ACA Federal Marketplace updates

E

ERhoosier

Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Joined
Feb 16, 2011
Messages
1,797
For those of us living in states who are defaulting to federally-run HI exchanges ("Marketplace"), the 'official' HHS website offers little detail & is significantly outdated (as of today- last update was Mar 1st!). Link here

Marketplace is supposed to be functioning (accepting applications) in just over 3mo (Oct 1st). Anyone seen further info on progress of the HHS-run state Marketplace(s)?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I've relayed this a few times in other threads: My wife works on a health exchange project (though she's actually leaving that project in a couple of weeks) and what she's heard is that some of the health exchange projects have been so badly underfunded by Congress (and I'm sure the sequester didn't help) that everything is going to run behind schedule and there's going to be a lot less customer service than there would have been had funding been adequate.

Penny-wise, pound-foolish!
 
Thanks for the additional links. It was my understanding that healthcare.gov was scheduled to be updated by June 1st. Several other links (inc some CMS) still take you to the 'old' site.

It appears that next month is the deadline (loose term these days I know) for approval of QHP's for Marketplace (Fed Exchange), yet I still cannot find which companies (if any??)actually submitted plans for approval in various states (inc mine). From the CMS timeline, those plans were to have been submitted for consideration in April.
 
ERhoosier said:
For those of us living in states who are defaulting to federally-run HI exchanges ("Marketplace"), the 'official' HHS website offers little detail & is significantly outdated (as of today- last update was Mar 1st!). Link here

Marketplace is supposed to be functioning (accepting applications) in just over 3mo (Oct 1st). Anyone seen further info on progress of the HHS-run state Marketplace(s)?
Click to expand...

Actually, there is still a lot of activity and fresh announcements daily, most of which are interesting us but do not affect us. The thing we are all waiting for, plans, prices and network for our regiojs, probably won't hit the airwaves until September. Between now and then much will be written and lots of hair will catch fire on TV, but little substance, if any.
 
Agree there's lots from the various pundits & talking heads.
Guess I don't consider that useful "info", just chatter ;)
 
Here's an example of the " activity and fresh announcements" I was referring to

The government’s decision to mandate a menu of payment options including cashier’s checks, money orders and re-loadable pre-paid debit cards comes amid increasing pressure from consumer advocates and business groups that are concerned low-income working families would be required to purchase health coverage under the Affordable Care Act but would have no way to pay their monthly bill.
Click to expand...
Feds Pitch Broad Payment Options For Obamacare Customers – Capsules - The KHN Blog
 
In a report to be released today, the GAO describes the progress of local and state officials in setting up the exchanges. From the WSJ:

Government officials have missed several deadlines in setting up new health-insurance exchanges for small businesses and consumers—a key part of the federal health overhaul—and there is a risk they won't be ready to open on time in October, Congress's watchdog arm said.
Click to expand...

For enrollments to start in October, the info should have been in the hands of consumers already. This ain't like choosing a toaster oven.
 
I cannot get into details, but let me just say that recent info I have overheard gives me further reason to believe the watchdog's report. :-X

I am beginning to think we're going to see what will become the next "textbook case" of the damaging impact of under-funding.
 
Last edited:
samclem said:
In a report to be released today, the GAO describes the progress of local and state officials in setting up the exchanges. From the WSJ:

For enrollments to start in October, the info should have been in the hands of consumers already. This ain't like choosing a toaster oven.
Click to expand...

It pains me to say this Sam, but I think as a whole you give the masses too much credit... Almost half of Americans still don't even know the Act exists as law.
Three quarters of the other half probably won't understand what they signed up for until after they need the benefits, anyways.
 
Mulligan said:
It pains me to say this Sam, but I think as a whole you give the masses too much credit... Almost half of Americans still don't even know the Act exists as law.
Three quarters of the other half probably won't understand what they signed up for until after they need the benefits, anyways.
Click to expand...

And I'm willing to wager that half believe it will all be free. "...what do you mean, I have to PAY for this?!"
 
bUU said:
I've relayed this a few times in other threads: My wife works on a health exchange project (though she's actually leaving that project in a couple of weeks) and what she's heard is that some of the health exchange projects have been so badly underfunded by Congress (and I'm sure the sequester didn't help) that everything is going to run behind schedule and there's going to be a lot less customer service than there would have been had funding been adequate.

Penny-wise, pound-foolish!
Click to expand...

So, you're saying that this program hasn't even been launched and there's not enough money to run it properly? That can't be good.
 
Many of various programs were never properly funded.
 
bUU said:
Many of various programs were never properly funded.
Click to expand...

Maybe the writers of the law assumed that the various insurers would be competing for customers and would be active in setting up the exchanges? And educating(selling) to the masses?
 
Rather, I think that they weren't planning on states dragging their feet dragging their feet dragging their feet so badly, mostly for partisan posturing, thereby forcing the exchanges to be developed in unnecessarily short time-frames, concentrating costs within a much shorter window, and introducing all manner of inefficiencies in that wouldn't have been there if the development projects were undertaken from the earliest point in time they could have been.

Imagine a team of eight people doing something over four months that was supposed to have been done by two people spread over a year. Back when I was in software quality management, Frederick Brooks wrote excellent essays outlining the myth that throwing more people at a project could get it done just as efficiently in less time. The reality is that there is overhead associated with managing large groups of people that make large groups far less efficient, and therefore costly. I can also attest to the fact that it incurs more churn in the resources for the project, introducing even more inefficiency.
 
bUU said:
Rather, I think that they weren't planning on states dragging their feet dragging their feet dragging their feet so badly, mostly for partisan posturing, thereby forcing the exchanges to be developed in unnecessarily short time-frames, concentrating costs within a much shorter window, and introducing all manner of inefficiencies in that wouldn't have been there if the development projects were undertaken from the earliest point in time they could have been.
Click to expand...
The law is what it is. The provision for Federal exchanges in lieu of those run by the states was explicitly built into the law.
There is one part of the whole process that seems well ahead schedule: assigning blame for failure to get things done. Please, let's just see how well the executive branch does its job (executing the legislation written and passed by Congress) before we jump to any conclusions. Maybe everything will go great. Yes, we know that the competitive private insurance offerings won't happen as promised (one year delay) and that the whole CLASS ACT LTC insurance plan that was part of the legislation has now been abandoned (in accordance with provisions in the legislation itself: HHS found it couldn't be made to work). It's been a long and tortured road, a lot is riding on this, and those who favored this solution now have a chance to show us their vision. With all this pre-planning, deliberation, and the best minds in the federal government at work, we owe them our patience. They surely know that excuses, finger-pointing, and whining will not win any converts--they (and all of us) need this to be successful. It's the opportunity of a lifetime, according to many people.
 
Last edited:
samclem said:
The law is what it is.
Click to expand...
However politics is still politics regardless of that.

samclem said:
The provision for Federal exchanges in lieu of those run by the states was explicitly built into the law.
Click to expand...
And many states waited and waited and waited to decide, and some even switched their answer yet-even-later. Again: politics is politics. Many states were hanging their hats on the SCOTUS overturning ACA, and therefore they refused to incur costs that they felt that SCOTUS would eventually relieve them of having to incur. They took a gamble and their citizens lost.
 
samclem said:
The law is what it is. The provision for Federal exchanges in lieu of those run by the states was explicitly built into the law.
There is one part of the whole process that seems well ahead schedule: assigning blame for failure to get things done. Please, let's just see how well the executive branch does its job (executing the legislation written and passed by Congress) before we jump to any conclusions. Maybe everything will go great. Yes, we know that the competitive private insurance offerings won't happen as promised (one year delay) and that the whole CLASS ACT LTC insurance plan that was part of the legislation has now been abandoned (in accordance with provisions in the legislation itself: HHS found it couldn't be made to work). It's been a long and tortured road, a lot is riding on this, and those who favored this solution now have a chance to show us their vision. With all this pre-planning, deliberation, and the best minds in the federal government at work, we owe them our patience. They surely know that excuses, finger-pointing, and whining will not win any converts--they (and all of us) need this to be successful. It's the opportunity of a lifetime, according to many people.
Click to expand...

Yes, patience. It's highly unlikely that our healthcare system will look anything like what was planned in the law 20 years from now. I see costs being more concentrated with improved efficiency. Many docs are closing up shop to join hospitals so they are saving facility expense, impact fees, property taxes, employee expenses, supplies, etc.
 
For several weeks I have been watching the HealthCare.gov link the OP provided us hoping for some news about the Florida ACA marketplace. But I haven't found anything there, and not much on Florida.gov sites either.

Does anyone know of any source for updates on Florida?

Thanks in advance.
 
The WSJ has interesting editorial today The young won't buy ObamaCare

Media outlets lately have emphasized the challenge of enticing healthy young adults to sign up for ObamaCare, "exactly the type of person insurance plans, states and the federal government are counting on to make health reform work," as the L.A. Times put it. These pieces are useful as far as they go, but miss a key point that Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito managed to convey in many fewer words during last year's Supreme Court argument on ObamaCare.
Mr. Alito pointed out that young, healthy adults today spend an average of $854 a year on health care. ObamaCare would require them to buy insurance policies expected to cost roughly $5,800. The law, then, isn't just asking them to pay for "the services that they are going to consume," he continued. "The mandate is forcing these people to provide a huge subsidy to the insurance companies . . . to subsidize services that will be received by somebody else."
Since he puts it that way, why would they sign up for ObamaCare, especially since the alleged penalties will be negligible and likely unenforced?
Click to expand...

Most of the pricing info I've seen provided by the article Michael has linked seem pretty affordable for us 40-60 somethings. But it looks pretty expensive from the stand point of a 20 something, struggling to find a decent job in this economy and burden by student loans.
 
clifp said:
The WSJ has interesting editorial today The young won't buy ObamaCare

Most of the pricing info I've seen provided by the article Michael has linked seem pretty affordable for us 40-60 somethings. But it looks pretty expensive from the stand point of a 20 something, struggling to find a decent job in this economy and burden by student loans.
Click to expand...
This is the big question, as young people represent a large part of the uninsured today. There is catastrophic coverage option which may appeal to many, and premium assistance for those earning less than 4 x the FPL. I can see a real struggle for a 30 year old earning 4.5 x the FPL and having to buy a full price policy with after tax $$.

Two links here for anyone interested. One is a KFF poll that shows young people want health care coverage (here) the other an interview between Ezra Klein from WonkBlog and Aaron Smith from Young Invincibles (here)
 
bUU said:
And many states waited and waited and waited to decide, and some even switched their answer yet-even-later. .
Click to expand...

No doubt some states have vacillated, or had the Feds turn down their proposal for joint projects. Those delays are understandable. However, Federal Exchanges were always a part of the ACA and several states have made clear from the start they would default to these Federal Exchanges. For those states, IMHO there is no excuse for HHS not meeting the Oct 1 deadline.

marko- Agree 100% that many feel Obamacare = totally free health care. Very, very few ave folks understand even the basics of how ACA will (hopefully) work.

MichaelB- Thanks for GAO link, although still not much 'actionable info' for individuals needing HI in Jan. IMHO affording full price HI will be a bigger struggle for those making 4.5X FPL at 55-60yo vs 30 yo (due to 2.5-3X age rate multiplier).
 
Last edited:
WSJ:
Mr. Alito pointed out that young, healthy adults today spend an average of $854 a year on health care. ObamaCare would require them to buy insurance policies expected to cost roughly $5,800.
Click to expand...

clifp:
Most of the pricing info I've seen provided by the article Michael has linked seem pretty affordable for us 40-60 somethings. But it looks pretty expensive from the stand point of a 20 something, struggling to find a decent job in this economy and burden by student loans.
Click to expand...

So the young will subsidize the middle age in the ACA program. Just as the middle income fund current retirees in the social security program.

Mebbe I'm just a glass half empty guy, but i foresee alot of generational warfare in our nation's future.

Prolly many single young folks will pay the fine [$95] the first year rather than sign up. The fine increases to $325 in 2015 & $695 in 2016. If the young continue to not sign up, those affordable premiums for the middle prolly won't remain affordable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Transitioning to Retirement - Healthcare Hurdles
2 3
Replies
67
Views
6K
Koolau
Koolau
MichaelB
Executive announcement to end cost sharing reductions
2 3 4
Replies
99
Views
11K
Mr._Graybeard
Mr._Graybeard
F
Obamacare Tax Shock
2 3
Replies
50
Views
8K
aaronc879
A
shotgunner
Time to register to use ACA Exchange
Replies
2
Views
2K
MRG
MRG
shotgunner
ACA rates for NH are out
Replies
0
Views
1K
shotgunner
shotgunner

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom