The moves affect consumers and have particular resonance for the 19 states (plus Washington, D.C.) that run their own ACA exchanges.

Many of those states fear that the additional red tape — especially requirements that would end automatic reenrollment — would have an outsize impact on their policyholders. That’s because a greater percentage of people in those states use those rollovers versus shopping around each year, which is more commonly done by people in states that use the federal healthcare.gov marketplace.

“The federal marketplace always had a message of, ‘Come back in and shop,’ while the state-based markets, on average, have a message of, ‘Hey, here’s what you’re going to have next year, here’s what it will cost; if you like it, you don’t have to do anything,’” said Ellen Montz, who oversaw the federal ACA marketplace under the Biden administration as deputy administrator and director at the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight. She is with the Manatt Health consulting group.

Millions — perhaps up to half of enrollees in some states — may lose or drop coverage as a result of that and other changes in the legislation combined with a new rule from the Trump administration and the likely expiration at year’s end of enhanced premium subsidies put in place during the covid-19 pandemic. Without an extension of those subsidies, which have been an important driver of Obamacare enrollment in recent years, premiums are expected to rise . That’s starting to happen already, based on for next year, which are hitting double digits.

“We estimate a minimum 30% enrollment loss, and, in the worst-case scenario, a 50% loss,” said Devon Trolley, executive director of Pennie, the ACA marketplace in Pennsylvania, this year, .

Drops of that magnitude nationally, coupled with the expected loss of Medicaid coverage for millions more people under the legislation Trump calls the “One Big Beautiful Bill,” could undo inroads made in the nation’s uninsured rate, which dropped by about half from the time most of the ACA’s provisions went into effect in 2014, when it hovered around 14% to 15% of the population, to just over 8%, according to the .

Premiums would rise along with the uninsured rate, because older or sicker policyholders are more likely to try to jump enrollment hurdles, while those who rarely use coverage — and are thus less expensive — would not.

After a dramatic all-night session, House Republicans passed the bill, meeting the president’s July 4 deadline. Trump is expected to sign the measure on Independence Day. It would increase the federal deficit by trillions of dollars and cut spending on a variety of programs, including Medicaid and nutrition assistance, to partly offset the cost of extending tax cuts put in place during the first Trump administration.

The administration and its supporters say the GOP-backed changes to the ACA are needed to combat fraud. Democrats and ACA supporters see this effort as the latest in a long history of Republican efforts to weaken or repeal Obamacare. , the legislation would end several changes put in place by the Biden administration that were credited with making it easier to sign up, such as lengthening the annual open enrollment period and launching a special program for very low-income people that essentially allows them to sign up year-round.

In addition, automatic reenrollment, used by for 2025 ACA coverage, would end in the 2028 sign-up season. Instead, consumers would have to update their information, starting in August each year, before the close of open enrollment, which would end Dec. 15, a month earlier than currently.

That’s a key change to combat rising enrollment fraud, said Brian Blase, president of the conservative Paragon Health Institute, because it gets at what he calls the Biden era’s “lax verification requirements.”

He blames automatic reenrollment, coupled with the availability of zero-premium plans for people with lower incomes that qualify them for large subsidies, for a sharp uptick in complaints from insurers, consumers, and brokers about fraudulent enrollments in 2023 and 2024. Those complaints centered on consumers’ being enrolled in an ACA plan, or switched from one to another, without authorization, often by commission-seeking brokers.

In , Blase wrote that “this simple step will close a massive loophole and significantly reduce improper enrollment and spending.”

States that run their own marketplaces, however, saw few, if any, such problems, which were confined mainly to the 31 states using the federal healthcare.gov.

The state-run marketplaces credit their additional security measures and tighter control over broker access than healthcare.gov for the relative lack of problems.

“If you look at California and the other states that have expanded their Medicaid programs, you don’t see that kind of fraud problem,” said Jessica Altman, executive director of Covered California, the state’s Obamacare marketplace. “I don’t have a single case of a consumer calling Covered California saying, ‘I was enrolled without consent.’”

Such rollovers are common with other forms of health insurance, such as job-based coverage.

“By requiring everyone to come back in and provide additional information, and the fact that they can’t get a tax credit until they take this step, it is essentially making marketplace coverage the most difficult coverage to enroll in,” said Trolley at Pennie, 65% of whose policyholders were automatically reenrolled this year, according to . KFF is a health information nonprofit that includes ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News.

about 22% of federal sign-ups in 2024 were automatic-reenrollments, versus 58% in state-based plans. Besides Pennsylvania, the states that saw such sign-ups for more than 60% of enrollees include California, New York, Georgia, New Jersey, and Virginia, according to KFF.

States do check income and other eligibility information for all enrollees — including those being automatically renewed, those signing up for the first time, and those enrolling outside the normal open enrollment period because they’ve experienced a loss of coverage or other life event or meet the rules for the low-income enrollment period.

“We have access to many data sources on the back end that we ping, to make sure nothing has changed. Most people sail through and are able to stay covered without taking any proactive step,” Altman said.

If flagged for mismatched data, applicants are asked for additional information. Under current law, “we have 90 days for them to have a tax credit while they submit paperwork,” Altman said.

That would change under the tax and spending plan before Congress, ending presumptive eligibility while a person submits the information.

written for , a Washington-based consultancy that specializes in economic analysis, concluded there appears to be little upside to the changes.

While “tighter verification can curb improper enrollments,” the additional paperwork, along with the expiration of higher premiums from the enhanced tax subsidies, “would push four to six million eligible people out of Marketplace plans, trading limited fraud savings for a surge in uninsurance,” wrote free market economists Ike Brannon and Anthony LoSasso.

“Insurers would be left with a smaller, sicker risk pool and heightened pricing uncertainty, making further premium increases and selective market exits [by insurers] likely,” they wrote.

ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Por lo general, es tarea del gobierno federal defender una ley federal, pero la Administración Trump quiere que ACA, también conocida como Obamacare, se revoque.

Por eso, el fiscal general de California, Xavier Becerra, respaldado por más de 20 estados, defiende la ley contra el desafío presentado hace dos años por una coalición de funcionarios estatales republicanos.

Becerra ha sido uno de los adversarios más formidables de Trump: ha llevado a la administración a los tribunales decenas de veces por sus políticas, que van desde la inmigración y el control de la natalidad hasta el cambio climático. Se le considera uno de los principales contendientes para llenar la vacante del Senado que se abrirá ahora que la senadora por California Kamala Harris ha sido elegida vicepresidenta.

“Tan enérgicamente como un presidente y su administración están luchando para destruir la Ley de Cuidado de Salud a Bajo Precio, nosotros estamos luchando para salvarla para todos los estadounidenses”, dijo Becerra a los periodistas en una conferencia de prensa el lunes 9.

Si el tribunal anula toda la ley, el impacto se sentiría ampliamente. La ley proporciona seguro médico a más de 23 millones de estadounidenses. Permite a las personas que califican comprar seguros a través de los mercados estatales y el federal, y recibir subsidios.

También ha recomendado  a los estados expandir sus programas de Medicaid a más personas; previene que las compañías de seguros nieguen cobertura a personas con afecciones médicas preexistentes; prohíbe los límites de por vida en la cobertura; agrega beneficios a Medicare; y permite que los hijos permanezcan en los planes de sus padres hasta los 26 años.

El tema central en es la multa fiscal federal por no tener seguro médico, como exige la ley. En 2017, el Congreso liderado por los republicanos redujo esta multa a cero, pero mantuvo intacta al resto de la ley, una medida que, según Becerra y otros expertos en leyes, muestra la intención del Congreso de apoyarla.

Sin embargo, funcionarios estatales republicanos dicen que la pérdida de la penalidad invalida el mandato de tener un seguro, así como toda la ley.

Becerra dijo que es posible que el tribunal determine que los impugnadores no tienen legitimidad para demandar al gobierno porque nadie ha sido perjudicado por una multa que cuesta cero.

Aunque la corte ha ratificado dos veces esta ley, la composición de la corte ha cambiado desde su último fallo sobre ACA en 2015. Desde entonces, Trump ha nombrado a tres jueces conservadores. Dos reemplazaron a otros conservadores, pero Amy Coney Barrett, quien fue confirmada a fines de octubre, ocupa el asiento de un ícono liberal, la jueza Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Abbe Gluck, directora del Centro Salomón de Derecho y Políticas de Salud de la Escuela de Derecho de Yale, dijo que si el tribunal cree que el requisito del seguro médico es inconstitucional sin la penalidad, debería simplemente declarar inválida esa sección de la ley, pero no anularla por completo.

Pero “he aprendido que nunca se puede predecir lo que sucede en la corte cuando se trata de la Ley de Cuidado de Salud a Bajo Precio”, dijo Gluck. “Por eso hay más preocupación, porque el estatuto se ha vuelto tan fundamentalmente importante para una quinta parte de nuestra economía y para la atención médica de prácticamente todos los estadounidenses”.

Becerra habló con Samantha Young de California Healthline sobre su defensa del Obamacare y el enorme alcance de la influencia de la ley. La entrevista ha sido editada por extension, y para mayor claridad.

¿Cuáles son las posibilidades de que la Corte Suprema derogue la Ley de Cuidado de Salud a Bajo Precio?

Confiamos en que no solo verán la lógica legal detrás de esto, sino también la sabiduría y el éxito práctico de la Ley de Cuidado de Salud a Bajo Precio, lo cual pesa mucho a favor de que los jueces reconozcan no solo que es legal, sino indispensable. Cuando los jueces examinen los fundamentos de la Ley de Cuidado de Salud a Bajo Precio, encontrarán que es constitucional.

La composición de la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos ha cambiado desde la última vez que se pronunció sobre ACA. ¿Por qué cree que estos jueces decidirán de la misma manera?

Eso no debería cambiar el hecho de que los fundamentos de la ley siguen siendo los mismos. Los fundamentos de ACA son sólidos y funcionan. Espero que nueve jueces que revisan la misma ley observen ese precedente.

¿A qué debe prestar atención el público durante los argumentos orales?

Algo interesante de observar es cómo la corte interpreta las acciones tomadas por el Congreso en 2017, cuando aprobaron el proyecto de ley de exención de impuestos y redujeron a cero la tarifa o multa por el mandato individual. Ahora, estamos ante un presidente y al menos una cámara en el Congreso que está preparada para defender la Ley de Cuidado de Salud a Bajo Precio. ¿Cómo podría considerar el tribunal el hecho de que otro Congreso podría restablecer parte de ese mandato?

¿Cómo se relaciona esto con el argumento legal de que haber reducido a cero el mandato de alguna manera provocó la inconstitucionalidad de toda la ley? Creo que es una cuestión que el tribunal tendrá que examinar.

¿Qué pasará si la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos declara inconstitucional la Ley de Cuidado de Salud a Bajo Precio?

Volverán las preocupaciones. La atención preventiva de Medicare desaparecería. Los días en que los estadounidenses no tenían que preocuparse por la bancarrota por haber pisado un hospital prácticamente se esfumarían.

Tengo tres hijas. Hubo un tiempo que, como adultas, las tres estaban en nuestra cobertura de atención médica. Eso desaparecería porque la disposición que permite que los hijos adultos menores de 26 años permanezcan en la cobertura de los padres desaparecería. Y podría seguir y seguir.

¿Podrían los estados, incluido California, darse el lujo de intervenir por su cuenta?

No sé si hay algún estado que tenga la capacidad de reemplazar lo que hace la Ley de Cuidado de Salud a Bajo Precio. Es casi imposible. Parte de eso se debe a que no podemos replicar algunas de las cosas que puede hacer el gobierno federal. No tenemos esa jurisdicción federal, no tenemos esa amplitud y profundidad de alcance.

Si el tribunal anula ACA, ¿el Congreso no puede aprobar protecciones parciales que cuenten con el apoyo de los republicanos, como la cobertura de afecciones preexistentes?

Hemos escuchado a los republicanos decir “revocar y reemplazar” durante más de 10 años, y ha sido una retórica vacía desde el principio. Para los padres que tienen hijos con afecciones médicas preexistentes, no es reconfortante que alguien les prometa que reemplazarán un derecho que saben que ahora tienen para que sus hijo vayan al hospital. Y, ¿por qué desecharías eso por una promesa vacía que ya lleva 10 años?

La mayoría de los estadounidenses dirían: sigue construyendo sobre la base de la Ley de Cuidado de Salud a Bajo Precio. Mejorémosla, pero no descartemos lo que ha funcionado.

¿Cómo sabe que la Ley de Cuidado de Salud a Bajo Precio está funcionando?

Mi antiguo distrito congresional en Los Ángeles se encontraba entre los distritos congresionales con más cantidad de personas sin seguro de salud de la nación. En cuestión de años, una vez que entró en vigor la Ley de Cuidado de Salud a Bajo Precio, la tasa de personas sin seguro en ese distrito se redujo en un 50%. Fue simplemente astronómico.

La Ley de Cuidado de Salud a Bajo Precio hizo posible que las familias trabajadoras pudieran obtener cobertura y eso es enorme. Ese es el tipo de carga que se quita del alma.

¿Cree que tener a Joe Biden como presidente y a Kamala Harris como vicepresidenta en la Casa Blanca llevará a una mejora en la Ley de Cuidado de Salud a Bajo Precio?

Como candidato a presidente, Joe Biden dijo que se basaría en el éxito de la presidencia de Obama-Biden y se aseguraría que sigamos aumentando el número de estadounidenses con acceso a una atención médica asequible. Lo bueno es que finalmente tienes a alguien en la parte superior del tótem que dice que lo vamos a mejorar. Por eso esta elección fue tan importante.

Esta historia de KHN fue publicada primero en , un servicio de la .

ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

It’s usually the federal government’s job to defend a federal law, but President Donald Trump’s administration wants this law, also known as Obamacare, to be overturned.

So California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, backed by more than 20 other states, is defending the law against the challenge brought by a coalition of Republican state officials two years ago.

Becerra has been one of Trump’s most formidable adversaries, taking the administration to court scores of times over its policies, ranging from immigration and birth control to climate change. He is considered one of the leading contenders to fill the Senate vacancy that will open now that Sen. Kamala Harris of California has been elected vice president.

“Just as vigorously as a president and his administration are fighting to destroy the Affordable Care Act, we are fighting to save it for every American,” Becerra told reporters in a press conference Monday.

Should the court overturn the entire law, the impact would be felt widely. The law provides health insurance to more than 23 million Americans. It allows qualified people to buy subsidized insurance through federal or state insurance exchanges; permits states to expand their Medicaid programs to more people; prevents insurance companies from denying coverage to people with preexisting medical conditions; bans lifetime limits on coverage; adds benefits to Medicare; and allows children to stay on their parents’ plans up to age 26.

At issue in is the federal tax penalty for not having health insurance, as the law requires. The Republican-led Congress in 2017 zeroed out the penalty but kept the rest of the health law intact, a move Becerra and some other legal experts say shows congressional intent to support the law. The Republican state officials, however, say the loss of the tax invalidates the mandate to have insurance — as well as the entire law.

Becerra said it’s possible the court may determine that the challengers don’t have standing to sue the government because no one has been harmed by a zero-tax penalty.

Although the court has twice upheld the federal health care law, the composition of the court has changed since its last ACA ruling in 2015. Trump has appointed three conservative judges since then. Two replaced other conservatives, but Amy Coney Barrett, who was confirmed in late October, took the seat of a liberal icon, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Abbe Gluck, faculty director of the Solomon Center for Health Law and Policy at Yale Law School, said that if the court believes the health insurance requirement is unconstitutional without the penalty, it should just hold that section of the law invalid but not overturn the entire law.

But “I have learned that you can never predict what happens in court when it comes to the Affordable Care Act,” Gluck said. “And that is why there is this heightened sense of concern, because the statute has become so fundamentally important to one-fifth of our economy and the health care of virtually all Americans.”

Becerra talked to California Healthline’s Samantha Young about his defense of Obamacare and the far-reaching influence of the law. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Q: What are the chances the Supreme Court could overturn the Affordable Care Act?

We’re confident they will see not just the legal logic behind it, but the wisdom and the practical success of the Affordable Care Act — all of which weigh heavily in favor of the justices recognizing that it’s not only legal but indispensable. When the justices look to the fundamentals of the Affordable Care Act, they’re going to find that it is constitutional.

Q: The makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court has changed since it last ruled on the ACA. Why do you think these justices will rule the same way?

That shouldn’t change the fact that the fundamentals of the law have remained the same. The fundamentals of the ACA are grounded, they’re solid, and they work. I would hope that nine justices reviewing the same law would look at that precedent.

Q: What should the public pay attention to during the oral arguments?

One thing interesting to watch is how the court interprets the actions taken by Congress in 2017 when they passed the tax break bill and zeroed out the individual mandate fee or penalty. Now, we’re looking at a president and at least one house in Congress that’s prepared to defend the Affordable Care Act. How might the court look at the fact that another Congress could reinstitute part of that mandate?

What does that do to the legal argument that having zeroed out the mandate somehow triggered the unconstitutionality of the entire law? I think that’s a question the court will have to examine.

Q: What happens if the U.S. Supreme Court declares the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional?

The worries return. Preventative care under Medicare would be gone. The days when Americans don’t have to worry about going personally bankrupt for having visited a hospital would pretty much be gone.

I’ve got three daughters. There was a time when all three of them as adults were on our health care coverage. That would be gone because the provision that allows adult children under the age of 26 to remain on a parent’s coverage would disappear. I could go on and on.

Q: Could states, including California, afford to step in on their own?

I don’t know if there’s any state who has the capacity to replace what the Affordable Care Act does. It’d be almost insurmountable. Part of that is because we can’t replicate some of the things that the federal government can do. We don’t have that federal jurisdiction, we don’t have that breadth and depth of reach.

Q: If the court overturns the ACA, can’t Congress pass piecemeal protections that have Republican support, such as coverage for preexisting conditions?

We have heard Republicans say “repeal and replace” for more than 10 years, and it’s been empty rhetoric from the beginning. I’ve gotta tell you that for parents who have children with preexisting medical conditions, it is no comfort to have someone promise you that they will replace a right that you know you now have for your child to visit a hospital. And, why would you throw that away for an empty promise that’s 10 years old?

Most Americans would say, Keep building on the Affordable Care Act. Let’s make it better, but don’t scrap what’s worked.

Q: How do you know the Affordable Care Act is working?

My former congressional district in Los Angeles ranked among the most uninsured congressional districts in the nation. In a matter of years, once the Affordable Care Act took place, the uninsured rate in that congressional district had gone down by 50%. It was just astronomical.

The Affordable Care Act made it possible for working families to secure coverage and that’s huge. That’s the kind of burden that’s lifted off your soul.

Q: Do you think having a President Joe Biden and a Vice President Kamala Harris in the White House will lead to an improved Affordable Care Act?

As a candidate for president, Joe Biden said that he would build on the success of the Obama-Biden presidency and make sure that we continue to increase the number of Americans who have access to affordable health care. The good thing is you finally have someone at the top of the totem pole who says we’re going to make it better. And that’s why this election was so important.

This story was produced by , which publishes , an editorially independent service of the .

ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

• Read Wolfson’s “It’s Open Enrollment. Here’s What You Need to Know.”

ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

• Whichever candidate wins the presidency next week will have a heavy lift in mounting a strong public response to battle COVID-19. Polls suggest about a third of people do not believe some of the basic science about the virus or its prevention, such as that using masks can help stem transmission.
• Dr. Scott Gottlieb, who once served as Food and Drug Administration commissioner under Trump, called for a temporary national mask mandate in his column in The Wall Street Journal. He suggested that masks should not be a political issue.
• Gottlieb’s column has been supported by other commentators who suggest that masks need to become a social and cultural norm and compare the debate over their use to similar debates in the past about seat belts, smoking bans and harsh punishments for driving while intoxicated. Those measures all faced opposition from people who complained about civil liberties but gradually became accepted. The difference now is that public health advocates are looking for a quick acceptance of masks.
• Part of the resistance to wearing face masks is that many people don’t understand their purpose and presume masks are for their own protection. But public health officials advocate masks as a way to protect others, especially vulnerable people, from any virus a mask wearer might shed, often without even realizing it.
• Drugmakers and health experts are rolling back expectations about the timing of a COVID vaccine as the trials seek more data. One issue may be that not enough people in the placebo groups have contracted the coronavirus. That could be because people who volunteer for such an endeavor may be more aware of health issues and cautious about the disease.
• Once a vaccine is approved, FDA and other federal health officials will face a number of complicating issues. Among them: How should trials of other vaccine candidates continue and how should the vaccine be distributed?
• Enrollment for insurance plans on the Affordable Care Act’s marketplaces begins Sunday, but many consumers could be forgiven for not knowing that. There is precious little marketing or advertising for the plans, and some people think the Supreme Court is going to overturn the ACA, anyway, and its plans will go away. That’s not known yet and it may well be summer 2021 before there is an answer on that.

ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Since the Affordable Care Act’s marketplaces opened for enrollment in fall 2013, Pennsylvania, like most states, has used the federal website for people buying coverage on their own.

But in a move defying the usual political polarization, state lawmakers from both parties last year agreed the cost of using the federal marketplace had grown too high and the state could do it for much less. They set up the Pennsylvania insurance exchange (nicknamed “Pennie”), designed to pass on expected savings to policyholders. Although the final rates for 2021 are not yet set, insurers have requested about in premiums.

Pennsylvania is one of six states shifting in the next several years from the federal insurance exchange to run their own online marketplaces, which determine eligibility, assist with enrollment and connect buyers with insurance companies. They will join with self-contained exchanges.

The transitions come amid mounting evidence that state marketplaces attract more consumers, especially young adults, and hold down prices better than the federal exchange. They’ve also been gaining appeal since the Trump administration has cut the enrollment period on healthcare.gov and slashed funds for advertising and helping consumers.

State policymakers say they can run their own exchanges more cheaply and efficiently, and can better respond to residents’ and insurers’ needs.

“It comes down to getting more bang for your buck,” said Rachel Schwab, a researcher at Georgetown University’s Center on Health Insurance Reforms in Washington, D.C.

The importance of state-run exchanges was highlighted this year as all but one of them held special enrollment periods to sign up hundreds of thousands of people hurt financially by COVID-caused economic turmoil. The federal exchange, run by the Trump administration, refused to do so, although anyone who has lost workplace insurance is able to buy coverage anytime on either the state or federal exchange.

Like Pennsylvania, New Jersey expects to have its for the start of open enrollment on Nov. 1.

In fall 2021, New Mexico plans to launch its own marketplace and Kentucky is scheduled to fully revive its state-run exchange, which was dismantled by its Republican governor in 2015. Maine has it will move to set up its own exchange, possibly in fall 2021.

Virginia’s this year and hopes to start it in 2022 or 2023.

Nationwide, about get coverage through the state and federal exchanges, with more than 80% receiving federal subsidies to lower their insurance costs.

“Almost across the board, states with their own exchanges have achieved higher enrollment rates than their federal peers, along with lower premiums and better consumer education and protection,” according to a in the Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law.

Controlling ‘Their Own Destiny’

Since 2014, states using the federal marketplaces have had a rise in premiums of 87% while state exchanges saw 47% growth, the study found.

In one key metric, from 2016 to 2019 the in state exchanges rose 11.5%, while states using the federal marketplace recorded an 11.3% drop, a study by the National Academy for State Health Policy found.

Attracting younger enrollees, who tend to be healthy, is vital to helping the marketplaces spread the insurance risk to help keep premiums down, experts say.

When the Affordable Care Act was debated, Republicans and some Democrats in Congress were cautious about a one-size-fits-all approach to insurance and accusations about a federal takeover of health care. So the law’s advocates gave states more control over selling private health coverage. The law’s framers included a provision that allowed states to use millions in federal dollars to launch their own insurance exchanges.

Initially, 49 states took the money. But in 2011, conservative groups convinced Republican-controlled states that forgoing state-run exchanges would help undermine Obamacare.

As a result, most GOP-controlled states defaulted to the federal marketplace.

In the ensuing years, several states that had started their own marketplaces, such as Oregon, Nevada and Hawaii, reverted to the federal exchange because of technological problems. Nevada relaunched its exchange last fall.

“States want to control their own destiny, and the instability of healthcare.gov in the Trump administration has frustrated states,” said Joel Ario, managing director for the consulting firm Manatt Health Solutions and a former Obama administration official, who helped set up the exchanges. States running their own platform can use data to target enrollment efforts, he said.

An Effort to Hold Down Premium Increases

Marlene Caride, New Jersey commissioner of Banking and Insurance, said that “the beauty of [a state-based exchange] is we can tailor it to New Jersey residents and have the ability to help [them] when they are in dire need.”

About 210,000 New Jersey residents enrolled in marketplace health plans for this year.

New Jersey has been spending $50 million a year in user fees for the federal exchange. After startup costs, the , it will cost about $7.6 million a year to run its own exchange enrollment platform and $7 million a year for a customer service center.

Open enrollment on the New Jersey exchange — called Get Covered NJ — will run from Nov. 1 to Jan. 31.

New Jersey plans to for lower-income enrollees. Those would supplement federal subsidies.

Kentucky officials said insurers there were paying $15 million a year in user fees for healthcare.gov, a cost passed on to policyholders. When the state switches to its own operation, it plans to collect $5 million in its first year to cover the startup costs to revive its Kynect exchange and another $1 million to $2 million in annual administrative costs. So insurers will pay lower fees and those savings will help cut premium costs, said Eric Friedlander, secretary of the Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services.

States using the federal marketplace this year paid either a 2.5% or 3% surcharge to the federal government on premiums collected.

In Pennsylvania, where about 330,000 residents buy coverage through an exchange plan, those fees accounted for $90 million a year. State officials estimate they can run their own exchange for about $40 million and will use the savings for that pays insurers to help cover the cost of extremely expensive health care needed by some customers. Removing those costs from the insurers’ responsibility allows them to drop premiums by 5% to 10%, the state projects.

“When we talk about bringing something back to state control, that is a real narrative that can appeal to both sides of the aisle,” said Jessica Altman, the state’s insurance commissioner. “There is nothing political about making health insurance more affordable.” (Altman is the daughter of Drew Altman, CEO of KFF. KHN is an editorially independent program of KFF.)

Without the savings from running its own exchange, Pennsylvania would not have been able to come up with the more than $40 million needed for the reinsurance program, state officials said.

In addition, Pennsylvania has extended its enrollment period to run an extra month, until Jan. 15 (federal marketplace enrollment ends Dec. 15). Pennie also plans to spend three to four times the $400,000 that the federal government allocated to the state for navigators to help with enrollment, said Zachary Sherman, who heads Pennie.

“We think increased outreach and marketing will bring in a healthier population and broaden enrollment,” he said.

ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

But something else happened: Non-COVID care collapsed as hospitals emptied beds and shut down operating rooms to prepare for an expected onslaught of patients sickened by the coronavirus, while fear of contracting it kept people away from ERs, doctors’ offices and outpatient clinics. In many regions of the country, the onslaught did not come, and the billions of dollars lost by hospitals and physicians constituted huge savings for health plans, fattening their bottom lines.

But that doesn’t mean consumers will see lower premiums next year.

Numerous insurers across the country have announced plans to hike rates next year, though some have proposed cuts.

Peter Lee, executive director of Covered California, appeared skeptical about premium reductions in the state’s Affordable Care Act exchange, which is likely to announce 2021 health plan rates next week.

“Would we like zero increases? Absolutely. Would we like them negative? Yeah — but not if that means you’re going to increase premiums in a year by 20%,” Lee said in an interview with this week. “We’ve been leaning on them to do what we always lean on them to do, and this is to have the lowest possible rates where you won’t be on a rate roller coaster. We want health plans to price right — not to price artificially low or artificially high.”

Covered California provides coverage for about 1.5 million residents who buy their own insurance.

If the insurance exchanges in other states offer any guidance for Covered California, it is in the direction of moderate premium increases for 2021, though there is wide variation.

A KFF last week of proposed 2021 rates in the exchanges of 10 states and the District of Columbia showed a median increase of 2.4%, with changes ranging from a hike of 31.8% by a health plan in New Mexico to a cut of 12% in Maryland. (Kaiser Health News, which produces California Healthline, is an editorially independent program of KFF.)

Among the roughly one-third of filings that stated how much COVID-19 added to premiums, the median was 2%, with estimates ranging from minus 1.2% at a plan in Maine to 8.6% at one in Michigan.

The proposed premiums for ACA marketplace plans do not affect job-based coverage, but they may indicate how the pandemic is affecting premiums generally.

The consensus among industry experts is that COVID-19 has generated little pressure for rate rises, and health plans should err on the side of moderation. But some fear that many insurers will hold onto the reserves they’ve built up, citing the possibility of widespread vaccinations and concerns that the care forgone in 2020 could rebound with a vengeance next year.

“The tendency of health plans, when they are faced with any degree of uncertainty, is to be very conservative and price for the worst-case scenario,” said Michael Johnson, an industry observer and critic who worked as an executive at Blue Shield of California from 2003 to 2015. “Actuaries are less likely to get fired if the plan prices too high than if the plan prices too low. But I think regulators really need to push back hard on that.”

Lee said all 11 insurers participating in the exchange this year will remain in 2021, and no new ones will be added to the mix, though some of the current carriers will extend their coverage geographically. Ninety percent of consumers who buy their own health insurance get subsidies from the federal government or the state to help pay their premiums.

In January, California became the first state to offer who make too much money to qualify for federal subsidies. The lion’s share of the state subsidies is earmarked for those who earn between 400% and 600% of the federal poverty level, or $51,040 to $76,560 a year for an individual and $104,800 to $157,200 for a family of four.

The rate proposals expected to be unveiled next week will be subject to scrutiny by state regulators before they are finalized. Sign-ups for the plans start Nov. 1 and run through Jan. 31. This year, Covered California rate increase statewide was 0.8%, the lowest since the exchange started providing coverage in 2014.

The benefits reaped by health plans so far in the pandemic can be seen in strong second-quarter earnings and reduced spending on care. UnitedHealth Group, the nation’s largest health insurer, announced earlier this month that its in the April-June quarter nearly doubled from the same period a year earlier. Its medical spending plummeted from 83.1% of premium revenue to 70.2% over that period.

Anthem, the parent company of Blue Cross of California, Wednesday that its net profit in the second quarter doubled from the same period in 2019, also on the back of plunging medical expenses.

Anthem said it offered one-month premium credits ranging from 10% to 50% to enrollees in individual, employer and group dental policies — including its Blue Cross plans in California.

UnitedHealth said it has provided $1.5 billion worth of financial support to consumers so far, including premium credits and cost-sharing waivers, and expects to pay out $1 billion in rebates.

But UnitedHealth, which does not participate in Covered California, is seeking a rate increase of 13.8% in the New York exchange. Anthem, which covers about 80,000 people in Covered California, is planning rate hikes of 16.6% in Kentucky and 9.9% in Connecticut.

On the other hand, Kaiser Permanente, which covers more than one-third of Covered California enrollees, plans rate cuts in other states, ranging from 1% in Hawaii to 11% in Maryland. (Kaiser Health News, which produces California Healthline, is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.)

Lee downplayed the notion of a financial boon for California health plans, saying that, partly because of the use of telehealth, primary care has rebounded and the plans are paying for it. “So we don’t see this as being at this point a bonanza year for health plans,” he said. “Rather, it’s a year in which there are lessons learned for how we can deliver care in a pandemic.”

Still, the health plans are in a far stronger position than they had feared earlier this year.

In March, Covered California released a showing that COVID-19’s impact on 2021 premiums for individuals and employers could range from an increase of 4% to more than 40%. But less than three months later, commissioned by the industry’s national advocacy group, America’s Health Insurance Plans, showed that even in the worst-case scenario of a 60% COVID infection rate — far above where it stands now — the pandemic would increase medical costs in 2020 and 2021 by 6% at most, and could even decrease them.

That moderate effect is largely attributable to what Katherine Hempstead, a senior policy adviser at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, called “a kind of yin and yang: If you have a lot of COVID, you don’t have a lot of other health care spending.”

Independent of the course the pandemic takes, emergency room and outpatient visits still lag behind pre-COVID levels and will probably continue to do so next year, to the continued benefit of insurers, predicted Glenn Melnick, a professor of health care finance at the University of Southern California’s Sol Price School of Public Policy. That could be good news for consumers, he said, potentially leading to lower premium increases or even reductions next year.

On the other hand, hospitals and doctors have lost money, and the ones whose contracts with health plans are up for renewal will be looking to make up those losses, Melnick said.

“Providers could be asking for 20-25% increases next year,” he said, “and if they’ve got market power, they can make it stick.”

This story was produced by , which publishes , an editorially independent service of the .

ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

So why is the industry looking to Congress for help?

Insurers say that while that falloff in claims for non-COVID care is offsetting for now many insurers’ costs associated with the pandemic, the future is far more fraught.

Costs could remain modest or quickly outstrip savings. A recession could drive revenue down. Or the coronavirus could resurge next winter and spike treatment expenses.

All that uncertainty for the companies could trigger far higher premiums for consumers, if insurers hedge their bets. Then again, the current savings insurers are seeing — along with cautions from state regulators about pushing cost-sensitive customers away during an economic downturn — might result in minimal premium increases.

“Insurers are nervous, to be sure,” said Mike Kreidler, Washington state’s insurance commissioner. “But so far they are telling me they are in good shape. Coronavirus claims have not been that high — yet.”

Backing that assessment was a report out last week by credit rating agency Moody’s, which looked at a range of pandemic scenarios — from mild to severe — and concluded “U.S. health insurers will nonetheless remain profitable under the most likely scenarios.”

Earlier this month, UnitedHealth Group CEO David Wichmann told analysts that cost reductions so far are outstripping expenses for COVID-19 and that revenue is up compared with the previous year. He expects — barring a worsening situation — the rest of the year’s earnings to match projections. Other insurers, including Centene, Anthem, Humana and Cigna, are scheduled to release earnings reports this week.

If these results are repeated across the insurance industry, there will be pressure on insurers to hold down rate increases for next year and do more for policyholders, such as constrain the growth in deductibles and other out-of-pocket costs, said consumer advocates, regulators and policy experts.

“The last thing we need is insurers pricing their coverage unnecessarily high at a time like this,” said Peter Lee, executive director of Covered California, the health insurance marketplace in that state for people who buy their own coverage because they don’t get it through their job.

That prediction comes as tens of millions of Americans have lost their jobs — and often their health insurance.

Those thrown out of work may be able to stay on employer coverage through a federal law called COBRA, but it’s expensive and workers have to foot the bill. Insurers and employers have asked Congress for relief legislation to fully cover COBRA costs.

Losing a job is also a qualifying event to enroll in an Affordable Care Act plan — and, again, the industry has asked lawmakers to temporarily to help enrollees pay their premiums. Some states that run their own ACA marketplaces have reopened enrollment to help the uninsured get coverage.

The industry also wants Congress to authorize temporary financial support to help cover insurers that face “extraordinary, unplanned costs in 2020 and 2021,” according to a letter sent to lawmakers from America’s Health Insurance Plans and the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association.

To help, some states are giving insurers more time this year to submit their planned premium rates for 2021 — based on their expected costs — hoping things may be clearer by summer. California, for instance, is giving insurers until July to draw up their estimates.

One fear is that insurance actuaries, when faced with an unknown risk like the coronavirus, will price higher than needed, said Lee.

Setting premiums for next year is a balancing act. Insurers that calculate incorrectly and go too low will lose profits and may have to dig into their cash reserves to pay claims. If they set rates too high, they may run afoul of a provision in the ACA that requires insurers to issue rebates to policyholders if they don’t spend at least 80% of revenue on medical care.

And they don’t estimate well even in normal years. Early data for 2019 coverage shows insurers may owe in rebates, which will be paid out this year.

Insurers are not talking about next year’s premiums.

“We do not yet know the full scope, severity or duration of this outbreak. So we cannot know the ultimate cost of our members’ medical treatment or how long the postponement of non-urgent care will continue,” said Justine Handelman, senior vice president at the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association.

Early estimates, including a scary one from Covered California issued in late March, warned that costs associated with the coronavirus could drive premiums up 40% next year without federal help, based on initial models of the number of Americans who might fall seriously ill.

That report, though, did not take into account the effect of the sharp decline in elective care.

Thirty-one states have barred most elective surgeries, part of the effort by governors to promote social distancing to flatten the curve of the epidemic and to help prevent hospitals from being overwhelmed.

“The good news since we published that report is that it looks like efforts to flatten the curve are taking effect,” said Lee, so costs are more likely to be in the median rather than high end of the range.

The cost to insurers “all depends on the severity” of the continuing pandemic, said Dean Ungar, a vice president and senior credit officer at Moody’s. “On the lower side, the industry will do quite well, and also even in a more median scenario, especially when you factor in the offsetting benefit of delayed procedures.”

Moody’s estimates that deferred elective procedures may account for as much as 20% to 40% savings on medical costs per month for many insurers as long as elective procedures are barred or patients are unwilling to seek nonemergency care.

Even so, “I don’t think the insurance industry as a whole has any intention of making money off this,” Ungar said. “There will be rebates or other things to help. Partly that’s the right thing to do and partly it’s good business.”

Former Cigna executive turned industry critic Wendell Potter disagreed. He tweeted earlier this month that UnitedHealth spent $1.7 billion during the first quarter to buy back its own stock — a move that helps the company. “In other words, they’re thriving during a pandemic,” Potter tweeted. Instead, he said, the insurer should plow that money into premium reductions or other help for policyholders.

For its part, UnitedHealth said it has waived patient cost sharing for COVID care — as have most other insurers — as well as accelerated payments for what it owes to doctors, and is helping provide loans to some clinics.

Some physician groups fear they are being left out, saying some of the savings seen by insurers and self-insured employers should be directed to those struggling after seeing their practices dry up as people avoid medical care or governors bar elective procedures.

“It’s a huge hit,” said Tom Banning, CEO and executive vice president of the Texas Academy of Family Physicians.

Lee agreed, warning that struggling front-line physicians, and especially family and primary care doctors, will need financial help.

“A bad outcome of all this will be if thousands of providers can’t make it financially and their practices get bought up by hospitals or private entities — creating more consolidation in health care, which is already driving costs up,” said Lee. “Lawmakers should be thinking about helping primary providers out.”

ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Julie Rovner, Kaiser Health News’ chief Washington correspondent, talked to host Jeremy Hobson on Friday about efforts to get the federal government to let people have a special enrollment period for coverage plans sold on the ACA marketplaces, as well as the effect massive job layoffs will have on Medicaid.

Rovner pointed out that workers whose insurance was cut off because they lost their jobs are eligible to buy a new plan through the ACA but that consumer advocates are pressing for the marketplaces to reopen to give others who didn’t sign up for coverage last fall an opportunity to reconsider.

Rovner also recently spoke with Lauren Gilger and Steve Goldstein at in Phoenix about Gov. Doug Ducey’s unsuccessful request to the federal government to reopen the insurance marketplace in Arizona.

Julie Rovner discussed the denial of Arizona’s request to extend its open enrollment period with on April 1.

Can’t see the audio player? Click here to download.

ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

• The ACA was passed on the heels of the Great Recession. The coronavirus outbreak has produced the first big economic downturn since then, and the law’s provisions to expand Medicaid and to provide an insurance option to those without jobs could provide a critical safety net during this crisis.
• About a dozen states running their own ACA insurance marketplaces have opened up enrollment again to let people who did not enroll in the fall but are feeling the pinch from the coronavirus pandemic to reconsider. President Donald Trump said this week that he is mulling a similar move, but the messages from the administration on such action have been confusing.
• People who had insurance through work and have lost their jobs don’t need a special enrollment period to sign up for an Obamacare plan. They are eligible because their job situation changed. However, the administration has not been publicizing that message.
• Hospitals are eager to receive the $100 billion appropriated by Congress in response to the influx of patients with COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus. But the administration has not yet said how that money will be apportioned.
• A handful of states have prohibited abortions during the coronavirus emergency because, officials say, they are seeking to preserve protective gear for hospital staff treating COVID-19 patients. But it’s not clear that the abortion procedures ― especially medication abortions — are interfering with efforts to safeguard protective clothing or masks needed by hospitals. And women who do not get abortions will consume far more medical care by remaining pregnant and giving birth.

ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).