Affordable Care Act Scene 2 - Insurance Premiums

Parent Cafe
9121

<p>Kmcmom13, :). I just received a correct bill from Anthem. :)</p>

<p>The 11 percent number GP is using is bogus.
I would bet over $1 million the 11 percent number is going to increase dramatically .</p>

<p>The percentage of people that are newly insured compared to the people that have private health insurance is going to rise thruoughout the signup period.</p>

<p>Let’s say there are 14 million that had private insurance before ACA. There are 2.1 million people that were uninsured that now have signed up for insurance. The 2.1 million people represent 13 percent of the private insurance market. </p>

<p>That’s it. Sounds awful. Sounds like we didnt need to increase the insured. But… That percentage is going to increase over time.</p>

<p>Let’s say an additional 4.9 million previously uninsured sign up during the next 3 months. Targets are reached. 7 million uninsured become insured. The 7 million newly insured are going to represent One Third of the private insurance market. </p>

<p>That is the target. One third.</p>

<p>The exchange numbers are going to be a little different. Let’s say there are 2 million people that signed up on an exchange thru Dec. Only 200,000 are newly insured . (I dont believe that for a second). But just for an example we use 200,000 are newly insured. </p>

<p>Just 10 percent of the insured on an exchange at the end of Dec were newly insured. Sounds awful . Why have Obamacare? </p>

<p>Then let’s say 5 million more become insured on the exchanges during the first 3 months of 2014.</p>

<p>Now the percentages change. That paltry 10 percent number becomes 74 percent.</p>

<p>That 10 percent number that is thrown around now is going to increase dramatically.
That 10 percent number I used or the 11 percent number McKinsey used are bs numbers. The percentage of newly insured compared to the total private insurance market is going to rise dramatically as more and more people sign up. The percentage of newly insured compared to total insured has already increased dramatically this month compared to last month.</p>

<p>I dont get why people cling to arguments that will not hold up over the next few months.</p>

9122

<p>There is a gap in these discussions.</p>

<p>Medicaid expansion is mostly uninsured people. So it is possible that only 11% are new buyers (this is the number I keep saying no one is tracking) but the Medicaid expansion far exceeds any new buyers of insurance.</p>

<p>I can’t read the WSJ story. So I am not certain what majority means based on the headline. </p>

<p>Based on TOS blogs are not allowed except from major news sources (lets call it well known newspapers for this thread).</p>

9123

<p>

</p>

<p>In defense of GP, I did see the Exec Summary…and McKinsey is a big time firm, with the supposed best and brightest from our colleges, so I assume that they did not screw up the sampling.</p>

<p>But when you think about it, it kinda makes sense. Those who had prior insurance are more than willing to hassle the *.gov website to obtain even a partial subsidy, or the exchange for better benefits. (Of course, many had no choice since their prior policies were cancelled by ACA.) These folks are used to paying.</p>

<p>Those with pre-existing conditions, who were uninsurable, would do the same.</p>

<p>The invincibles, who could have purchased insurance before, but chose not to, are still on the sidelines. They have until late March, or more likely, time after that to enroll (assumes an Exec Order extending the enrollment time), before a small penalty hits. But note, the penalty is small – $95. And, it only matters for those that obtain a tax refund, since the ‘penalty’ is deducted from the refund by law. Those that owe taxes on April 15, can avoid the penalty (according to some things I’ve read.) </p>

<p>Regardless, my point is that many of these folks could’ve purchased insurance before ACA, anything from a full service PPO to a bare bones plan, but chose not to. If they didn’t want it before ACA there is no reason to think that they want insurance now; or more realistically, would rather spend their disposable income on insurance. And now, with the pre-existing conditions clauses prohibited, they may think that they have less of an incentive to enroll.</p>

<p>But I do agree stark – and thanks for the envelope under the bench, although it was pidgeon’ed – that the number will go up, once the feds start to market rationally to the invincibles.</p>

9124

<p>GP, the McKinsey study, as it is described in the WSJ article, doesn’t tell us anything about people who bought on the exchanges. The McKinsey study looked at all people who bought new policies, whether on the exchange like Calmom, or off the exchange like dstark. Of that entire universe of people, 11% were previously uninsured, they concluded. </p>

<p>If we knew the total number N of people who bought policies, and we believed the McKinsey study, we could take 11% of N and that would be the number of previously uninsured people who bought policies. You tried to do that calculation, using 2.2 million for N, but you used the wrong N. You forgot that N has to include the people who bought on the exchanges (like Calmom), and also the people who bought off the exchanges (like dstark). </p>

<p>If you want to know how many people bought on the exchanges and were previously uninsured, the McKinsey number can’t help you.</p>

9125

<p>bluebayou, do you have a link to the McKinsey study?</p>

9126

<p>sorry, no. (I happened to be traveling and in the right place at the wrong time, where I saw a hardcopy, which I was able to quickly scan…)</p>

9127

<p>The survey doesnt matter. It is misleading. The 11 percent number is going to increase over time.
( I am not saying the 11 percent number is correct).</p>

9128

<p>Even if the 11 percent number is correct, you still can’t conclude that only 220,000 people bought on the exchanges and were previously uninsured.</p>

9129

<p>No. You cant.</p>

<p>Also, without seeing the survey, which is dangerous :slight_smile: , to survey people over a 2 month period is wrong, unless the people buying insurance is a constant over time. Because the uninsured are going to wait until rhe last minute to sign up, we dont have a constant.</p>

<p>Whatever the percent of newly insured is now, it is going to rise. </p>

<p>There were other surveys mentioned in the articles about McKinsey’s survey. The other two surveys had percentages of 25 and 33 percent for the newly insured.</p>

<p>I guess the results depend on who is asked and when. ;)</p>

9130

<p>Here is an Associated Press story in the Houston Chronicle regarding the latest numbers released by Covered California:</p>

<p>“Lee said it was too early to tell whether failing to hit the target for younger people will affect the policy premiums that insurance companies set for 2015 and beyond. Insurers already are looking at their risks and expectations for next year, he said. We’re very optimistic … that plans will go into 2015 with what we hope will be reasonable premiums,” Lee said."</p>

<p>Apparently, only 25% of the total sign-ups came from the 18-34 year-old group, far less than the 36% they need. He is obviously trying to downplay whether premiums will need to increase in 2015 because of the demographics, but I thought it was very telling that he is now HOPING rates won’t increase too much next year. Not a ringing endorsement, I would say. </p>

<p>[California</a> health exchange enrollment tops 600K - Houston Chronicle](<a href=“http://www.chron.com/news/article/Calif-health-exchange-enrollment-tops-600K-5162885.php]California”>http://www.chron.com/news/article/Calif-health-exchange-enrollment-tops-600K-5162885.php)</p>

9131

<p>^^except that he really doesn’t know at this point, for a really important reason: the carriers are protected to a certain extent by the head tax that is being levied on employer plans. In essence, the feds will be bailing out adverse selection. To what extent, no one knows yet. Thus, no way to guess price increases due to adverse selection, if any.</p>

9132

<p>^^ Also, we don’t know what age mix the insurers priced for. So we don’t know what the insurers need, in order to cover their costs. Possibly insurers assumed 36% of their subscribers would be in the 18-34 age group, though that seems improbable to me.</p>

9133

<p>BTW, called my urologist today and was told he is not accepting Anthem or Blue Shield exchange/off-exchange 2014 plans. Won’t affect me because I have group insurance now, but I thought it was interesting that he is listed as a provider for Anthem exchange plans on Anthem’s website. If anyone is depending on the provider network as listed on the insurance company’s website, I would check with your doctor or hospital to confirm it. Anthem is putting out garbage on their website.</p>

9134

<p>I’ve been trying to pay my February bill for a few days now and repeatedly am getting this error: </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>C’mon now, it’s January 22nd! I really feel like they should have their you-know-what together by now. (BCBS off-exchange plan)</p>

9135

<p>It’s time for those insurers to realize that lots of people signed up, lots of people are continuing to sign up, and they need to hire the number of customer service personnel necessary to handle the customers they are getting. Where is the vaunted efficiency of the private sector? It’s been months now that they’ve been screwing up.</p>

9136

<p>Well, it is some insurers. I’m having issues paying my February Blue Shield bill online (get an error message shortly after clicking the “pay premium” link) but I had a reasonably short hold time for tech support-- they told me it was a known issue affecting some but not all customers, and they would work on fixing it and send me an email when it was done – said to expect it to take 5 days and if it still isn’t fixed after a week I can call in and make the payment over the phone. So there’s an issue, but it’s not a personnel issue.<br>
(I’m willing to give them some leeway on the tech issue, as they seemed to be very forthright about the whole thing: “yes, we know it’s broken, we are working on fixing it for you” is generally an acceptable response in my universe.)</p>

9137

<p>I literally spent 5 hours on the phone and online chat today with Comcast after they “accidentally” cancelled my account (don’t even get me started)… the last thing I want to do is sit on the phone with BCBS.</p>

<p>I’ll keep trying online (I am having the same issue- error after “pay premium”) and then call tech support when I am a more sane, rational person to deal with.</p>

9138

<p>

</p>

<p>He’s not “downplaying.” He doesn’t KNOW. </p>

<p>Do you understand that open enrollment is still going on, and that it will be several months at least before we have final numbers? Your eagerness to quote doomsday numbers which in reality are merely interim snapshots is puzzling to me.</p>

9139

<p>LasMa, this is the same guy who last summer said that premiums on the exchange would average 25% less than 2013 plans. After people saw that 2014 rates had actually increased by a significant margin, he admitted he was actually comparing rates to the small business market where the plans have far lower deductibles, co-payments and out-of pocket maximums. From that day on, I knew this guy was a liar.</p>

9140

<p>^^ Speaking of not knowing, GP, you don’t know what age mix the insurers priced for. Nor do you know how healthy the insurers expected the subscribers to be. You don’t know whether they got it right or not. Come to think of it, they don’t know either! They’ll know more at the end of the enrollment period.</p>