General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsBig Insurers Avoid Many State Health Exchanges
Some insurers pulled out of the exchanges required by the Affordable Care Act as the Oct. 1 launch approached, leaving an uneven patchwork of providers.Jayne O'Donnell and Annika McGinnis, USA TODAY 4:29 p.m. EDT October 21, 2013
So few insurers offer plans on some of the new government health insurance exchanges that consumers in those states may pay too much or face large rate increases later, insurance experts say.
An average of eight insurers compete for business in 36 states that had exchanges run or supported by the federal government last month, the Department of Health and Human Services says. (Idaho has since started its own exchange.) But just because an insurer sells in a state, it doesn't mean it sells in every area of a state so many residents have far fewer options.
Many state-run exchanges also have far fewer than HHS' average, which is weighted based on the number of uninsured residents in an area. Vermont has two, Kentucky has three and Nevada and Maryland each have four.
Some insurers pulled out of the exchanges required by the Affordable Care Act as the Oct. 1 launch approached. That leaves an uneven patchwork of providers — ranging from one insurer in New Hampshire and West Virginia to 16 in New York.
The difference also leads to a wide disparity in the numbers of plans, from just seven in Alabama to 106 in Arizona, according to HHS' analysis. But HHS spokeswoman Joanne Peters says the situation is still much better than it was before the law took effect.
MORE...
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/10/20/little-competition-insurers-some-states-obamacare-plans/2986795/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
LiberalFighter
(51,104 posts)Purveyor
(29,876 posts)on this situation of big insurers pulling out of the exchanges?
LiberalFighter
(51,104 posts)They tend to seriously slant. With their history they can't be trusted to provide all needed info.
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)BCBS offers 26 plans in all 100 counties, Coventry offers 25 plans in only 39 counties. Rates are 5.5% higher overall because 1) NC did not set up its own state exchange; and 2) NC is not expanding Medicaid.
When North Carolina officials decided not to set up a state insurance exchange, deferring instead to the federal government, they triggered a 3.5 percent service charge, tacked onto North Carolina’s insurance rates, to run the exchange.
Additionally, North Carolina officials opted not to expand Medicaid, the federal insurance program for the poor. As a result, about 200,000 people who would have qualified for Medicaid will now qualify for insurance subsidies.
Those people are widely expected to be in poorer health, prompting insurance companies to boost rates by an estimated 2 percent to compensate for the risk of insuring this population, said Mark Hall, a professor of law and public health at Wake Forest University.
The state’s decisions not to embrace the health care law likely dissuaded insurers from entering North Carolina’s market, inhibiting price competition, said Kerry Hall, spokeswoman for the N.C. Department of Insurance. Blue Cross is the only insurer that operates in all 100 counties, while Coventry Health Care of the Carolinas is selling subsidized policies in just 39 counties.
....
http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/10/19/3292474/blue-cross-letters-scare-some.html##storylink=cpy
How rates vary by county for a family of four (rural areas hosed):
http://media2.newsobserver.com/smedia/2013/10/18/12/01/dKjLh.So.156.pdf#storylink=relast
Demit
(11,238 posts)said a researcher quoted in the article. THAT'S the story! Health insurance companies existing to do nothing but make profits.
And yes, the writer of this piece doesn't understand his topic enough to find someone to quote that many many younger & healthier people will be signing up too, because of the mandate, and that will counterbalance the sicker people whom the poor insurance companies are now forced to insure, unlike the good old days. Unless he did and his editor took it out, that's bad writing.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)and having no idea really how many healthy younger people will actually be signing up.
Note that not all insurance companies are profit making, there are many non-profit ones and also mutual ones (owned by
the policy holders themselves).
Demit
(11,238 posts)He wasn't referring to nonprofits. He was referring explicitly to companies who were worried about their profits.
Yes, I imagine it must be painful for those companies, facing the prospect of actually having to pay out some of the money they've been raking in the past several years of record profits, instead of being able to cherrypick healthy subscribers and then deny even their claims. Do you suppose we'll have destitute insurance execs now? How my heart aches for them!
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)have been close to blocked out by small companies, many once startups, that have delivered innovative health insurance coverage. The big companies came crawling back, but the little startups are now companies that have assets and that are continuing to drive down rates for consumers while, along with hospitals and HMO, are delivering outstanding consumer health metric results. So, in a word, FUCK big health insurers, their role will be taken up by new players that really believe in quality health care for everyone, regardless of the insureds financial resources.
