Highlights and updates
- Open enrollment for 2021 coverage in Montana is November 1-December 15, 2020. Residents who experience qualifying events can still enroll or make plans changes for 2020.
- Average premiums in Montana’s individual market increasing by about 1.4% for 2021.
- Short-term health plans can be sold in Montana with initial plan terms up to 364 days, although all of the plans currently for sale have maximum terms of six months (Montana legislation to limit short-term plans to three months did not pass in 2019).
- Montana enacted reinsurance legislation to stabilize the market and reduce premiums in 2020, and received federal approval for a 1332 waiver that provides federal pass-through funding.
- Thanks in large part to reinsurance, Montana’s insurers reduced full-price premiums by about 13% for 2020 (subsidies are also smaller as a result, so people who get subsidies are not generally seeing decreases in their after-subsidy premiums).
- Commissioner Rosendale, an ACA opponent, ran unsuccessfully for Senate in 2018.
- 43,822 people enrolled for 2020, which is down nearly 25 percent from the Montana exchange’s peak enrollment in 2016.
- Three insurers offer plans in Montana’s exchange. This has remained mostly steady over the years, although Time briefly offered plans and Montana Health CO-OP briefly froze their enrollment.
Montana exchange overview
Montana uses the federally run exchange at HealthCare.gov, and three insurers offer plans for purchase.
Open enrollment for 2021 coverage in Montana will run from November 1, 2020 to December 15, 2020. Outside of open enrollment, both on-exchange and off-exchange, Montana residents need to have a qualifying event in order to enroll or make changes to their coverage.
Montana struggled with large double-digit rate increases for 2016 and 2017, and although subsidies offset the rate hikes for most enrollees, those who weren’t eligible for subsidies were paying considerably more for their health insurance by 2017.
But the insurance companies that offered coverage in the state noted in 2017 that — contrary to the popular GOP talking point — the Montana market was not in a death spiral. The rate hikes for 2016 and 2017 appear to have had a stabilizing impact, and the rate increase for 2018 would have been in the single digits if the Trump administration had not eliminated federal funding for cost-sharing reductions (CSR). For 2019, the average rate increase was less than 6 percent, and rates would likely have decreased slightly if the individual mandate penalty hadn’t been eliminated, and if the Trump Administration hadn’t expanded access to short-term plans and association health plans.
And for 2020, average rates dropped by about 13 percent, thanks in large part to the state’s new reinsurance program. But benchmark premiums dropped by an average of 14 percent, and premium subsidies — which are based on benchmark plan rates — are smaller than they were in 2019. So although average premiums are lower, that really only applies to people who pay full price for their coverage, which is about 15 percent of Montana’s exchange enrollees, in addition to everyone who buys ACA-compliant coverage outside the exchange.
For 2021, there will be a small overall increase in average premiums, with the three insurers implementing average rate increases that vary from 0 percent to 5 percent.
Montana expanded Medicaid under the ACA, but not until 2016 (two years after more than half the states had expanded coverage in 2014), and with a waiver that allows for some state-specific aspects of the program, including premiums and copays for some enrollees. The state enacted legislation in 2019 to continue Medicaid expansion in Montana for another six years, albeit with a Medicaid work requirement. The state is seeking federal approval for the work requirement, although it’s expected to be delayed by up to a year past the originally scheduled January 2020 implementation date (and the legal status of Medicaid work requirements is somewhat up in the air for the time being; none are in effect as of 2020 and the additional Medicaid funding that states are receiving to address the COVID-19 pandemic is contingent on the state not terminating enrollees’ Medicaid coverage).
Overall average rate increase of about 1.4% for 2021 (down from the 3% average insurers initially proposed, which the insurance commissioner said was too large)
Rate proposals for the 2021 plan year were due in Montana on June 11. In mid-July, Montana’s Department of Securities and Insurance posted a summary of the proposed rate increases, which ranged from 2.3 percent for Blue Cross Blue Shield of Montana to 5 percent for PacificSource.
Across all three insurers, the initial rate proposals came to an average proposed rate increase of about 3.1 percent. Although that’s a fairly modest proposed increase — and in the same general rate as the average rate changes that have been made public in other states thus-far — Montana’s Insurance Commissioner, Matt Rosendale, noted that he considered any rate increase inappropriate for 2021. Rosendale’s position is that insurers shouldn’t be asking for a rate increase at all for 2021, given the profitability of insurers in the individual market in recent years and the reduced utilization of elective health care services during the COVID-19 pandemic. It’s worth noting that among the states where rate filings for 2021 have been made public, most insurers have proposed very little in the way of rate changes related to COVID-19, although some insurers believe that the pandemic will result in higher health care costs in 2021.
Montana’s insurance commissioner does not have the authority to block rate changes from taking effect. Montana’s insurance regulators can make recommendations to the insurers if they find that the proposed rates are not actuarially justified, but the insurers can implement those rate anyway if they choose to do so, as BCBSMT did in 2017 (note that the ACA’s MLR rules would require an insurer to repay consumers if more than 20 percent of premiums are spent on administrative costs, including profits). For 2021, however, two of Montana’s three insurers did agree to reduce their proposed 2021 rates after Rosendale told insurers that the initial proposals were unacceptable.
The final approved rate changes were announced in mid-August:
- Blue Cross Blue Shield of Montana (Health Care Service Corporation, or HCSC): no average rate change. (HCSC has about 20,050 members, and had initially proposed a 2.3 percent average rate increase)
- Montana Health CO-OP: 0.68 percent increase. (The CO-OP has about 18,200 members, and had initially proposed an average rate increase of 3.3 percent)
- PacificSource: 5 percent increase. (PacificSource has about 12,300 members, and their final rate increase is unchanged from what they initially proposed)
Across all three insurers in Montana’s individual market, the overall average rate increase amounts to about 1.4 percent. In the small group market, which includes the same three insurers plus UnitedHealthcare, the average rate increase for 2021 is about 2.4 percent.
- 2020: Average rate decrease of 13.1 percent. Montana’s insurance commissioner announced that average premiums would decrease across the board in 2020 for plans sold in the individual market, with decreases ranging from 2 percent to 20 percent, depending on the plan. The state noted that about 65 percent of the total premium reduction could be attributed to the new reinsurance program (described in more detail below). So while premiums would likely have decreased even without the reinsurance program, the average decrease was much more significant thanks to the creation of the reinsurance program.
- 2019: Average rate increase of 5.7 percent. The approved average rate increases ranged from 0 percent for Blue Cross Blue Shield of Montana to 10.3 percent for Mountain Health CO-OP. The rate increases for 2019 were almost entirely due to the elimination of the individual mandate penalty and the expansion of short-term health plans and association health plans. It’s noteworthy that Montana Health CO-OP — one of the four remaining ACA-created CO-OPs in the country — had taken over the top spot in terms of market share as of 2018 (in 2017, BCBSMT had more enrollees than the CO-OP). The week before the rate proposals were filed by insurers, Montana Insurance Commissioner Matt Rosendale — a strong critic of the ACA — wrote a scathing op-ed about how rates were likely to keep going up in 2019, and reiterating Rosendale’s position that “Obamacare has made a mess of our health insurance and health care systems.” But after the rates were filed, the commissioner’s office noted that the proposed rate increases for 2019 were modest.
- 2018: Average rate increase of 18.7 percent. The average rate increases ranged from 13.1 percent for PacificSource to 22.3 percent for Blue Cross Blue Shield of Montana. These rates included last-minute revisions to account for the loss of federal reimbursements for cost-sharing reductions (CSR). BCBSMT had the largest chunk of the market share in 2017, so the weighted average proposed rate increase was initially 14.14 percent (with BCBSMT including the cost of CSR in their 2018 premiums, but the other two insurers basing their rates on the assumption that federal CSR funding would continue). But the weighted average rate increase grew to 18.7 percent after the cost of CSR was added to Silver plans for Montana Health CO-OP and PacifiSource.
- 2017: Average rate increase of 47.6 percent. In the summer of 2016, when insurers filed proposed rates for 2017, all three carriers explained that their claims costs in 2015 far exceeded the premiums they collected, and that while there is pressure on carriers to lower their rates, they cannot do so unless healthcare providers agree to reduced rates as well. PacificSource’s average rate increase was 33.2 percent, and Mountain/Montana Health CO-OP’s average rate increase was 31 percent, both of which were determined to be justified by the Insurance Commissioner’s office. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Montana initially submitted an average rate increase of 62 percent, and ultimately settled on an average increase of 55.3 percent. Monica Lindeen, Montana’s Insurance Commissioner in 2016, noted that the proposed rate increase for BCBSMT was the highest she had ever seen in the state, and possibly the highest that had ever been requested in Montana. Ultimately, her team found BCBSMT’s final rate proposal of 55.3 percent to be unjustified, but they did not have the authority to block the rate increase from taking effect.
- 2016: Average rate increase of 25.9 percent. The average rate increases ranged from 22 percent to 34 percent. Although Montana’s insurance commissioner does not have the authority to deny rate proposals, then-Insurance Commissioner Monica Lindeen had an outside actuary review proposed rates, in an effort to get final rates as low as possible. And premium subsidies kept pace with increasing premiums: When plan selections for 2016 had been finalized, 83 percent of Montana exchange enrollees qualified for premium subsidies. Their average pre-subsidy premium is $421 per month, but their average after-subsidy premium is just $115 per month. That was actually one dollar per month lower than the average after-subsidy rate in Montana’s exchange in 2015, when 84 percent of Montana enrollees received subsidies. That year, their average pre-subsidy premium was $346 per month, but after subsidies, they paid an average of $116 per month.
- 2015: Average rate increase of 1.6 percent. Insurance Commissioner Monica Lindeen described the 2015 rate hike as “historically low”
- 2014: This was the first year that ACA-compliant plans were available, and premiums were essentially an educated guess, as there was no claims experience on which to base rates. Across all carriers, the lowest cost bronze plan in the Montana exchange averaged $251/month in 2014, which was very close to the national average of $249.
Montana implemented a reinsurance program as of 2020
Lawmakers in Montana passed HB652 in 2017, which called for the state to submit a 1332 waiver proposal to CMS, seeking permission to establish “a state reinsurance program, a high-risk health insurance pool, or any other program or combination of programs identified by the commissioner or the legislature.” Governor Steve Bullock vetoed the bill, however, noting that it was too broad and gave too much power to the Insurance Commissioner to make changes to Montana’s health insurance market without public input.
Although reinsurance programs have typically had bipartisan support in several states, high-risk pools are generally opposed by Democrats, as they serve to bifurcate the market and separate sick people into their own risk pool (they were also generally underfunded and insufficient in the pre-ACA days when they were used by most states). Montana Insurance Commissioner Matt Rosendale supported HB652, and was critical of Bullock’s veto.
The Montana legislature only has regular sessions in odd-numbered years, so there were no new bills in 2018. But Governor Bullock and Department of Administration Director John Lewis established a 13-person working group in 2018, tasked with analyzing how a Montana-based reinsurance program could work to lower premiums by 10-20 percent in the state’s individual insurance market, and developing bipartisan legislation that could be presented to lawmakers during the 2019 session.
That legislation, S.B.125 (the Montana Reinsurance Association Act), was introduced by Senator Steve Fitzpatrick in January 2019, and was signed into law by Governor Bullock in May. The legislation called for the creation of a five-member board of directors for the reinsurance program, including representatives from each of the three insurers that currently offer individual market coverage in Montana (PacificSource, Montana Health CO-OP, and BCBS of Montana).
The legislation directs the reinsurance program to assess all major medical and disability insurers in the state (not including self-funded plans) a fee equal to 1.2 percent of their premium revenue from the previous year. The revenue generated by this assessment will be combined with federal pass-through funding that the state has secured via a 1332 waiver. [Pass-through funding refers to the fact that premiums will be lower with the reinsurance program, which means that premium subsidies will also be smaller. By using a 1332 waiver, Montana can receive federal permission to keep the savings that result from the smaller premium subsidies — instead of having the federal government keep that money — and use it to fund the reinsurance program.]
Reinsurance programs work by using the pool of state funds and federal pass-through funds to reimburse insurers for a portion of their high-cost claims. Insurance pools tend to have a fairly small number of very high-cost enrollees, and the claims for these individuals skew the total costs of the pool upward, resulting in higher premiums for everyone. By offsetting these very high-cost claims, the reinsurance program can stabilize the market and bring down premiums for the whole pool of insureds. In Montana, premiums were projected to be 10-20 percent lower with reinsurance than they would otherwise have been. Once rates were finalized for 2020, they ended up being about 13 percent lower than they were in 2019.
But this really only affects people who don’t get premium subsidies; for those who do get premium subsidies, their premium subsidies will shrink in line with the decreasing premiums, resulting in net premiums that are roughly the same (or possibly even a little higher — the average benchmark premium in Montana, on which subsidy amounts are based, dropped by 14 percent for 2020, while overall average premiums are decreasing by about 13 percent). In Montana, there are an estimated 15,000 people who buy their ACA-compliant health plans outside the exchange and thus do not receive premium subsidies. And nearly 7,000 people bought full-price plans in the Montana exchange for 2019 (another 38,000 people bought plans in the Montana exchange with the help of premium subsidies).
Montana’s reinsurance board was tasked with sorting out the specifics of how the program would operate, although the legislation gave them some guidelines (which are fairly similar to the specifications that other states have established for their reinsurance programs). The basic parameters and the board’s projected guidelines are as follows:
- The reinsurance program will kick in once a claim reaches a certain dollar amount that can’t be less than $40,000 (for 2020, the board has adopted this $40,000 attachment point).
- The reinsurance program will then reimburse the insurer for part of the claim; the reimbursed percentage will be set by the board, but must be between 50 percent and 80 percent (for 2020, the board has set the reimbursement rate at 60 percent).
- The reinsurance program will continue to reimburse the insurer until the total claim reaches the reinsurance cap, which can’t be more than $1 million (for 2020, the board has set the cap at $101,750; these parameters are subject to change in future years).
For 2020, Montana expects the reinsurance program to cost $34.5 million. According to the 1332 waiver proposal that Montana submitted, the state expects federal pass-through funding to amount to $22 million in 2020 (with a range of $16.5 million to $25.8 million; CMS determines the actual number each year based on actual enrollment). The remainder of the funding will come from the state’s assessment on insurers. Montana expects individual market enrollment to increase modestly (about 1 percent per year) with the waiver in place, and expects premiums to be up to 9 percent lower than they would have been without the reinsurance program.
CMS approved Montana’s 1332 waiver in August 2019. Several other states already have reinsurance programs in place (Alaska, Oregon, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Maine, Maryland, and New Jersey), and Montana joined North Dakota, Rhode Island, Delaware and Colorado in securing federal approval for reinsurance programs that took effect in 2020.
Enrollment in Montana’s exchange: 2014 to 2020
43,822 people enrolled in plans through Montana’s exchange during the open enrollment period for 2020 coverage. That’s nearly 25 percent lower than enrollment in 2016. As has been the case in the majority of states that use HealthCare.gov, enrollment has steadily dropped since 2016. Here’s a summary of how enrollment has changed over the years in Montana’s exchange:
- 2014: The open enrollment period for 2014 coverage lasted for six months. During that window, 36,584 people enrolled in private plans through Montana’s exchange (another 4,638 people had qualified for Medicaid under pre-expansion guidelines; Medicaid expansion didn’t take effect in Montana until 2016).
- 2015: Total enrollment in private plans through the Montana exchange grew to 54,266 people.
- 2016: Enrollment grew again for 2016, when 58,114 people signed up during open enrollment.
- 2017: As was the case in the majority of the states that use HealthCare.gov, enrollment in Monana’s exchange dropped in 2017, when 52,473 people signed up during open enrollment.
- 2018: Enrollment dropped again in 2018, with a total of 47,699 people buying plans through Montana’s exchange during the open enrollment period for 2018 coverage. The reduced enrollment has to be considered in conjunction with the much shorter open enrollment period for 2018 coverage (half as long as previous years), and the fact that the Trump administration slashed the budget for marketing, outreach, and enrollment assistance in the weeks leading up to the start of open enrollment for 2018 coverage, after similarly cutting advertising and outreach in the final days of enrollment for 2017 coverage.
- 2019: 45,374 people enrolled.
In addition to on-exchange enrollments, nearly 35,000 people enrolled in Obamacare-compliant plans outside the exchange by mid-April 2014. But as of 2019, off-exchange enrollments had dropped to an estimated 15,000 people. Another analysis indicated that the off-exchange individual market in Montana had 28,261 enrollees in 2016, and only 13,372 by 2018.
One of the provisions of the ACA requires that carriers use a single risk pool for all of their individual plans in a state, so each carrier’s off-exchange enrollments are merged with its on-exchange enrollments for risk purposes — meaning that off-exchange enrollments are helpful in stabilizing rates. Inside the exchange, premium subsidies protect most consumers from the brunt of annual rate increases, but there is no such mechanism outside the exchange, and increasing prices over the years have made full-price plans less affordable, resulting in a sharp decrease in the number of people enrolled in full-price plans outside the exchange.
Insurer participation in Montana’s exchange
Insurer participation in Montana’s exchange has been remarkably stable since the exchange opened for business in 2014. There are three insurers that have offered plans statewide each year: Blue Cross Blue Shield of Montana (Health Care Service Corporation), PacificSource, and Montana/Mountain Health CO-OP (the state requires participating insurers to offer coverage statewide, but most states have seen fluctuation in terms of insurer participation in their markets and Montana has not).
In addition, Time joined the exchange in 2015, although their parent company, Assurant, subsequently announced that they would exit the insurance market nationwide at the end of 2015, and would no longer offer coverage in 2016. As of June 2015, there were 7,283 Montana residents who had individual coverage from Time; all of them had to select replacement policies for 2016.
Only a small fraction of the states did not lose any carriers in their exchanges in 2017, and Montana was among them. But although there were still three participating insurers in 2017, plans were only available for purchase from BCBSMT and PacificSource from December 22, 2016 until July 2017, due to an enrollment freeze for Montana Health CO-OP.
People who purchased Montana Health CO-OP plans before December 22, 2016 had coverage from the CO-OP throughout 2017. But the CO-OP limited their enrollment for 2017 (some carriers in other states did this too, including Medica in Minnesota and Kansas), and the following message began appearing in December 2016 when visitors arrived at their website:
“Montana Health CO-OP will accept no new enrollments for 2017 after the evening of December 22. We are halting new enrollments because of the large number of new members for 2017. Thank you to all our 10,000+ new members!”
From December 23 through the end of January 2017 (the remainder of open enrollment), enrollees in Montana were able to select from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Montana, and PacificSource. And that was also true for people signing up during special enrollment periods until July 2017.
But the enrollment freeze was lifted in July 2017 — ahead of schedule. Montana Health CO-OP had originally planned to start offering coverage as of November 2017 (ie, during open enrollment, for coverage effective January 2018). But as of mid-July, the CO-OP website said “MHC is now accepting special enrollments off exchange. On-exchange special enrollments to begin soon! (off exchange means plans purchased directly through the CO-OP, as opposed to via HealthCare.gov) A representative confirmed by phone that the CO-OP had recently received regulatory approval to begin selling plans again, and indicated that on-exchange plans would be available by late July, for effective dates starting in September. As is the case nationwide, enrollments outside of open enrollment are contingent upon having a qualifying event, but people with qualifying events could select Montana Health CO-OP plans with effective dates of September – December. And as of November 1, 2017, CO-OP plans became available during the regular open enrollment period for coverage effective January 1, 2018.
Insurance Commissioner Rosendale, who opposes the ACA, ran for U.S. Senate in 2018, but lost to incumbent Democrat Jon Tester
Montana’s Commissioner of Securities and Insurance, Republican Matt Rosendale, was elected in November 2016. Rosendale opposes the ACA and has long pushed for a more conservative, “free-market,” Montana-based approach to health care reform. Rosendale’s views are diametrically opposed to those of his predecessor, Commissioner Monica Lindeen (Lindeen was term-limited, and couldn’t run in 2016).
In 2018, Rosendale ran for US Senate, challenging Democratic incumbent Jon Tester. Tester prevailed, but the race was tight, with only 4,200 votes separating the two candidates. Since Rosendale is the Insurance Commissioner in Montana, issues related to health care reform came up frequently in the campaign. Tester supports improvements to the ACA and has worked to protect access to health care in Montana. Rosendale, on the other hand, supports repeal of the ACA and has championed short-term health plans as well as health care sharing ministries as alternatives to ACA-compliant insurance. In 2017, Rosendale allowed Medi-Share to resume operations in Montana, a decade after the organization had been banned from the state for not paying claims associated with a member’s heart condition.
In a letter to U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander (R, Tennessee) in March 2017, Rosendale outlined his health care reform proposals, and noted that his letter superseded the letter that Lindeen had sent in late 2016. Rosendale wants more flexibility to allow plans that aren’t ACA-compliant to be sold. This is one of the basic tenants of the ACA repeal provisions that Congressional Republicans pushed throughout 2017, and is something that the Trump Administration has continued to address in proposed regulations; it’s essential to understand that allowing the sale of non-compliant plans would have a significant destabilizing effect on the insurance market and would drive up premiums for people with pre-existing conditions. Although Rosendale claims to support protections for people with pre-existing conditions, expanding access to non-ACA-compliant plans does exactly the opposite.
Rosendale also wants equalized tax treatment for individual and employer-sponsored plans, and access to health savings accounts (HSAs) for everyone, rather than just those with high deductible health plans. These are logical changes, but costly due to the reduced federal tax revenue. And HSAs are certainly not a panacea for all that ails our health care system, even if everyone had access to one (although there’s dispute about the degree to which patients can realistically act as “consumers” and shop for health care coverage, it’s also important to note that HSAs only help if you’re willing and able to fund them, which obviously wouldn’t be the case for everyone).
Although the insurance companies selling plans in Montana said that the markets were on a stable trajectory (unless GOP lawmakers were to sabotage them), in early 2017 Rosendale said “Obamacare is in a death spiral. Premiums have increased drastically, insurers are abandoning the marketplace, and the system is collapsing under its own weight.”
Despite Rosendale’s comments, Montana’s exchange has remained steady at three insurers, and an average rate increase of less than 6 percent in 2019. The state has not experienced insurers abandoning the marketplace — Montana is one of the few states where there were no insurer exits at the end of 2016 or 2017, despite insurers in many other states opting to exit the exchanges.
CSR funding and Montana’s 2018 health insurance rates
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Montana’s initial proposed rate increase for 2018 was significantly larger than the other two insurers. But part of that had to do with how the insurers initially handled the uncertainty surrounding federal funding for cost-sharing reductions (CSR). Throughout 2017, President Trump threatened to cut off funding for CSR. Montana’s Insurance Commissioner didn’t tell insurers to take a specific approach to CSR funding, so it was left to the insurers to price their rates as they saw fit.
Montana Health CO-OP and PacificSource both filed rates that were based on the assumption that CSR funding would continue in 2018. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Montana took the opposite approach, and based their rate proposal on the assumption that CSR funding would not continue.
But on October 12, 2017, the Trump Administration announced that federal funding for CSR would end immediately, leaving Montana Health CO-OP and PacificSource in a tough spot — one that the CO-OP described as “untenable” and “not survivable” unless they were allowed to refile new rates with the cost of CSR included. The CO-OP indicated that they would have to exit the exchange if they weren’t allowed to file new rates, and at first, it appeared that might be the case.
CMS had opened up a short window after the CSR defunding announcement, to allow insurers to refile new rates if they were in states where regulators had not allowed them to file initial rates based on the assumption that CSR funding would end. But since Montana regulators had not told the insurers how to file (and BCBSMT had already filed rates with the assumption that CSR funding would end), CMS initially told the Montana Department of Insurance that Montana insurers would not be eligible to refile rates.
But on October 16, CMS reversed that decision and notified the Montana Department of Insurance that Montana Health CO-OP and PacifiSource would be allowed to refile their rates for 2018. Montana Health CO-OP added 24 percent to their Silver plan rates, and PacificSource added 11 percent to their Silver plan rates. At other metal levels, the previously filed rates remained unchanged for both insurers, but the higher premiums for silver plans resulted in average rate increases of 16.6 percent for Montana Health CO-OP and 13.1 percent for PacificSource, instead of the single-digit rate hikes they had initially filed.
Although the insurers were allowed to add the cost of CSR to their 2018 rates, Montana Health CO-OP sued the federal government over the CSR revenue that they didn’t receive for the final quarter of 2017. A judge ruled in favor of the CO-OP in October 2018, ordering CSM to pay the CO-OP $1.2 million to cover CSR costs from October – December 2017. The issue is likely to be tied up in appeals and lower-court decisions in other states for the foreseeable future, however.
Adding the cost of CSR to Silver plan rates is the strategy that protects most consumers, since premium subsidies in 2018 are larger as a result of the spike in Silver plan rates. Those subsidies can be applied to bronze or gold plans, making them a relatively better value. And for people who don’t qualify for subsidies, bronze and gold plans continue to be available without the added cost of CSR.
In Montana, 85 percent of exchange enrollees qualified for premium subsidies in 2017, and that grew to 87 percent in 2018. And average subsidies were more than twice as large in 2018 (the average enrollee who gets a premium subsidy in Montana was receiving $637 per month in 2018, as opposed to $304 per month in 2017; to clarify, the subsidy is sent to the insurance company on the enrollee’s behalf — it’s not sent directly to the enrollee). The larger subsidies are a result of the much higher silver plan rates, as subsidy amounts are based on the cost of the benchmark plan (second-lowest-cost silver plan in each area).
Exchange history in Montana
Montana’s legislature not only failed to authorize a state-run exchange, it also passed a bill in 2011 to prohibit the creation of an insurance exchange in Montana.
While Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer vetoed that bill, neither he nor Monica Lindeen, who was then serving as the state auditor and insurance commissioner, were able to generate legislative or public support for an exchange. So Montana residents use the federally-run HealthCare.gov as their exchange.
Under the federal model, most aspects of the exchange are managed by the federal government. However, states can retain control of “plan management” functions, and Montana opted to do so. Lindeen’s office released final exchange rates for the first round of open enrollment in mid-August 2013, nothing that the premiums were similar to what they would have been without the ACA. The Insurance Commissioner’s office regulates plans that operate on the exchange, as it does for plans sold outside the exchange.
On November 25, 2013 Lindeen announced that Montana would allow health insurance carriers to extend 2013 policies that had been scheduled to terminate at the end of the year, but it was left up to each carrier to decide how to proceed. Insureds with a policy that was eligible for renewal into 2014 also had the option of switching to an exchange plan.
Ultimately, none of the insurance carriers in Montana’s individual market opted to keep transitional plans in place, and all non-grandfathered plans in the individual market in Montana are now ACA-compliant.
Montana health insurance exchange links
State Exchange Profile: Montana
The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation overview of Montana’s progress toward creating a state health insurance exchange.
Montana Consumer Assistance Program, Office of the Commissioner of Securities and Insurance
Serves as the state government watchdog for citizens of Montana in the insurance industry
Health Insurance Exchange Page from Montana Commission of Securities and Insurance
Details about how the exchange works, along with legislative history in Montana regarding the exchange creation process.