Are transitional insurance plans driving losses on state exchanges?

The ACA's insurance exchanges have generally been successful in helping to reduce the ranks of uninsured in the United States, while providing reasonable quality insurance to its policyholders.

However, several challenges still remain. Most notably, a good number of insurers have had problems with breaking even on the exchange products (though some are making money). That stems from several problems, notably Marco Rubio blowing up the risk corridor reinsurance program that undermined many insurer's business plans, especially non-profit co-ops trying to break into the market. Other insurers, like United Health, have just tended to be bad at competitively designing and pricing plans.

However, the risk pools for the exchanges have also proven to be somewhat older and sicker than predicted, which has also tended to drive up prices in 2016 and will likely do so more in 2017. I haven't seen a great explanation for this other than "predicting new risk pools is hard," -- which it undoubtedly is.

However, the New England Journal of Medicine last week featured a very interesting Perspectives piece (gated unfortunately) by John Hsu that fingers grandmothered plans as the culprit.

Does having a state-run exchange improve health insurance access under the ACA?

With the ruling in King vs. Burwell behind us, focus on the differences between state sponsored health exchanges vs. the federal exchange has fallen away. But as state-based data has been rolling in from Gallup, the CDC, and the Urban Institute on declines in people without health insurance, I began wondering whether providing a state-based exchange has any advantages over a the federal marketplace. Gallup’s comments and tables in particular seem to push the idea that states with state-based exchanges seem to have had more success with reducing the uninsured rate.

Of course, the real reason that state-based exchanges exist is political. The original House of Representatives bill had a national marketplace, while the Senate Bill incorporated state-based marketplaces. This particular breakdown shouldn’t surprise anyone, since Senators represent entire states, and all states are equally represented. The general state-based structure of the Senate bill won out. The final ACA incorporated a mechanism that defaulted to a federal backstop, but the markets themselves were still based on state boundaries.

However, despite that structural political reason, there might be some practical reasons why state exchanges might have superior performance to a unified federal exchange. First, commentators often refer to states as “laboratories of democracies” that can innovate and try numerous different ideas. Over time, the theory goes, good ideas from some states will diffuse across other states naturally and more quickly than if the federal government had installed and tried to improve a clunky national idea. Second, there’s the idea that differing conditions and preferences across states mean that state-based exchanges will allow individual states to customize their exchanges to best fit the needs of their state.

We would have to hold these potential advantages against some very real drawbacks. First, there’s administrative complexity and cost of constructing and running an exchange for a state-level. With federal grants to construct exchanges running out, several smaller states are already transitioning back to the federal marketplace, while others are having trouble paying the upkeep costs. Also note that there’s a question of whether several states even have enough potential subscribers to form a healthy individual insurance market to begin with.

With these ideas in mind, I used Gallup’s state-based data to build an extremely simple statistical model to predict the effects of a state-based exchange on improvements in health insurance coverage.  Follow me below the fold for more details.