HHS Proposes Sweeping Changes For 2027 Marketplace Plans

[jim584672]

HHS Proposes Sweeping Changes For 2027 Marketplace Plans​

https://www.healthaffairs.org/content/forefront/hhs-proposes-sweeping-changes-2027-marketplace-plans-part-1

"On February 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a highly anticipated 577-page proposed Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters rule for 2027 that would, if finalized, make sweeping changes to marketplace coverage under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Comments are due on March 13. The rule was accompanied by a press release and fact sheet
[mod edit]

Trump Team’s Planned ACA Rule Offers Its Answer to Rising Premium Costs: Catastrophic Coverage - KFF Health News

Sweeping changes to the Affordable Care Act marketplace next year have been proposed by the Trump administration that focus on making more insurance plans available with higher annual out-of-pocket costs but lower premiums.

kffhealthnews.org

 

[PaunchyPirate]

What a mess. I feel bad for anyone needing to purchase their own pre-Medicare health insurance in this country going forward. Myself included. I'm glad I only have to worry about 5 months of ACA in 2027 before I turn 65.

 

[Irishgirlyc58]

HHS Proposes Sweeping Changes For 2027 Marketplace Plans​

https://www.healthaffairs.org/content/forefront/hhs-proposes-sweeping-changes-2027-marketplace-plans-part-1

"On February 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a highly anticipated 577-page proposed Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters rule for 2027 that would, if finalized, make sweeping changes to marketplace coverage under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Comments are due on March 13. The rule was accompanied by a press release and fact sheet."

Trump Team’s Planned ACA Rule Offers Its Answer to Rising Premium Costs: Catastrophic Coverage - KFF Health News

Sweeping changes to the Affordable Care Act marketplace next year have been proposed by the Trump administration that focus on making more insurance plans available with higher annual out-of-pocket costs but lower premiums.

kffhealthnews.org

Title of the first article pretty much sums it all up.

 

[MichaelB]

<mod note> Links advocating heavily partisan views are not acceptable. This discussion is important and can impact many members, so please treat accordingly.

 

[Markola]

We have health issues and we buy a silver plan on the exchange that we like, even though it’s expensive. I can’t tell from this article how this proposal will screw us.

 

[GenXguy]

I reviewed it. In addition to almost certain higher premiums, it looks like the out of pocket maximum for a CSR87 Silver plan could go up $500.

So, small potatoes compared to my real concerns for next year.

 

[TripleLindy]

I have until September ‘27 until Medicare eligibility and my wife has until June ‘28. The article didn’t mention premium rates. If they are reasonably lower than unsubsidized ACA plans, and coverage is the same (with the obvious exception of max OOP), this is what I’d rather have. This year, our unsubsidized Bronze plan has a premium of $34k that has a max OOP of around $20k (might be $18k). So we’re in the neighborhood of $50k before any coverage. If a catastrophic plan with a premium of $10k, but a $50k deductible/OOP max was available, that’s what I’d opt for. We are healthy and rarely meet our deductible, so the lower premium with more, but capped, risk would be attractive.

I’d want full coverage with no preexisting condition exclusions or any carve outs for care, other than things like pregnancy coverage. Give me a reasonable premium and let me take the risk up to a relatively high amount, but cover me 100% above that amount.

I realize that doesn’t work for everyone, but it probably works for most early retirees who lost the enhanced subsidy.

 

[pb4uski]

An interesting idea to reduce premiums for ACA plans by raising deductibles massively. Many here have pined for that idea for years.

The biggest problem is that it doesn't do anything to address the skyrocketing costs of health care services, which is the crux of the problem with the cost of health care and therefore health insurance in the US. IMO, we need a central body to set health care service prices like what is done for Medicare and Medicaid.

Also, this proposal doesn't cover employer provided plans which as I recall are ~80% of the total, though if this is out in place I suspect it would open the door for employer plans to follow suit.

 

[Chuckanut]

The biggest problem is that it doesn't do anything to address the skyrocketing costs of health care services, which is the crux of the problem with the cost of health care and therefore health insurance in the US. IMO, we need a central body to set health care service prices like what is done for Medicare and Medicaid.

Right. The medical establishment needs to support many reforms in how we provide medical care: legal, administrative, drugs, preventive care, etc. Otherwise the doctors, hospital administrators, insurers, etc. should line up in front of the Congress, fall on their knees like supplicants, and beg for the government to control their business even more. They is what they seem to be figuratively doing anyway.

One example, while in Italy a few years ago, I banged my toe and it became infected. I went to La Farmacia and was given a choice of antibiotics in both cream and pill form. I was surprised that I could purchase an oral antibiotic without first seeing a doctor and getting a prescription. ( I got the cream.) Also, most Europeans can get extra strength Voltaren gel in drug stores. Here it requires a prescription which usually means another trip to the doctor.