Estimate: ACA Medicaid expansion enrollment may have grown 25% from February to December 2020

Subscribe to xpostfactoid 

As Covid-19 burned its swath through the U.S. in December, Medicaid enrollment in the ACA expansion category (adults with monthly incomes up to 138% of the Federal Poverty Level) continued the rapid growth that started with the pandemic.

Enrolment increased 2.7% from November in the 17 states for which I've been able to locate monthly expansion-category enrollment reported through December. In those 17 states, enrollment increased 27.6% from February 2020 -- the last month in which the economy was unaffected by the pandemic -- through December.

Medicaid enrollment likely near 80 million in December

Subscribe to xpostfactoid

I am pretty confident that total Medicaid enrollment, which stood at 71.2 million in February 2020 according to CMS's adjusted total, is now in the neighborhood of 80 million.*

CMS's official tally through September shows a 9.4% increase from February. My tally below, based on monthly enrollment reports in 33 states, shows a 9.7% increase from February through September, 11.8% through November, and a likely further 1% increase in December (California will as usual drag the all-state percentage increase down a bit). A 12.4% increase from February through December would suggest 80 million total enrollees -- pretty close to a quarter of the U.S. population.

ACA marketplace coverage can be as generous as the Biden administration wants it to be

Subscribe to xpostfactoid

A core Democratic party campaign promise was to "build on" the Affordable Care Act -- which at a minimum means making coverage obtained in the ACA marketplace far more affordable.  The party now has the narrowest possible majority in the Senate, along with a narrowed majority in the House, and the presidency.  To what extent will they deliver, and by what means?

As noted in the last two posts, the current mainstream Democratic proposal, as expressed in the Affordable Care Enhancement Act that passed the House last June, includes generous boosts to ACA marketplace subsidies at every income level, capping premiums for a benchmark silver plan at a maximum of 8.5% of income, no matter how high the income. Those "enhancements" may well get watered down in legislation that must pass via reconciliation with zero defections from the most conservative party members. 

Whether in place of or to complement legislation, the Biden administration can take regulatory action on multiple fronts that would have a major impact on the coverage that marketplace enrollees get for their money. Stan Dorn and Frederick Isasi of Families USA recently proposed some half-dozen regulatory measures to improve affordability, along with other steps to streamline enrollment and expand eligibility. 

Here I want to focus on one arcane-sounding proposal, described briefly in the Families USA package, that could radically (or not so radically) increase the value of coverage at each of the ACA's metal levels.  Those levels are set by "actuarial value" (AV), the percentage of the average enrollee's yearly costs that a plan is designed to cover, as determined by a formula promulgated by a division of CMS.  By statute, plans in the ACA marketplace conform (with some wiggle room) to four AV levels: bronze (60% AV), silver (70% AV), gold (80% AV) and platinum (90% AV).

Revaluing AV

The regulatory action in question, conceived by health insurance professional Gabriel McGlamery and healthcare policy researcher David Anderson, is to change the basis by which the AV of plans at the ACA metal levels is calculated by excluding enrollees with predictably high costs from the calculation. Doing so would raise effective AV at each metal level.  

ACA Hunger Games, Part II

Subscribe to xpostfactoid 

I'd like to revisit the "hunger games" scenario for legislation to improve the ACA posited in the last post. In brief: assume that Democrats, forced to accommodate their most conservative members to get all 51 of their Senate votes on board for any legislation passed through reconciliation, pare back the broad expansion of premium subsidies for ACA marketplace coverage they've proposed elsewhere -- e.g., in candidate Biden's health care plan and in the House-passed Affordable Care Enhancement Act of 2020 (ACEA). If forced to scale back, should they:

a. Concentrate on the currently unsubsidized, for whom coverage is often truly unaffordable, capping premiums for a benchmark plan as a percentage of income (e.g., 8.5% as in the ACEA, but probably higher)?

b. Concentrate on lower incomes, where takeup among the subsidy-eligible has been poor? (See the last post for the ACEA subsidy scale and how it compares to current law.)

c. Spread whatever enhanced subsidy money they can muster across all income groups?

If Democrats get skimpy with ACA enhancement, who should get half a loaf?

Subscribe to xpostfactoid 

With a 50-50 Senate under Democratic control, how far will the Democrats go in rendering health insurance more affordable for those who currently find it unaffordable?

The Affordable Care Enhancement Act passed by the Democratic House last June would reduce the percentage of income paid for a benchmark silver plan in the ACA marketplace at every income level -- and remove the income cap on subsidy eligibility, currently 400% of the Federal Poverty Level ($51,040 for an individual, $104,800 for a family of four). Premiums for a benchmark silver plan would range from $0 (at incomes up to 150% FPL) to 8.5% of income. Here's the scale established by the bill:

The 117th Congress should end Medicaid Estate Recovery for the ACA Medicaid expansion population

Subscribe to xpostfactoid 

n.b. 4/7/21: see update from 2021 MACPAC report at bottom

Democrats have big plans on the healthcare front, only some of which they're likely to push through Congress with a threadbare Senate majority. Look for some sweetening of ACA marketplace subsidies and meaningful action to contain prescription drug prices. 

First, though, some housekeeping. The first healthcare bill advanced in the 117th Congress will likely render moot Texas v. California,  the suit now before the Supreme Court seeking to have the ACA declared unconstitutional. A single sentence, either restoring an individual mandate penalty of $1 or repealing the mandate and declaring in severable from the rest of the ACA, should suffice.

For their second act, Democrats should take up a bill introduced just last month by Rep. Steve King (R). Yes, that Steve King, ex of Iowa's 4th District, the notorious racist who was defeated in a primary last June and is no longer in the House.

Balance billing arbitration tilts toward providers in New Jersey -- less so in new federal law

Subscribe to xpostfactoid 

 A study published in Health Affairs by Benjamin Chartock, Loren Adler et al. finds that the arbitration of out-of-network bills established by New Jersey's balance billing protection law has yielded extraordinarily high payments to providers:

Arbitration awards were considerably higher than typical in-network payment amounts  Compared with the HCCI data, we found that the mean and median arbitration awards were 9.0 and 5.7 times higher, respectively, than the median in-network price for the same set of services, with 31 percent of cases decided for amounts more than ten times the median in network price (exhibit 1). Because commercial insurers tend to pay more than Medicare, the contrast is even starker with Medicare rates. The mean and median arbitration awards were 12.8 and 8.5 times Medicare prices, respectively, with 45 percent of cases awarded at amounts more than 10 times what Medicare would have paid (exhibit 2). In both comparisons, the large divergence between the relative mean and median awards primarily stemmed from the skewness of arbitrated payment amounts  

The New Jersey law mandates "baseball" arbitration, in which arbitrators must rule in favor of one of the two competing bids, rather than than splitting the difference. The study authors note that arbitration awards in New Jersey track pretty closely with the 80th percentile of billed charges -- which are many times higher than in-network rates:

At the New Year, pause to celebrate Medicaid

Subscribe to xpostfactoid 

Let's ring out 2020 with a final tracking of Medicaid enrollment during the pandemic.

In this 33-state sample, based on state monthly reports, Medicaid enrollment increased 11.1% from February through October, and an estimated 12.1%* from February through November. 

Since the increase reported in CMS's official tallies, currently running through a preliminary August report, generally show about a half percentage point slower growth** than my more up-to-date tally (8.3% vs. 8.8% for August), I imagine that CMS will show an increase of about 11.6%, February through November. That would mean 79.4 million people enrolled through November, an increase of about 8.25 million since February. [Update, 4/5/21: CMS's preliminary November total does indeed show an increase of 11.6% since February.]

The ACA as pandemic safety net

Subscribe to xpostfactoid 

In the New York Times Upshot, Margot Sanger-Katz, Sarah Kliff and Quocktrung Bui report that the health insurance safety net as bolstered by the ACA, patchy though it is, appears to have held the uninsured rate close to steady during the pandemic months. In brief: Medicaid enrollment in the ACA expansion category is up more than 20% since February; ACA marketplace enrollment in 36 HealthCare.gov states is up 6.6% for 2021, and losses of employer-sponsored health insurance appear relatively modest.

I have been tracking these developments as they unfold. Some of the posts below corroborate the core findings cited in Upshot, and some supplement those findings. In reverse chronological order:

• ACA marketplace enrollment was already up by more than 6% year-over-year by June 2020. 

• Medicaid enrollment among those rendered eligible by the ACA Medicaid expansion is up more than 20% since February and likely exceeds 18 million.

• In states that have so far refused to enact the ACA Medicaid expansion, the ACA marketplace has picked up some slack: in nonexpansion states, marketplace enrollment is up 10% in 2021.

In response to the pandemic, ACA marketplace enrollment was likely up 6 percent-plus by June 2020, year-over-year

Subscribe to xpostfactoid 

See June 2021 update below the first chart.

CMS has released average monthly effectuated enrollment in the ACA marketplace for the first half of 2020. Combined with updated data about enrollment from February through May 2020 via the Special Enrollment Periods (SEPs) granted to people who lose access to other insurance or undergo other "life changes" outside the annual Open Enrollment period, the new data offers some measure of the extent to which Americans turned to the marketplace in response to loss of employer coverage triggered by the pandemic.

While total enrollments as of the end of Open Enrollment* were nearly identical in 2019 and 2020 (total plan selections down by 0.03%), average monthly enrollment through June (10,543,098) was up 3.4% in 2020 compared to June 2019 (10,194,206).

The average monthly enrollment comparison probably understates the impact of increased enrollment via SEP and improved retention during the pandemic months. The averages include monthly totals for January through March, when the pandemic's effects were zero to minimal. In June 2019,** effectuated enrollment was 9,797,989, 7.4% below the total for February 2019. We don't yet have a comparable figure for June 2020: it will be included in the effectuated enrollment snapshot for February 2021, which probably won't drop until this summer. But the year-over-year increase as of June 2020 was almost certainly well above the 3.4% half-year increase in average enrollment, and the increase likely continued to grow throughout 2020.

At pandemic's peak, Medicaid expansion enrollment is keeping pace

Subscribe to xpostfactoid 

Deep into fall and a resurgent pandemic, Medicaid enrollment growth among those rendered eligible by the ACA expansion (adults with incomes up to 138% FPL, or $1,468/month for an individual) shows no sign of abating. 

In the 18-state sample below, representing about 36% of the "expansion" population in the 37 states (including D.C.) that have have enacted the ACA expansion thus far, enrollment in this category increased 22.1% from February through October. In fourteen states that have reported through November, enrollment is up 24.7% since October. Month-to-month, enrollment increased 2.2% from September to October (18 states) and 2.3% October to November (14 states). 

Pandemic Medicaid Expansion Enrollment in 18 States

February through November

ACA marketplace enrollment up 10% in states that haven't expanded Medicaid

Subscribe to xpostfactoid 

CMS has reported* preliminary final 2021 enrollment figures in the ACA marketplace for the 36 states using the federal exchange, HealthCare.gov. In this pandemic year, enrollment in those states is up 6.6% compared to 2020 -- the first year of enrollment increase as of the end of Open Enrollment** since 2016.

Of course, enrollment increase is not uniform across those states -- every state market is different. Charles Gaba has helpfully broken out the 2020 vs. 2021 totals by state, and kindly lent me his charts. From the state totals one obvious pattern leaps out: enrollment is up 9.7% in states that have not enacted the ACA Medicaid expansion -- and down 0.5% in states that have expanded the expansion (including Nebraska, which opened the Medicaid expansion doors in October of this year). Below is Charles' chart broken out by expansion/nonexpansion.

ACA marketplace enrollment 2020 vs. 2021: Non-expansion states using HealthCare.gov 

NJ legislature rushing to enable de facto for-profit conversion of Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield

Subscribe to xpostfactoid 

After 25 years of trying, Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey, which provides health insurance to more than a third of the state's residents, is on the brink of pushing through the legislature a bill (S3218/A5119) enabling de facto for-profit conversion, or at least a stepping stone to such conversion. The bill has passed through key committees and is scheduled for a floor vote tomorrow (Dec. 17).

The complex bill, obviously written by Horizon executives, reorganizes the current nonprofit established by statute as a nonprofit -- but not charitable -- mutual holding company, with the insurer becoming a for-profit subsidiary, and the holding company empowered to create more for-profit subsidiaries, all of which can sell stock to investors. Horizon would pay $600 million up front to the state as compensation for a favorable change in its tax status, with a dubious commitment to contribute another $650 billion over nearly two decades, dependent on its degree of profitability. That money will go into the state's general fund -- not into a health foundation as in other states that have authorized conversion. Horizon has an estimated $7 billion in assets that as of now belong by statute to the people of New Jersey.

The state's dominant Democratic party is behind this legislation -- whether because of Horizon's powerful position in the state, credence lent to the company's happy talk about investment in new technologies and its existing charitable programs, or desperation for cash in the wake of the pandemic's devastation. 

The Trumping of the American Mind: Michelle Goldberg vs. Corey Robin

Subscribe to xpostfactoid 

Probably no one understands American conservatism and the European conservatism it grew out of better than Corey Robin, author of The Reactionary Mind: Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Sarah Palin. Goodreads summarizes:

Tracing conservatism back to its roots in the reaction against the French Revolution, Robin argues that the right is fundamentally inspired by a hostility to emancipating the lower orders. Some conservatives endorse the free market, others oppose it. Some criticize the state, others celebrate it. Underlying these differences is the impulse to defend power and privilege against movements demanding freedom and equality.

When it comes to Trump, however, Robin seems to be a classic case of a scholar blinkered by his own knowledge. In an interview with David Klion, he said:

As long as no one is thrown off Medicaid, will enrollment keep growing by 1% per month?

Subscribe to xpostfactoid 

I am beginning to wonder. I gather that no one has a precise idea what percentage of Medicaid enrollees are disenrolled every month by state income checks and eligibility redeterminations. The Families First Act paused those disenrollments for the duration of the national emergency -- as of now, through the end of March -- though a new interim final rule issued by Seema Verma's CMS appears to give states a green light to deem some past enrollments "invalid" and void them.

Of course, people continue to disenroll from Medicaid -- when they get a job with affordable insurance, or marry someone with insurance, or move, or age into Medicare (at which point the income thresholds for Medicaid drop in most states), or age out of CHIP, or die...etc. etc. It also seems clear that with 5 million more unemployed in November than in February, despite a snap-back from 14 million newly unemployed at the May peak, demand for Medicaid has grown.

At the same time, the Kaiser Family Foundation recently found that the ranks of those insured through employers have decreased only modestly (-1.5%) in the pandemic. Medicaid enrollment, meanwhile, has continued to grow by 1% per month or more in recent months -- at least by my compilation of state monthly enrollment reports, which shows somewhat more growth that CMS's time-lagged official monthly tally.* Certainly a significant portion, and possibly a very large portion of the enrollment growth is a result of the pause in disenrollments.

From those wonderful folks who brought you ACA nullification....

Subscribe to xpostfactoid 

Does the rogue's gallery of state attorneys general asking the Supreme Court to end American democracy by overturning presidential election results in Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania look familiar? Here are the states that joined an amicus brief in support of the suit filed by indicted Texas attorney general Ken Paxton alleging that all of those states' certified election results are the product of massive but utterly undocumented fraud:

All of these states except Oklahoma and Montana* are plaintiffs in California v. Texas, the suit arguing that when the Republican Congress zeroed out the ACA individual mandate penalty in December 2017, they rendered the entire sprawling law unconstitutional, either by accident or by stealth.

Insured Americans' MOOP exposure rises relentlessly

Subscribe to xpostfactoid 

After premium increases exceeding 20% roiled the ACA marketplace in 2017 and 2018, premiums have been essentially flat for three years. That's good news for unsubsidized enrollees, who left the market in droves in 2017-18. The flat premiums reflect a stable market, to which insurers have been returning.

Premiums are only half of the affordability equation, however. For those who require substantial medical care, out-of-pocket costs can loom even larger. And these costs have been rising relentlessly, reflecting the degree to which medical inflation continues to outpace overall inflation, particularly in private insurance.

While deductibles are the most familiar proxy for out-of-pocket costs, the ACA's statutory annual out-of-pocket maximum (MOOP) is an at least equally important measure. The MOOP represents an enrollee's total exposure in a healthcare system in which a short hospital stay will likely hit the cap. The MOOP, moreover, applies to employer-sponsored insurance as well. Every year, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) resets the highest allowable MOOP.

The MOOP cap has been rising relentlessly since the inception of the ACA marketplace, from $6,300 for an individual in 2014 to a proposed $9,100 in 2022 - a 44% increase over 9 years. (MOOP for a couple or family is double the individual amount.). The yearly increase is calculated to reflect the average increase in commercial market premiums, which in turn presumably reflects the cost of care paid for by commercial plans. For comparison, median household income increased 16% from 2014 to 2020; the maximum allowable MOOP increased 29% in that span.

Medicaid enrollment growth stays on pace in October

Subscribe to xpostfactoid 

The growth in Medicaid enrollment stimulated by the pandemic -- and by the pause in disenrollments mandated by the Families First Act -- appears not to have slowed in October, or not appreciably.

In the 29 states for which October numbers are recorded below, enrollment is up 1.2% in September. As usual, slow growth in California will probably drag the national rate down. In fact, California's September total is also tentative, for reasons explained at bottom. Illinois' September total remains estimated.

When all the October numbers are in, the 32-state sample below, based on state-published monthly reports, will probably show a 10.7% increase nationally since February. As I detailed in my last post, CMS's official tallies, now posted through July and updated through June, indicate a slightly slower growth rate -- 6.8% compared to my 7.4% tally for July.  A similar gap for October would suggest 9.8% growth since February, and a national enrollment total through October of 78.2 million nationally. 

State Medicaid enrollment totals in light of CMS's (lagging) reports

Subscribe to xpostfactoid 

Update, 12/21/20: CMS has just posted its preliminary August Medicaid/CHIP enrollment total: 76,489,912, up 8.3% since February (per below, CMS compares preliminary totals from each month for consistency; the final total for August will probably be 300-400,000 higher than the prelim). My own August estimate, based on state reports, was 8.7% growth since February. As I'm showing an 11% increase from February through October, CMS will probably come in at a bit over 10% - probably about 78.5 million total enrollment.

CMS's monthly tally of state-by-state Medicaid enrollment growth in this pandemic year is currently posted through July* -- reflecting five months in which enrollment was affected by the Covid-19 pandemic, and four-plus months in which the suspension of disenrollments mandated by the Families First Act was in effect. 

Most states post provisional Medicaid totals on state websites on a monthly basis, revising at varying intervals, and I have been tracking enrollment in 32 states in advance of CMS's 2-3-month lag. The available state reports vary somewhat from the the CMS tabulations, and both are adjusted retroactively. February-through-July is a large enough sample for me to compare my monthly tallies with the  CMS figures.

From February through July, in 32 states, I recorded a 7.4% increase in Medicaid enrollment.  Since CMS has so far only released its preliminary report for July, an apples-to-apples February-July comparison requires using CMS's preliminary rather than the updated February totals. With each month's new preliminary report, CMS reports updates the prior month state-by-state totals, and the updated totals are higher, as they include retroactive enrollment and enrollees whose applications were not finalized in the prior month. The February updated total is 405,491 higher than the preliminary February tally.** Comparing the preliminary totals for both months, as CMS does here, suggests a 6.9% increase nationally from February-July, and 6.8% in the 32 states I track, as the chart below shows. Links to the state-issued reports are provided at bottom.

The most recent published update to my 32-state sample derived from state-published supports suggests about 9.7% increase from February through September. Reducing that estimate proportionately to the July estimate would peg growth from February-September at 8.9%, suggesting total enrollment of about 77.5 million. [Update, 4/5/21: CMS's updated total for September is 77,682,409.] Totals look to be up more than 1% in October, putting enrollment above 78 million.

Pennsylvania transforms its ACA marketplace with one sentence

Subscribe to xpostfactoid 

With a two-step regulatory change*, Pennsylvania has transformed its ACA marketplace. The measure is probably the most impactful single step a state has taken to improve its marketplace. And the move won't cost the state a cent. It simply picks up money the Trump administration left on the table when it cut off direct federal reimbursement of insurers for the Cost Sharing Reduction (CSR) subsidies they must provide to low income marketplace enrollees who select silver plans.

The new Insurance Department regulation (Revision 1b here) requires individual market insurers filing rate submissions to make this change:

CSR Defunding Adjustment of 1.20 – all individual silver exchange plans.

In other words, price silver plans proportionately to their real actuarial value (as estimated by the Department) with CSR priced in -- at 1.2 times the value of silver without CSR.  

That change dates back to 2020. For 2021, the Dept. of Insurance added a requirement that insurers must base their estimates of "induced demand" at each metal level on the scale HHS uses for its risk adjustment program, also incorporating the CSR adjustment.  "Induced demand" is a measure of how much each increase in coverage generosity is likely to stimulate more use of medical services. Left to their own devices, insurers have tended to overestimate the "induced demand" imputed to gold plans, leading to their overpricing relative to silver.

The change standardizes, and therefore in almost all cases increases, silver loading -- pricing of CSR into the premiums of silver plans only, since CSR is available only with silver plans (see note below). The result: statewide, the cheapest gold plan costs less than the benchmark silver plan against which premium subsidies are set, and bronze plan discounts have increased as well.