State-Run SHOPs: An Update Three Years Post ACA Implementation
Friday, July 29, 2016 - The Commonwealth Fund
By Emily Curran, Sabrina Corlette and Kevin Lucia
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) created
the Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP) to make it easier for
small-business owners and their employees to shop for and compare plan options
online. Today, 17 states and the District of Columbia operate a state-run SHOP
alongside an individual insurance marketplace, including Utah and Mississippi,
which opted out of running an individual marketplace but built their own
SHOP.1
The remaining states use the federally facilitated SHOP. While SHOPs offer
employers a new avenue for offering coverage to their workers, some states are
questioning whether state-run SHOPs make sense.
Unfortunately, to date, we have little publicly available data to assess
implementation progress in either the state- or federally run SHOPs. There is
limited public information about the cost of operating the SHOPs, as well as the
number of small employers taking advantage of the federal small-business health
insurance tax credit available through SHOP. The federal government has yet to
release state enrollment data for the federally facilitated SHOP. At the same
time, while some marketplaces, such as the District of Columbia, continue
efforts to improve and expand their SHOPs, other states, such as Vermont and
Hawaii, are actively considering reducing their investment in or eliminating
their SHOP through a 1332
waiver request.
Robust Insurer Participation and Employee Choice Bode Well for
Consumers
State-run SHOPs report that insurer participation is high, with 13 SHOPs
offering coverage options from three insurers or more. In fact, Massachusetts,
New York, and Oregon all have eight or more insurers currently participating in
SHOP.
Moreover, the employee choice option, through which businesses can offer
employees a choice of plans while setting a predictable contribution, appears to
be very popular among employers. Four states—California, Idaho, New Mexico, and
Utah—report most, if not all, participating employers offer employee choice,
while many other states, including New York and Rhode Island, have found that
the vast majority of employers, 86 percent and 87 percent, respectively, offer
choice.
Enrollment to Date Continues to Lag Expectations
Despite the apparent popularity of employee choice, state-reported data show
that enrollment in SHOP continues to lag expectations, following low enrollment
trends in 2014 and 2015. At the high end, New York and California have each
enrolled over 3,600 groups, with over 42,000 covered lives combined. However, a
handful of states have each enrolled fewer than 200 employer groups to date
(Table 1). It is not clear how enrollment in the state-run SHOPs compares to
those run by the federal government; to date the federal agency operating the
SHOPs has not released state-specific enrollment data.
Data from 16 of the state-run SHOPs and the District of Columbia show that
although approximately 144,000 consumers have enrolled through the SHOP
marketplaces,2
the average employer group size is consistently below 10 employees. This
suggests that SHOPs are primarily attracting the smallest of small employers—the
gmicro-grouph market—which is often underserved by brokers. This group of very
small employers was also the least likely to offer health insurance prior to the
passage of the ACA.
Majority of SHOPs Have Implemented Online Portals
When looking at how employers enroll, we know that after a slow
start, 13 of the state-run SHOPs have implemented an online enrollment
portal, as does the federally run SHOP. Five states, including Hawaii and
Vermont, have implemented a direct enrollment model, where employers must
purchase insurance through a broker or by contacting insurers (Table 2). Some
states have opted to provide a combined model, including Connecticut, which
allows enrollment through either route, and Maryland, which requires employers
to use a SHOP-authorized broker to access plans online.
With competing priorities and limited budgets, states have had to make
trade-offs. Idaho3 and
Oregon, both of which offer only direct enrollment, recently
noted the expense and technical intricacies of establishing and transitioning to
an online portal. Recent guidance from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services allowed these states to extend their direct enrollment for 2017 and
2018, but requires that they shift to online enrollment for 2019.
Moving Forward: Shifting Attention to SHOP Marketplaces Requires
Close Evaluation
Though some SHOP marketplaces have made strides, states continue to face challenges in convincing small employers and their brokers
that SHOP offers value not available elsewhere. Three years after implementation
of the ACAfs market reforms, it is important to evaluate progress and determine
whether the current structures are best suited for achieving the lawfs intent
and meeting the goals of each state.
Discussion about the value of the SHOP marketplaces is likely to continue. As
it does, policymakers and the public need better data, including information
about tax credit uptake and enrollment through the federally run SHOPs, in order
to conduct a fair assessment of the benefits the SHOPs provide relative to the
resources and alternatives available.
Notes
1 The total count does
not include Nevada, because the state uses the federally operated model for its
SHOP marketplace.
2 Excludes Mississippi,
which did not provide enrollment data.
3
Statements made at Health Affairsf forum: The Future of the Individual and Small Group
Markets.