IMPORTANT: See the original post in this series for an explanation of the methodology.

Regular readers know that I've been obsessing over the massive increases in both gross as well as net premiums for ACA health insurance policy enrollees being caused by the combination of Congressional Republicans allowing the enhanced federal tax credits to expire as well as other Trump Regime policy changes for well over a year and a half now.

via the Rhode Island Insurance Commissioner:

2027 Requested Commercial Health Insurance Rates Have Been Submitted to OHIC for Review

The Office of Health Insurance Commissioner (OHIC) today released the individual, small group, and large group market premium rates requested by Rhode Island’s insurers. The requests were filed as part of OHIC’s rate review process (for coverage effective on or after January 1, 2027).

“Health insurers are once again seeking rate increases to cover the rising cost of health care and other expenses,” said Health Insurance Commissioner Cory King. He continued: “OHIC will thoroughly review these requests to determine whether they are justified.”

Two insurers, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Rhode Island (BCBSRI) and Neighborhood Health Plan of Rhode Island (NHPRI), filed rates for plans to be sold on the individual market to people and families who do not receive insurance through their employer.

The first thing that's important to understand about the Indiana insurance market is that there are two carriers leaving the individual (ACA) market, and one possibly (?) leaving the small group market next year.

I had previously written about Cigna Health & Life Insurance pulling completely out of the ACA market across all states in 2027. In Indiana, Cigna only had around 8,600 ACA enrollees last year; this year, according to this article, it's down to fewer than 7,000.

CareSource is also pulling out of Indiana along with at least some other states as well. Again, according to this story, they have nearly 60,000 currently effectuated Hoosiers enrolled in their individual market policies.

Long-time readers know that I've long been an advocate of more states breaking off of the federal ACA exchange (HealthCare.Gov) and establishing their own versions instead. While there are certainly benefits to utilizing the federal exchange (standardized interface, user experience, branding & marketing), there are also numerous benefits to states operating their own platforms.

In the early days of the ACA, in addition to the infamous technical meltdown of HealthCare.Gov, many of the state-based exchanges (SBEs) of the time included horror stories in which the 1.0 versions of SBEs either failed miserably, cost an insane amount and/or both. The most famous examples include...

Pages

Advertisement