friday to maintain federal health insurance subsidies for nearly 400,000 Pennsylvanians ahead of a U.S. Supreme Court decision that could wipe out the aid to insurance buyers in some states.

The Democrat wrote to U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Burwell to declare his administration's intent to take over operation of the insurance marketplace in 2016. The federal government currently operates the marketplace, which is a prominent feature of the 2010 federal health care law designed to extend insurance coverage to 35 million Americans.

Pages

Advertisement