By Jason Levitis, Christen Linke Younger, Sabrina Corlette, Ellen Montz, and Claire O’Brien*
The medical health insurance provisions of the reconciliation invoice handed by the U.S. Home of Representatives would get rid of a lot of the pliability granted to states over the operations of State-Based mostly Marketplaces (SBMs), impose pricey new mandates, and scale back their income base. These modifications might undermine states’ worth proposition for establishing or sustaining an SBM. On the similar time, the invoice would infringe on states’ long-standing primacy over the regulation of personal medical health insurance by imposing arbitrary new federal guidelines.
The Invoice Eliminates SBM Flexibility and Imposes New Operational Mandates
The Reasonably priced Care Act (ACA) offers SBMs flexibility over quite a few operational choices. For instance, the laws governing Market eligibility determinations allow SBMs to conduct annual redeterminations utilizing both the procedures supplied within the CMS rule, different procedures specified by CMS for the relevant plan 12 months, or different procedures proposed by the SBM and permitted by CMS. The ACA additionally delegates to SBMs authority to ascertain particular enrollment intervals (SEPs), depend on their very own alternate model of the one streamlined utility, and in any other case tailor the SBM to the wants of the state. SBMs have used this flexibility to implement progressive measures to attenuate burdens on eligible enrollees, typically with the assistance of digital knowledge sources and different IT options. Doing so has allowed them to develop enrollment and preserve premiums low with out the prevalence of agent and dealer fraud skilled on the federal Market (known as the Federally Facilitated Market, or FFM).
The reconciliation invoice would get rid of this long-standing flexibility throughout a variety of SBM design points, whereas additionally imposing a number of new and dear operational mandates:
- Eliminates state flexibility to find out open enrollment intervals. Present legislation permits SBMs to lengthen their open enrollment intervals previous the federal open enrollment finish date of January 15. The invoice would require all Marketplaces to shorten their open enrollment intervals to simply 44 days, from November 1 to December 15. Many SBMs have maintained constant open enrollment interval begin and finish dates over the past decade that insurers and customers have come to depend on; requiring SBMs to alter these dates might undermine native market stability.
- Eliminates state authority to supply a typical particular enrollment interval. Present legislation offers SBMs with discretion to ascertain particular enrollment intervals (SEPs), which permit enrollment outdoors the year-end open enrollment interval. Utilizing this authority, each the federal Market and all however two SBMs present a SEP for low-income people. The invoice would prohibit this SEP and others primarily based on earnings.
- Requires states to impose further paperwork burdens on customers and confirm eligibility manually. Present legislation offers SBMs broad discretion over when, how, and in what format they request further info to confirm eligibility for Market protection, for a SEP, or to obtain advance premium tax credit (APTC). For instance, SBMs can typically depend on candidates’ attestations as to their eligibility for SEPs moderately than requiring them to manually submit paperwork, comparable to documentation that they’ve misplaced earlier protection. The invoice would require SBMs to confirm SEP eligibility with paperwork from candidates for not less than 75 % of SEP enrollments. The invoice would additionally require Marketplaces to demand further paperwork from hundreds of thousands of further candidates when the IRS doesn’t return tax knowledge or when tax knowledge signifies very low earnings.
- Eliminates state flexibility to shift customers by default into plans that benefit from accessible subsidies. For people who’re eligible for cost-sharing reductions (CSRs) however enrolled in a bronze plan, present guidelines allow SBMs to re-enroll them by default in a silver plan for the next 12 months in order that they’ll obtain CSRs, so long as the silver plan is analogous and no extra pricey. A number of states have taken benefit of this flexibility to make sure eligible customers profit from the ACA’s cost-sharing protections and scale back monetary limitations to crucial well being care companies. The invoice eliminates this flexibility for SBMs.
- Eliminates passive re-enrollment and state flexibility to depend on trusted knowledge sources. Present guidelines present for SBMs to mechanically re-enroll present enrollees who don’t return to the Market to actively re-enroll, with APTCs adjusted primarily based on digital knowledge sources. SBMs at the moment have flexibility over the info sources used to make these determinations, which can embody not simply federal tax knowledge but in addition state tax knowledge and state wage filings. The invoice would prohibit SBMs from performing re-enrollment with APTC with out new info supplied by the buyer, successfully eliminating automated re-enrollment. This runs counter to plain re-enrollment practices for each different type of insurance coverage, together with employer-based insurance coverage. We’re conscious of no precedent for the federal authorities prohibiting automated reenrollment for a line of insurance coverage. SBMs have disproportionately leveraged auto-renewal to create secure and aggressive markets, with a mean of 73% auto-renewal fee for returning clients in comparison with 46% within the FFM. As well as, for one 12 months earlier than the prohibition on passive re-enrollment takes impact, a separate part of the invoice would prohibit automated re-enrollment with a zero-dollar internet premium, by requiring SBMs to scale back APTC in such instances to cost a $5 internet premium.
- Prohibits SBMs from offering APTC after asking customers for extra documentation. Present statute directs Marketplaces to present APTC once they ask for extra paperwork to confirm sure eligibility standards, if they’ve decided that the person is in any other case eligible. The invoice would get rid of this “provisional eligibility,” successfully requiring a ready interval of a number of months for a lot of candidates. Once more, we’re conscious of no precedent for a federal requirement for a months-long ready interval for a line of economic insurance coverage.
- Requires states to ascertain a brand new “pre-enrollment verification” system operating from August by October annually. Present guidelines allow SBMs to depend on comparable eligibility and enrollment procedures year-round for lively re-enrollment. Eligibility determinations are typically made shortly, so protection can start a month or much less after the applying is submitted. The invoice would require SBMs to face up a brand new and separate equipment for “pre-enrollment verification,” below which customers might submit eligibility info for the next 12 months beginning in August, however protection would nonetheless not start till January. This new system must be in place by August 1, 2027.
Lowering flexibility in these methods would make establishing or sustaining an SBM much less engaging for states. Flexibility is a key cause cited for curiosity amongst states which have lately adopted or thought-about transitions, together with Georgia, Illinois, Texas, Oklahoma, and Oregon, and a key profit cited by present SBMs.
It is usually notable {that a} major justification supplied for the invoice’s elimination of SBM flexibility is to scale back “fraud.”a In truth there is no such thing as a proof that the agent and dealer fraud skilled by the Federal Market is an issue for SBMs. Eradicating their means to take care of present greatest practices will lead to hundreds of thousands of eligible people shedding protection. The brand new necessities serve solely to power states to stick to one-size-fits-all federal requirements that stop SBMs from responding to native market circumstances and offering an optimum buyer expertise.
The Invoice Would Impose New One-Time and Ongoing Prices on SBMs
The brand new mandates described above create intensive and dear new work for SBMs. There can be fast implementation work to alter programs, retrain workers, and educate customers and companions about impending modifications, in addition to ongoing work to hold out extra burdensome enrollment procedures with much less means to depend on digital knowledge. Switching from automated checks in opposition to third-party knowledge sources to handbook processes will increase prices and burdens for each SBMs and customers and reduces the effectivity of the system. These prices will have to be lined by larger person charges, which in flip will increase premiums for all customers within the particular person market, no matter whether or not they buy on or off the Market. These price embody:
- Rebuilding IT structure. The a number of modifications described above would require SBMs to rebuild many features of each consumer-facing and back-end eligibility programs. CMS estimated an IT price of $158.3 million for implementing the Market rule, which the invoice would codify.b That doesn’t embody eliminating passive reenrollment and provisional eligibility and the creation of recent programs for pre-enrollment verification starting in August, that are three of probably the most far-reaching modifications within the invoice. Some provisions make conflicting modifications that might require rebuilding the identical structure twice. For instance, SBMs would want to alter their programs to impose a $5 premium for automated re-enrollees beginning within the fall of 2026. After which they would want to alter their programs once more to get rid of automated re-enrollment beginning within the fall of 2027.
- Retraining name middle workers, caseworkers, and assisters. SBMs would want to develop and supply new coaching supplies for consumer-facing workers and companions, together with name middle operators, caseworkers, Navigators, brokers and brokers, and authorized utility counselors.
- Dealing with further buyer interactions. Eliminating automated re-enrollment–which accounted for 10.8 million enrollments in 2025–would imply that each applicant would want to work together with the Market annually. The pre-enrollment verification system will even create hundreds of thousands of further buyer interactions. And these interactions is not going to substitute these in the course of the open enrollment interval. People will nonetheless want to return in then to enroll and select a plan. And there’ll nonetheless be modifications in circumstances after August, which would require reporting these modifications and resolving any additional inconsistencies that come up. In consequence, SBMs gained’t simply do extra verifications, they’ll do verification a number of occasions for a similar shopper.
- Processing further paperwork. The brand new paperwork required from candidates below the invoice would additionally necessitate an incredible new effort from SBMs to course of the paperwork. For instance, CMS estimated that the brand new earnings verification guidelines would require 2.7 million candidates to submit further paperwork, all of which might have to be processed. The SEP verification requirement would imply 473,000 extra candidates offering paperwork to confirm their eligibility for an enrollment alternative. SBMs would want to rent and practice new consumer-facing help workers and/or contractors to manually evaluation and ensure eligibility verification paperwork submitted by customers. On prime of the prices of IT modifications, CMS estimated that SBMs might want to spend $60.3 million yearly or $603.4 million over 10 years to implement the modifications within the rule alone.
- Extra buyer help workers to deal with questions and hostile determinations. The extra interactions and paperwork necessities would result in many extra customers needing assist to resolve questions. The elimination of provisional eligibility would increase the stakes for resolving eligibility points shortly, probably growing the amount and urgency of those calls.
- Maintaining extra workers and contractors for extra of the 12 months. Presently Market can cut back their operations outdoors of the open enrollment interval. However a number of components of the invoice will enhance prices at different occasions of the 12 months, together with pre-enrollment verification starting in August and extra eligibility verification for SEPs and APTC eligibility year-round.
- Extra communications necessities. SBMs might want to put money into new outreach and communications efforts to coach customers and companions about their new obligations below the invoice and the shortened time intervals that customers must meet these obligations.
The Invoice Would Cut back SBMs’ Income Base
The Reasonably priced Care Act requires the Marketplaces to be financially self-sustaining. Most SBMs depend on premium assessments or per member person charges to generate the income to fund their operations. The reconciliation invoice would scale back Market enrollment by hundreds of thousands of individuals, thus lowering SBM income. To be financially sustainable, SBMs might want to enhance their person charges. It will lead to a rise in premiums, which might, in flip, result in additional enrollment losses.
The Invoice Could Alter States’ Calculus about Establishing (or Sustaining) an SBM
As mentioned above, the invoice would cut back the pliability afforded to SBMs, enhance their working prices, and scale back their income. Taken collectively, these modifications could undermine the worth proposition of states transitioning to or sustaining an SBM. Over the course of the final decade, the variety of states with an SBM has grown from 15 within the first 12 months of implementation to 20 states as we speak (Illinois and Oregon will make it 22 in 2026 and Oklahoma’s legislature approved that state to change into the twenty third SBM in a invoice enacted in Could 2025). State lawmakers have proven growing curiosity in transitioning to an SBM to benefit from the flexibilities that allow them to tailor their Market to satisfy the wants of state residents. Nevertheless, below H.R. 1 states will lose that flexibility and are confronted with larger prices and a smaller enrollment base from which to finance operations. This makes it much less probably that states will select to transition to a SBM sooner or later and will lead to some present SBMs changing into unsustainable, requiring the federal authorities to take over their operations. As well as, the invoice’s implementation timeline would stop a state now not prepared to run an SBM from transitioning to the FFM earlier than being required to implement modifications.
The Invoice Would Infringe on State Regulation of the Particular person Well being Insurance coverage Market
For many years, states have had major authority for regulating medical health insurance markets. Some federal requirements have been codified within the Public Well being Service Act (PHSA) by the Well being Insurance coverage Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) and the ACA. Nevertheless, the PHSA necessities handle solely a comparatively small variety of points and usually defer to states on particular implementation decisions and on enforcement. The reconciliation invoice accommodates a number of provisions that infringe on this long-settled vesting of authority, together with modifications affecting plans outdoors the Well being Insurance coverage Marketplaces.
- Infringes on state authority to outline important well being advantages. Presently, every state has authority to ascertain the important well being advantages (EHB) package deal, which is relevant to all non-public medical health insurance. States have authority to designate as EHBs any service that’s included inside 10 broad classes enumerated within the ACA. The invoice offers that EHBs could not embody particular companies associated to “gender transition”–even these companies that fall squarely inside the ACA’s EHB definitions. This is able to be the primary time states are prohibited from together with particular companies as EHBs.
- Eliminates state flexibility to allow insurers to supply aid for non-payments of de minimis premiums. Present guidelines give state insurance coverage regulators flexibility to allow insurers to maintain enrollees lined even once they owe small past-due premium balances. The invoice would cut back states’ authority to supply such flexibility.
- Denies cost-sharing subsidies funds to insurers that present sure abortion companies–however in a approach that rewards states with abortion mandates. The invoice offers that issuers that present sure abortion companies could not obtain reimbursement for the ACA’s CSRs. As CBO famous in a current evaluation of the invoice’s protection results, this could unintuitively enhance PTC funds in states that require Market plans to cowl abortion, and better PTC would enhance the person market threat pool general in such states. It will additionally lead to much less abortion protection in Market plans in states that let however don’t require abortion protection, since insurers that cowl abortion would want to extend premiums to account for the shortage of CSR funds, which might probably not be a viable choice. However these advanced repercussions, this abortion language is clearly an effort to infringe on state coverage decisions concerning the advantages supplied by non-public medical health insurance.
- Limits enrollment alternatives market-wide. As famous above, the invoice limits state flexibility to ascertain open and particular enrollment intervals of their SBMs. Crucially, this additionally impacts state regulation of well being plans of their whole particular person insurance coverage market, as a result of plans offered by the Market are a part of a single threat pool with non-Market plans, which implies it is very important set up the identical enrollment home windows on and off Market. Thus, state insurance coverage regulators are constrained of their means to ascertain enrollment home windows that meet state wants.
- Loosens actuarial worth guidelines market-wide: The invoice modifies requirements for the actuarial worth of all particular person market well being plans to permit much less beneficiant plans, relevant on and off Market pursuant to ACA Part 1311 and PHS Act Part 2707. States might restrict the attain of this provision by defining standardized profit packages. However in lots of states such guidelines don’t apply outdoors the Market, so much less beneficiant plans will change into accessible in these market segments.
As well as, the invoice would make a further change to the PHSA. Particularly, it could exempt insurers from the assured availability requirement in instances of past-due premiums, except state legislation specified in any other case.
* Jason Levitis is a Senior Fellow, and Claire O’Brien a Analysis Affiliate, within the City Institute’s Well being Coverage Division; Christen Linke Younger is a Visiting Fellow on the Brookings’ Heart on Well being Coverage; Sabrina Corlette is a analysis professor and co-director of the Heart on Well being Insurance coverage Reforms (CHIR) at Georgetown College; Ellen Montz is a Managing Director at Manatt Well being. The views expressed on this piece are these of the authors and don’t essentially symbolize these of their organizations or their boards or funders.
a In truth, these Market proposals within the invoice fall below headers entitled “Addressing waste, fraud, and abuse within the ACA Exchanges” and “Stopping Fraud, Waste, and Abuse.”
b CMS didn’t embody an estimate for prices to SBMs below the prohibition of SEPs for low-income people as a result of it incorrectly claims that no SBMs at the moment have a SEP of this type. The $158 million price consists of $7 million for this provision, which is calculated by taking the estimate for the price of these IT modifications to the FFM ($390,000) and multiplying it by the variety of SBMs with this SEP (18).
