The U.S. ACA Individual Market Showed Progress In 2016, But Still Needs Time To Mature
The numbers are in. In line with S&P Global Ratings’ forecast, 2016 was a marked improvement for most U.S. Blue Cross Blue Shield (Blues) insurers’ operating performance in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) individual market. But target profitability is still a couple of years away.
Looking forward, we expect insurers, on average, to get close to break-even margins in this segment in 2017. But 2018 and beyond are still uncertain given potential legislative changes to the U.S. health insurance market and the pending legal battles over the cost-sharing reduction (CSR) subsidy. If the market continues unaffected, with a few fixes rather than an overhaul, we expect 2018, or Year 5 of the ACA individual market, to be one of gradual improvement with more insurers reporting positive (albeit low single-digit) margins. But if there are significant changes to the individual market, or if CSRs are made null and void, the market essentially has to restart with a new set of rules.
- The U.S. ACA individual market shows signs of improvement, as most insurers’ 2016 results were better than 2015 results.
- But the market is still developing and will need a couple more years to reach target profitability.
- 2016 results and the market enrollment so far in 2017 show that the ACA individual market is not in a “death spiral.”
- However, every time something new (and potentially disruptive) is thrown into the works, it impedes the individual market’s path to stability.
Other than operating performance, a key area of focus for the individual market is insurers’ participation in the ACA marketplace (exchanges). Based on recent exit announcements, states like Tennessee and Iowa may have counties with no insurer on the exchange in 2018. This issue may worsen if the uncertainty around market rules and subsidies isn’t clarified sooner rather than later. Insurers need to file their initial rates and products for 2018 in May and June of this year. Having them decide without adequate information may result in either higher-than-expected premium rate increases, or a few insurers hesitating to remain in the market.
Improvement In 2016, But Target Margins Are Still A Couple Of Years Away
As we have stated previously, we expect a five-year path to stability. 2016 was year 3. After starting on the wrong foot in 2014, and deteriorating further in 2015, we are seeing the first signs in 2016 that this market could be manageable for most health insurers. Other than a few exceptions like the Florida and New Jersey Blues, most Blue plans have struggled in this line of business. But the medical loss ratios (MLRs) for most Blues improved significantly in 2016. MLRs represent the percentage of premiums insurers pay out in claims. The weighted average MLR for the Blues included in our study was about 92% for full-year 2016, compared to 106% in 2015 and 102% in 2014.
Chart 1 | Download Chart Data
On a gross profit/loss (before accounting for administrative cost) basis, an MLR below 100% indicates that the insurer had some money left over after paying medical claims. 2016 was the first year since the start of the exchanges that the Blues reported a gross profit (in aggregate) in the individual business line (see chart 2). But adding in administrative cost to get to underwriting profit/loss, most of the insurers (especially those with MLRs above 90%) would continue to report an underwriting loss. This means more time is needed for this market to mature before consistent underwriting profits are possible.
Chart 2 | Download Chart Data
Our analysis of 2016 results and the market enrollment so far in 2017 shows that the ACA individual market is not in a “death spiral.” But it isn’t on a stable footing either. As a point of comparison, we looked at the employer-sponsored (group) insurance market. The group line of business, which continues to be the dominant segment for the industry, remains fairly steady for most diversified insurers. Both the MLRs and gross margins (see charts 1 and 3) in the group business are better and more consistent than those in the individual market. The obvious difference is scale or size of the risk pool. But the other difference is maturity of the risk pool. Although the individual risk pool will not achieve the scale of the group market, it will mature with time.
Chart 3 | Download Chart Data
Continued Improvement In 2017
Insurers have put in meaningful premium rate increases, along with product and network changes, for 2017. Besides correcting for morbidity risk, the pricing increases also attempt to cover for the end of the ACA reinsurance program. Unlike the risk corridor that failed to pay out as initially expected, the ACA reinsurance program proved fairly effective for insurers. Funded by reinsurance contributions by eligible insurers, the ACA reinsurance program paid out close to $16 billion for 2014 and 2015. The reinsurance program expires after 2016. We believe the continued pricing correction and network design changes, along with regulatory fine-tuning of ACA rules, will result in closer to break-even underwriting results, on average, for the individual market this year. But most will remain below their target profitability levels (low single-digit margins for the Blues) in 2017. It will take another year or two of continued improvements to get to that target.
The sharp rise in premium rates in 2017 didn’t lead to a significant drop in enrollment, and perhaps a potential “death spiral.” This is because of the stabilizing effect of ACA’s income-based advanced premium tax credit (APTC). As per the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the gross average monthly premiums (before APTC) for APTC-eligible enrollees increased more than 20% in 2017. But CMS noted that there was almost no year-over-year change in the net average premiums (post APTC). Over 80% of the enrollees on healthcare.gov received an APTC linked to the actual price or market premium; so as premiums went up, so did their subsidies. This effectively hedged them against the sharp premium increase. There was a decline of 5% in 2017 enrollment when compared to 2016 open enrollment, but it could have been far worse if not for the APTC and CSR subsidies.
Pricing And Participation Uncertainty In 2018
As insurers continue to adjust their products and pricing, we expect some premium rate increase in 2018 as well. If it remains business as usual, we expect 2018 premiums to increase at a far lower clip than in 2017. Premium increases are common in the insurance space. Even the group market undergoes premium increases each year. But the scale of increase is generally smaller than what happened in the individual market in 2017.
If it is business as usual, we expect low single-digit year-over-year growth in membership/enrollees for 2018. As for insurer participation, we expect most counties in the U.S. to continue to see at least one insurer on the exchange in 2018. However, based on recent company announcements, certain counties may be left without any insurer on the exchange in 2018. We observed some correlation between insurer participation and Medicaid expansion. For example, four out of the five states (Alabama, Alaska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Wyoming) that have one insurer on the exchange in 2017 also don’t have an expanded Medicaid program. Insurers also consider other factors when deciding to participate on an exchange, including population size, morbidity levels, and their own tolerance for volatility in earnings.
Any significant overhaul or increased uncertainty may lead to a different result than we have forecasted for 2017 and 2018. If the legal battle over CSRs isn’t concluded soon, or if insurers don’t have clear assurances that they will be paid for CSRs in 2018, they will have to make a decision on pricing and participation without adequate information. Additionally, the spotlight will be on the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services to continue implementing ACA in its current form until a different health insurance reform bill becomes law. Clarification on the CSR subsidy, enrollment outreach, and enforcement of special enrollment periods and the individual mandate will top the agenda for the future stability of the individual marketplace. If insurers are uneasy regarding the future of the market, they may have to decide between adding an “uncertainty buffer” to their pricing or–worst case–exiting the exchanges altogether.
A Fragile Market Needs Time To Stabilize
We view the individual market as being in the early stage of development, and therefore somewhat fragile. There was an individual market before 2014, but the current ACA individual market is only four years old and needs time to stabilize. Additionally, right from the start multiple external factors have disrupted this market, such as technical issues with the healthcare.gov website in 2014, after-the-fact rule changes related to the grandmothered plans, altering the risk corridor to be budget-neutral, and the more recent CSR court case and potential for legislative overhaul. Every time something new (and potentially disruptive) is thrown into the works, it impedes the individual market’s path to stability.
|Blues Medical Loss Ratio For The Individual Market|
|(%)||2016||2015||2014||Total individual members (2016)||Participating States|
|Health Care Service Corp||96.2||118.3||112.7||1,158,117||IL, MT, NM, OK, TX|
|GuideWell Mutual Holding Co.||75.2||84.0||94.3||748,988||FL|
|Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina||83.0||102.7||91.6||373,673||NC|
|Carefirst Inc.||97.7||103.3||98.0||308,702||DC, MD|
|Arkansas Blue Cross & Blue Shield||92.7||93.9||92.4||270,574||AR|
|Horizon Healthcare Services||85.1||76.5||83.5||196,161||NJ|
|BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee Inc.||101.4||122.6||117.9||194,995||TN|
|Highmark Inc.||102.8||133.8||122.7||173,028||PA, NJ|
|Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Alabama Inc.||98.4||120.2||102.1||164,307||AL|
|Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Co. (d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana)||94.9||102.0||97.6||147,963||LA|
|Blue Cross and Blue Shield of South Carolina||88.5||91.2||85.0||131,784||SC|
|Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Arizona Inc.||90.1||105.5||105.0||129,065||AZ|
|Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan||79.8||83.1||81.8||118,452||MI|
|Blue Cross & Blue Shield OF Minnesota||113.2||134.7||122.4||102,434||MN|
|Premera Blue Cross||97.6||113.8||94.9||100,086||WA, OR|
|Cambia Health Solutions||89.3||94.5||104.7||99,909||OR, WA, UT, ID|
|Blue Cross & Blue Shield Of Kansas City||98.7||104.7||109.1||94,222||MO|
|Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Kansas Inc.*||113.4||119.8||117.0||92,047||KS|
|Capital Blue Cross||107.1||104.6||94.9||85,900||PA|
|Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Massachusetts Group||107.6||104.9||95.8||81,802||MA|
|Blue Cross of Idaho Group||98.5||112.7||104.7||67,367||ID|
|Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Nebraska Inc.||107.5||114.7||109.6||56,921||NE|
|Noridian Mutual Insurance Co. (d/b/a Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Dakota)||92.7||87.9||96.1||38,506||ND|
|Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Wyoming Inc.||102.1||90.2||83.2||32,377||WY|
|Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Vermont||95.4||95.4||104.5||28,751||VT|
|Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Rhode Island Inc.||90.2||88.7||90.0||27,340||RI|
|Hawaii Medical Service Assoc.||116.4||116.8||112.0||24,657||HI|
|HealthNow New York Inc.||99.1||79.4||75.2||10,499||NY|
|Blues with multiple entities have been grouped together based on available information. MLR calculated as amount incurred for provision of healthcare services / Health premium written. *One entity in the group has a life filing, for which we used earned instead of written premiums. Source: NAIC annual health statutory filings – Exhibit of premiums, enrollment & utilization, S&P Global Ratings research.|
We focused on the Blues as a case study for our analysis. In most states, Blues have leading shares of their local individual markets and are participating on and off the exchanges. For Blues that have more than one legal entity, we combined the multiple entities where possible. We did not include the for-profit Blue plans that are part of the publicly traded Anthem Inc. group. Also, we did not include Blue Shield of California because statutory filing templates in California differ significantly from those in the remaining states.
- Moving From “Repeal and Replace” To “What’s Next” For U.S. Health Care, March 27, 2017
- The U.S. Health Insurance Market Is Poised To Move To A Defined-Contribution From A Defined-Benefit System Of Federal Financing, March 7, 2017
- U.S. Health Insurer 2017 Outlook: Stable Amid Heightened Industry Uncertainty, Jan. 3, 2017
- Deal Or No Deal: What Effect Could The DOJ Decision On U.S. Health Insurer Mega-Mergers Have On Credit Quality?, July 21, 2016
- Growth At A Cost: A Look At U.S. Insurers’ Expansion And Profitability In The Individual Market, April 12, 2016
Only a rating committee may determine a rating action and this report does not constitute a rating action.
|Primary Credit Analyst:||Deep Banerjee, New York (1) 212-438-5646;
|Secondary Contacts:||James Sung, New York (1) 212-438-2115;
|Joseph N Marinucci, New York (1) 212-438-2012;
|Research Assistant:||Jacqueline Unverrich, New York|
No content (including ratings, credit-related analyses and data, valuations, model, software or other application or output therefrom) or any part thereof (Content) may be modified, reverse engineered, reproduced or distributed in any form by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of Standard & Poor’s Financial Services LLC or its affiliates (collectively, S&P). The Content shall not be used for any unlawful or unauthorized purposes. S&P and any third-party providers, as well as their directors, officers, shareholders, employees or agents (collectively S&P Parties) do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, timeliness or availability of the Content. S&P Parties are not responsible for any errors or omissions (negligent or otherwise), regardless of the cause, for the results obtained from the use of the Content, or for the security or maintenance of any data input by the user. The Content is provided on an “as is” basis. S&P PARTIES DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR USE, FREEDOM FROM BUGS, SOFTWARE ERRORS OR DEFECTS, THAT THE CONTENT’S FUNCTIONING WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED, OR THAT THE CONTENT WILL OPERATE WITH ANY SOFTWARE OR HARDWARE CONFIGURATION. In no event shall S&P Parties be liable to any party for any direct, indirect, incidental, exemplary, compensatory, punitive, special or consequential damages, costs, expenses, legal fees, or losses (including, without limitation, lost income or lost profits and opportunity costs or losses caused by negligence) in connection with any use of the Content even if advised of the possibility of such damages.
Credit-related and other analyses, including ratings, and statements in the Content are statements of opinion as of the date they are expressed and not statements of fact. S&P’s opinions, analyses, and rating acknowledgment decisions (described below) are not recommendations to purchase, hold, or sell any securities or to make any investment decisions, and do not address the suitability of any security. S&P assumes no obligation to update the Content following publication in any form or format. The Content should not be relied on and is not a substitute for the skill, judgment and experience of the user, its management, employees, advisors and/or clients when making investment and other business decisions. S&P does not act as a fiduciary or an investment advisor except where registered as such. While S&P has obtained information from sources it believes to be reliable, S&P does not perform an audit and undertakes no duty of due diligence or independent verification of any information it receives.
To the extent that regulatory authorities allow a rating agency to acknowledge in one jurisdiction a rating issued in another jurisdiction for certain regulatory purposes, S&P reserves the right to assign, withdraw, or suspend such acknowledgement at any time and in its sole discretion. S&P Parties disclaim any duty whatsoever arising out of the assignment, withdrawal, or suspension of an acknowledgment as well as any liability for any damage alleged to have been suffered on account thereof.
S&P keeps certain activities of its business units separate from each other in order to preserve the independence and objectivity of their respective activities. As a result, certain business units of S&P may have information that is not available to other S&P business units. S&P has established policies and procedures to maintain the confidentiality of certain nonpublic information received in connection with each analytical process.
S&P may receive compensation for its ratings and certain analyses, normally from issuers or underwriters of securities or from obligors. S&P reserves the right to disseminate its opinions and analyses. S&P’s public ratings and analyses are made available on its Web sites, www.standardandpoors.com (free of charge), and www.ratingsdirect.com and www.globalcreditportal.com (subscription) and www.spcapitaliq.com (subscription) and may be distributed through other means, including via S&P publications and third-party redistributors. Additional information about our ratings fees is available at www.standardandpoors.com/usratingsfees.
Any Passwords/user IDs issued by S&P to users are single user-dedicated and may ONLY be used by the individual to whom they have been assigned. No sharing of passwords/user IDs and no simultaneous access via the same password/user ID is permitted. To reprint, translate, or use the data or information other than as provided herein, contact Client Services, 55 Water Street, New York, NY 10041; (1) 212-438-7280 or by e-mail to: email@example.com.