Skip to main content

Cross-posted at ACA Signups
I've written about the "But How Many Have PAID???" issue many times before, but going into the final stretch, I wanted to explain my reasoning as clearly as possible.

The following chart only includes states which have broken out Paid vs. Unpaid Enrollments. If you only use these 7 states as a guideline, it looks like the paid rate is around 80%:

However, note that there's a growing concensus that the overall "paid" average is closer to 85%, not 80. The following is from an article about California's exchange from March 9th:

The numbers of nonpayers varied only slightly among the largest insurers on the exchange: Kaiser Permanente reported that 13 percent of its enrollees didn't pay. Anthem Blue Cross of California, Blue Shield and Health Net said it was closer to 15 percent.

Federal officials say they've noticed the same trend nationwide.

While the article above only refers to enrollments through January 31st, a follow-up press release from CoveredCA itself on March 13 states that 85% of all enrollees (through March 9th) have paid up:
The surge continues this month, with total enrollment in Covered California health insurance plans reaching 923,832 through March 9.

...Lee said insurance companies are reporting that 85 percent of all enrollees have paid their first month’s premium.

Considering that California represents nearly 21% of all QHP enrollments to date nationally, until I receive solid data otherwise, I'm going to stick with 85% paid.

There's two more factors to consider as well, however:

--First, this is a rolling average. People who enrolled between 2/16 and 3/15 don't even start coverage until April 1st, while anyone who enrolls between 3/16 - 3/31 won't start coverage until May 1st. In many cases, their first month's premium won't even be due until up to 6 weeks or more after they enroll. Considering how many people wait until the last minute to pay their bills, it's silly to write these people off as deadbeats. The vast majority of these will eventually be paid up, it's just that we won't have confirmation of many of them until well into MAY.

Consider the following: Around 3.6 million people had enrolled in QHPs (paid + unpaid) on the exchanges as of February 15th. We'll be at a minimum of 4.5 million as of tomorrow (March 15th).

--If the 3/31 total is 5.5 million, 16% of those (900K) won't have their coverage start until April 1st and another 18% of the policies (1 million) won't start until May 1st. That's 34% of ALL QHP enrollments starting after 3/31.

--If the total is 6.0 million, 15% won't start until April 1st, and a full 25% (1.5 million) won't start until May 1st. That's 40% of the total.

--If the 3/31 total is 6.5 million, 14% won't start until April 1st and a whopping 33% (2 million) won't start until May 1st. That's 47%.

So again, when the deadline hits, I'm not gonna worry about 15% of enrollments not being paid when 34% or more of the policies haven't even started yet.

--Second, there have been countless stories of the payment being made but the insurance company screwing up, due to their billing system being messed up, their notification system failing to confirm reciept and so on. My own family is an example of this--we made our payment to BCBSM back in December via auto-pay right after we enrolled for January coverage...but BCBSM's system messed up, sent us three sets of cards (they had to cancel 2 of them), and didn't actually confirm our December payment for January coverage until early February. I've heard numerous similar tales, where the payment problem was not the fault of the customer or the exchange itself, but the insurance company. Here's a similar story from one of the articles linked to above:

For some Californians, however, the biggest problem wasn't paying for a plan, it was getting confirmation that their payment had been processed.

It took Woodside resident Jennifer Jones and her husband a nerve-racking seven weeks and two payments -- the first paid by check, the second online -- before their insurance company finally acknowledged that they were insured.

"It was extremely chaotic, just a nightmare," said Jones, a marketing consultant, who stopped payment on the initial check she wrote after waiting seven weeks for the insurer to cash it.

I have no idea how many people fall into this second category, but it's certainly more than a handful.

As a result of both of the above, I'm assuming roughly 1/3 of that 15% "unpaid" shouldn't really count as such, and in fact think I'm being pretty conservative in this estimate.

Thus, on the spreadsheet and graph I have the bare minimum QHP enrollment number as 90% "paid or unpaid for legitimate reasons" (and I suspect the actual % who do end up paying will be much higher...but we won't know that until sometime in May).

Now, certainly the "deadbeat" issue is still cause for some amount of concern, as are the remaining data transfer issues that some of the exchange websites are still having. The non-payment percentage probably will end up being higher for exchange QHPs than the industry norm, and if the exchanges are still screwing up with their data transfers to the insurers, that's definitely a problem. However, it's also not as simple as just "lopping off 15%" from the total for "non-payment" either.

Frankly, I'm willing to bet that when the dust all settles by late May, the actual PAID enrollments will be a good 95% of the total. I'm sure the non-payment rate will be higher than the typical industry average (which I assume is 1-2% or so? Just a guess), but it doesn't sound like a catastrophe either.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  thanks so much! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Brainwrap, hbk, cocinero

    "Tax cuts for the 1% create jobs." -- Republicans, HAHAHA - in China

    by MartyM on Fri Mar 14, 2014 at 10:48:05 AM PDT

  •  Very Good Analysis (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Brainwrap, hbk, cocinero

    I believe that this updated analysis will prove to be a far better indicator of the percentage of people who will ultimately not purchase their healthcare insurance.  However, I suspect that even 5% may be somewhat high and the final totals will most likely end up in the one percent to few percent range.  Whenever you are implementing any large scale project like this you are bound to have a number of mishaps by one party or another which are inflating the unpaid numbers to some degree.  However, many to most of these will ultimately be ironed out as time passes.  Regardless, the percentage of unpaid will certainly be far, far less than that being originally promoted by the Republican propaganda machine.  

    By the way is the Republican Party still flogging that dead horse or have they largely given up on that line of propaganda since I really haven't heard much about this coming out of that corner lately?  But then again I never watch Fox News or listen to Rush Limbaugh so I have little idea what the latest party line is coming out of the Far Right.

    •  It seems to have died down somewhat (0+ / 0-)

      ...around the point that the conventional number moved from the 50-75% range up to the 80-85% range a few weeks back, I think.

      It seems to have been replaced as the #1 talking point with the "how many were already insured?" issue, which is a) more legitimate of an argument, b) harder to pin down and c) likely a much larger percentage anyway...

      ...which is why I've been so obsessed with the Off-Exchange enrollments as well. If I can document a good 3 million+ off-exchange policies since Oct. 1st, that completely destroys the "5M CANCELLED!!" meme, since I'm pretty sure that a good 2/3 of those 5M just switched over from one plan to another within the same damned company without ever touching the exchanges.

      •  May Not Be 5M Anymore (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        That 5M may not be 5M anymore since Obama allowed many policyholders to keep their old policies for another year or two which many probably did.  However, again it would be very difficult to quantify that number.

        •  Exactly. (0+ / 0-)

          My guess is the breakdown (it's actually more like 4.8M total, but whatever) NOW is more along the lines of:

          1.0M - Holding onto their grandfathered policies

          2.5M - Swapped out for new policies Directly via Ins. Co's

          1.0M - Swapped out for new policies via the Exchanges

          0.5M - Replaced junk policies w/Medicaid via expansion

          So, yes, the number of newly insured QHP enrollees is likely not 4.5 million, but it's almost certainly a hell of a lot more than 0.

  •  Wonder how many are like me... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Brainwrap, ybruti

    I completed enrollment via the exchange but a glitch has prevented my application from being transferred to the insurance co. so I'm unable to pay yet even if I want to - which I do. I hope this issue can be soon resolved (it's been "escalated") because I want to start as of 4-1 and I don't want two insurance payments - won't cancel existing until I know I'm covered by the new.

    Just another faggity fag socialist fuckstick homosinner!

    by Ian S on Fri Mar 14, 2014 at 12:32:35 PM PDT

    •  See, now THAT'S a legitimate issue. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ian S, hbk

      If the problem is on the customer's side (failure to pay), that's a legit attack.

      If the problem is on the exchange's side (tech glitches at or the state sites), which appears to be your situation, that's also a legit attack.

      HOWEVER, if the problem is on the INSURANCE COMPANY'S side, as it was in our case, then that's NOT a legitimate attack on the law itself.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site