How Choices In Exchange Design For States Could Affect Insurance Premiums And Levels Of Coverage

Abstract

The Affordable Care Act gives states the option to create health insurance exchanges from which individuals and small employers can purchase health insurance. States have considerable flexibility in how they design and implement these exchanges. We analyze several key design options being considered, using the Urban Institute's Health Insurance Policy Simulation Model: creating separate versus merged small-group and nongroup markets, eliminating age rating in these markets, removing the small-employer credit, and setting the maximum number of employees for firms in the small-group market at 50 versus 100 workers. Among our findings are that merging the small-group and nongroup markets would result in 1.7 million more people nationwide participating in the exchanges and, because of greater affordability of nongroup coverage, approximately 1.0 million more people being insured than if the risk pools were not merged. The various options generate relatively small differences in overall coverage and cost, although some, such as reducing age rating bands, would result in higher costs for some people while lowering costs for others. These cost effects would be most apparent among people who purchase coverage without federal subsidies. On the whole, we conclude that states can make these design choices based on local support and preferences without dramatic repercussions for overall coverage and cost outcomes.