2017 Is Looking Like a Good Year for Health Insurers—If Republicans Don’t Ruin It

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

Michael Hiltzik points me to some new data from the Kaiser Family Foundation about Obamacare. A picture is worth a thousand words, so here’s a chart that shows how insurers are doing in the individual insurance market:

This is the result of the big increase in premiums in 2016. Claims went up only 5 percent, a little less than normal, but average premiums went up 20 percent. The result is a big increase in gross profits per customer and a big increase in overall profit margins. This is pretty much what most analysts predicted: insurers lowballed their premiums in 2013 and saw their profit margins fall over the next two years. That improved a bit in 2016, and then improved a lot in 2017 following the large premium increases.

In other words, the big premium increases of last year weren’t a sign of Obamacare failing. They were a sign that insurers had learned more about the market and needed a one-time increase to return themselves to profitability. If there’s another big premium increase this year, it won’t be because nobody is making money in the Obamacare market. It will be due to deliberate destabilization of the market by Donald Trump and congressional Republicans.

However, there’s a downside in this data: Obamacare has attracted a sicker pool of customers. Between 2011 and 2014, average hospital days increased about 1.8 percent per year. Since then, they’ve increased 4.6 percent per year. This isn’t surprising since Obamacare required insurers to cover everyone, not just the healthy, but it does indicate that insurers really are dealing with a more expensive set of customers and needed a few years to figure just how much more expensive they were going to be.

Note that all of this data is from the first quarter of 2017, and is being compared to the first quarter of previous years. Apples to apples. Obviously we’ll have to wait six months to get full-year data through 2017.


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend