2019 Rate Hikes

2018 MIDTERM ELECTION

Time: D H M S

(CLICK FOR FULL METHODOLOGY EXPLAINER)

(SCROLL DOWN FOR INDIVIDUAL STATE ENTRIES/ANALYSIS)

UPDATED 6/22/18: Added Indiana and Iowa to the table.

There's tons of ACA/healthcare policy stuff going on this week (rightly overshadowed by the grotesque child kidnapping/psychological torture atrocities being committed by the Trump Administration of families asking for political asylum). However, I had/have a funeral and two meetings today, so I only have time for one post.

Florida is the 3rd largest state in the country, but has nearly the same number of ACA-compliant individual health insurance policy enrollees as California (around 2.0 million people if you subtract out grandfathered and transitional enrollees, vs. California's 2.1 million) even though Florida's total population is only 53% of California's (about 20.9 million vs. 39.5 million). Put another way, nearly 13% of Florida's non-elderly population is enrolled in the individual market, which is about twice as high as the natoinal average.

Add to this the fact that Florida is also the largest swing state politically, and people will be watching Florida's ACA exchange/premium situation very closely this fall.

Kentucky's 2019 preliminary Rate Filings have been posted, and they're pretty straightforward: Like this year, there will only be two carriers offering policies on the KY individual market in 2019: Anthem and CareSource, with roughly a 46/54 market share split.

The overall average requested rate increase is around 12.2% between the two. Neither carrier states just how much of their requested increase is due to mandate repeal or #ShortAssPlans (CareSource did list it...but then redacted it from public view). The Urban Institute projected around an 18.7 percentage point impact; 2/3 of that is around 12.5 points, so that's what I'm assuming until further notice.

Assuming that's accurate, that means that if not for the mandate/shortassplan sabotage factors, Kentucky carriers would be keeping unsubsidized 2019 premiums flat year over year (or even dropping them a smidge).

Hmmm...extremely thin detail here, but I'll take what I can get for the moment:

Ohio Health Insurance Exchange 2019

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires that every state have an exchange where consumers can buy individual health insurance policies. In Ohio, the federal government runs the health insurance exchange. Ohioans who do not have health insurance through their employer, Medicare or Medicaid may be eligible to purchase coverage through the exchange. Open enrollment for coverage next year (2019) begins November 1, 2018. Below is preliminary data based on the filings submissions of insurers in Ohio. Once filings are approved in late summer/early fall, final information will be posted.

Ohio’s Health Insurance Market (2018–2019)

In 2018, 8 companies sold health insurance products on the exchange in Ohio and 42 counties had just one insurer with an additional 20 counties having only two.

SEE UPDATE BELOW

WARNING: As far as I can figure, Texas's ACA-compliant individual market totals somewhere around 1.4 million people (Mark Farrah Associates estimated the entire individual market at 1.6 million a little over a year ago; of that I estimate roughly 180,000 were enrolled in grandfathered or transitional plans). The breakout as of today should be roughly 1.1 million on-exchange enrollees and perhaps 300,000 off-exchange.

Unfortunately, while the SERFF database shows 2019 listings for most of the 11 carriers which offer ACA policies in Texas this year, it only actually has the filings posted for 3 of them so far: CHRISTUS, Sendero and FirstCare Health Plans (aka SHA, LLC). Even then, those three carriers hold a pretty small share of the market, totalling just 65,000 enrollees. That means I only have actual 2019 rate data for about 5% of the ACA market available so far.

With this in mind, I need to strongly caution people about reading too much into the 21.6% average rate hike being requested by these three carriers, or even the 13.5% average increase they'd be asking for without the ACA's individual mandate being repealed or Trump's expansion of #ShortAssPlans. These averages could easily be swamped and skewed significantly (higher or lower) when one or more of the Big Kahunas in Texas is plugged in. For instance, last year BCBSTX had around 390,000 enrollees...that's 6 times as many as CHRISTUS, Sendero and FirstCare combined. If BCBS comes in at, say, a 10% rate hike, that would single-handedly lower the weighted average from 21.6% to around 11.7%, and so on.

The Indiana Insurance Dept. has released the preliminary rate requests for 2019 insurance policies on the ACA individual and small group markets.

Like last year, there's only three carriers participating in Indiana's individual market: CareSource and Celtic (aka Ambetter) will again be available both on and off the ACA exchange, while Anthem will only be offering a single Catastrophic plan on the off-exchange market in just five counties:

The overall average rate increase for 2019 Indiana individual marketplace plans is 5.1%. CareSource and Celtic (MHS/Ambetter) have filed to participate in the 2019 Indiana Individual Marketplace. The Department of Insurance anticipates that all 92 counties in Indiana will be covered by one or more insurance company. CareSource plans to cover 79 counties. Celtic (MHS/Ambetter) plans to increase its coverage from 43 counties in 2018 to all 92 counties in 2019.

Anthem has filed to offer a 2019 Off-Marketplace plan in Indiana. This plan is a catastrophic plan and is offered only in Benton, Jasper, Newton, Warren and White Counties.

Last year, Iowa's already-ugly individual market was rocked further yet by Big Kahuna Wellmark announcing that after finally entering the ACA exchange market in 2017, they were dropping back out again this year, leaving Medica as the only carrier offering ACA-compliant policies throughout the whole state. In response, Medica raised their 2018 ACA rates by a whopping 57% this year. This, in turn, led to the state legislature passing a law which stripped away pretty much any type of restriction or regulation of "Farm Bureau" plans, exacerbating the risk pool problem further yet.

Well this is a nice surprise! Yesterday the Minnesota ACA exchange, MNsure, issued a press release a day ahead of the public posting of requested 2019 individual market insurance rate changes, advising people of the various ways they have to keep their premiums down via ACA tax credits, shopping around and so forth. I was immediately concerned that they might know something I didn't...perhaps they were expecting a batch of double-digit rate hikes as has happened in so many other states the past few years?

Well, today the Minnesota Commerce Dept. did release the preliminary 2019 rate requests, and I'm pleasantly surprised to report that for the second year in a row, Minnesota carriers are actually asking for rate decreases:

NOTE: I originally missed two carriers (McLaren and Molina); thanks to Louise Norris for calling attention to my error. The entire post, along with the table, has been updated to reflect the updated numbers including all 11 carriers.

Also note that while the headline originally reflected what the average rate change would be without the CSR load sabotage factor introduced in 2017, I've decided to be consistent with other states and only include 2018 sabotage impact.

My home state of Michigan just posted their preliminary requested rate changes for the 2019 Open Enrollment Period, and unlike most of the other states which have released their early requests so far, Michigan is a pleasant surprise: An overall average requested premium increase of just 1.7%!

Also noteworthy: According to the filings, eight of the carriers are specifically projecting exactly a 5% mandate repeal factor, which is remarkably consistent (usually the projections are all over the place). HAP is slightly lower (4.4%) while Molina is higher (7.2%). Priority Health didn't mention this at all, but it's safe to assume it'd be roughly 5% for them as well.

So, I just received the following press release from MNsure (Minnesota's ACA exchange)...

Tax Credits Through MNsure Can Help Lower Proposed Premiums for 2019
June 14, 2018

DULUTH, Minn.—Preliminary health insurance rates proposed by Minnesota health insurance companies will be available on the Minnesota Department of Commerce website on Friday, June 15.

Private insurance companies set premium prices, and the Minnesota Department of Commerce regulates those companies. Final, approved 2019 premium rates will be available by October 2, and the 2019 open enrollment period begins on November 1. Minnesotans shopping for health insurance through the individual market may be able to reduce premium costs in three ways:

1. See if you are eligible for tax credits only available through MNsure

As usual, Louise Norris has the skinny:

Rate filings were due in New Mexico by June 10, 2018, for insurers that wish to offer individual market plans in 2019. Insurers that offer on-exchange coverage have been instructed by the New Mexico Office of the Superintendent of Insurance (NMOSI) to add the cost of cost-sharing reductions (CSR) only to on-exchange silver plans and the identical versions of those plans offered off-exchange (different silver plans offered only off-exchange will not have the cost of CSR added to their premiums).

The past two days have brought a flurry of 2019 premium rate change filings, with Washington, New York, Maine, DC and Pennsylvania putting their preliminary cards on the table. These join 5 other states which had already posted their early numbers, so I now have 10 compiled.

Now that I have a solid amount of state data to work with, I figured I should write up a tutorial to explain my methodology. This has become especially important the past two years since there's some new factors to consider.

This is huge news given that Pennsylvania is the 5th largest state in the country (and a swing state to boot)...but it's also incredibly frustrating due what isn't included. From an official Pennsylvania Insurance Dept. Press Release:

Health Insurance Plan Rates Stabilize, Offer More Choice for Consumers Despite Federal Government Sabotage

Harrisburg, PA – Insurance Commissioner Jessica Altman today announced that health insurance rates in Pennsylvania have moderated significantly, counter to the national trend, after Wolf Administration efforts to combat the effects of sabotage on health insurance markets by the federal government and specifically the Trump Administration to dismantle the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Importantly, the filings indicate that rate increases in Pennsylvania will be significantly more modest in 2019 than other states and many consumers will see more choices in their local markets as a result of Pennsylvania's efforts to increase competition.

Shout-out to Mitchell Stein for this heads up: The Maine Bureau of Insurance has posted their preliminary 2019 individual and small group policy premium rate filings.

One important twist: A few months back I remember reading that Maine, like several other states, was considering establishing some type of reinsurance program along the lines of successful programs in Alaska, Minnesota and Oregon. I also remember reading that the Maine version was unusual--it would actually involve reestablishing an old, discontinued state program which was still on the books but had been mothballed for years. However, I never got around to doing a write-up about it.

Anyway, it looks like the program (Maine Guaranteed Access Reinsurance Association, or MGARA for short), is indeed being ramped back up:

Hot on the heels of Washington State releasing their preliminary 2019 individual market rate hike request comes a similar press release out of the New York Department of Financial Services...and neither the carriers nor the state regulators are making any bones about the reason for next year's rate increases:

PROPOSED 2019 HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUM RATES FOR INDIVIDUAL AND SMALL GROUP MARKETS

Health insurers in New York have submitted their requested rates for 2019, as set forth in the charts below.  These are the rates proposed by health insurers, and have not been approved by DFS.

Pages