<p>“Lee said there are a significant number of consumers who aren’t eligible for government subsidies and are signing up for coverage via private exchanges. That makes it difficult to get a handle on how many previously uninsured individuals are getting health coverage, but he contends the “vast majority” of Covered California enrollees had no insurance before.”</p>
<p>Peter Lee is a PR machine, not the least bit interested in the truth. His only goal is to sign up people and will say whatever is convenient to make that happen. His biggest lie was last June when he was quoted by every major publication in the country that 2014 premiums were 29 percent below 2013 premiums. Only problem: he was comparing apples to oranges. He was comparing Covered Ca premiums to the small business group market, not the individual market where all the policies were being cancelled. In fact, independent analysis showed that individual market premiums had actually increased on average by 80%. I knew then this guy would say anything, and it would be folly to trust any of the numbers they’re releasing to the public. </p>
<p>There are only two possible ways that Covered California would know which enrollees were newly insured. Either they took some sort of random survey of enrollees and asked, and based their statement on the results of their survey. Or else they are basing it on information submitted on the enrollment form, which does ask whether the applicant has other health insurance – see <a href=“https://www.coveredca.com/PDFs/English/paper_application/CCFRM604.pdf”>https://www.coveredca.com/PDFs/English/paper_application/CCFRM604.pdf</a> (page 22-23 of paper application form)-- however, filling out that form is confusing and most of the questions are focused on employer provided insurance or other government programs – and questions are worded somewhat differently (and as I recall are also confusing) for the online form. My impression at the time I applied online was that they were asking about the type of insurance that would disqualify a person from subsidies --so I probably answered “no”. For one thing, the specific language on the paper form is, “Has this person been offered affordable full-coverage health insurance for January 2014?” – since the full cost of the premium on the policy I was offered was well over the income percentage defined as “affordable” under the ACA, the answer would have been “no” for me in any case. </p>
<p>So if they are relying on answers provided with online enrollments, that may not give a true picture. </p>
<p>I think the easiest thing will be to look at the total coverage for all individual insurance together with total Medi-Cal enrollments as of April 1, and compare with the total numbers of private-market insureds plus Medi-Cal as of December 2013. That won’t be able to account for people who had insurance but dropped it post ACA, people moving in and out of jobs providing insurance, people aging out of eligibility for SHIP or into eligibility for Medicare - but it will give a fairly good measure of the net impact of ACA on health coverage statewide. </p>
<p>"In Michigan, the medical device maker Stryker Corp. blamed 1,000 layoffs on the 2.3 percent excise tax Obamacare imposed on its products. The city of Dearborn announced it’s cutting 700 part-time and seasonal positions due to the act’s costs.</p>
<p>Investors Business Daily compiled a list of 401 employers that have cut hours or staffing specifically in response to the Obamacare mandates."</p>
<p>@LasMa (“Do we still have the ignore function on the new CC?”)</p>
<p>Yes: click on the user name. You will see a big orange “Ignore” button right under their name. </p>
<p>Once you click that you will still be able to see where the person has posted, with a grayed out avatar and a time stamp – but nothing else. Still takes up too much space on the page, but at least there is no text cluttering things up. </p>
<p>And yes, it will greatly improve the signal-to-noise ratio.</p>
<p>dstark, if Peter Lee said, as you report, * the “vast majority” of Covered California enrollees had no insurance before,* how are off-exchange signups relevant? If you sign up off exchange, you are not a Covered California enrollee.</p>
<p>On edit: I agree that we’d like to know how many people are signing up off exchange, and what the previous insurance status of those people is. But I don’t see how the off-exchange signups shed any light on the previous insurance status of Covered California enrollees.</p>
<p>Upthread there is a discussion about ignoring critical posts. Also, someone called people who can’t afford insurance in Colorado “dopes”. So, yeah, there does not seem to be a lot of interest in actual information here.</p>
<p>^^ If only. Wish we could ignore the low ball approach some take. It doesn’t add to the discussion, hijacks while someone or other has to explain. Ironically, it takes away from the issues CF, Calmom, Dstark and others have raised, the concerns. </p>
<p>Calmom, you mentioned questions on the app that might be used to track whether one had prior insurance. I can’t get back to it, but my app had a very confusing question- something like, “is insurance currently available?” Of course. I had the expensive plan direct from the carrier. But I had to second guess the intent. Answered no, assuming it meant employer or something else. When I sat with them, they said I was right.</p>
I believe that the discussion about the “ignore” feature concerned non-informative posts by people who are ■■■■■■■■ this this thread for the purpose of pushing their political agenda. </p>
<p>I’ve personally been around here long enough to know who has useful information to contribute and who doesn’t. I imagine that the person who asked about the ignore feature was thinking along the same lines. </p>
<p>@Cardinal Fang – I was also puzzled as to how off-exchange signups would reflect the previous insurance status of Covered Cal users. I do think that it is reasonable to anticipate that a higher percentage of previously uninsured would go to the exchange than buy off exchange, given that the majority of exchange buyers are subsidy eligible, and a major reason that a person wouldn’t have previous insurance is that they couldn’t afford it. </p>
<p>On the other hand, I think that rather than evaluating the success of the exchange, it makes sense to look at the overall impact on the market and numbers of people who have some sort of insurance coverage, whether purchased on exchange, direct from the insurer, or through expanded Medicaid eligibility. The overall goal of the ACA is to increase coverage levels – the exchange is just one mechanism to achieve coverage. </p>
<p>Without your posts, GP, this thread would not be on page one every day. It would be the choir singing the praises of Obamacare, and very boring indeed.</p>
<p>CF… The off exchange sign ups dont tell us how many people were uninsured that signed up on an exchange. </p>
<p>I dont care about that. I want to know how many people were uninsured and now have private health insurance. </p>
<p>The state of Washington had 1/3 of those signing up for individual insurance using an exchange. I would love to see covered california’s numbers. As I understand it, the insurance companies are under no obligation to release the off exchange sign ups. Maybe calmom knows. Calmom?</p>
<p>I’m with calmom on how we should evaluate coverage, as I have said before. I want to know how many people under 65 will have coverage as of April 1, including people who bought on the exchanges, people who have insurance through their employer, people who bought off the exchanges, and people who are covered by Medicaid/CHIP.</p>
<p>I believe, but am not certain, that pre-ACA, the percentage of people covered was determined by surveys such as the Gallup polls that have been reported here.</p>
<p>" Total Individual Market Largest Insurer Second Largest Insurer Third Largest Insurer
Location
Enrollment
Name
Enrollment
Market Share
Name
Enrollment
Market Share
Name
Enrollment
Market Share
United States<br>
California 1,629,701 Wellpoint Inc Grp 610,585 37% Kaiser Foundation Group 331,857 20% Blue Shield of California Group 329,487 20%</p>