<p>Poetgirl, I did google it and all I came up with using, “Aetna says no more people will end up on the individual market,” was this thread.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I sure did not because it just defied common sense.</p>
<p>Google Aetna earnings loss. It’s on rueters. </p>
<p>The biggest hit for them is the loss of Medicaid dollars. They just bought Coventry</p>
<p>Ok, found it. </p>
<p>"Aetna said that it does not expect its individual business to grow in 2014 from 2013 but could after that.</p>
<p>“We continue to believe these emerging retail marketplaces can be succesful over the long term,” Bertolini said."</p>
<p>[Aetna</a> CEO: ObamaCare Glitches Could Keep Young Away AET WLP UNH - Investors.com](<a href=“http://news.investors.com/business/102913-677055-aetna-fears-obamacare-glitches-keep-young-away.htm]Aetna”>http://news.investors.com/business/102913-677055-aetna-fears-obamacare-glitches-keep-young-away.htm)</p>
<p>Either Aetna is right and no more people will end up insured on the individual market in 2014 than 2013, or they are wrong. This does not seem to me to be a political question.</p>
<p>Did anyone on here believe that would be the case? </p>
<p>Nope. But the promise was emphatic and the increases are big. I’m not at all surprised that people with budgets are a bit disgruntled.</p>
<p>CF, I am considering getting the college insurance, at the current price it would add 1600 a year, for minimal insurance. Unless of course, they jack up that price which we wouldn’t know until next summer. But that still doesn’t factor in his out of state trips for vacation or for college activities. </p>
<p>Is anyone else having this problem?</p>
<p>Emilybee, I wonder if the article you cite has been modified. I can’t find the sentence Aetna said that it does not expect its individual business to grow in 2014 from 2013 but could after that in your linked article. Maybe I missed it… and even if the article no longer says they don’t expect their individual business to grow, they may still believe it.</p>
<p>Maybe people who have their individual plans with Aetna now will switched to BS/BS plans or other company plans on the exchanges.</p>
<p>jbsmom, check your son’s college policy carefully. 2013-2014 policies are grandfathered to be non-compliant with ACA, but in later years, they must be compliant. In particular, caps are going to be disallowed. So if the insurance costs $X this year and is non-compliant, you can expect it to cost more than $X next year.</p>
<p>[Affordable</a> Care Act and Student Health Insurance](<a href=“http://www.acha.org/Topics/Affordable_Care_Act/FAQs_for_IndividualCoverageClassification.cfm#Q8]Affordable”>http://www.acha.org/Topics/Affordable_Care_Act/FAQs_for_IndividualCoverageClassification.cfm#Q8)</p>
<p>CF, I just looked and it was obviously modified between in the last 10 minutes!</p>
<p>But here is the link to Reuters with the quote:</p>
<p>"Aetna said that it does not expect its individual business to grow in 2014 from 2013 but could after that.</p>
<p>“We continue to believe these emerging retail marketplaces can be succesful over the long term,” Bertolini said."</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/29/aetna-results-idUSL1N0IJ0B420131029[/url]”>http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/29/aetna-results-idUSL1N0IJ0B420131029</a></p>
<p>emilybee, I assumed it was modified, because I didn’t believe you would fabricate a quote.</p>
<p>CF, I didn’t think you did!</p>
<p>Ok, I sorted it out. Copied & pasted the wrong link. Had a few windows opened and obviously C&P’d the wrong one.</p>
<p>Did anyone ever hear a justification of why the website only worked on IE. Was it never tested on firefox or chrome?</p>
<p>And as a practical matter, if you want to suck in young people shoudnt you make a smart phone app first, like Vine did?</p>
<p>I read they were planning to use celebs to attract kids. But PR people have told Ga Ga, Scar Jo, etc to stay away until the dust settles.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hmm, so that means the rates will have to increase in 2014 inorder for the pool to be profitable.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That sounds like he doesnt want to extend open enrollment. But logically a longer enrollment would help insurance companies. </p>
<p>How does the IM get stronger? Is there backroom dealing going on?</p>
<p>From GP’s article from the NY Post:
Sounds a lot like the folks who can’t find out the details on the federal exchanges! And what IS the issue with different states on the federal exchange getting wrong numbers for subsidies? I thought that glitch had been cleared up…
I’m wondering if another “Obamagirl” or “Obamaguy” needs to be created to get the “young invincibles” to become interested in the exchanges. Haha…or maybe the administration (and states) realize how offensive that video was. Or maybe a “Julia Gets Healthcare” PowerPoint? I do feel sorry for Glitch Girl.</p>
<p>"That sounds like he doesnt want to extend open enrollment. But logically a longer enrollment would help insurance companies.</p>
<p>How does the IM get stronger? Is there backroom dealing going on?"</p>
<p>A longer enrollment period means people can wait that much longer to enroll and therefore aren’t paying premiums to Aetna. </p>
<p>Perhaps he means enforcement of the penalty is strengthened.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Re: post #2830: This strikes me as a sloppy article, full of misleading pseudo-information. What, exactly, does it mean for doctors to “sign up for Obamacare”? My understanding is that doctors sign up with health insurers, agreeing to accept certain lines of insurance or to be part of a particular insurer’s provider network; the docs don’t sign up with something called “Obamacare.” The insurers then compete on the exchanges, offering standard packages of services and deductibles but competing on the basis of price and on the network of providers that will accept the insurance. But the exchanges are only a part of the Affordable Care Act which also expands Medicaid, sets some standards and requirements for employer-sponsored health insurance, etc.</p>
<p>What the article seems to be saying, however inartfully, is that doctors in New York are wary about signing up to join the provider networks of insurers competing on the exchanges. Part of the complaint seems to be that some insurers have not yet told the providers how much they will pay for services. In other cases the insurers are setting low physician reimbursement rates in order to be able to offer competitive prices on the exchanges. So basically, the docs are balking at taking a pay cut. Of course, that’s sometimes what competition does–it drives prices lower. In most markets we regard that as a good thing. </p>
<p>But I’d expect there to be a shake-out period under the ACA exchanges. Doctors probably hate insurance companies even more than patients do, but all three are in a symbiotic relationship. Insurers can’t keep doctor reimbursement rates too low, or they’ll be unable to field a competitive provider network. I’ve read some things that suggest the insurers are setting the initial physician reimbursement rates for policies they’re selling on the exchanges at the Medicare reimbursement rate, and trying to make that stick. Docs in areas where Medicare reimbursement rates are low are howling because they’re accustomed to getting more from private insurers than from Medicare; some claim to lose money on Medicare patients and make up for it with privately insured patients. It’s competition between insurers on the exchanges that’s driving insurers to try to low-ball providers, but eventually there will be competition on the back end, too; insurers will need to compete for providers in order to be able to offer competitive networks, and most providers will need to be part of some insurers’ networks or they won’t have enough patients. So in time, we should reach a competitive equilibrium. And that will be an improvement.</p>
<p>I couldn’t find any reference to the New York State Medical Society’s survey anywhere on its website–or anywhere else on the web, for that matter, except for the New York Post story and a few blogs citing that story. I did, however, come across this national survey of physician group practices by the Medical Group Management Association, done about a month ago. It found similar concerns about the exchanges among physician groups–e.g., low physician reimbursement rates (similar to Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates, lower than typical commercial payer rates including other insurance plans offered by the same insurer). But it also raised a couple of other issues. For one, physician group practices seem to be very wary of high-deductible policies, for fear they’ll be left holding the bag if the patient doesn’t pony up the out-of-pocket cost. Also there’s a more complicated issue about who gets left holding the bag financially for medical services incurred during the 90-day “grace period” for insurance premium payments if an insured patient fails to pay the insurance premium at all.</p>
<p>[ACA</a> Exchange Implementation LEARN](<a href=“http://www.mgma.com/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=1375747]ACA”>http://www.mgma.com/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=1375747)</p>
<p>(follow link to .pdf)</p>
<p>The point about high-deductible policies is one I hadn’t considered. It makes some sense; docs know they’ll eventually get something out of the insurance company, but not necessarily so with a deadbeat patient. On the other hand, this would seem to make the threat by some doctors to forego all private insurance ring hollow; if they did that, they’d face the risk of deadbeats with all their patients, unless they went to a purely cash-in-advance model. But there surely aren’t enough cash-in-advance patients to go around if any large number of physicians did this. So I mostly think they’re just venting.</p>