Health Exchange 1.0: Winners And Losers, So Far...

OK, so it's over...

I've been hunkered down in my little foxhole for the past several weeks as the first Obamacare open enrollment period wound down. The propaganda flack was flying so thick and heavy between partisans on both sides of the debate that A Humble Seeker After Truth like yours truly was at significant risk of getting fragged.

But finally, we've had our first face-full of Health Exchange 1.0. And now that we've lived through it and The World As We Know It has not ended, it's time to look at some results, see what we might learn from them, and look ahead to Health Exchange 2.0, which (I hope) will build on those learnings and improve the process.

Robert Pear wrote in The New York Times wrote that, with the end of open enrollment, Obamacare looks less like a monolithic national program and more like a patchwork of experiments in the policy laboratories which are the states. Some have succeeded. Some have not, and for a great many people, the future remains quite uncertain.

Let's take a look at the box scores thus far:

Winners

Millions and Millions Of Americans: The numbers are still squishy, but we've come a long way, very quickly, from insurers' initial belief that nobody would ever shop for health insurance on-line. By White House accounts, about eight million Americans withstood the rolling disaster of the Healthcare.gov roll-out, and persisted through a wonky process on the still-glitchy public exchange platform, to enroll in health coverage through the federal exchange.

An additional three million Americans benefited from Medicaid expansion in states which adopted the Obama Administration's Medicaid expansion program.

And a bonus: research by The Rand Corporation suggested that almost as many Americans (somewhere between six and eight million) signed up for private health coverage directly with insurers or through their employers..

So...Do the numbers suggest a pent-up demand for health coverage? Maybe. About a third of the folks signing up for coverage via Healthcare.gov were apparently uninsured previously. But the majority had coverage elsewhere before they went shopping.

Certainly, enrollment suggested the effectiveness of subsidies as an incentive to enroll. Medicaid expansion enabled millions of poor people to obtain coverage. And about three-quarters of Healthcare.gov enrollees received at least some level of federal subsidy. We don't yet know the total cost of those subsidies, but there's no doubt that many folks came to the state and federal marketplaces in search of a better deal. The number of "off-exchange" individuals with non-group coverage dropped from 9.4 million to 7.8 million people, the majority of whom found coverage elsewhere.

But the number of individuals who enrolled in private, employer-sponsored plans off the exchanges is a pleasant surprise. In general, these folks did not receive subsidies. And during the open enrollment period, more than three times as many people went from zero coverage to employer-sponsored coverage than those who may have lost their coverage, either because their employers discontinued their plans or because the plans didn't meet Obamacare standards for plan design.

There is certainly reason to take these numbers with a grain of salt. It's estimated that as many as a third of Healthcare.gov enrollees had not yet paid their premiums by enrollment deadline. The Rand research was based on a wide-ranging survey of a representative sample of Americans. And many skeptics believe that many of the folks who withstood The Trials Of The Wonky Website did so because their health conditions were so serious that the prospect of subsidized coverage would enable them to exploit the health care system at taxpayer expense.

But that final thought discounts the notion that, prior to enactment of the insurance reforms enacted in PPACA, insurers' medical underwriting standards were so restrictive that a little hypertension or a little high cholesterol could result either in "rate-ups" which made the cost of obtaining coverage prohibitive, or even in denial of coverage.

Inescapable conclusion: The rate of uninsured Americans has reportedly dropped from 20.5 percent of the population to 15.8 percent. So, at least for now, close to twenty million Americans have demonstrated that significant demand exists out there, and both public and private health plans have seen a significant increase in enrollment. For those folks and those families, this is a big win. And it happened in six months; that is an amazing achievement.

Wellpoint/Anthem: This company is one of a very small number of insurers which decided that the exchange business represented a significant business opportunity, and enthusiastically participated in Healthcare.gov and state exchanges in every state in which the company has a presence. They were rewarded  with over a million new customers. It's very unusual for an insurer to take that sort of risk as a leader; in most cases, as in this one, the race is usually to be second, once the leader has taken the initial hits. I suspect that Anthem's early success in building enrollment via the exchanges will encourage other insurers which have been hanging back to increase their commitment to this potentially powerful marketing channel.

Losers

Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Oregon: Actually, in addition to this five-way tie, throw in American taxpayers as losers, as well. These five states, having pocketed over a billion dollars in development grants, built state exchange platforms which didn't work. In Hawaii, recipient of $205 million to build their state exchange, managed to sign up a whopping 7600 people. Now, math is not my strong suit, but I think that boils down to about $27,000 per enrollment. The remainder of the states continued to be so dysfunctional that the vast majority of their enrollments were on paper...the old fashioned way.

Maryland has already agreed to scrap its own exchange platform and adopt the technology platform developed by The State Of Connecticut. And last week the Oregon legislature, having determined that fixing their monstrosity would cost at least an additional $30-40 million, opted to shut down their exchange and join Healthcare.gov.

This is just the first round of shake-out from the chaos of development which ran parallel to the government's rush to create the regulations outlining how exchanges should operate. States like California, Colorado, Connecticut, Kentucky and California, which have had far greater success with their exchange platforms, could become licensors of their technology.

CGI:  Hey!...Anybody thinking of building or re-modeling their exchange platforms and processes, DO NOT HIRE THIS COMPANY!...At least in America, CGI has a reputation for being far more highly-skilled at navigating the government procurement process than at actually doing the work, either on time or on-budget. That attribute became all too clear as the exchange open enrollment date loomed, and everybody watching (except, apparently, then HHS Secretary Kathleen Sibelius and the entire White House staff) could see that Healthcare.gov was not going to be ready for prime time.

Under normal circumstances, the combination of CGI's "expertise" and the lax and highly-politicized oversight of their government "clients" passes unnoticed by the public...But in those cases, there's rarely a deadline, and the technology they develop doesn't touch the lives of millions of people directly. But in this case, CGI Federal could not, no matter how they spun, avoid the fall-out from their botched attempt to build the Healthcare.gov website and supporting processes. Between what it cost taxpayers to let CGI Federal  do...whatever it was they were doing...and the cost of bringing Accenture in to fix it, and the cost of building out the "back end" applications required to manage the exchange (still nowhere near ready), the project will easily exceed another billion dollars. So I guess, as in the previous category, the taxpayers are also losers...and Accenture is a winner by default.

(Oh, and in case you think the CGI choke-a-thon was restricted to wild and wacky D.C., consider that CGI also built the non-performing platform in Massachusetts).

Red State Residents; Just as whether one sees Obamacare as a success or a disaster largely depends on one's party affiliation and where you get your news, exchange enrollment by state currently seems to be highly dependent on the political leadership in each state. In general, exchange enrollment has been highest in states with Democrat leaders, and lower in states with Republican leaders. Much of the disparity comes from those states' refusal to co-operate with the federal government's Medicaid expansion. But political leadership (or lack of it) also contributes to how vigorously the public exchange is promoted.

Next time around, I'll talk a little about some of the big remaining exchange questions, about the upcoming 2014 open enrollment (which is hard upon us), and what's in all this for small businesses (Hint: not much).