<p>If we look more closely at the esurance data, we get a different picture. </p>
<p>The 14-day average premium paid as of today is $267. The 14-day average purchaser is 36 years old. Price is a quasi-linear function of age, so we are justified in saying that the 36-year-old is paying that $267/month premium.</p>
<p>Now we scroll to the bottom of the page and look at premiums for last year. Hmm. Average premium for 22-34 year olds: $222. Average premium for 35-44 year olds: $277. So the average price last year for a 36 year old would be in the neighborhood of $250-260.</p>
<p>Last year our 36-year-old paid $250-260. This year, they’re paying $267. I’m not seeing a 36% price increase there.</p>
<p>Returning to the esurance graph (which, again, is here: <a href=“https://www.ehealthinsurance.com/affordable-care-act/price-index”>https://www.ehealthinsurance.com/affordable-care-act/price-index</a> ) the question arises, if an individual is paying, this year, roughly what they were paying last year, then why is the average premium paid going up so much? It has to be, because this year esurance’s customer base is older than it was last year. And sure enough, when you look at the numbers, the customer base is a lot older. Last year half of their customers were 34 or younger. This year, the median age looks to be about 44.</p>
<p>So then, where did those younger customers go? They could have decided to go without insurance this year, but they had insurance last year, so they are not the kind of people who want to go bare. I think they probably went to the exchanges and got subsidies.</p>
<p>There’s a lot less to the esurance Price Index than it seems.</p>
<p>"Wellpoint, the parent company of Anthem Blue Cross of California and the state’s largest individual market insurer, has significantly less market share in the exchange than it did in the 2012 individual market (30% vs. 47%). Blue Shield of California picked up substantial market share, most likely because it was able to offer the lowest premiums in several parts of the state.</p>
<p>Figure 1
Health Net, previously holding only 3% of the market, now has 18% market share in the exchange. This insurer has the lowest premiums in much of Southern California, where it is also leading enrollment."</p>
<p>The above is from the Kaiser link yesterday. One thing that was confirmed in my conversation today was these companies care about market share. </p>
<p>Also… We can work backwards and see how many people in cal had private insurance last year. I think Anthem covered 900,000 people last year.</p>
<p>In my state, btw, there are no hints yet what 2015 rate requests will be. Anyone who is worried should be in touch with their insurance commissioner’s office. And when you go looking, understand averages or a composite aren’t enough- 3 categories: individual/family, small group, large group.</p>
<p>CF, agree, so many possibilities the supposedly random two week period could be massaged. Imo, the ehealth report is of primary significance to ehealth, it’s market and any investors. “We’ll help you through this mess. Even if you qualify for subsidies.”
Kqed has a report on some guy whose rates went up big time. No one could figure out why.</p>
<p>Didn’t read the article (since there’s always the motive of the source rebuttal) I read them to see if I can be informed, whether they properly represent. Or not. Not “the facts” as I see them or wish them to be, but often how they represent the same facts they present (or factors they conveniently omit.) </p>
<p>Ehealth wants to be able to enroll people who qualify for subsidies. As we all know, these exchanges cost a lot of money to develop and a lot was wasted.
If ehealth wants to enroll people who qualify for subsidies, ehealth better pay up because that saps revenues from the exchanges. If ehealth does not have to pay up, then we have a redistribution of wealth from the taxpayer to ehealth.</p>
<p>Anthem had 47% of the market in California last year, and that was 900,000 people? OK then, 1.9 million total private insurance subscribers in Calfornia last year. That is, presumably, the total number of subscribers that had a policy for at least one month in California. </p>
<p>Using the other Kaiser data, then, we can compute that about 1.1 million Californians had a private insurance policy in December of 2014.</p>
<p>And, why look at that! About 1.1 million Californians had private indivual insurance in December 2013, and already 1 million Californians have signed up on the exchange.</p>
<p>I think you missed the point I was making. I believe the data that esurance is presenting. They say they are giving a moving two-week average premium, and I have no reason to doubt them.</p>
<p>The point is, using esurance’s own data, average premiums have gone up because average buyers are ten years older. Not because the same buyer is paying 50% more than last year.</p>
<p>Population is a higher. Economy is a little better.</p>
<p>“Anthem Blue Cross is telling many of its approximately 800,000 customers who buy individual coverage – people not covered by group rates – that its prices will go up March 1 and may be adjusted “more frequently” than its typical yearly increases.”</p>
<p>"About 2.5 million Californians have individual insurance policies, accounting for a small portion of the state’s overall insurance market. By contrast, nearly 21 million people in California are covered by health maintenance organizations.</p>
<p>Individual policies are often the only option for those who are uninsured, self-employed or do not receive health coverage through employers."</p>
<p>We’ll use that number for 2013 as well, faute de mieux. But then things don’t quite as rosy. Say we have a million signups on the California exchange; that looks about right, might be a little less. Then we need to figure out how many people signed up off-exchange. I’ll be conservative and use the low estimate, that of all the enrollments in California, 30% were off-exchange. </p>
<p>So then we get a total of about 1.43 million people covered by private insurance in May of 2104 in California. That conservative estimate puts total insured by private insurance at a little bit lower than the total insured as of December. The total people covered in May of 2014 will be much larger than the total covered in December 2013, though, because of all the Medicaid signups.</p>
<p>CF, I was using a little over 1.8 million for individual insurance times .47 and just rounded off to 900,000 for Anthem.</p>
<p>Based on my conversation today, I will say this with absolute certainty…there are more people insured in 2014 than 2013. I am not counting medicaid. There are tons of newly unsured. I dont have the exact number. </p>
<p>So, if your numbers come out differently they are wrong. </p>
<p>So you have to decide whether you are calculating how many people had insurance for the whole year, or how many had insurance for at least one month, or how many people had insurance at one specified point during the year. All those will be different numbers. For my calculations, I want to compare how many people had insurance in December of 2014 with how many will have insurance in April 2014 when everyone who has bought during the enrollment period is covered. </p>
<p>It looks like ~1.5 million Californians were covered by private insurance in December of 2013.</p>
<p>Things are really good CF. I know we read a lot of nonsense and we will continue to read a lot of nonsense
But things are really good. </p>
<p>I talked about this earlier…</p>
<p>This is my opinion…</p>
<p>If we use 1.5 million people formerly insured…that sounds pretty close to me…and 39 percent were eligible for subsidies…(GP used 40 percent. I am pretty sure I read 39 percent).</p>
<p>That equals 585,000 people. </p>
<p>Who the heck would sign up for the exchange if they didnt have too? Let’s say 10 percent more of the 1.5 million. </p>
<p>That gets us to 735,000 people.</p>
<p>We are going to sign up 1.25 million on the exchange (by the way…that gets us to 6.25 million sign ups. I should have made the bet at 6.2 million. :))</p>
<p>That is 15,000 a day signing up in Calif the last 16 days of March. I think that is a slam dunk. My opinion. </p>
<p>1.25 million - 735,000= 490,000. </p>
<p>Then there are the off exchange sign ups. That is going to be more than 100,000 people. That covers those some of the 490,000 that dont pay. </p>
<p>We should be over 500,000 newly insured at a minimum in Calif. Not counting medicaid…which does count. </p>
Really. :(</p>