I mentioned it in another thread but I'll say it here too: it's my opinion that the Manhattan Institute "study" behind this article used a seriously flawed methodology.
Some data on premium increases has come out.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapot...miums-by-avg-of-41-subsidies-flow-to-elderly/
I mentioned it in another thread but I'll say it here too: it's my opinion that the Manhattan Institute "study" behind this article used a seriously flawed methodology.
Some data on premium increases has come out.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapot...miums-by-avg-of-41-subsidies-flow-to-elderly/
Can you elaborate? Is the premium increase likely significantly more or less or too preliminary?
For ACA rates, we created state-level averages by averaging rates for the five cheapest plans across all counties in a state. The data was sourced from ValuePenguin and because the ACA bans denials based on pre-existing conditions, there is no need to develop a weighted average of these rates.
^ Very interesting, I hadn't noticed the weighting eskimospy or that you can't reproduce said data Sactoking. Would be helpful in trying to corroborate Roy's conclusions.
Interesting indeed.
I went to ValuePenguin and searched by county in Nevada for Bronze rates for a 27yo. I took the five least expensive plans per county and averaged the prices. I then averaged the 14 county prices into one master average. Manhattan Institute said the average should be ~$304; I calculated $274. I thought maybe they used Silver rates (even though their methodology clearly says "five least expensive plans") but my result was ~$334.
I also accounted for the fact that ValuePenguin only displays on-exchange rates. In Nevada we have a very robust off-exchange market, so I thought that might be a factor. Nope, our off-exchange rates are lower than on-exhange, so that doesn't seem to fit their result.
I also note that in our 7 or 8 rural counties only two plans are listed (we have trouble getting rural coverage). If I sort ValuePenguin by metal tier I don't get 5 full plans for my average. So, I took the 5 plans regardless of tier in the rurals, but that didn't match the MI result either (and would have necessitated a similar methodology in the non-rural areas, dropping the cost as the Cat plans are included).
So, unless I'm just misunderstanding their simple methodology, their result is not reproduceable.
(Then add in other glaring errors, like not using off-exchange prices).
"We are not where we need to be," Sebelius told a hearing of the Senate Finance Committee. "It is a pretty aggressive schedule to get to the end of the punch list by the end of November."
As a result, not very many people have been able to sign up yet. "I can tell you our early enrollment numbers will be very low," Sebelius said.
Washington Post: White House proposes exempting Taft-Hartley plans from reinsurance fees in 2015 and 2016.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-have-just-gotten-a-pass-on-an-obamacare-fee/
Very interesting, but wouldn't your numbers still show a 100%+ increase?Interesting indeed.
I went to ValuePenguin and searched by county in Nevada for Bronze rates for a 27yo. I took the five least expensive plans per county and averaged the prices. I then averaged the 14 county prices into one master average. Manhattan Institute said the average should be ~$304; I calculated $274. I thought maybe they used Silver rates (even though their methodology clearly says "five least expensive plans") but my result was ~$334.
I also accounted for the fact that ValuePenguin only displays on-exchange rates. In Nevada we have a very robust off-exchange market, so I thought that might be a factor. Nope, our off-exchange rates are lower than on-exhange, so that doesn't seem to fit their result.
I also note that in our 7 or 8 rural counties only two plans are listed (we have trouble getting rural coverage). If I sort ValuePenguin by metal tier I don't get 5 full plans for my average. So, I took the 5 plans regardless of tier in the rurals, but that didn't match the MI result either (and would have necessitated a similar methodology in the non-rural areas, dropping the cost as the Cat plans are included).
So, unless I'm just misunderstanding their simple methodology, their result is not reproduceable.
(Then add in other glaring errors, like not using off-exchange prices).
But to be fair, the other side of the ACA, destroying people's existing health insurance plans, seems to be ahead of schedule.Sebelius is setting up the cushion for the low enrollment numbers that will be released this month as well as the possiblity that the site might not be fully functional by the promised 11/30 date....
http://www.nbcnews.com/health/sebelius-faces-more-questions-health-law-8C11542596
Anyone seen any figures on how much this concentrated effort of working nights/weekends is going to cost the tax payers? Contract workers love their overtime...wonder what their hourly billing rate is....
I'd like to see updated CBO projections on the cost and economic impact of Obamacare. I suspect it's going to be a helluva more costly than originally claimed.
Fern
Very interesting, but wouldn't your numbers still show a 100%+ increase?
If so, is that because Nevada had a high percentage of crap health insurance plans, or is there something I'm missing?
Manhattan may have used the averages for rural and urban markets weighted by percentage population. Regardless, studies without the math and methodology published are virtually worthless, as statistics can say any damned thing you want them to say.
Perhaps a better way to say it might be that the "average" policy increase in your market was 1,650% but the average increase for comparable policies is closer to 17%. The people are going to be paying their actual increase regardless of the relative pre-ACA versus post-ACA plan value. However, your point about enrollment is spot-on and the actual average should be weighted by enrollment to have any validity.My office has taken the position that any comparison of "pre-ACA" rates and "post-ACA" rates is irresponsible; the plans just aren't the same. I can't replicate MI's results so I cannot say that I understand their methodology based on the sparse description provided, so I can't speculate if the "real" increase is 100+% or not.
Your bringin up "crap" plans is another issue I have with the study. I've mentioned that the methodology appears unreplicable and I've mentioned that only using exchange plans is hugely misleading. What I haven't mentioned is their determination of the "pre-ACA" rates.
Setting aside their assumptions on upcharging, their tactic of "compare the five least expensive plans to the five least expensive plans" misses one key component: enrollment. Because the ACA mandates the ten essential health benefits a reasonable assumption would be that plan enrollment will cluster. What I mean is that a hypothetical Plan A and Plan B, offering roughly the same benefits at roughly the same prices, will have comparable enrollments. This is very clearly not the case in the "pre-ACA" world. Two plans, let's call them Plan Y and Plan Z, could have very different benefits and very different premiums and the enrollments will vary widely as well. If a bare-bones Plan Z costs 1/5 what Plan Y costs but has an enrollment figure 1/100 of that of Plan Y (since the risk-averse avoid it) then Plan Z is not representative of anything, should be considered an outlier, and should not be included in the study. Manhattan Institute didn't control for that.
Put another way: Before the ACA I have 6 plans in my market. 5 of them cost $20/month and each have an enrollment of 50 people. The sixth costs $300/month and has an enrollment of 99,750. After the ACA I have 6 plans, they all cost about $350/month, and they all have an enrollment of ~16,666 people. The Manhattan Institute will tell you that the "average" increase in my market was 1,650% but the real average increase is closer to 17%. The uncompensated use of statistical outliers invalidates statistical analysis.
Healthcare.gov crashed due to overwhelming demand on October 1? How about healthcare.gov crashed because it could only handle 1,100 logins...
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...andle-1100-users-day-before-launch-docs-show/
It's Fox, but at least they link to their source document (it's the second page).
Healthcare.gov crashed due to overwhelming demand on October 1? How about healthcare.gov crashed because it could only handle 1,100 logins...
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...andle-1100-users-day-before-launch-docs-show/
It's Fox, but at least they link to their source document (it's the second page).
Healthcare.gov crashed due to overwhelming demand on October 1? How about healthcare.gov crashed because it could only handle 1,100 logins...
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...andle-1100-users-day-before-launch-docs-show/
It's Fox, but at least they link to their source document (it's the second page).
Two weeks ago, the tech team put into place enhanced monitoring tools for HealthCare.gov, enabling us to get a high-level picture of the marketplace application responding, and to measure how changes improve user experience on the site, she said.
Healthcare.gov crashed due to overwhelming demand on October 1? How about healthcare.gov crashed because it could only handle 1,100 logins...
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...andle-1100-users-day-before-launch-docs-show/
It's Fox, but at least they link to their source document (it's the second page).
Their headline is horribly misleading. It says "ObamaCare website could only handle 1,100 users a day before launch, docs show"
Now the story actually gets it right but I wonder how many people will just pass the headline around.
As complex as the architecture they built seems to be I'm not shocked they started seeing response time issues so quickly. Another case study in why load and performance testing needs to be done and done early enough to give your dev teams time to make changes.
As an IT professional whoever ran this goat rope should be absolutely embarrassed it ticks off pretty much every one of the "don't do this" check boxes.
Because tests did not get started until two weeks before the roll out.
And no one bother to do any "top to bottom" testings as required = http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_1...ed-final-security-requirements-before-launch/
I mentioned it in another thread but I'll say it here too: it's my opinion that the Manhattan Institute "study" behind this article used a seriously flawed methodology.