Everyone now acknowledges that the health insurance exchanges aren’t working out quite like planned. Soon we may have some useful research on why that happened, but now we are still getting analyses revealing the depth of the problem, including one from the Brookings Institution that examined exchanges in six states. (Brookings Analysis) Here is what the authors found, based not just on looking at data but talking to stakeholders in each state. In Alaska there are only two competitors on the exchange and premiums are high. But Alaska is probably a special case, extremely rural and a low population and not much competition in the provider market. As in other states, the interviewees also emphasized low consumer knowledge and high confusion. In Florida there is a fair amount of competition in some areas, but premiums are high where there isn’t. Stakeholders identified ability to negotiate with providers as a key to lower prices. Kansas had relatively low premiums but expectations were for a 30% to 40% increase this year. There is not a great deal of competition, basically only two insurers selling on the exchange, but provider prices may be low enough to constrain premiums. North Carolina experienced low competition in the first year, but competition has grown, with insurers using narrower networks, tiered plans and provider risk-sharing to enhance their comfort with offering plans without losing their shirts. But as elsewhere, rural areas tend to have no competition and high premiums. Ohio had a number of health plan participants in most areas, but still had high premiums, which the stakeholders attributed to high provider pricing and little ability to negotiate. Texas had adequate competition and somewhat lower premiums. The common thread is a difficulty in attracting enough competition to all areas of a state, provider pricing and leverage that limits lowering of premiums, and low levels of consumer knowledge.
✅ Subscribe via Email
About this Blog
Healthy Skeptic Podcast
Research
MedPAC 2019 Report to Congress
June 18, 2019
Headlines
Tags
Access
ACO
Care Management
Chronic Disease
Comparative Effectiveness
Consumer Directed Health
Consumers
Devices
Disease Management
Drugs
EHRs
Elder Care
End-of-Life Care
FDA
Financings
Genomics
Government
Health Care Costs
Health Care Quality
Health Care Reform
Health Insurance
Health Insurance Exchange
HIT
HomeCare
Hospital
Hospital Readmissions
Legislation
M&A
Malpractice
Meaningful Use
Medicaid
Medical Care
Medicare
Medicare Advantage
Mobile
Pay For Performance
Pharmaceutical
Physicians
Providers
Regulation
Repealing Reform
Telehealth
Telemedicine
Wellness and Prevention
Workplace
Related Posts
Commentary
March 25, 2023
Coronamonomania Lives Forever, Part 201
Tired of March Madness? A boringly refreshing dip into some CV-19 research summaries is recommended.
Commentary
March 24, 2023
The CDC Is a Font of Methodological and Statistical Error
Several times in the last three years I and others have pointed out serious flaws…
Commentary
March 24, 2023
A Couple of Health Care Notes
A couple of pieces of health care research focus on high health care spending and…