A handful of states have received insurers’ 2018 premium rate requests for the Affordable Care Act marketplaces and made them public. CHIR experts dig into the insurers’ rate filings to find out some of the key factors behind many of the proposed premium hikes.
As we’ve been blogging about, the Trump administration finalized a Market Stabilization rule that makes numerous changes in how marketplaces and insurers are operating. One of the biggest changes affecting consumers is the Trump administration’s new interpretation of guaranteed issue or availability; but states have a range of options regarding this policy under the rule. CHIR’s Sandy Ahn and JoAnn Volk break it down for us.
In the wake of failed congressional attempts to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, we turn back our focus on the administration and its approach to the marketplaces. The proposed market stabilization rule would require a pre-verification process for special enrollment periods for all marketplaces, including states operating their own. This move is largely in response to insurer concerns, indicating an interest in working with participating marketplace insurers. But how does this fare with states that have their own special enrollment processes? CHIR’s Sandy Ahn takes a look.
For the time being, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is the “law of the land.” But increasing uncertainty about the policy future has left the individual insurance market at risk and could result in fewer choices and higher premiums, In the past, Congress has demonstrated that it can arrive at bipartisan solutions to tackle insurance market challenges and help consumers. CHIR’s Sabrina Corlette outlines what a common sense ACA reform package could look like.
For the third and final blog post in our series examining reactions to the proposed market stabilization rules, we turn to state-based marketplaces. How could the proposed rules impact states? CHIR’s Emily Curran takes a look.
Last month, the Department of Health & Human Services released proposed rules aimed at stabilizing the ACA’s health insurance marketplaces. After a 20-day comment period, they received close to 4,000 public comments. In the second post in our series on the reactions of health care stakeholders, CHIR’s Rachel Schwab looks at comments from consumer advocacy groups.
CHIR researchers Justin Giovannelli and Emily Curran interviewed more than 40 marketplace officials, consumer assisters, technology vendors, and other subject matter experts to see how having an estimator can change consumers’ experiences in the marketplace and to understand the concerns of policymakers as they have considered whether and how to implement these tools.
As the health care debate continues, we face a number of unknowns. Congressional leadership and President Trump vowed to repeal the ACA, but have yet to reach a consensus on the replacement plan. Meanwhile, consumers and insurers are making big decisions about health plans without knowing what the individual market will look like. Predicting the impact of unknown events is no easy task; if you’ve misplaced your crystal ball, the American Academy of Actuaries (AAA) recently released an issue paper on the future of the individual market, lending their expertise to a debate riddled with uncertainty.
While critics have been describing the demise of the marketplaces established by the Affordable Care Act, the Obama Administration has been taking steps to strengthen the risk pool and to ensure its long-term sustainability. These promising steps are now at risk under the threat of repeal with nothing to replace approach that Congressional leaders and the new administration seem to be taking. At risk and in jeopardy is the coverage of millions of people. CHIR’s Sandy Ahn takes a look.
In the wake of the Affordable Care Act’s passage, 17 states embraced the chance to set up and manage their own marketplace and design an insurance market to meet local needs. In their latest article for the Commonwealth Fund, CHIR experts Sabrina Corlette, Emily Curran and Kevin Lucia review these states’ progress on expanding coverage and stabilizing their markets and find that they have much to lose if the law is repealed.
The opinions expressed here are solely those of the individual blog post authors and do not represent the views of Georgetown University, the Center on Health Insurance Reforms, any organization that the author is affiliated with, or the opinions of any other author who publishes on this blog.
