With this morning's release of updated enrollment data from the Maryland Health Connection, confirmed 2015 QHP selections via the ACA exchanges have now officially broken the 11.9 million mark, with a minimum of 11,904,402 QHP selections having been reported by the various exchanges nationally.

However, there's still no enrollment data since late February for about 10 states, and only fractional data for the other 40. Based on my best estimates, the actual total QHP selections to date should be slightly over 12.3 million as of yesterday (click image below for the full-size version).

As for the tax filing season Special Enrollment Period specifically, there have been over 110,500 confirmed enrollments to date (68,000 via Healthcare.Gov, 33,000 in California, around 4,800 in Washington State and over 4,700 in Maryland). My best estimate is that #ACATaxTime QHPs will end up being roughly 140,000 in the end.

Maryland is the second state to release their official, complete #ACATaxTime special enrollment period figures (Washington State ended their tax SEP on 4/17). Healthcare.Gov, DC Health Link and Covered California have released partial reports, while 3 states didn't offer the tax SEP at all, so this leaves 8 states which haven't given any #ACATaxTime numbers yet (Vermont has extended theirs even further, until the end of May).

For Maryland, here's the press release:

BALTIMORE (May 1, 2015) — More than 4,700 Marylanders took advantage of a special six week enrollment period that allowed them to enroll for health insurance to avoid an additional federal tax penalty for 2015 if they had already owed a tax penalty for lacking health coverage in 2014.

Marylanders who applied for the special enrollment period, which ran from March 15 through yesterday, attested that they owe the penalty for lacking health insurance in 2014 and that they became aware of this after the Feb. 15 close of open enrollment for 2015 coverage.

...and your point is?

"One of the things Ford had always found hardest to understand about humans was their habit of continually stating and repeating the very very obvious, as in ‘It’s a nice day’, 'You’re very tall’, or 'You seem to have fallen down a thirty-foot well, are you alright?’

At first Ford had formed a theory to account for this strange behaviour. If human beings don’t keep exercising their lips, he thought, their mouths probably seize up.

--Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Sarah Ferris at The Hill has a story this morning about the Republican Party's "list of demands" in the event that the Supreme Court rules against the federal government in the King v. Burwell case.

I was tempted to point out the obvious terrorist/hostage theme in the headline, but instead I'm gonna just focus on one snippet from the article:

But, in the event the justices rule against ObamaCare, Democrats will offer a simpler solution — passing a bill to fix the few sentences of the statute that are under scrutiny.

“The president can say, here’s our one-page bill,” Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R), who opposes the current congressional strategy, told a D.C. audience on Thursday.

Why yes...yes, that sounds about right. In fact, I seem to recall posting this several months ago:

OK, I admit this caught me by surprise; last year the first following-year rate increase requests didn't start popping up in the major media until late May (or perhaps they did but I didn't happen to notice until then). My first entry on the subject wasn't until May 17, 2014.

This year, the first state out of the gate with the proposed rate changes is Oregon. There's a reason why I'm emphasizing "requested" and "proposed" here...because it's very important for people to understand that in most states, anyway, the state insurance commissioner can veto rate increases which are out of line. An insurance company can ask for a 10,000% increase...that doesn't mean they're gonna get it.

For instance, last summer the insurance companies in Rhode Island asked for an average rate increase of 8.9%...but only ended up getting 4.5% approved.

I've written a lot about the impending King v. Burwell Supreme Court decision, and some of my ideas have been batted around by Very Serious People® here and there. However, I'm not a lawyer, nor am I a Constitutional scholar or a Supreme Court scholar, so I'm not the right person to talk to about the actual legal/procedural side of things.

Fortunately, Nicholas Bagley (an assistant law professor at U of M) and David K. Jones (an assistant public health professor at Boston University) have written a lengthy, comprehensive legal analysis of just what the options would be for the federal government and/or the states in the event that the King v. Burwell plaintiffs win their case.

Be warned: It's a long read that gets deep into the weeds, but is well worth it to understand the seriousness of a potential plaintiff win.

Ho. Lee. Crap.

Check out this press release from Florida Governor and Lord Voldemort impersonator Rick Scott:

Gov. Scott: We Will Begin Working Immediately on a Budget to Continue Critical Programs & Start Conversation on Healthcare Access and Cost

On April 30, 2015, in News Releases, by Currie Dickerson

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. – Governor Rick Scott released the following statement today upon the adjournment of the Florida Senate upon the call of the President, and after the Tuesday adjournment of the Florida House:

“Now that the Florida Senate and House have adjourned, we must immediately turn our focus to how we can work together to craft a state budget before July 1st that continues funding for critical state services. There were no discussions about Medicaid expansion under Obamacare before the legislative session began. Today, it is clear that a thorough analysis of how healthcare can be reformed to improve cost, quality and access is needed, apart from the budget process.

bla bla bla...

 

There's not one, not two, not three but four articles I'm reading this morning centering around the same theme: GOP governors who are finally starting to at least consider expanding Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, but only if the enrollees jump through various hoops in order to qualify:

Sarah Wheaton, Politico:

In nearly a dozen Republican-dominated states, either the governor or conservative legislators are seeking to add work requirements to Obamacare Medicaid expansion, much like an earlier generation pushed for welfare to work.

The move presents a politically acceptable way for conservative states to accept the billions of federal dollars available under Obamacare, bringing health care coverage to millions of low-income people. But to the Obama administration, a work requirement is a non-starter, an unacceptable ideological shift in the 50-year-old Medicaid program and a break with the Affordable Care Act’s mission of expanding health care coverage to all Americans. The Health and Human Services Department has rejected all requests by states to tie Medicaid to work.

And Then There Were 21:

Democratic Gov. Steve Bullock signed the Montana Health and Economic Livelihood Partnership (HELP) Act into law Wednesday in the Capitol rotunda as hundreds of people cheered.

The bill was introduced by Republican Sen. Ed Buttrey of Great Falls after lawmakers defeated the governor's expansion proposal.

Buttrey calls the plan the most conservative in the nation due to copays, premiums and other provisions. Because of those items, the state must seek a waiver from the federal government to put the program in place.

Assuming the vast majority of those eligible enroll (which seems to be the case in most states which have gone through with expansion to date), we should be able to chalk up another 35,000 - 70,000 Medicaid expansion enrollees over the rest of the year.

Pages

Advertisement