My take on the ACA marketplace

FWIW, here is a sort of global take on the ACA marketplace, its place in U.S. healthcare delivery, and how I'd change it if I could (unless those who are better informed convinced me otherwise).

1. The experience of basically every wealthy country in the world in distinction from the U.S. suggests that the sine qua non of effective healthcare cost control is some form of government rate-setting -- that is, government control over or oversight of a more or less uniform pricing schedule for medical services and drugs. Whether the government pays providers directly, sets rates for private insurers, or provides oversight  as insurers collectively negotiate rates, some uniformity and oversight is essential to keep healthcare providers from dividing and conquering payers.

2. The ACA marketplace leaves insurers to negotiate their own rates, as in the much larger employer market, but with pricing pressures that render the market viable only for those that pay government rates -- e.g., insurers whose primary business has been managed Medicaid.

If you're giving people a Medicaid-like provider network, do it at Medicaid-like prices

McKinsey & Co. has a report on the state of the ACA marketplace (and the whole individual market) that reinforces one dominant point that was already clear: The marketplace is relentlessly pushing insurers toward a narrow network/managed care model.

At the individual carrier level, results varied as well. While most carriers had negative margins after accounting for the 3Rs, approximately 30% of carriers achieved a positive margin in 2014. At the plan level, patterns emerge around performance differences. In the aggregate, plans based on health maintenance organizations (HMOs) had lower losses than plans based on preferred provider organizations (PPOs), consistent with their ability to enable more tightly managed benefits and care. In both 2015 and 2016, the premium increases for HMO plans were roughly half those of PPO plans, which suggests the initial results carriers experienced in the individual market were more favorable for the HMO plans.

CMS Open Enrollment error in New York (updated, with CMS correction)

[Update 2/11/16: CMS has made  a correction -- see below.]

CMS's ACA enrollment snapshot for the final week of Open Enrollment 2016 contains an error, bolded below:

It is also worth noting that nearly 400,000 people signed up for New York’s new Basic Health Program, along with about 33,000 people who signed up for Minnesota’s Basic Health Program, during this Open Enrollment. Basic Health Programs are state based programs supported by the Affordable Care Act that provide health insurance coverage to low income individuals who would generally otherwise be eligible for qualified health plans [QHPs]. In fact, about 300,000 of the New York Basic Health Program enrollees for 2016 are people who enrolled in Marketplace coverage for 2015 and were included in last year’s Marketplace total plan selections.

Enrollees in New York's Essential Plan, the BHP formed under the auspices of  the ACA, come from two pools. The first is those who lack access to employer-sponsored plans and have incomes between 139% and 200% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL). If the Essential Plan did not exist, these people would be eligible for subsidized QHPs in New York's private marketplace. Some of them were in fact enrolled in QHPs in 2015, but not 300,000.

A More Affordable Care Act? Some states may make it so

I have a post up on healthinsurance.org about current and possible future state initiatives to sweeten the benefit pot (though it doesn't address the subsidy bump-ups provided by Massachusetts and Vermont).  Here's the first section:

Remember the public option? It was a linchpin of early Democratic health reform blueprints for what became the Affordable Care Act. The health insurance marketplace would be anchored by a government-run health plan that would work to keep costs low and make coverage as comprehensive as possible. Private insurers in the marketplace would have to compete against it.

The insurance industry lobbied hard against the public option, and the most conservative Democratic senators killed it. (Every Democratic vote was needed to pass the law, because Republicans rejected it en masse.)

When the ACA passed without a public option in 2010, some observers speculated that Congress might come back to establish one at a later point, if competition among private insurers proved a force too weak to keep coverage affordable. But that is clearly not going to happen on a national level with Republicans in control of Congress.

There is one way a public option could become a reality in fairly short order, however. The ACA didn’t create one market for health insurance, but rather 51 markets – one for each state plus the District of Columbia. And states have considerable freedom to shape their insurance markets, should they wish to seize it. “Nothing in the ACA stands in the way of a state creating a public option,” notes Larry Levitt, senior vice president for special initiatives at the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Narrow networks: a crooked path to affordable healthcare?

Richard Mayhew has a post suggesting that even a strong public option in the ACA exchanges would generate only "marginal pressure to reduce prices." In a competitive market, it might not undersell all commercial plans, and in a non-competitive market it might be able to field only a very narrow network -- most providers wouldn't opt in. Be that as it may, one claim brought me up short:

Mayhew Insurance is in a competitive market region for the Exchanges.  The lowest priced Silver plans offered by all of the insurers in this region are narrow network HMOs where the providers get paid Medicare rates plus 5% to Medicare plus 10%.  The public option would be just another plan that is in the cluster for the 2nd Silver subsidy point.

In other words, there are insurers on the exchanges who are paying providers no more than a strong public option would pay. In fact it's been suggested to me that the lowest-priced insurers in the marketplace probably pay something closer to Medicaid rates than to Medicare.

This is one of those scratchpad posts, put up as I explore further. If you see any faulty assumptions, please let me know.

Ripples in the ACA risk pool

When a state that initially refused to implement the ACA Medicaid expansion embraces it, that's great news for state residents who were in the so-called "coverage gap" -- earning too little to qualify for subsidized private plans in the ACA marketplace, but denied the Medicaid coverage which the ACA had originally mandated for them, before the Supreme Court rendered the expansion optional for the states.

For another income group, those with household incomes between 100% and 138% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL), the expansion may be a blessing for some but not all. People in this income range are eligible for subsidized private plans in states that have refused the Medicaid expansion -- but for Medicaid only in states that implement it.

As of the end of the ACA's last "open season" enrollment period in February 2015, 22 states had not yet adopted the law's Medicaid expansion, and one state, Indiana, had just adopted it, effective February 1.  In those states, about one third of enrollees in private health plans purchased in the ACA marketplace had incomes in the 100-138% FPL range and so would have been eligible for Medicaid if their states had embraced the expansion.  They constitute perhaps 15-20% of all enrollees in the ACA private plan plan marketplace.

New York to make health insurance *really* affordable for low-income residents

Very quickly, as I'm leaving the house in 40 minutes, big news (via Charles Gaba, natch)  from New York: it's becoming the second state to offer a Basic Health Plan (BHP) for lower-income insurance seekers, as enabled by the Affordable Care Act. A BHP is a low-cost, low-premium offering for buyers with incomes between the Medicaid eligibility cutoff (100% or 138% of the Federal Poverty Level*) and 200% FPL.   The premiums and cost-sharing compare very favorably with the mainstream private health plans offered on ACA exchanges as previously priced for low-income buyers. New York's BHP will have two tiers, with virtually no cost for plan holders with incomes between 100% and  150% FPL and just a $20 monthly premium and minimal cost-sharing for buyers in the 150-200% FPL range.

The 100% FPL starting point presumably means that the upper end prior Medicaid-eligibles (100-138% FPL) will be transitioned in. The benefit summary is below the jump. The plans will be available in 2016; enrollment will begin in November. The state will contract with private insurers to deliver the benefits.

While this is excellent news for New Yorkers with incomes under 200% FPL, it may raise challenges for the private insurance market in New York. In 2014, 53% of private health plan buyers had incomes under 200% FPL, so the market is being sliced more than in half. Minnesota, which has had a low-cost option for residents under 200% FPL since the launch of the ACA markets (and in somewhat similar form, before the launch), has struggled to meet enrollments targets. Enrollments are currently just under 62,000; the state is now aiming for 95,000 private plan enrollments by the end of next year, versus early projections at least twice as high.. The state's lowest-cost insurer in 2014 exited the market this year.

Minnesota's "public option"

Ever since I read in fall 2013 that ACA bronze plan deductibles average over $5,000 per person, I have been concerned about the availability of such essentially catastrophic coverage at tempting low premium prices to low income ACA buyers -- who we now know are the vast majority of ACA private plan buyers (83% of buyers on healthcare.gov have household incomes under 250% of the Federal Poverty Level).

Hence my preoccupation with Cost Sharing Reduction subsidies, available only with silver-level plans, which reduce out-of-pocket costs to less prohibitive levels.  A silver plan has an actuarial value of 94% for buyers under 150% FPL and 87% for those at 200-250% FPL. But silver plans are expensive for low income people. The benchmark second-cheapest silver plan costs 4% of income for buyers with incomes in the  138-150% FPL range and about  6% for buyers with incomes at 150-200% FPL. That's a lot --  $118 per month for a single person earning $23,000. And  a plan at that price may still carry a per-person deductible as high as $1,500 for those in the 150-200% FPL range.

The ACA allows for a more truly affordable option, but only one state has taken it -- in fact, has long had it. That's Minnesota, which since 1992 has had a program similar to Medicaid, MinnesotaCare, serving residents with incomes up to 200% FPL.  As of Jan. 1, 2015, MinnesotaCare was approved as a Basic Health Plan (BHP) under the ACA -- that is, a state-run plan serving residents with incomes between 138%  and 200% FPL (those below 138% qualify for Medicaid, known in Minnesota as Medical Assistance). Under ACA rules, the federal government pays 95 percent of the ACA subsidies to which enrollees in the plan would have been entitled if they enrolled in private QHPs.

Don't call it Medicaid: Don Taylor on expanding health insurance in the South

In yesterday's long look at the likely future of the ACA, one somewhat submerged sub-theme was that much of whatever change comes to the ACA is likely to be state-based.  The Obama administration has proven itself willing to bend far in granting state waivers for privatized Medicaid expansions. Broader waivers enabling states to submit plans to meet ACA coverage goals by alternative means will be available starting in 2017. The law's federalist structure is both a strength and a weakness -- enabling the stonewalling and sabotage we've seen so far, but also, via state waivers, state-specific redesigns more in keeping with a state's political culture.

Don Taylor's fascinating take on the cultural barriers to extending health insurance access in the South came toward the end of a very long piece. Allow me to re-present that section below.

*          *          *          * 

For Taylor, a lifelong southerner, the imperative to expand health insurance access in the South is personal. Taylor has sketched out various visions of long-term progressive-conservative compromise on healthcare reform (here's one) and has submitted detailed proposals to the North Carolina legislature for privatized Medicaid expansion. The chief inducement for Democrats to negotiate, he suggests, is to cover the 25-30 million people that the ACA leaves out.

 "If I were to argue for negotiation from a pro-ACA perspective," Taylor said, "I'd be most worried about the uneven rollout, with the South left out.  I'd look to come up with some way to make the South willing to expand insurance coverage." He adds that there's probably no way to do this between now and the next election in 2014 in states that haven’t already starting moving that direction.

Misrepresentation of the ACA in the Supreme Court: a postscript

In April and May,  during the countdown to the Supreme Court decision on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, I did everything I could to highlight the material misrepresentation of the individual mandate in oral argument by Michael Carvin, counsel to the law's opponents.  To serve his argument that the ACA forces young and healthy individuals to buy insurance far in excess of their needs, Carvin  asserted, "Congress prohibits anyone over 30 from buying any kind of catastrophic health insurance" (p. 105). That was wrong on two counts: 1) the ACA allows not only adults under 30, but older adults who can show financial hardship, to buy bare-bones catastrophic coverage offered outside the ACA's insurance exchanges; and 2) the cheapest plans on offer in the exchanges provide coverage of an actuarial value low enough to be considered "catastrophic coverage" by most experts, including the Kaiser Family Foundation.


Via Don Taylor, I learned just last week that the plaintiffs' broader claim that the ACA forced people to buy insurance in excess of their needs was misleading on yet another count. The ACA contains a little-known option for states that want to provide affordable to those ineligible for Medicaid yet poor enough that the cheapest option within the insurance exchanges may prove a financial hardship. States may opt to establish a federally-funded Basic Health Plan (BHP). A March 2011 McKinsey report summarizes: