Yes, with the All King v. Burwell, All The Time® mindset this month, it's easy to forget that the core purpose of this website is supposed to be to track the enrollment numbers...and between KvB and this being the middle of the off-season, it's no wonder that there hasn't been much of that lately.
With that in mind, thanks to Andrew Sprung for this tidbit...Indiana is one of the states which initially refused to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, but which came around earlier this year, starting enrollment in their (heavily modified) Medicaid expansion program at the end of January.
"The Healthy Indiana Plan ... is aspirational," said Brian Neale, the governor's health policy director. "We believe that individuals, if offered the opportunity, will make the right choices."
The Kaiser Family Foundation has posted their latest Analysis of 2016 Premium Changes and Insurer Participation in the Affordable Care Act’s Health Insurance Marketplaces.
The main paragraph which leaps out, of course, is this one:
Across the 11 cities we examined, the premium for the second-lowest-cost silver plan in the Marketplace – before accounting for any tax credit – is increasing by an average of 4.4%. By contrast, in these cities, the average change in the benchmark silver plan was -0.6% from 2014 to 2015. (The nationwide average increase in this plan was 2% from 2014 to 2015).
Reuters reports that Senate Democrats are already preparing to roll out their response if the Supreme Court invalidates Obamacare subsidies for millions in three dozen states:
No. 2 Senate Democrat Dick Durbin said that if the administration loses the case, Democrats would offer a short piece of legislation clearly saying the tax subsidies are also available to people on the federal exchange.
“It’s one sentence and it’s already been written,” Durbin said in a Capitol hallway. “I hope we don’t need it,” Durbin added.
I can add more: According to a Dem leadership source, Democrats already have a one-sentence bill written on both sides — in the House and the Senate — and it will be introduced in both chambers at the “first available opportunity” if the Court ruling requires it.
...This should be an easy choice for opponents of Obamacare. The end of federally subsidized exchanges will be the first step in freeing patients, doctors, and insurers from government control. Unbelievably, however, some are considering legislation to extend the subsidies, should the Supreme Court block them.
A whole mess of people keep asking me (as they do other ACA bloggers/reporters/pundits) how I think the Supreme Court will rule on the King v. Burwell case.
I've gained a lot of acclaim & attention over the past year and a half for making pretty accurate projections for ACA exchange enrollment numbers.
However, when it comes to predicting how the Supreme Court will rule on stuff, I haven't a clue.
Having said that, it seems to be pretty well accepted that the 4 more left-leaning Justices (Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Breyer & Kagan) will almost certainly rule for the federal government, while the 3 hard-right Justices (Scalia, Thomas and Alito) will almost certainly rule for the plaintiffs. That would leave Anthony Kennedy and Chief Justice John Roberts as the "swing votes".
Some of them have also reported on the secondary results: Another 6.5 million (give or take) facing massive premium increases next year (well beyond whatever increases they were already planning anyway).
A few (well, me, anyway) have even reported on a (admittedly unlikely, but still possible) tertiary consequence: An adverse ruling could even be made retroactive to January 2014.
If the Supreme Court rules against Obamacare subsidies, the four governors running for president will face a harsh choice: Let tens of thousands of people get kicked off their health plans, or try to create a state exchange and lose credibility with a virulently anti-Obamacare Republican primary base.
Louisiana’s Bobby Jindal, Wisconsin’s Scott Walker, New Jersey’s Chris Christie and Ohio’s John Kasich all refused to set up Obamacare exchanges, as did most other GOP governors. Their states would be directly affected if the court rules that the health law’s subsidies can go only to people living in states that did establish the new online Obamacare markets.
Let's suppose that the Supreme Court does rule for the plaintiffs.
Let's suppose that they don't include any sort of mitigating factor, like a 6-month stay or whatever.
Let's further suppose that neither Congress nor any of the states do anything to resolve the issue (remember, Delaware and Pennsylvania may have been approved for "state-based" exchanges, but those won't officially kick in until January 2016), leaving 6.5 million people to lose their tax credits.
As I understand it, assuming no stay is issued, the earliest that the credits would be yanked would be August (I believe there's a 25-day period before rulings take effect, so July should be in the clear after all).
So. 6.5 million people receive their August premium bill, and instead of $92 (on average) it's around $364 (on average). For many, it'll be far more dramatic yet...rising from, say, $25 to $500 or whatever.
I know the site has been pretty much All King v. Burwell, All The Time for the past month or so, and no doubt that'll continue for the next few months (if the plaintiffs win) or the next week (if the government wins). However, with the decision imminent (expected either Friday or Monday now), I thought this would be a good time to update The Graph.
As you can see, assuming appx. 7,500 QHP selections per day nationally, the grand total for 2015 should have crossed the 12.7 million mark sometime over the past few days. Of course, it's possible that this average has become substantially higher or lower over the past few weeks as people learn more about the impending KvB decision...some eligible off-season enrollees might be jumping on it in hopes of snapping up at least a month or two worth of tax credits before the Supreme Court lowers the boom, while others who were planning on doing so may have decided not to bother even trying, figuring that it'll just be a lot of paperwork for nothing (shrug).
A couple of weeks ago I posted my own crude state-level graphics breaking out just how many people in each of the 34 states which would be impacted by an adverse King v. Burwell ruling who are currently receiving federal tax credits would be screwed by having said credits torn away, as well as a rough estimate of how much of an immediate tax hit they'd take to keep their policies through the end of this year and how much they'd likely see their premiums skyrocket next year as a result.
