(Part 11 of ?): Local Media Coverage of 2017 Rate Increases
The Lead Story. The Baltimore Sun addressed the approval of the 2017 ACA individual market rate increases in a lead story on September 9, 2017 under the headline “Health insurance rates to soar, State regulator OKs hikes of 20 percent or more as ACA providers post losses” (viewable at http://digitaledition.baltimoresun.com/tribune/article_popover.aspx?guid=42f89d3d-c2bd-4dce-96dc-259ee1cd8a8e&t=1474212015624). Good placement and a good synopsis of the average rate increases, but almost all included insights are expressed from either an insurer’s or regulator’s viewpoint. Only a brief acknowledgement of a consumer’s viewpoint is included and that is attributed to a consumer organization … apparently not a single actual consumer’s viewpoint was sought as none were included. Most importantly, however, is the fact that the story made no mention of the fact that the rate increase for the cheapest plan available to individual consumers is triple that of the headlined “20 percent.” In an attempt to bring this most important fact to light, I did something I never thought I would do; I wrote a “letter to the editor.” I did this on September 11 via the electronic submission forms available on the Baltimore Sun website. What follows is the submitted “letter” (verbatim).
The “Letter to the Editor.” Your issue of September 9 accurately described the average approved CareFirst premium increase in the individual health insurance market under the Affordable Care Act as 23.7%. What the article failed to convey was that the approved rate increase for the cheapest CareFirst Bronze plan available to Maryland consumers is 58% (62% if aging is included). The annual premium for that plan for my family of three would be $15,145; and would come with an annual deductible of $13,100. Both the premium and annual out-of-pocket maximum expenditure are triple those of my 2014 pre-ACA plan. This is the only market available to the self-employed and you would do well to dig a little deeper if you wish to fully portray the effects of the ACA as implemented in Maryland. Only through such digging will you be able to understand why some of us are choosing to say no.
The Effect. Nothing, nada, zilch. The “letter” was not published. Is this uncommon? I have no idea. I do know that some pretty inane (my opinion) letters are published, so either mine is even more “out there” or someone simply deemed it unworthy of publication. I’ve reread the letter many times and it (still) reads fine to me. Maybe I, as the author, just can’t see the problem. Only the editors of the Baltimore Sun can state their motivation and there is nothing compelling them to do so. I can accept this and would have said nothing at all with regard to this matter if it were not for a subsequent “Thanks, Obamacare” editorial published in the online edition of the September 18, 2017 Baltimore Sun (viewable at http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/editorial/bs-ed-aca-md-20160918-story.html).
The September 18 Editorial. This is an editorial that reads like something a blind supporter would have written. That, in and of itself is fine, the editors of the Sun are welcome to their opinion. But their ability to share that opinion while electing to suppress at least one data point that clearly does not fit their narrative is troubling and only serves to bolster my argument — stated way back in the “Past Efforts” section of the “Home” (Part 1) post — that the media really has no interest in evaluating the full slate of impacts of the ACA. I’m not even going to waste my time batting down the various assertions of the editorial. Many of them may be true, others less so, but what I will say with certainty is that the editorial glosses over the individual market issues with a self-proclaimed assertion that “an obvious problem has arisen that’s received a disproportionate share of attention — the manner in which the individual market is out of whack, with rising premiums and insurers dropping out of exchanges.” In actuality, the media hasn’t done nearly enough the publicize the individual market problems, probably because they themselves are not affected and therefore are not driven to look beyond the average statistics they are fed by those running the program. Find the individual that represents the average ACA consumer and maybe he or she can report average effects. However, for the 99.99999999 percent of us that straddle the average, the effects of the ACA are grossly different than those average statistics imply. Some are winners, others are huge and, by far, the biggest ACA losers. Burying the losers in average statistics is nothing more than a means of pretending that we don’t exist; and that is what inflames at least this “non-average” consumer. No Thanks, Obamacare. (I actually hate the term Obamacare as it immediately politicizes any issue related to the ACA, but I will use it here solely to allow me to mimic in rebuttal the title of the Baltimore Sun editorial.)
Follow-up (September 19, 2017): The September 18 online editorial was published in the September 19 print version of the Baltimore Sun. The print version (which appears to be identical to the online version) is viewable at http://digitaledition.baltimoresun.com/tribune/article_popover.aspx?guid=15be519c-8a28-4b51-b200-6c5da6808dc6&t=1474290906109.
As always, I will address whatever the next installment of this ridiculous saga might be in Part 12.
Posted September 18, 2016Questions or comments can be sent to aca@meszler.com