Last week I acquired the DC Health Link enrollment data for the first two weeks of 2019 Open Enrollment. It showed that DC, unlike most of the other state-based exchanges, was lagging behind last year for the first two weeks (although not as much as most of the HC.gov states).
Well, I just received updated data out of DC and the enrollment situation over the following four weeks didn't improve (if anything they dropped off slightly more):
Nov. 1 - Dec. 11, 2017: 19,252 QHP selections
Nov. 1 - Dec. 11, 2018: 17,825 QHP selections
That's a drop of around 7.4% year over year so far.
As with most other state-based exchanges, the numbers for both years include auto-renewals, which means the vast bulk of 2019 enrollments are likely already baked in. Last year's final tally was 19,289; DC has already reached 92% of that as of 12/11. Keep in mind that DC's Open Enrollment Period does not end on Saturday the 15th; it continues for another 47 days after that, through January 31st.
Things weren't looking great as of two weeks in: Total enrollments were down 6.8% (1,202 people) year over year as of the same date. We'll have to see whether things have picked up since then.
As with most other state-based exchanges, the numbers for both years include auto-renewals, which means the vast bulk of 2019 enrollments are likely already baked in. Last year's final tally was 19,289; DC had already reached 85% of that as of 11/13.
DC's report also includes all sorts of wonky demographic breakout data, and even closes with currently effectuated numbers for both the individual and small business (SHOP) markets. Remember, DC's SHOP market is unusually high (especially compared to the individual market) because the ACA requires all members of Congress and their staff to enroll using it if they want their 72% FEHB subsidy.
However, the DC exchange board was also working quickly in an attempt to counter the Trump Administration's #ACASabotage factors, by voting to restrict short-term plans, to lock in DC's Open Enrollment Period at a full 3 months as in years past, and to reinstate the ACA's individual mandate penalty at the local level.
...back in February...the executive board of the DC ACA exchange unanimously voted to reinstate the mandate. It didn't mean all that much at the time, however, because the authority to reinstate it actually belongs to the DC Council.
Well, thanks to Mr. Levitis for the heads up. If you scroll down to Page 138, you can see that the DC Council has indeed done just that:
TITLE V. HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
SUBTITLE A. INDIVIDUAL HEALTH INSURANCE REQUIREMENT
Sec. 5001. Short title.
This subtitle may be cited as the “Health Insurance Requirement Amendment Act of 2018”.
Sec. 5002. Title 47 of the District of Columbia Official Code is amended as follows:
(a) The table of contents is amended by adding a new chapter designation to read as follows:
“51. Individual Taxpayer Health Insurance Responsibility Requirement”.
(b) A new Chapter 51 is added to read as follows: “CHAPTER 51. INDIVIDUAL TAXPAYER HEALTH INSURANCE RESPONSIBILITY REQUIREMENT.
*(technically Vermont was the third to do so, but theirs doesn't kick into effect until 2020, and they haven't even crystalized exactly what form it would take anyway.)
**(yeah, I know very well that DC isn't actually a state, but it's pretty awkward to put "state and/or territory" in the headline.)
I realize that 110% of the news/media/political attention is on the bombshell announcement that Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy is retiring at the end of July, but there are other things going on as well, so I'll do my best to soldier on...
More big health care action at the state level: yesterday the DC Council passed what would be the nation's third state-level individual mandate, after Mass. and NJ.https://t.co/BmtnDAQvVp
I noted a few weeks ago that as many as 9 states are ramping up plans to reinstate one version or another of the ACA's just-repealed Individual Mandate. I concluded:
My only advice is that if they do take the political risk of imposing a mandate penalty, at least make sure it's more stringent than the one which was just repealed--I'd probably recommend making it something like the same cost as the least-expensive Bronze plan available on the exchange after whatever tax credits they'd otherwise have applied.
Well, I don't know about the details, but it looks like the District of Columbia, at least, is full-steam ahead: