Townhall – We’ve been throwing cold water on the administration’s so-called exchange “enrollment” figures for months, and for good reason: They’re incomplete to the point of deception. Theย Washington Postย reportedย back in Novemberย that official tabulations were including anyone who’s “selected a plan,” which is the equivalent of placing an item in a virtual shopping cart online, regardless of whether the check-out and payment steps ever took place.
At Kathleen Sebelius’ behest, the House Energy and Commerce Committee contacted every insurer listed as a participant in the federal exchange at Healthcare.gov in order to discern how many of these “sign ups” translated into paid enrollments. The initial batch of information, based onย data through mid-April, revealed a paltry payment rate of 67 percent. When the official totals are finally revisited to include the state exchanges (whose performances are widely varying), and numbers from the late sign-up surge, the final payment statistics will likely shift. Some large insurersย testified todayย that they’ve experienced payment rates in the low-80s range, which is closer to experts’ estimated ballpark prior to the release of the committee’s report — problems with which we highlightedย here. What is almost certainly the case is that the genuine enrollment figure is seven figures lower that the White House-touted one. Phil Kerpen catches yet anotherย inflationary ingredientย in HHS’ propaganda brew, the extent of which we don’t yet know:
The existence of some significant number of duplicate enrollments isn’t a surprise to anyone who’s been following Obamacare’s implementation process. While Healthcare.gov’s front end was collapsing over the first few months, many would-be enrollees’ sign-ups were sucked into the website’s black hole. Unsure about whether any of their information had been transmitted, consumers were encouraged to go though the process again. Some did so multiple times. The screenshot in that tweet comes fromย a reportย prepared by America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) for Congress. It confirms that “many” of the sign-ups being celebrated as “enrollments” are in fact various iterations of the same person’s enrollment efforts. Phil asks “how do you not even [de-duplicate]?” The answer is pretty straightforward: The online “reconciliation” system that would perform this Herculean task through automation isย still under constructionย — and may not be ready for months (beyond the eight months that have already elapsed). That’s why the administration’s enrollment statistics are useless in the aggregate. They just manufactured the largest-sounding number possible and heralded it as exciting proof that the “law is working” and the “debate is over.” Much of the media blindly repeated the number, some going so far as to pant excitedly about an Obamacare “winning streak.” As we noted earlier in the week, the American people haveย obstinately declinedย to hop aboard that bandwagon:
ย Obamacare is as unpopular as ever (41/55), with a 17-point intensity gap on the question. The law’s much-hailed “winning streak” hasย failed to materializeย in public polling, as its “accomplishments” appearย increasingly dubious. Average Americans do not share Democrats’ misplaced triumphalism.ย Quoth Pew, “the share disapproving of [Obamacare] is as high as it ever has been in the four-year history of the law.โ
We’ve seen freshย warning signsย of the bad news yet to come: Additional cancellation notices and major premium increases, disproportionately impacting consumers in the small group market. Theย Las Vegas Review-Journalย story offered a stark reminder ofย what’s on tap, but again, none of it is a surprise. The administrationย itself acknowledgedย earlier this year that the vast majority of American small businesses would experience increased costs due to Obamacare. I’ll leave you with a health insurance CEO discussingย whether or notย the new law is reducing “uncompensated care” and Emergency Room visits — which was one of its many selling points:
