Skip to main content
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
  • Our Vision
    • Our Vision Overview
    • Why Health Equity
    • Focus Areas
    • Measuring RWJF Progress
  • Grants
    • Grants Overview
    • Active Funding Opportunities
    • Awarded Grants
    • Grantee Stories
    • Grant Process
    • Grantee Resources
  • Insights
    • Insights Overview
    • Blog
    • Our Research
    • Advocacy And Policy
  • About RWJF
    • About RWJF Overview
    • Our Guiding Principles
    • How We Work
    • Impact Investments
    • Staff And Trustees
    • Press Room
    • Careers
    • Contact Us
    • Accessibility Statement
Find A Grant
Global Search Dialog
    Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
    • Our Vision
      • Our Vision Overview
      • Why Health Equity
      • Focus Areas
      • Measuring RWJF Progress
    • Grants
      • Grants Overview
      • Active Funding Opportunities
      • Awarded Grants
      • Grantee Stories
      • Grant Process
      • Grantee Resources
    • Insights
      • Insights Overview
      • Blog
      • Our Research
      • Advocacy And Policy
    • About RWJF
      • About RWJF Overview
      • Our Guiding Principles
      • How We Work
      • Impact Investments
      • Staff And Trustees
      • Press Room
      • Careers
      • Contact Us
      • Accessibility Statement
    Find A Grant
    Global Search Dialog

      Marketplace Pulse: Per Capita Change in Monthly Spending to Stay in Same Plan Under Hypothetical Scenario

      Brief Nov-01-2018 | Hempstead K | 5-min read
      1. Insights
      2. Our Research
      3. Marketplace Pulse: Per Capita Change in Monthly Spending to Stay in Same Plan Under Hypothetical Scenario
      Download graphic

      The Marketplace Pulse series provides expert insights on timely policy topics related to the health insurance marketplaces. The series, authored by RWJF Senior Policy Adviser Katherine Hempstead, analyzes changes in the individual market; shifting carrier trends; nationwide insurance data; and more to help states, researchers, and policymakers better understand the pulse of the marketplace.

      The 2019 ACA plan year is notable for the increase in insurer participation in the marketplace. Expansion and entry have been substantial, and the percent of counties with one insurer has declined from more than 50 percent to approximately 35 percent. While urban areas in rural states have received much of the new participation, entire rural states have gained, along with more metropolitan urban areas.

      Economic theory and common sense lead most to believe that increased competition is unquestionably good for consumers. Yet in the paradoxical world of the subsidized ACA marketplace, things are not so simple. In some markets, increased competition may result in a reduction in the purchasing power of subsidized consumers by narrowing the gap between the benchmark premium and plans that are cheaper than the benchmark. Even though the overall level of premiums may decline, potential losses to subsidized consumers in some markets will outweigh gains to the unsubsidized, suggesting that at the county level, the losers stand to lose more than the winners will win.

      One way to illustrate this is to hypothetically subject 2018 marketplace enrollees to 2019 premiums in counties where new carriers have entered the market. Assuming that enrollees stay in the same metal plan in both 2018 and 2019, and that they continue to buy the cheapest plan in their metal, we can calculate how much their spending would change by income group.

      Under these assumptions, in about one quarter of the counties with federally facilitated marketplaces (FFM) that received a new carrier in 2019, both subsidized and unsubsidized enrollees would be better off in 2019, meaning that they could spend less money and stay in the same metal level. In about 30 percent of these counties, all enrollees are worse off. In almost all of the rest, about 40 percent, there are winners and losers, but in the aggregate, the subsidized lose more than the unsubsidized win. Overall, in about 70 percent of FFM counties with a new carrier, subsidized enrollees will lose purchasing power, while in about 66 percent of these counties, unsubsidized customers will see premium reductions. In population terms, about two-thirds of subsidized enrollees in counties with a new carrier will find plans to be less affordable, while a little more than half of unsubsidized enrollees will see lower premiums.

      Some examples of each type can be seen below. For all enrollees to be better off, two things need to happen: the purchasing power of subsidized consumers needs to increase, and unsubsidized consumers need lower nominal premiums. For everyone to be worse off, the reverse must be true: the purchasing power of subsidized enrollees must decline, and the premiums of the cheapest plans in each metal must increase. For a mixed result in which the subsidized lose and the unsubsidized win, the purchasing power of subsidized consumers decline, while premiums for the cheapest metal plans decline as well.

      Philadelphia is a good example of a county with a mixed result. The premium of the benchmark plan declined by nearly $200 between 2018 to 2019, from $635 to $465 for a 40-year-old, but the premiums of the cheapest plans in each metal declined by far less, reducing the gap between these cheaper plans and the benchmark, and therefore the size of the subsidy. By way of illustration, a 40-year-old at 350 percent of the federal poverty limit, with an annual income of $36,420 per year, pays $101 a month for the cheapest bronze plan now. In 2019, the cheapest bronze will cost that enrollee $254. For an unsubsidized customer, the premium for the cheapest bronze plan will decline from $400 in 2018 to $370 in 2019.

      It is easy to see why the losers lose more than the winners win. In Philadelphia, the subsidized lose more both individually and as a group. In Philadelphia, the average unsubsidized customer will spend $20 less per month in 2019, while the average subsidized customer will spend $107 more. Further, there are far more subsidized customers. In Philadelphia, subsidized consumers as a group would spend more than $5,000,000 per month more in 2019 to stay in the same plans they have now, while unsubsidized consumers would save only $50,000 per month. The change in the total spending per capita reflects both the relative magnitudes of the losses and gains as well as the relative sizes of the unsubsidized and subsidized populations. In the case of Philadelphia, the total increase in per capita spending for all marketplace enrollees to stay in their current plans is $100 per enrollee.

      This scenario is, of course, a great simplification of reality. Subsidized consumers who lose purchasing power will not all stay in the same metal plan. Some will shift down to a cheaper metal, while others may drop coverage. Similarly, the reduction in premiums for the unsubsidized population in some markets may encourage enrollment by some who felt priced out of the market last year. Enrollment in the often cheaper off-exchange plans are not included in this exercise, so gains to the unsubsidized may be bigger than is reflected here. Another unrecognized “winner” is the federal government, if subsidies are reduced.

      These are short term effects that reflect the somewhat volatile adjustments of a subsidized market that has experienced many changes. The silver-loading process in many states served to widen the interval between the benchmark premium and the cheaper plans, increasing the buying power of the subsidy. Competition in some markets is now whittling away at that gap, reducing subsidies as well as overall premium levels.

      In the longer run, the competition that comes from increased carrier entry is almost certainly beneficial, and increased choices for consumers have a value that cannot be measured. Nevertheless, while in many markets unsubsidized consumers will see premium reductions, many subsidized consumers will lose purchasing power, and it remains to be seen how these changes will be reflected in overall enrollment.  

      With appreciation to Joanna Seirup of Vericred.

      Related Content

      Brief
      Vincente Prado and Cinthia often try to get away from the pressure of family, gangs and other stresses of Oakland life by walking in a park by the marina.

Both kids spend most of their time at VincenteÕs sisterÕs apartment. Cinthia is accepted as family.

      Percent of Plans with Out-of-Network Benefits

      Bills from out-of-network health care providers is an issue that has been gaining prominence with coverage from the media and growing policymaker interest.

      3-min read

      Brief
      Two men discussing insurance forms.

      Change in Number of Carriers Offering Off-Exchage Only Plans By County

      Marketplace enrollment declines in the off-exchange-only segment may be significant due to affordability issues for the unsubsidized population.

      2-min read

      Healthcare Coverage and Access

      Subscribe to receive Funding Alerts & more

      Explore the latest in reflection and research from subject matter experts at RWJF and our wide network of partners.

      Email address already subscribed. Please check your inbox to manage your subscriptions.

      Subscribed!

      Thank you. You are now subscribed.

      Tell us what type of content you want to receive.

      Be informed with our twice a month newsletter updating you with relevant news and research around a Culture of Health, as well as the latest funding opportunities.

      Get funded by RWJF: Receive notifications when new funding opportunities are released.

      Receive monthly updates on RWJF-sponsored research that informs many robust health policy debates on Capitol Hill, covering topics like health equity, improving access to quality healthcare, equitable housing, and more.

      Shop talk for researchers. This monthly newsletter covers research news and opportunities from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

      Communications expedite action. Get periodic research and expert insights on the best ways to communicate so we can spread what works.

      Sometimes we have news, announcements or opportunities that don't quite fit the subscription parameters above. If you're interested, we'll send you this information under "There's more...". *If you've indicated you are an EU resident, we will only send these communications if you intentionally check this box.

      Which profession or pursuit best describes you?

      Area(s) Of Interest

      Unsubscribe

      Stop receiving all emails from RWJF

      This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
      • CONTACT RWJF

        50 College Road East
        Princeton, NJ 08540-6614

         

        US Toll Free: (877) 843-7953

        International: +1 (609) 627-6000

      • MANAGE YOUR GRANTS

        MyRWJF Login

        • Facebook
        • LinkedIn
        • YouTube
        • Instagram

      • Our Vision
        • Our Vision Overview
        • Why Health Equity
        • Focus Areas
        • Measuring RWJF Progress
      • Grants
        • Grants Overview
        • Active Funding Opportunities
        • Awarded Grants
        • Grantee Stories
        • Grant Process
        • Grantee Resources
      • Insights
        • Insights Overview
        • Blog
        • Our Research
        • Advocacy And Policy
      • About RWJF
        • About RWJF Overview
        • Our Guiding Principles
        • How We Work
        • Impact Investments
        • Staff And Trustees
        • Press Room
        • Careers
        • Contact Us
        • Accessibility Statement

      ©2001- 

      Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. All Rights Reserved. 

       

      • Manage Email
      • Privacy Statement
      • Terms and Conditions