Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Emma's avatar

This is literally insane. I am curious what this will look like for California.

Norm Spier's avatar

I happened to take a look at the list of filings

https://fortress.wa.gov/oic/consumertoolkitrt/Search.aspx

and noticed it includes both small employer plans, and individual (ACA on exchange) plans.

And, from a perusal, it looks like the small employer plans also have very steep increases. (I see 16% on one, 20% on another. I have only looked at a few.)

A natural question to ask, (even though it has been answered fallaciously by the notorious graph referenced here: https://normspier828307.substack.com/p/senate-republican-leader-john-thune )

is, are the ACA plans rising faster than small employer AFTER taking into account the increased adverse selection from the expired expanded subsidies AND lower enrollment causing higher administrative costs?

(I have not looked at all the filings myself, and I suspect they do not all list the proportion of the increased due to this lapse causing increased adverse selection or lower enrollment causing higher administrative costs, but I see some do have at least the former.)

--

The importance of the comparison is that there are allegations that the ACA structure causes excessive cost growth. If small employer also has the same trend (after taking into account the increased adverse selection on ACA plans), then we might see that the problem extends at least to small employer as well (as regulated in Washington state). It may even be suggestive of costs growing out-of-control at the current moment all through the healthcare system.

(If costs are growing out-of-control at the current moment all through the healthcare system, that is also worth knowing.)

1 more comment...

No posts

Ready for more?