Have States made any progress towards implementing Health Exchanges?
Posted Feb 06 2012 9:23am
The answer depends on the state. Today, I examine an Urban Institute research paper that looks at this progress in more detail.
The most advance States fall into Group 1 (CA, CO, CT, DC, HI, IN, MA, MD, NV, OR, RI, UT, VT, WA, WV). These states have either enacted an exchange establishment law or in which the governor has established one by issuing an executive order. Massachusetts and Utah had already passed exchange laws before enactment of the ACA. All Group 1 states (except Colorado, Massachusetts and Utah) have received an exchange establishment grant.
Group 2 states (AL, AZ, DE, IA, ID, IL, KY, ME, MI, MN, MO, MS, NC, NE, NJ, NM, NY, PA, TN, VA, WI) have not yet established exchanges, but have demonstrated significant interest in doing so. Most notably, 17 of the 21 states have received level 1 federal establishment grants, which represent a second round of funding for state exchange development work beyond the initial state planning grants. Although Wisconsin has not received a level 1 federal establishment grant, Wisconsin is using federal funds to develop an IT system to fully integrate exchange eligibility determination and enrollment with state-based public insurance programs (i.e., Medicaid and CHIP). Recently, however, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker has rejected all federal funding for implementation of the ACA . Of the remaining four states, Virginia and Wisconsin have passed legislation stating its intent to develop an exchange, although they have not yet passed exchange establishment legislation, New Jersey has establishment legislation pending in its legislature, and Pennsylvania’s governor has recently announced that his administration is taking steps to establish a state exchange.
Group 3 states (AK, AR, FL, GA, KA, LA, MT, ND, NH, OH, OK, SC, SD, TX, WY) do not meet any of the criteria for Groups 1 and 2 and are the furthest from successfully implementing the ACA provisions.
A research article from the Urban Institute finds that States with the ‘most to gain’ from the ACA are actually the most likely to fall into Group 3. States that currently have the least generous Medicaid programs and the largest share of uninsured workers are the least likely to have made significant progress in implementing the ACA provisions.
I can think of two reasons for this finding. The first is philosophical. These States began with less generous health insurance programs. Thus, the residents (or politicians) in these States may prefer to have less generous health insurance programs than other States. Hence the natural aversion to implementing the ACA provisions. The second reason is financial. Because these States have the largest share of uninsured individuals, they would also incur the largest percentage increase in cost to finance the ACA provisions. Although it is true that these States would likely receive the largest subsidies, these subsidies will not cover the full cost of the ACA implementation.
Should the exchange be run by an existing government agency, a new agency, a quasi-governmental entity or a not-for-profit private entity?
What should the composition of the governing board be?
How should the administrative costs of running an exchange be financed?
Should the exchange be able to actively negotiate with plans over premiums?
Can plans be excluded, or must all qualified plans be allowed to participate?
In computing premiums, should enrollees in the Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP) exchange and nongroup exchange markets be pooled together, or should their premiums be set separately?
What will be the role of agents and brokers in the exchange?
Should state insurance regulations be identical inside and outside the exchange?
How will Medicaid/CHIP eligibility and enrollment be integrated with the exchange?
Should the Basic Health Plan option be implemented?