Why Are the Health Insurance Marketplaces Thriving in Some States but Struggling in Others?

Issue: In 2017, health insurance marketplaces in some states were thriving, while those in other states were struggling. What explains these differences? Goal: Identify factors that explain differences in issuers' participation levels in state insurance marketplaces. Methods: Analysis of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's HIX Compare dataset, and the National Association of Insurance Commissioners' 2010 Supplemental Health Care Exhibit Report. Findings and Conclusions: State policies and insurance regulations were key factors affecting the number of issuers participating in the marketplaces in 2017. Marketplaces run by states had more issuers than states that rely on the federally facilitated marketplace. States with fewer than four issuers tended to have policies in place that could have been destabilizing--for example, permitting the sale of plans not compliant with the Affordable Care Act's requirements regarding essential health benefits or guaranteed issue. Consumers in states that did not take steps to enforce these insurance market reforms still benefited from their protections, however; they were just enforced at the federal level. States with more issuers were also more likely to have expanded Medicaid. States with fewer issuers tended to be rural and have smaller populations, more concentrated hospital markets, and lower physician-to-population ratios.

Competition and Premium Costs in Single-Insurer Marketplaces: A Study of Five Rural States.

Issue: In 2017, five states--Alabama, Alaska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Wyoming--had only one issuer participating in their health care marketplaces, limiting consumer choice and competition among insurers. Goal: Examine the history of participation in the individual market from 2010 (before the Affordable Care Act was enacted) to 2017, and analyze premium changes among marketplace plans. Methods: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's HIX Compare, which provides national data on the marketplaces from 2014 to 2017. Findings and Conclusions: In 2010, the individual insurance market was already concentrated in the five study states, with Blue Cross and Blue Shield (BCBS) plans covering the majority of enrollees. By 2015, with the marketplaces in full swing, more issuers were competing in the five states. But by 2016, co-ops were facing bankruptcy and left the marketplaces in these states; and in 2017, citing large financial losses, national issuers UnitedHealthcare, Aetna, and Humana also exited, leaving only a single BCBS plan in each state. Three of the five states experienced substantially higher annual premium increases than the national average. Policy options with bipartisan support, such as resuming cost-sharing reduction payments and reestablishing reinsurance and risk corridors, could help attract new or returning issuers to marketplaces in these states.

Grandfathered, Grandmothered, And ACA-Compliant Health Plans Have Equivalent Premiums.

Many small employers offer employees health plans that are not fully compliant with Affordable Care Act (ACA) provisions such as covering preventive services without cost sharing. These "grandfathered" and "grandmothered" plans accounted for about 65 percent of enrollment in the small-group market in 2014. Premium costs for these and ACA-compliant plans were equivalent.

Consumers Buy Lower-Cost Plans On Covered California, Suggesting Exposure To Premium Increases Is Less Than Commonly Reported.

With the notable exception of California, states have not made enrollment data for their Affordable Care Act (ACA) Marketplace plans publicly available. Researchers thus have tracked premium trends by calculating changes in the average price for plans offered (a straight average across plans) rather than for plans purchased (a weighted average). Using publicly available enrollment data for Covered California, we found that the average purchased price for all plans was 11.6 percent less than the average offered price in 2014, 13.2 percent less in 2015, and 15.2 percent less in 2016. Premium growth measured by plans purchased was roughly 2 percentage points less than when measured by plans offered in 2014-15 and 2015-16. We observed shifts in consumer choices toward less costly plans, both between and within tiers, and we estimate that a $100 increase in a plan's net annual premium reduces its probability of selection. These findings suggest that the Marketplaces are helping consumers moderate premium cost growth.

The ACA's Cost-Sharing Reduction Plans: A Key to Affordable Health Coverage for Millions of U.S. Workers.

Issue: Without the cost-sharing reductions (CSRs) made available by the Affordable Care Act, health plans sold in the marketplaces may be unaffordable for many low-income people. CSRs are available to households earning between 100 percent and 250 percent of the federal poverty level that choose a silver-level marketplace plan. In 2016, about 7 million people received cost-sharing reductions that substantially lowered their deductibles, copayments, coinsurance, and out-of-pocket limits. Goal: To examine variations in consumer cost-sharing reductions between silver-level plans with CSRs to traditional marketplace plans and to employer-based insurance. Methods: Data analysis of 1,209 CSR-eligible plans sold in individual marketplaces in all 50 states and Washington, D.C. Key findings and conclusions: Cost-sharing amounts in silver plans with CSRs are much less than those in non-CSR base silver plans; silver plans with CSRs generally offer far better financial protection than those without. General annual deductibles range from $246 for CSR silver plans with a platinum-level actuarial value (94%) to as much as $3,063 for non-CSR silver plans. Out-of-pocket limits vary from $6,223 in base silver plans to $1,102 in silver plans with CSRs and a platinum-level actuarial level.

Changes in Consumer Cost-Sharing for Health Plans Sold in the ACA's Insurance Marketplaces, 2015 to 2016.

This brief examines changes in consumer health plan cost-sharing--deductibles, copayments, coinsurance, and out-of-pocket limits--for coverage offered in the Affordable Care Act's marketplaces between 2015 and 2016. Three of seven measures studied rose moderately in 2016, an increase attributable in part to a shift in the mix of plans offered in the marketplaces, from plans with higher actuarial value (platinum and gold plans) to those that have less generous coverage (bronze and silver plans). Nearly 60 percent of enrollees in marketplace plans receive cost-sharing reductions as part of income-based assistance. For enrollees without cost-sharing reductions, average copayments, deductibles, and out-of-pocket limits remain considerably higher under bronze and silver plans than under employer-based plans; cost-sharing is similar in gold plans and employer plans. Marketplace plans are more likely than employer-based plans to impose a deductible for prescription drugs but no less likely to do so for primary care visits.

In Second Year Of Marketplaces, New Entrants, ACA 'Co-Ops,' And Medicaid Plans Restrain Average Premium Growth Rates.

Premiums for health insurance plans offered through the federally facilitated and state-based Marketplaces remained steady or increased only modestly from 2014 to 2015. We used data from the Marketplaces, state insurance departments, and insurer websites to examine patterns of premium pricing and the factors behind these patterns. Our data came from 2,964 unique plans offered in 2014 and 4,153 unique plans offered in 2015 in forty-nine states and the District of Columbia. Using descriptive and multivariate analysis, we found that the addition of a carrier in a rating area lowered average premiums for the two lowest-cost silver plans and the lowest-cost bronze plan by 2.2 percent. When all plans in a rating area were included, an additional carrier was associated with an average decline in premiums of 1.4 percent. Plans in the Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan Program and Medicaid managed care plans had lower premiums and average premium increases than national commercial and Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans. On average, premiums fell by an appreciably larger amount for catastrophic and bronze plans than for gold plans, and premiums for platinum plans increased. This trend of low premium increases overall is unlikely to continue, however, as insurers are faced with mounting medical claims.

An Early Look At SHOP Marketplaces: Low Premiums, Adequate Plan Choice In Many, But Not All, States.

The Affordable Care Act created the Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP) Marketplaces to help small businesses provide health insurance to their employees. To attract the participation of substantial numbers of small employers, SHOP Marketplaces must demonstrate value-added features unavailable in the traditional small-group market. Such features could include lower premiums than those for plans offered outside the Marketplace and more extensive choices of carriers and plans. More choices are necessary for SHOP Marketplaces to offer the "employee choice model," in which employees may choose from many carriers and plans. This study compared the numbers of carriers and plans and premium levels in 2014 for plans offered through SHOP Marketplaces with those of plans offered only outside of the Marketplaces. An average of 4.3 carriers participated in each state's Marketplace, offering a total of forty-seven plans. Premiums for plans offered through SHOP Marketplaces were, on average, 7 percent less than those in the same metal tier offered only outside of the Marketplaces. Lower premiums and the participation of multiple carriers in most states are a source of optimism for future enrollment growth in SHOP Marketplaces. Lack of broker buy-in in many states and burdensome enrollment processes are major impediments to success.

Collectively bargained health plans: more comprehensive, less cost sharing than employer plans.

National statistics on the cost and provisions of collectively bargained health plans show them to have similar single premiums, but lower family premiums, compared to employer-based plans not subject to collective bargaining. Union members contribute 4 percent and 6 percent of the cost of their premiums for single and family coverage, respectively, versus 18 percent and 29 percent for workers in employer-based plans. Cost sharing in collectively bargained plans is considerably less than in employer-based plans; coverage for prescription drugs is similar.

Consumer Cost-Sharing in Marketplace vs. Employer Health Insurance Plans, 2015.

Using data from 49 states and Washington, D.C., we analyzed changes in cost-sharing under health plans offered to individuals and families through state and federal exchanges from 2014 to 2015. We examined eight vehicles for cost-sharing, including deductibles, copayments, coinsurance, and out-of-pocket limits, and compared findings with cost-sharing under employer-based insurance. We found cost-sharing under marketplace plans remained essentially unchanged from 2014 to 2015. Stable premiums during that period do not reflect greater costs borne by enrollees. Further, 56 percent of enrollees in marketplace plans attained cost-sharing reductions in 2015. However, for people without cost-sharing reductions, average copayments, deductibles, and out-of-pocket limits under catastrophic, bronze, and silver plans are considerably higher than under employer-based plans on average, while cost-sharing under gold plans is similar employer-based plans on average. Marketplace plans are far more likely than employer-based plans to require enrollees to meet deductibles before they receive coverage for prescription drugs.

Small employer perspectives on the Affordable Care Act's premiums, SHOP exchanges, and self-insurance.

Beginning January 1, 2014, small businesses having no more than fifty full-time-equivalent workers will be able to obtain health insurance for their employees through Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP) exchanges in every state. Although the Affordable Care Act intended the exchanges to make the purchasing of insurance more attractive and affordable to small businesses, it is not yet known how they will respond to the exchanges. Based on a telephone survey of 604 randomly selected private firms having 3-50 employees, we found that both firms that offered health coverage and those that did not rated most features of SHOP exchanges highly but were also very price sensitive. More than 92 percent of nonoffering small firms said that if they were to offer coverage, it would be "very" or "somewhat" important to them that premium costs be less than they are today. Eighty percent of offering firms use brokers who commonly perform functions of benefit managers--functions that the SHOP exchanges may assume. Twenty-six percent of firms using brokers reported discussing self-insuring with their brokers. An increase in the number of self-insured small employers could pose a threat to SHOP exchanges and other small-group insurance reforms.

Choosing the 'best' plan in a health insurance exchange: actuarial value tells only part of the story.

In the health insurance exchanges that will come online in 2014, consumers will be able to compare health plans with respect to actuarial value, or the percentage of health care costs that a plan would pay for a standard population. This analysis illustrates the out-of-pocket costs that might result from plans with various plan designs and actuarial values. We find that average out-of-pocket expense declines as actuarial values rise, but two plans with similar actuarial values can produce very different outcomes for a given person. The overall affordability of a plan also will be influenced by age rating, income-related premium subsidies, and out-of-pocket subsidies. Actuarial value is a useful starting point for selecting a plan, but it does not pinpoint which plan will produce the best overall value for a particular person.

More than half of individual health plans offer coverage that falls short of what can be sold through exchanges as of 2014.

The Affordable Care Act creates state-based health exchanges that will begin acting as a market place for health insurance plans and consumers in 2014. This paper compares the financial protection offered by today's group and individual plans with the standards that will apply to insurance sold in state-based exchanges. Some states may apply these standards to all health insurance sold within the state. More than half of Americans who had individual insurance in 2010 were enrolled in plans that would not qualify as providing essential coverage under the rules of the exchanges in 2014. These people were enrolled in plans with an actuarial value below 60 percent, which means that the plans covered less than that proportion of the enrollees' health expenses. Many of today's individual health plans are below the "bronze" level, the lowest level of plan that can be sold through exchanges. In contrast, most group plans in 2010 had an actuarial benefit of 80-89 percent and would qualify as highly rated "gold" plans in the exchanges. To sell to ten million new buyers on the exchanges, insurers will need to redesign benefit packages. Combined with a ban on medical underwriting, the individual insurance market in a post-health reform world will sharply contrast with the market of past decades.

The individual insurance market before reform: low premiums and low benefits.

Based on analyses of individual market health plans sold through ehealthinsurance and enrollment information collected from individual market carriers, this article profiles the individual health insurance market in 2007, before health reform. The article examines premiums, plan enrollment, cost sharing, and covered benefits and compares individual and group markets. Premiums for the young are lower than in the group market but higher for older people. Cost sharing is substantial in the individual insurance market. Seventy-eight percent of people were enrolled in plans with deductibles for single coverage, which averaged $2,117. Annual out-of-pocket maximums averaged $5,271. Many plans do not cover important benefits. Twelve percent of individually insured persons had no coverage for office visits and only 43% have maternity benefits in their basic coverage. With the advent of health exchanges and new market rules in 2014, covered benefits may become richer, cost sharing will decline, but premiums for the young will rise.

Does the Congressional Budget Office underestimate savings from reform? A review of the historical record.

When the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) "scores" legislation, or assesses the likely cost impact, it requires substantial evidence that a cost-saving initiative has historically achieved savings. The agency has difficulty addressing the impact of multiple changes made simultaneously without historical precedent where there is an interaction effect among proposed changes. This study examines CBO scoring of major reform legislation enacted during each of the past three decades, including the prospective payment system for hospitals in the 1980s, the Balanced Budget Act of the 1990s, and the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003. In contrasting actual spending with predicted spending, CBO, in all three cases, substantially underestimated savings from these reform measures.

Taxing cadillac health plans may produce Chevy results.

It's often assumed that high-cost health insurance plans--sometimes called "Cadillac" plans--provide rich benefits to plan subscribers. Health reform provisions that treat these plans like luxuries may be misguided. Only 3.7 percent of variation in the cost of family coverage can be explained by benefit design (actuarial value). Benefit design plus plan type (HMO, PPO, POS, or high-deductible plans) explains 6.1 percent of this variation. Industry type and medical costs in the region also play a role. Most variation in premiums, however, remains largely unexplained.

Group insurance: a better deal for most people than individual plans.

This paper compares health plans currently available on the individual market with employer-sponsored plans. Points of comparison include the scope of benefits, cost-sharing provisions, premiums, expected out-of-pocket costs, and actuarial value. We draw from the 2007 KFF/HRET Health Benefits Survey, our own survey of individual-market plans, the MarketScan medical claims database, and a computer simulation of medical claims. We find that in 2007, employment-based plans covered 80 percent of all charges paid by the plan and the member, while individual plans covered 64 percent. For most people, premiums and out-of-pocket costs were more affordable in tax-advantaged employer plans than in individual-market plans. Proposed health reforms would fundamentally alter the plan offerings available to Americans, particularly those offered in the individual market.

Trends in underinsurance and the affordability of employer coverage, 2004-2007.

Based on simulated bill paying, this paper examines trends in comprehensiveness of coverage, out-of-pocket spending for medical services, underinsurance, and the affordability of employer-based insurance from 2004 to 2007. Data are from MarketScan medical claims and an annual survey of employer health benefits. Health plans covered slightly fewer expenses in 2007 than in 2004, but out-of-pocket spending grew more than one-third because of growth in overall health spending. For people at 200 percent of poverty, the percentage spending more than 10 percent of their income out of pocket on premiums plus services increased from 13 percent to 18 percent.

Obesity and the workplace: current programs and attitudes among employers and employees.

This paper presents findings about weight management programs at the workplace, and employers' and employees' views about these programs. Data are from a survey of 505 randomly selected public and private employers with fifty or more employees, and a survey of 1,352 households with employer-based insurance. The majority of employers with 5,000 or more workers offer programs such as on-site exercise facilities, nutritional counseling, and health risk appraisals, whereas sizable minorities of smaller employers offer them. Employers and employees view weight management programs as appropriate and effective. Employers want programs to pay for themselves, whereas employees are willing to pay higher premiums for them.