When I last checked in to see how Virginia's newly-enacted ACA Medicaid expansion program was doing, they had already enrolled around half of the 400,000 estimated residents eligible to do so statewide.
Last fall, I estimated that perhaps 85,000 of those newly eligible to enroll in Medicaid would actually be "cannibalized" from the existing ACA exchange enrollee population...and sure enough, when the 2019 Open Enrollment numbers were posted, exhange enrollment in Virginia was down by 72,000 people, putting them dead last nationally in terms of year over year performance (down 18% from 2018).
Unfortunately, without an income demographic breakout, there's no way of being certain how much of that dropoff was due to Medicaid expansion as opposed to middle-income enrollees simply choosing to drop their coverage.
Today, however, Virginia state delegate Danica Roem posted the following update, which includes a link to a very nifty interactive graphic Medicaid expansion dashboard:
I visited DC last month for the Families USA healthcare conference. While I was there, I managed to arrange to meet with staffers for four U.S. Senators and two House members (in fact, the House members themselves stopped by to talk for awhile as well. None of the Senators did, but they were a bit busy dealing with Donald Trump's idiotic temper tantrum government shutdown at the time).
In my meetings, we discussed a variety of healthcare policy-related issues, but the two most important ones I focused on were:
The official title of the bill is literally "The Medicare for All Act of 2019", and for the most part it's pretty similar to the Senate version rolled out in September 2017 by Sen. Bernie Sanders and a dozen or more Democratic Senators. However, there are several key differences between the two:
I don't analyze or write about the ACA's SHOP (Small business Health Options Program) exchange enrollment very much these days. The main reason for this is that SHOP enrollment is extremely difficult to come by. The federal exchange (HealthCare.Gov) has mostly pretended the program doesn't even exist, at least when it comes to enrollment...in fact, to my knowledge, they've only issued a single hard number for HC.gov SHOP enrollment...in 2015:
On November 15th, 2014 we launched the HealthCare.gov portal for 33 states to enroll in SHOP Marketplaces. As of May 2015, approximately 85,000[1] Americans have 2015 coverage through SHOP Marketplaces with about 10,700 small employers participating in SHOP Marketplaces. These totals do not include employers that began coverage in 2014 and have not yet renewed their coverage through HealthCare.gov for 2015.
The Washington Health Benefit Exchange today announced that more than 200,000 people purchased their 2019 health insurance coverage through Washington Healthplanfinder, the state’s online health insurance marketplace, during the most recent open enrollment period held Nov. 1 through Dec. 15 of last year.
Even with the four percent decrease in total number of enrollments reported from February of 2018, the Exchange saw more than 90 percent of those who selected a 2019 health plan during the open enrollment period make their initial premium payment.
A 4% drop may sound bad, but total QHP selections during OE6 were actually down 8.3% year over year (from 243K to 223K), so this is actually an improvement in that sense. 90.5% of those who selected policies are still effectuated as of February this year vs. 86.4% as of February in 2018.
Vermont is among the few states which also releases their off-exchange numbers, and it's a good thing they do that because it helps explain the 12.3% drop in on-exchange enrollment this year. In short, thanks to VT making the move to active #SilverSwitching for 2019, several thousand people moved from on-exchange Silver ACA plans to nearly-identical off-exchange Silver plans.
Anyway, today they issued a formal press release with additional details...and at the same time bumped up the official enrollment tally by a bit:
2019 Individual Enrollment Report Shows More Vermonters are Covered
Shoutout to James Medlock for digging up this relic from the 2008 Presidential primariy race: A lit piece from then-Senator Barack Obama's campaign slamming then-Senator Hillary Clinton over her insistence on her proposed healthcare policy bill including an Individual Mandate Penalty. How many Republican talking points can you spot below?
There's a lot going on here. For starters, the couple on the first page are basically 2008 versions of "Harry & Louise"...it's a white, middle-age, middle-class suburban couple poring over their finances. Considering that the 1993 "Hillarycare" proposal was destroyed in large part due to the health insurance lobby's successful series of Harry & Louise "there's got to be a better way" ads, Obama using this same tactic had to sting.
HealthSource RI enrollments up by nearly 2,000 customers as RI’s uninsured rate reaches all-time low
Feb 25, 2019
According to the latest Rhode Island’s Health Information Survey, only 3.7% of Rhode Islanders were uninsured in 2018, down from 4.2% in 2016.
HealthSource RI’s individual and family enrollments increased by 1,849. This Open Enrollment, 32,486 customers enrolled and paid compared to 30,637 last year.
The "...and paid" caveat is important. Last month HealthSource RI reported 34,533 QHP selections after the 2019 OEP wrapped up, so that's an impressive 94% paid/effectuated rate. For comparison, last year 30,637 paid out of 33,021, or 92.8%, so they've improved on that front as well.
By the close of this year’s Open Enrollment, Coloradans had selected 169,672 medical insurance plans, which compares to 165,777 medical plan selections for the 2018 Open Enrollment period.
Hmmm...I'll have to look into these numbers a bit further. Colorado's 2018 Open Enrollment total was indeed 165,777 according to C4HCO...but according to CMS's official report it was only 161,764 QHP selections. This is the same thing which happened last year, when C4HCO reported 172,361 QHPs vs. CMS's 161,568. It's therefore possible that the final/official 2019 CMS report will put Colorado's total around 4,000 enrollees lower than my own numbers.
However, either way, Colorado joins Massachusetts in increasing their ACA open enrollment numbers every year for five years straight, bucking the national trend!
A couple of weeks ago, Louise Norris gave me a heads up that not only has the New Mexico Insurance Dept. restricted the sale of non-ACA compliant "short-term, limited duration" plans to be...you know...both short term and of limited duration via regulation...
In September 2018, the New Mexico Office of the Superintendent of Insurance (OSI) and Health Action NM (an advocacy group for universal access to health care) presented details about potential state actions to stabilize the individual market. OSI has the authority to regulate some aspects of the plans, including maximum duration, but they noted that legislation would be needed for other changes, including minimum loss ratios and benefit mandates.
New Mexico’s insurance regulations were amended, effective February 1, 2019, to define short-term plans as nonrenewable, and with terms of no more than three months. The regulations also prohibit insurers from selling a short-term plan to anyone who has had short-term coverage within the previous 12 months.
Last week, the state of Arkansas released its latest round of data on implementation of its Medicaid work reporting requirement – the first in the country to be implemented. As readers of SayAhhh! know, over 18,000 lost coverage in 2018 as a result of not complying with the new reporting rules. And the policy is clearly failing to achieve its purported goal – incentivizing work – with less than 1% of those subject to the new policy newly reporting work or community engagement activities.
Minnesota's new Democratic (pardon me..."Democratic-Farmer-Labor", or DFL) Governor, Tim Walz, has just posted his proposed state budget for the next fiscal year, and it includes some fantastic expansions & improvements to the healthcare system of Minnesota, including both state-level ACA enhancements and a push for a robust Public Option, along with other ideas.
Bill expanding ‘Insure Oklahoma’ program passes Senate committee
A Senate bill seeking to expand the Insure Oklahoma program has advanced out of committee Monday morning.
Senate Bill 605, authored by Sen. Greg McCortney, R-Ada, directs the Oklahoma Healthcare Authority to implement "the Oklahoma Plan" within Insure Oklahoma. An agency spokesperson said the program provides premium assistance to low-income working adults employed by small businesses.
The latest numbers from Insure Oklahoma show less than 19,000 are enrolled.
According to McCortney, the intent of his bill is to provide insurance for Oklahomans who would qualify for Medicaid in states which opted to expand but are currently not insured.
Note: Huge props to Amy Lotven for breaking this story!
WARNING: Before you read any of the following, first read this entire post, which explains the latest insane twist in the never-ending Cost Sharing Reduction legal saga. Yeah, I know, I know...just do it. I'll wait.
....
OK, now that you're all caught up, there's yet another aspect to this craziness which has arisen.
Towards the end of the first post, I noted that:
I'm not sure of the details on how those MLR rebates are allocated, but I know in 2018, nearly 6 million people received an average rebate of $119 apiece. Most of that came from the large and small group markets, but around 1 million people on the ACA individual market received $137 apiece (around $133 million total). That's right: It's theoretically possible that the carriers could have to dole out up to 75 times as much in MLR rebates for 2018 as they did last year.
First of all, it turns out that the amount of money potentially at stake is even higher than that:
Note: Huge props to Amy Lotven for breaking this story.
I've written about the CSR Saga so many times that I'm getting tired of explaining the backstory. However, once again, here's the short version:
Once again, the very short version is this:
The contract insurance carriers sign when they offer policies on the ACA exchanges is to cover a chunk of low-income enrollee deductibles, co-pays and other out-of-pocket costs which would normally be the enrollees' responsibility. These are called Cost Sharing Reductions (CSR).
The carriers then submit their CSR invoices to the federal government, which is supposed to reimburse the insurance carriers every month.
Donald Trump cut off contrctually-required CSR reimbursement payments to insurance carriers in October 2017...and hasn't made any payments since.
(I'm not going to rehash how Trump was able to cut off those payments with a Thanos-like snap of his fingers; suffice to say it's connected to a lawsuit filed so long ago that John friggin' Boehner was still Speaker of the House at the time).
Back in early December, I noted that while I applauded both New Jersey and the District of Columbia for creating their own individual healthcare coverage responsibility requirements (aka, The Individual Mandate) in response to Congressional Republicans repealing the ACA's federal penalty, doing so also required making sure that residents of NJ/DC *knew* they had done so:
There's only one problem with this: The impact of the mandate penalty is completely psychological in nature. It only works (to the extent that it does at all) if people know that they'll be penalized financially for not complying with the mandate.
I still expect the final national QHP selection tally to increase by around 35,000 more when the dust settles, including perhaps 1,000 more from DC, 5K - 10K more from New York and around 28,000 from Vermont (which hasn't reported anything so far this Open Enrollment Period). If so, the official total should end up around 11.47 million nationally, with the 12 State-Based exchanges coming in around 1.6% higher than last year (an all-time high for them collectively) vs. the 39 states on the federal exchange, which dropped another 3.8% this year. Nationally, the official total should end up around 280,000 enrollees short of last year.
Since then I've plugged in the final numbers from New York (which indeed added around 6,700 more enrollees), the District of Columbia (which added over 3,000 more) and, just this morning, Vermont (which only added 25,000 more, with a caveat). Net increase? 34,889 QHP selections.
That indeed brings the grand total to 11,465,327 QHP selections nationally...or 11.47 million...with the state-based exchanges increasing 1.6% year over year, and the national total dropping 285,000 enrollees.
UPDATE: The final, official CMS enrollment report came out in late April, and there's some minor discrepancies in a few states (especially Minnesota). Nationally, the official total is around 22,000 fewer than I thought. The table below has been updated to reflect this. The state-based exchanges still increased enrollment over last year, but only by 0.9%; nationally, enrollment dropped by 306,000 people.
At long last, the final piece of the puzzle can be added: I just received the final 2019 Open Enrollment Period numbers from Vermont Health Connect.
Before looking at it, it's important to understand that Vermont has a unique way of reporting ACA-compliant healthcare policy enrollments.
For the first two years of Open Enrollment, the state didn't allow any off-exchange (or "direct") enrollments for the individual market (or the small business market, I believe). That means all indy market enrollments were done through the exchange. Due to technical problems (and possibly for other reasons as well), however, starting in 2016 they started allowing direct/off-exchange enrollment as well, as every other state does (the District of Columbia is the only other ACA exchange which has no off-exchange market). However, Vermont still requires the insurance carriers to report those off-exchange enrollees to them and they report them as well.
I wish every state reported their enrollment data this way; it would make it much easier for me to do my job, since as it stands the off-exchange market is a bit of a mystery in most states.
Until now, I've been missing the final 2019 Open Enrollment Period numbers for two state-based exchanges: Vermont and the District of Columbia. VT is still radio silent, but last night the DC exchange authority held their monthly meeting and released their latest data report.
There's a bunch of handy demographic data included in the report...but some of it is also confusing and difficult to get an accurate year-over-year measurement due to a difference of time periods and enrollment status.
I've put in a request to sort some of this out and will update this entry if/when I receive clarification.
For instance, the DC exchange says that they have the following number of residents currently effectuated as of February 10th:
The contrast in how a completely Republican-held state government like Utah and a completely Democratic-held state government like New Mexico deal with Medicaid is pretty astonishing.
In Utah, just four months ago the public voted, clearly and unequivocally, to enact a full expansion of Medicaid to all adults earning up to 138% of the Federal Poverty Line...but the GOP state House, Senate and Governor decided to ignore the voters and override their will by cutting the expansion down to a 100% FPL cap, including work requirements, which will cover tens of thousands fewer people while costing the state $50 million more.
In New Mexico, meanwhile, a newly-enabled Democratic trifecta (I believe both houses of the state legislature were already held by Dems, but the Governorship flipped from Republican Susana Martinez to Democrat Michelle Lujan Grisham) has been on a tear in their first month and a half:
Gov. Brian Kemp will ask the Georgia Legislature and the federal government for flexibility to improve access to government-funded health insurance for the state’s poor and middle class.
His administration told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution on Thursday that it will back a measure that seeks two separate federal “waivers” to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act to tailor new programs to Georgia’s needs.
This sounds potentially promising, but...
...The ACA waiver, which he outlined on the campaign trail, aims to stop premiums on the health insurance exchange market from rising so fast. A second push, which emerged after his election, would raise the possibility of a partial expansion of Medicaid to some of Georgia’s poorest residents.
I noted last week that Congress held not one, not two but three full hearings regarding various ACA-related issues, at which a couple of friends of mine testified (and a couple more were on the other side of the microphone, as sitting members of Congress).
HEARING ON “STRENGTHENING OUR HEALTH CARE SYSTEM: LEGISLATION TO REVERSE ACA SABOTAGE AND ENSURE PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS PROTECTIONS”
Date: Wednesday, February 13, 2019 - 10:30am
Location: 2322 Rayburn House Office Building
Subcommittees: Health (116th Congress)
The Subcommittee on Health of the Committee on Energy and Commerce held a legislative hearing on Wednesday, February 13, 2019, at 10:30 a.m. in room 2322 of the Rayburn House Office Building. The bills to be the subject of the legislative hearing are as follow:
In September 2018, the New Mexico Office of the Superintendent of Insurance (OSI) and Health Action NM (an advocacy group for universal access to health care) presented details about potential state actions to stabilize the individual market. OSI has the authority to regulate some aspects of the plans, including maximum duration, but they noted that legislation would be needed for other changes, including minimum loss ratios and benefit mandates.
New Mexico’s insurance regulations were amended, effective February 1, 2019, to define short-term plans as nonrenewable, and with terms of no more than three months. The regulations also prohibit insurers from selling a short-term plan to anyone who has had short-term coverage within the previous 12 months.
The full expansion initiative passed last fall, of course, is supposed to cover Utah residents earning up to 138% of the poverty line, or around 150,000 people...without any work requirements.
The bill barreling through the Utah Legislature was “an effort to override the will of the people,” said Matthew Slonaker, the executive director of the Utah Health Policy Project, a nonprofit group that supported the full expansion of Medicaid.
Utah lawmakers, worried that the sales tax increase might not fully cover the costs, are rushing through a bill that would limit the expansion of Medicaid to people with incomes less than or equal to the poverty level, about $12,140 for an individual.
State officials say that the bill, which is estimated to cover 90,000 people, could be on the desk of Gov. Gary R. Herbert, a Republican, in a week or two.
Light posting for the next two weeks as I'm dealing with my kid's upcoming bar mitzvah and some other personal stuff, but this one literally hits home.
You may recall that last spring, Republicans in the Michigan legislature attempted to push through a bill to change the state's current ACA Medicaid expansion program (which is close to "vanilla" Medicaid with a few minor tweaks) by tacking on pointless, ineffective and (in an earlier draft) blatantly racist work requirement provisions:
White, Rural GOP Counties Get Exempted from Medicaid Legislation
Republicans in the legislature are working to change Medicaid in Michigan, but only for certain people, as they have tailored the language of pending legislation to exempt some of their constituents from being affected.
I only met John Dingell once, at a fundraiser for my friend and colleague Chris Savage's Eclectablog a few years back. I introduced myself, we shook hands, exchanged pleasantries and that was it. I've met Rep. Debbie Dingell a handful of times besides that evening, at various local Democratic Party events.
I was born and raised not just in Michigan but in the suburbs of Detroit, so while I don't have any special insight into The Dean, I can say that his shadow has loomed large over the region and state in addition to the entire nation for decades.
Anyone who knows anything about U.S healthcare policy knows the gigantic role he played in pulling America (sometimes kicking and screaming) forward towards universal healthcare coverage over a career that spanned 60 years. Every other media outlet is already posting in-depth tributes and retrospectives on the massive loss which the nation experienced today, so I'm just going to repost a few of his best tweets.
My deepest sympathies to his loving wife Rep. Debbie Dingell, his children, grandchildren and the rest of his family; and his many friends and colleagues on their (and all of our) loss. May his memory be a blessing now and forever.
It's amazing what a difference flipping the U.S. House of Representatives can make.
Yesterday, two friends of mine (Peter Morley and Elena Hung) testified before Congress in two different hearings, while my own Representative Andy Levin and his next-district neighbor Representative Haley Stevens, both of whom I consider friends, sat on the other side of the table in yet a third hearing.
Sadly, I wasn't able to watch most of any of the hearings myself yet (they add up to over 8 1/2 hours total) but I plan on doing so over the next few days. I'm incredibly proud of all of them.
Early concept art has revealed a very different look for Toy Story's dynamic duo, Woody and Buzz Lightyear.
Pixar's first feature started life as a full-length take on their short Tin Story, which saw a mechanical drummer attempting to navigate his way through a baby's playroom. The drummer was soon ditched for a more glamorously conceived "space toy" named Lunar Larry, later renamed Buzz Lightyear in honour of famed astronaut Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin.
The original concept pitched its drummer against an antagonistic ventriloquist's dummy, who gradually evolved into a pull-string cowboy doll named Woody, inspired by Western actor Woody Strode.
Yes, Woody was originally the bad guy; though his character didn't prove popular with his voice actor Tom Hanks, who reportedly shouted "This guy is a jerk!" while recording lines for the story reel.
In U.S. politics, the Hyde Amendment is a legislative provision barring the use of federal funds to pay for abortion except to save the life of the woman, or if the pregnancy arises from incest or rape. Legislation, including the Hyde Amendment, generally restricts the use of funds allocated for the Department of Health and Human Services and consequently has significant effects involving Medicaid recipients. Medicaid currently serves approximately 6.5 million women in the United States, including 1 in 5 women of reproductive age (women aged 15–44).
Federal dollars can't be used to pay for abortion outside of the above restrictions, but Medicaid is funded via hybrid federal/state funding, so there are 15 states where Medicaid does pay for abortion using the state's portion of the funding.
Yesterday I posted an entry which gained some attention in which I noted that yes, Bernie Sanders' specific single payer bill (aka "Medicare for All", S.1804) would in fact eliminate "nearly all" private healthcare insurance...and in fact, that's one of the primary selling points of the legislation in the first place. I wasn't arguing for or against the bill, mind you, I was just asking supporters to stop misleading people about this point.
Note: I'm going to use "Bernie-MFA" going forward instead of just "MFA" because the term "Medicare for All" has been turned into some sort of catch-all rallying cry for universal coverage even though there are major differences between some of the bills and proposals on the table, and on this subject it's important to be clear about which bill I'm talking about.
In Utah and Idaho, G.O.P. Looks to Curb Medicaid Expansions That Voters Approved
The voters of Utah and Idaho, two deeply Republican states, defied the will of their political leaders in November and voted to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. Now those leaders are striking back, moving to roll back the expansions — with encouragement, they say, from the Trump administration.
Utah’s ballot measure, approved with support from 53 percent of voters, would expand Medicaid to cover people with incomes up to 138 percent of the poverty level — up to about $16,750 a year for an individual — and pay the state’s share with a small increase of the sales tax. Under the ballot initiative, 150,000 people are expected to gain coverage, starting April 1.
As the 2020 Presidential race starts to heat up, one of if not the biggest issue which will be on the minds of every Democratic candidate and primary voter will be about the Next Big Thing in U.S. Healthcare policy.
By the time January 20, 2021 rolls around, the Affordable Care Act will be just shy of 11 years old...assuming, that is, that it manages to survive the insanely idiotic #TexasFoldEm lawsuit (as an aside, it looks like the 5th Circuit of Appeals will likely take up the case this July).
The ACA has done a fantastic job of expanding healthcare coverage to over 20 million more people, lowering or eliminating costs for millions of them, and completely changing the zeitgeist about what's acceptable (no longer acceptable: denying coverage to or discrimininating against those with pre-existing conditions). Unfortunately, while it was a major step forward, it was still only a step, and between its intrinsic limitations, original flaws and major incidents of sabotage both passive (refusal to expand Medicaid in many states) and active (the Risk Corridor Massacre, CSR cut-off, mandate repeal, etc), the Democratic base is hungry for a truly universal healthcare coverage system.
And so, the $64,000 question for every 2020 Democratic candidate is whether or not they support "Medicare for All"...and, as a subsection of that, do they insist on "Medicare for All" as the only way forward.
This is 6,664 QHP selections higher than the 1/29 tally, or slightly more than the 5,000 I expected NY to tack on for the final two days of Open Enrollment. New York wrapped things up with an impressive 7.4% increase in QHP enrollees over last year and a 6.9% increase in Essential Plan (BHP) enrollment.
The Minnesota ACA exchange, MNsure, wrapped up their 2019 Open Enrollment Period on January 13th, and recently released three big reports chock full of wonky healthcare data nerd goodness. I'm mostly going to just repost some of the key graphs/charts, but make sure to read the full reports for all the details:
The annual report is mostly full of inside baseball administrative info, but the first two reports have lots of stuff of interest to the average reader of this site:
Things have been happening so quickly of late that I'm getting farther and farther behind on some important healthcare policy developments, particularly at the state level. There are two extremely important Public Option announcements which could be game changers if they make it through the legislative process.
Since I don't have time to do full write-ups on either one right now, I'll just present these summaries:
DC Health Link Extends 2019 Open Enrollment Deadline to Wednesday, Feb. 6
Washington, DC – DC residents will have an additional six days to sign up for 2019 health insurance coverage through DC Health Link. The new deadline to sign up is 11:59pm on Wednesday, February 6. Individuals who sign up by that deadline will have coverage beginning March 1, 2019.
DC Health Link customer service representatives will be available today at (855) 532-5465 from 8:00am to 8:00pm and on Monday, February 4th through Wednesday, February 6th to work with individuals seeking to enroll in health insurance coverage effective March 1. In-person assistance will also be available at enrollment centers throughout the District to assist residents with the enrollment process through February 6th.
