红领巾瓜报

Insights

红领巾瓜报 Insights: Your source for healthcare news, ideas and analysis.

红领巾瓜报 Insights 鈥 including our new podcast 鈥 puts the vast depth of 红领巾瓜报鈥檚 expertise at your fingertips, helping you stay informed about the latest healthcare trends and topics. Below, you can easily search based on your topic of interest to find useful information from our podcast, blogs, webinars, case studies, reports and more.

Show All | Podcast | Blogs | Webinars | Weekly Roundup | Videos | Case Studies | Reports | Spotlight

Filter by topic:

Receive timely expert insights on topics you care about.

Select Topics

36 Results found.

Connecting the Dots: Key Trends, Plan Shifts, and 2027 NBPP Changes Affecting ACA Marketplace Enrollment

Read Blog

Explore how 2026 ACA Marketplace enrollment shifts, plan selection trends, and the 2027 NBPP changes are impacting affordability, market stability, and state strategies. 

Recent 红领巾瓜报 (红领巾瓜报) webinars and reports discussed that Affordable Care Act (ACA) Marketplace enrollment trends are evolving rapidly and the takeaways go beyond total enrollment numbers. In addition in May, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) finalized the 2027 Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters (NBPP), introducing new flexibility for plans and states alongside stronger program integrity requirements. 

To understand how these changes are reshaping the ACA Marketplace,  Andrea Maresca鈥痵poke with鈥Zach Sherman, Managing Director for Coverage Policy and Program Design at 红领巾瓜报 as well as , PhD, Principal鈥痑t Wakely, and , Principal at Leavitt Partners, both 红领巾瓜报 companies.

Q: The recent Wakely analysis has been central to understanding what鈥檚 happening with ACA enrollment. What should people be paying closest attention to? 

Michael Cohen: The key takeaway is that ACA Marketplace trends are about much more than the enrollment numbers. The plans consumers choose, how long they maintain coverage over the course of 2026, and the evolving picture of the morbidity and demographics of the enrolled population are all critical factors for understanding the ACA Marketplace.

翱耻谤听谤别肠别苍迟听听found that听only about 86 percent of enrollees paid their firstpremium听in听2026.听That鈥檚听a strong indicator that affordability pressures are already affecting coverage听stability.听听

Q: Where are these enrollment changes showing up most clearly?  

Michael Cohen: One data point that stood out is the number of new consumers in 2026, which was down 13 percent compared with prior years.  

The impact also shows up in coverage losses and consumer plan selection. Some consumers are dropping coverage altogether, while others are making tradeoffs to stay covered. These consumers are moving to lower-premium products鈥攑articularly from silver to bronze plans鈥攚hich offer less robust coverage and higher out-of-pocket costs. Both trends matter, especially when thinking about access and financial risk. 

Q: How are enrollment shifts affecting broader ACA Marketplace stability? 

Zach Sherman: It varies by state, but there are notable trends. States that are using the Federally Facilitated Exchange (FFE) and expanded Medicaid saw the largest enrollment declines.  

Notably, non-expansion states on the FFE significantly outperformed expansion states. This was surprising because, with enhanced subsidies ending, the biggest net premium hit consumers would feel is at the lowest income levels, yet that鈥檚 where we saw most enrollment growth. 

Across the individual states, the enrollment shifts have real implications for stability. When healthier individuals leave the market鈥攐r shift to less comprehensive coverage鈥攊t can put pressure on premiums and risk pools. Issuers are taking this information to begin to make estimates for their 2027 pricing and what this means for their 2026 performance.  

At the same time, CMS is introducing new flexibilities in the final 2027 Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters. 

Q: What are the most important changes in the 2027 final rule? 

Zach Sherman: Broadly, the rule makes a clear push toward increased flexibility for consumers, plans, and state regulators. 

One of the categories of changes is around expanded availability of lower premium plans with higher out-of-pocket costs. For example, catastrophic plans can now be offered for up to 10 years. 

CMS also removed certain requirements for standardized plans and relaxed limits on non-standard plan offerings. That gives issuers more room for plan design innovation, but it also means a more complex landscape and plan selection experience for consumers. 

One of the most notable changes is the introduction of non-network plans as qualified health plans. These plans don鈥檛 rely on traditional provider networks, which could lower costs while introducing new considerations for access and consumer experience.  

We鈥檙e seeing a shift toward allowing more tailored options and potentially less standardized marketplace programs. It will require a different approach from regulators, and it creates a different type of experience for consumers.  

Q: CMS is intensely focused on addressing fraud, waste and abuse. How is that playing out in the Marketplace program? 

Zach Sherman: Program integrity is a central theme in the 2027 final rule, too. It includes stronger eligibility verification, increased oversight of brokers and marketing practices, and new safeguards to reduce improper enrollments. So while there鈥檚 more flexibility in plan design, CMS is pairing it with more scrutiny on how the system operates. 

Q: Where do states fit in all of this? 

Zach Sherman: The final rule gives states more authority in key areas, including oversight of plan network adequacy and essential community provider compliance. We鈥檙e deep into discussions with states and health plan issuers about the changes they鈥檙e interested in exploring for their state. States will have to decide how to use that flexibility to balance affordability, access, and stability. 

Although many of the provisions take effect in the 2027 plan year, regulators and plans are receiving this information fairly late in the cycle which will make it difficult to incorporate some of the flexibilities. We鈥檙e anticipating robust discussions to continue next year and expect to see more variation starting in plan year 2028. 

Differences and Alignment in Federal ACA Marketplace Policy Discussions  

Q: Stepping back from the 2027 NBPP, what should interest-holders know about the evolution of the broader policy landscape? 

Liz Wroe: Members of Congress will need to see the 2027 rates being filed before they consider taking action. Even then, there鈥檚 no consensus on several key issues that prevented a bipartisan deal to bring back enhanced subsidies in 2025. 

Instead everyone has transitioned to a larger affordability conversation, and we鈥檒l spend this year working on the policies with a goal of moving forward in 2027.  

There are different approaches to affordability and coverage that are driven by fundamentally different philosophies on how to structure the market. Some proposals focus on expanding subsidies, reducing cost sharing, and strengthening ACA protections. Others emphasize consumer-directed models like defined contributions, health savings accounts, and expanded use of ICHRAs [Individual Coverage Health Reimbursement Accounts] as well as broader access to lower premium plans. 

There are also several areas of bipartisan alignment. Prior authorization reform is a big one. There鈥檚 broad agreement that the current system creates administrative burden and delays in care. 

We鈥檙e also seeing common interest in policy approaches to strengthen medical loss ratio [MLR] requirements, expand price transparency, and address provider consolidation. 

Even if there is divided government after the November elections, these are areas where policy action may be more likely. States, health plans, providers, and other interest holders will want to monitor these issues now for signals of what may move forward later this year or in the next Congress. 

Stakeholder Opportunities to Inform Marketplace Programs 

Q: What should stakeholders be focused on right now? 

Michael Cohen: For issuers, it鈥檚 about understanding how these changes affect pricing, enrollment, and risk. There鈥檚 more uncertainty in how plans should be priced. 

Zach Sherman: For states, the focus should be on strategy. The choices they make now on plan oversight, market structure, and consumer protections will shape outcomes for several years. Additionally, there were several proposed Marketplace policies that CMS did not finalize in the 2027 rule鈥擲tate-Based Exchange Enhanced Direct Enrollment Model鈥攖hat CMS is likely to revisit in future rules, including the 2028 NBPP.   

Liz Wroe: Broadly, stakeholders should recognize that we鈥檙e in a transition period. The market is evolving, and policy is still catching up. 

Connecting the Dots: Enrollment, Rules, Regulators, and the ACA Marketplace 

For stakeholders across the healthcare landscape, navigating this environment requires both technical expertise and strategic insight. 

红领巾瓜报 works across policy, actuarial, and operational domains to help states, health plans, and other stakeholders translate these developments into actionable strategies鈥攚hether that means evaluating market risk, designing programs, or preparing for future policy scenarios. 

To explore these issues in more detail, access 红领巾瓜报鈥檚 webinar discussions and briefs, including: 

Join us at 红领巾瓜报鈥檚 2026 National Conference: Signals, Signs & Flashing Lights

Read Blog

Registration is now open for the 红领巾瓜报 (红领巾瓜报) 2026 National Conference, , October 5鈥7 in New Orleans, LA. 

 is intentionally structured to bring together leaders who are shaping decisions across sectors鈥攖hose setting policy, managing risk, leading clinical operations, and innovating approaches to improve outcomes鈥攖o engage in candid conversations about what is working, what is not, and what is changing in  and adjacent programs. In an environment defined by new challenges and 鈥渇lashing lights,鈥 even the most seasoned healthcare leaders will find value in stepping out of their day鈥憈o鈥慸ay roles to compare strategies, test assumptions, and learn from peers facing similar pressures. 

This year鈥檚 conference is designed to reflect the environment healthcare leaders are navigating today鈥攐ne defined less by policy certainty and more by shifting expectations and competing pressures on cost, access, and performance. Our experts are crafting discussions to address how organizations are approaching policy engagement in this environment, including new strategies for interpreting signals from federal and state policymakers and negotiating policy frameworks that directly shape market dynamics. 

Across plenary sessions, breakout discussions, and 红领巾瓜报鈥檚 signature coffee conversations, the conference will focus on how organizations are interpreting these signals and translating them into practical strategies. 

Programming will center on four cross-cutting themes shaping healthcare decision-making: 

  • Managing听risk and cost amid continued financial pressure. Discussions will examine听the drivers of听utilization听and affordability trends across Medicare, Medicaid, and commercial markets and which听strategies are听demonstrating听measurable impact.听
  • Sustaining access and system stability. The agenda also will focus on how providers, health systems, and state programs are maintaining access amid workforce challenges, coverage transitions, and ongoing financial strain.
  • Turning innovation into impact.听Sessions will explore where artificial intelligence听(AI)听and digital health tools are delivering measurable operational or clinical impact听and听what it takes to implement them effectively.听
  • Building partnerships听that last.听Conversation听will highlight how stakeholders are听aligning incentives,听funding,听and strategy to move from short-term听responses to long-term, sustainable听solutions.听

As in prior years, the 红领巾瓜报 National Conference is structured to support candid dialogue, actionable takeaways, and meaningful connections. Attendees consistently highlight the opportunity to move beyond high-level trends and engage in practical discussions that inform decision-making in their organizations. 

 is now available for a limited time. The  includes new opportunities for your organization. Additional agenda details, featured speakers, and interactive programming announcements will be released in the coming weeks. 

Early Signals from a Pivotal ACA Enrollment Year

Read Blog

On April 15, 2026, Wakely Consulting Group, an 红领巾瓜报 company, published 鈥,鈥 the first comprehensive nationwide look at 2026 enrollment trends in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) market. While the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has released 2026 plan selection , the Wakely report addresses who retained coverage and who did not, what we still don鈥檛 know, and what we should be watching for throughout the rest of the 2026 plan year.

This article highlights key findings in the report, related state-level data, impacts and takeaways, and actions states and other interest-holders should consider as they look to mitigate further coverage losses and address market stability in& plan year 2027 and beyond.

Key Findings from the ACA Marketplace Early Enrollment Trends Report 

The report is based on analysis of data from the Wakely National Risk Adjustment Reporting (WNRAR) project, which includes summary data from participating ACA-compliant individual market plans. WNRAR includes data from over 75 issuers representing nearly 80 percent of enrollment the individual market. Key national findings in the report include:

  • Only 86% of enrollees paid their January 2026 premium.听
  • State variation is significant, ranging from as low as鈥63%鈥痯aid鈥痠n January to as high as鈥99%.听
  • The overall听average听enrollment鈥痙ecrease鈥痠s鈥痚stimated听to be between听17% and听26%鈥痩ower than 2025,听with morbidity projected to worsen听by听2.9鈥6.5%.听

The report highlights shifts in plan choice activity driven by affordability pressures, which resulted in considerable migration away from richer benefit plans to plans with lower premiums and higher out-of-pocket maximums. Examples include:

  • Silver plan enrollment fell听approximately听17% from 2025.听
  • Bronze enrollment increased by more than 10%.听
  • More than听13% of听2025听Gold plan enrollees听selected a lower听priced,听Bronze听tier plan听in 2026.听

The report also demonstrated the importance and value of outreach, operational excellence, and state-level affordability mitigation strategies. Examples include: 

  • Enrollment decreases are lower in听states with听state-based marketplaces听(SBMs)听and expected to stay lower than Healthcare.gov states, largely听because of听proactive outreach and marketing initiatives,听lower net premium increases,听and state听affordability听programs.听
  • States with premium alignment and silver-loading as a policy lever for improving gold plan affordability are seeing results. Gold plan enrollment increased by 10 percentage points in states where gold plans cost less than silver plans, whereas gold enrollment did not materially change in states where silver plans cost less. For states, this provides a lever to assist consumers seeking to shift into plans with lower cost-sharing without increasing premiums.

State-Reported Early Enrollment Results 

Many states warned of coverage losses as a result of changing federal policies and the expiration of enhanced premium tax credits (ePTCs). State-specific reporting for 2026 validates the findings in the Wakely report. The recently released state-level data from SBMs affirms that the drop-off in enrollment through cancellations and dis-enrollments is significant. It also illustrates that state efforts to mitigate and address affordability gaps have worked to some extent but have not been enough on their own to head off coverage losses in 2026. Examples are as follows: 

  • In听Georgia鈥攖he听only SBM without Medicaid expansion鈥攅nrollment听听27% from an estimated听1.3听million in听April听2025 to approximately听950,000听in听April 2026.听
  • In听New听Jersey鈥攁听state听with state-funded premium subsidies,听a reinsurance program, and a mandate听that听residents have health听insurance鈥攅nrollment has听听by more than 11%听since听April 2025.听
  • In听California鈥攁nother state with premium subsidies,听facilitated听enrollment,听and an individual mandate鈥攅ffectuated听enrollment听听by 7%听from February 2025 to February 2026.听
  • Overall, SBMs are听听that coverage drops听were听24% higher from January to March 2026 than听during听the same period in 2025 and that听the rate of plan shifting from Silver to Bronze听increased听significantly,听quadrupling听in six states.听

Downstream Impact on Healthcare Access and Uncompensated Care 

While not yet apparent in the early enrollment data, the downstream impact of 1) coverage losses, 2) increased enrollment in plans with higher cost-sharing, and 3) a worsening risk pool on the health of consumers, as well as the healthcare system, will be significant. Consumers may decide to postpone or forgo necessary care, which could lead to avoidable and more costly healthcare conditions. Increases in the number of people who uninsured and underinsured will have a direct and negative economic impact on provider finances, which are already strained, and uncompensated care and demands on patient assistance programs will increase accordingly. 

Looking Ahead 

The individual market will continue to evolve and change in the coming years as a result of future regulatory and operational changes. A shortened Open Enrollment Period, increased Medicaid redetermination requirements, and new pre-enrollment verification requirements are notable initiatives that are expected to roll out in the coming years.

Healthcare organizations and government agencies should consider the effect of these changes, including further coverage losses and instability in the individual market driven by the administrative complexity of these changes.

In addition, there are potential federal changes such as expanded availability of catastrophic plans, the introduction of non-network plans, and additional eligibility changes, which could put further strain on ACA Marketplace operations and the individual market.

Getting ahead of these changes will be critical to mitigating coverage losses and ensuring the long-term stability and viability of the individual market. In a federal policy environment that has largely deferred acting on ACA affordability, we expect policymakers, issuers, and other interest-holders to increasingly look to governors and state legislatures for decisive action. State subsidy and reinsurance programs are established affordability mechanisms that can provide consumers with affordability relief quickly, assuming state funding is available.

These investments can pay off for consumers from an economic perspective as well. For every additional dollar spent on state subsidies or reinsurance to maintain or increase coverage, states can expect to see reductions in uncompensated care, less reliance on patient assistance programs, and decreases in the number of consumers who forgo or delay care. In addition, investments in enrollment operations and assistance, outreach, and education will be critical to ensuring consumers are aware of the changes ahead and the actions they need to take to access and stay covered.

Connect with Us 

红领巾瓜报, Inc. (红领巾瓜报), and Wakely colleagues are closely tracking federal policy activity and state actions to address these challenges. Our experts support states, issuers, consumer groups, and other interest-holders to achieve success in the operation of and participation in the marketplaces. Our team has broad historical knowledge of the challenges and opportunities in this market and can support every step of the planning and execution processes to improve affordability and stability as it evolves in the coming months and years. 

Contact听our experts below with questions about the report and听to discuss opportunities to address the trends and forthcoming changes in the market.听

To read more about the changes ahead, see the following reports: 

Webinar Replay – ACA Enrollment Declines: Implications and Options for State and Federal Policymakers

Watch Now

This webinar was held May 21, 2026.

Recent and future policy changes are reshaping the ACA market. A recent Wakely report finds that only 86% of ACA enrollees nationwide paid their first premium at the start of the year, raising important questions about affordability, access, and market stability. Additionally, the 2027 Notice of Benefits and Payment Parameters (NBPP) is expected to be finalized this Spring which will have additional implications for consumers, issuers, and other stakeholders. As policymakers and state leaders consider how to respond to the shifting market composition and future policy changes, this discussion will focus on the policy implications of these shifts and the options to address affordability and coverage options to improve market stability.

During this webinar, 红领巾瓜报鈥檚 ACA team had a policy-focused conversation on what these projected changes mean for marketplace dynamics, including impacts to risk pools, premiums, and issuer participation. The session explored emerging federal and state policy responses and offered insight into how today鈥檚 decisions may shape 2027 rates, plan offerings, and long-term market sustainability.

Learning Objectives:

  • Analyze policy drivers: Examine how changes to federal subsidy policy are influencing ACA marketplace enrollment, affordability, and coverage continuity.
  • Evaluate policy tradeoffs: Assess how enrollment declines impact market stability, including risk pools, premiums, and issuer participation.
  • Inform policy strategy: Identify state and federal policy options to mitigate coverage losses and support a stable, competitive marketplace heading into 2027.

Outlook 2026: What CMS鈥檚 Proposed 2027 NBPP Signals for ACA Marketplaces, States, and Consumers

Read Blog

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) proposed  marks a notable shift in Marketplace policy, expanding lower premium plan options, relaxing certain federal standards, and moving more implementation and oversight responsibility to states and Marketplaces. It also introduces eligibility and verification policies that could significantly affect enrollment, operations, and market stability. 

To unpack what this could mean for plan year 2027 and beyond, Andrea Maresca spoke with Zach Sherman, Managing Director for Coverage Policy and Program Design at 红领巾瓜报 (红领巾瓜报); Lina Rashid, Principal at 红领巾瓜报; and , PhD, Principal at Wakely, an 红领巾瓜报 company, who, alongside colleagues, published a Policy Brief on state-level and consumer impacts, as well as a Wakely  on the proposed rule. 

 Q: When you zoom out from the technical details, what are the big takeaways from the proposed 2027 NBPP for states, consumers, and issuers? 

Lina Rashid: At a high level, the proposal reallocates risk and responsibility across the system. Consumers may see more lower premium options through expanded catastrophic plan eligibility and more flexible bronze plan design, but often with more cost-sharing, higher deductibles, or greater complexity. For consumers, affordability is about more than just premiums; it鈥檚 about how much healthcare costs for individuals and their families overall and the cost of care when they need it. 

States are being given options to take on more oversight and operational responsibility but without additional federal funding. And issuers are being given more flexibility, but it comes with uncertainty regarding enrollment and risk mix. 

Zach Sherman: The rule鈥檚 cumulative effect matters more than any one policy. Expanded catastrophic eligibility, higher out-of-pocket exposure, relaxed network standards, and tighter verification requirements all interact. Together, they raise questions about access, affordability, and whether Marketplaces are equipped to manage administrative and enrollment disruption. 

Q: The paper highlights potentially significant enrollment effects. What鈥檚 driving that dynamic? 

Michael: Two things stand out. First, the proposal implements statutory changes that remove advance premium tax credit (APTC) eligibility for certain lawfully present immigrants beginning in 2027. CMS estimates more than a million people could lose eligibility, and it鈥檚 reasonable to expect most of them will exit the individual market. 

Second, the proposed income verification changes could generate millions of data matching issues (DMIs) that temporarily or permanently cut off access to advance premium tax credits. While CMS projects a relatively modest disenrollment effect, our analysis suggests losses could be meaningfully higher depending on how quickly issues are resolved. We estimate that approximately 4.7 million enrollees could receive DMIs under the proposal, and upward of 80 percent of them could temporarily or permanently lose access to APTCs, putting coverage at risk. 

Zach: If consumers can鈥檛 afford the full premiums while resolving a data issue, many will drop coverage. That creates churn and administrative strain that Marketplaces must manage. 

Q: How do these policies affect state Marketplaces and regulators specifically? 

Zach: States are being asked to do more across multiple fronts. Network adequacy oversight is shifting toward states that conduct effective rate review. States may also choose or feel pressure to take on Essential Community Provider (ECP) review authority, including for new non-network plans. Accepting that responsibility requires legal authority, staff capacity, and technical infrastructure. 

At the same time, states may need to stand up the State Exchange Improper Payment Measurement (SEIPM) program, which CMS acknowledges will increase administrative burden. 

The proposed State Exchange Enhanced Direct Enrollment (SBE-EDE) option is also a significant shift. Rather than operating a centralized consumer enrollment platform, Marketplaces would focus on certifying, overseeing, and monitoring multiple third-party entities. As a former director of a state-based Marketplace program, I know this is a fundamentally different operational posture that comes with oversight and compliance costs. 

Q: The proposal also introduces non-network plans. What should stakeholders be watching here? 

Michael:  may offer lower premiums, but they change how access works. Provider participation depends on the willingness to accept the plan鈥檚 payment as payment in full. On paper a plan may meet access standards, but in practice consumers could face difficulty finding care. That places additional oversight responsibility on states to determine whether access is sufficient in practice. If aggressively priced non-network plans disproportionately attract healthier enrollees, it can create financial risk for issuers and for the broader market. 

Q: What does this mean for market stability going forward? 

Zach: Stability will vary by state. States that invest in oversight, consumer assistance, and operational readiness鈥攐ften a state-based Marketplace鈥攎ay be better positioned to manage these changes. Others may see sharper enrollment declines or access issues. That divergence across states is an important signal from this proposal. 

Q: What should states and stakeholders be doing right now? 

Zach: States should be doing scenario planning, assessing which flexibilities to adopt, where to maintain higher standards, and whether they have the capacity to take on expanded responsibilities. These decisions will shape how the rule plays out on the ground. 

Michael: Issuers should be , risk adjustment exposure, and operational readiness. All stakeholders should remember that comments on the proposed rule are due March 13, 2026. 

Lina:听Notably, CMS听is not done with听regulatory reforms.听The听agency solicited听comment听on听medical听loss听ratio (MLR)听policies听and听paused听Essential Health Benefit听benchmark updates,听as well as issues not covered in this proposed rule, such as revisions to the Section 1332 waiver and听Section听1333 interstate compacts.听States and issuers should be tracking what may come next, not just what鈥檚 in this proposal.

2027 NBPP Proposed Rule Signals Further Marketplace Changes

Read Blog

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services听(CMS)听听proposed rule,听published February 11, 2026,听arrived听at a pivotal moment for the听Affordable Care Act (ACA)听Marketplaces. The temporary enhanced premium tax credits (ePTCs), first expanded in 2021 and extended through 2025, expired at the end of last year, returning Marketplace subsidies to their original ACA structure in 2026.听As we discussed in earlier articles听(here听and听here), that shift is already affecting affordability, plan selection, and enrollment dynamics鈥攑articularly for consumers who听are ineligible听for听premium assistance.听

The proposed 2027 NBPP represents a significant reset for the Marketplace, reflecting CMS vision and policy priorities to strengthen program integrity while expanding plan design flexibility and consumer choice as a pathway to affordability, as well as policies to defer to state authority. Healthcare organizations and other interested stakeholders may submit comments on the proposed rule through March 13, 2026. 

The remainder of this article addresses the key policy proposals and considerations for issuers, states, and consumer groups. 

颁惭厂鈥檚&苍产蝉辫;笔谤辞辫辞蝉补濒蝉&苍产蝉辫;

The proposed NBPP for 2027 sets standards for the Exchanges and ACA-compliant individual and small group markets and updates payment parameters for risk adjustment and risk adjustment data validation (RADV). The rule also implements changes approved under the , (P.L. 119-21, OBBBA) and includes a range of policies spanning plan certification, eligibility and verification, and Exchange oversight. 

Expanded Plan Design Flexibility 

CMS proposes to discontinue standardized plan options in the Federally-facilitated Marketplace (FFM) and remove limits on the number of non-standardized plans offered by issuers on the FFM and state-based Marketplaces on the federal platform (SBE-FPs). Issuers would be permitted to decide whether to discontinue existing standardized or chronic condition plans or continue them with modified cost sharing. 

Considerations: This change is designed to allow greater innovation in plan design. It also raises questions about the potential return of a more complex Marketplace shopping experience for consumers who will have to shift through more plans. 

Certification of Non-Network QHPs 

One of the most consequential proposals would allow 鈥渘on-network鈥 plans to be certified as qualified health plans beginning in 2027. These plans would not rely on contracted provider networks. Instead, they would set benefit payment amounts and require issuers to demonstrate that sufficient providers鈥攊ncluding Essential Community Providers (ECPs) and mental health and substance use disorder providers鈥攁re willing to accept those amounts as payment in full. 

Considerations: CMS positions non-network plans as a way to create lower premium options. For states and issuers, this proposal introduces new oversight and operational considerations related to access standards, consumer protections, the risk of balance billing or access gaps for consumers, and potential market instability. 

Changes in Catastrophic and Bronze Cost Sharing 

The proposed rule would further expand access to catastrophic plans by codifying hardship exemptions for individuals ineligible for advance premium tax credits (APTCs) or cost-sharing reductions (CSRs) because of projected income. CMS also proposes to allow multiyear catastrophic plans with contract terms of up to 10 consecutive years. In addition, CMS proposes new flexibility for certain bronze plan designs in the individual market. In both cases, CMS proposes to allow catastrophic and bronze plans to exceed the annual maximum out-of-pocket limit. 

Consideration: These policies reflect CMS鈥檚 emphasis on affordability through lower premiums and expanded consumer choice, while shifting more financial risk to enrollees through higher cost sharing. 

Network Adequacy and Essential Community Providers 

CMS proposes to give states greater discretion in provider access for network adequacy and ECP certification reviews, including allowing federally funded exchange (FFE) states to conduct their own reviews if CMS determines they have sufficient authority and technical capacity. CMS also proposes to reduce the minimum percentage of ECPs that issuers must include in their networks from 35 percent to 20 percent. 

Considerations: These changes reduce federal prescriptiveness and could lower issuer compliance costs but also place more responsibility on states to monitor access and ensure that vulnerable populations are not adversely affected. 

Essential Health Benefits and State Mandates 

The proposed rule would prohibit issuers from including routine non-pediatric (adult) dental services as an Essential Health Benefit (EHB). More significantly for states, CMS proposes changes to cost defrayal requirements for state-mandated benefits, requiring states to cover the cost of benefits considered 鈥渋n addition to EHB鈥 under specified criteria, even if those benefits are embedded in the state鈥檚 EHB benchmark plan. 

Consideration: These changes could have direct budgetary implications for states, pricing implications for issuers, and could stunt or potentially decrease benefits for consumers. 

Program Integrity and Increased Eligibility Verification 

CMS includes a robust set of program integrity provisions, including: 

  • Strengthened听standards for agent, broker, and web听broker marketing practices听
  • Required use of a听US听Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)-approved consumer consent and application review form听
  • Codification of听听policies听and reintroduction of听听provisions听not听previously听implemented,听including听expanded special enrollment period (SEP) verification听and听increased eligibility standards for enrollees applying for APTCs听(see听Navigating CMS鈥檚 2025 Marketplace Rule: What It Means for ACA Marketplaces, Insurers, and Consumers)听
  • Implementation of the State Exchange Improper Payment Measurement (SEIPM) program for state-based Marketplaces听

Consideration: These policies continue CMS鈥檚 heightened scrutiny of enrollment activity and subsidy eligibility. CMS鈥檚 policies are likely to increase data matching issues (DMIs), which could increase burden on Marketplaces and enrollees, resulting in reduced enrollment. 

Preparing for Policy Driven Changes in ACA Marketplaces 

The 2027 NBPP underscores a clear policy shift away from extending federal subsidies toward advancing a Marketplace framework that emphasizes program integrity, state flexibility, and expanded plan design options as mechanisms to promote affordability and consumer choice. 

The proposed rule sets the stage for significant strategic and operational decisions for issuers and states ahead of the 2027 plan year. 红领巾瓜报 (红领巾瓜报), including Wakely, an 红领巾瓜报 company, works with issuers modeling enrollment and risk shifts and to assist in pricing decisions. States also should consider the need for new strategies and approaches to adapt to federal policy changes that are expected for ACA Marketplace programs. 

For more information about the policies described鈥痠n this article, support with scenario-based modeling of enrollment and data-informed strategy development for 2027 and beyond, please contact鈥痮ur experts , Lina Rashid, or Zach Sherman

红领巾瓜报鈥檚 Take on 2026 ACA Marketplace Open Enrollment Snapshot

Read Blog

On January 28, 2026, the Centers for Medicaid & Medicare Services (CMS) released its second 鈥痮f 2026 Affordable Care Act (ACA) Marketplace Open Enrollment (OE) activity. While this update is not a final accounting of enrollment activity, it is likely to be the last OE federal data release for some time and offers an early look at how enrollment trends are shifting in the wake of expired enhanced premium tax credits and new eligibility standards under the 2025 budget reconciliation act (P.L. 119-21, OBBBA). 

In this article, 红领巾瓜报 (红领巾瓜报) and Wakely, an 红领巾瓜报 company, highlight findings from their analysis of the 2026 OE activity and compare this activity with 2025 data. This analysis builds on the findings in their January 2026 analysis () and will provide important context for the 2027 plan year

Overall Enrollment Trends 

CMS reports that 2026 plan selections decreased by 5 percent from 2025, with enrollment declining across both new and returning consumers. New sign-ups dropped by 14 percent and renewals fell by 3 percent (Table 1). State-based Marketplace (SBM) enrollment dipped modestly, though many SBMs were still enrolling consumers in late January. 

Table 1. Comparison of 2026 and 2025 Open Enrollment 

 2026 2025 Net Change 
Total 22,973,219 24,166,491 (1,193,272) 
New Consumers 3,382,189 3,938,907 (556,718) 
Returning Consumers 19,591,030 20,227,584 (636,554) 

Variation Across State-Based and Federally Facilitated Marketplaces 

Enrollment patterns varied substantially across states. 

SBMs: 

  • New Mexico听saw the听largest听year-over-year听increase听(14%), attributed to听state-funded subsidies听designed to听offset the loss of听enhanced premium tax credits (ePTCs).听
  • Georgia听experienced a听14听percent decline,听the听steepest drop among听SBMs.听

Federally Facilitated Marketplace (FFM) States: 

  • Overall, FFM enrollment fell听5听percent.听
  • Texas led听FFM states听with a听5听percent increase in听plan selections.听
  • Ohio and North Carolina experienced听substantial enrollment declines,听20听percent听and听22听percent听respectively.听

What This Tells Us鈥攁nd What It Doesn鈥檛 Tell Us Yet 

FFM data are as of January 15, 2026, and measure plan selections after the OE period ended. Within the FFM, state-by-state enrollment activity varied significantly. Some of this variation is surprising and not readily explainable from the available data and will be a focus of future 红领巾瓜报 and Wakely analyses. 

The data include neither effectuated enrollment nor paid enrollment鈥攄ata which will be key to fully understanding 2026 enrollment trends and the impact of changing federal policies, including the ePTC expiration and changing eligibility standards introduced in 2026 as the result of OBBBA. 

 suggest significantly higher cancellation and disenrollment rates than in previous years. 

SBMs are sharing that they expect substantial affordability-driven voluntary and nonpayment terminations over the first half of 2026. 

Monitoring paid enrollments, attrition, and grace period dynamics, including retro-terminations, will be key to understanding market dynamics and 2027 pricing. 

Connect with Us 

红领巾瓜报 and Wakley experts have considerable experience working with states, insurers, and federal policymakers with jurisdiction over the Marketplace. We work with these entities to inform, analyze, and shape federal policies and conduct impact analyses on pricing, enrollment, administration, and operations. 红领巾瓜报 also provides strategic and project management support for the implementation of finalized policies. 

Please contact Michael CohenTaylor Gehrke, or Zachary Sherman鈥痺ith questions, follow-up, or if you would like expert assistance exploring any of the issues discussed in this post.

2026 Marketplace Open Enrollment: Where the Numbers Currently Stand

Read Blog

On January 28, 2026, the Centers for Medicaid & Medicare Services (CMS) posted a detailing 2026 Open Enrollment (OE) results. Although this report is neither a complete nor final picture of 2026 Marketplace enrollment activity, it is likely to be the last OE data CMS publishes for some time. A comparison of 2026 and 2025 Open Enrollment results can be found in Table 1.

Table 1. Comparison of 2026 and 2025 Open Enrollment

20262025Net Change
Total22,973,21924,166,491(1,193,272)
New Consumers3,382,1893,938,907(556,718)
Returning Consumers19,591,03020,227,584(636,554)

A summary of our analysis on these 2026 OE results and how they compare with 2025 data can be found below. This analysis builds on the findings in Wakely鈥檚 from January 2026.

  • Overall, topline plan selections are down from last year. Total enrollment decreased by 5%, with new enrollment down 14% and renewals down 3%.
  • State-based marketplace (SBM) enrollment declined modestly, but the data are as of January 10, and many SBMs are continuing to enroll people through the end of January.
    • New Mexico plan selections increased by 14% over last year, the largest increase of any state, driven by state-funded subsidies mirroring the expired enhanced premium tax credits (ePTCs).
    • Georgia plan selections decreased by 14%, the largest SBM year-over-year decline.
  • The federally facilitated marketplace (FFM) experienced an overall decrease of 5%. FFM data are as of January 15 and therefore measures plan selections after the OE period has ended. Within the FFM, state-by-state results varied significantly.
    • Texas led all FFM states with a 5% increase, whereas Ohio and North Carolina experienced 20% and 22% decreases in enrollment, respectively.
    • Some of this variation is surprising and not readily explainable from the available data and will be a focus of future 红领巾瓜报 and Wakely analyses.
  • The data include neither effectuated enrollment nor paid enrollment鈥攄ata which will be key to fully understanding 2026 enrollment trends and the impact of changing federal policies, including the ePTC expiration and changing eligibility standards introduced in 2026 as the result of P.L. 119-21 (OBBBA).
    • from SBMs suggest significantly higher rates of cancellations and disenrollments than in previous years.
    • SBMs are also sharing that they expect high rates of affordability-driven voluntary and non-payment terminations throughout the first half of 2026.
    • Monitoring paid enrollments, attrition, and grace period dynamics, including retro-terminations, will be key to understanding market dynamics and 2027 pricing.

红领巾瓜报 and Wakley experts have considerable experience working with states, insurers, and federal policymakers with jurisdiction over the Marketplace. We work with these entities to inform, analyze, and influence federal policies and conduct impact analyses on pricing, enrollment, administration, and operations. 红领巾瓜报 also provides strategic and project management support for the implementation of finalized policies.

Please contact Taylor Gehrke at [email protected], Michael Cohen at [email protected], or Zachary Sherman at [email protected] with questions, follow-up, or if you would like expert assistance exploring any of the issues discussed in this post.

Related Resources:

Medicaid Changes in the OBBBA and Implications for the Marketplace and Individual Market in 2027

Download

In recent years, the individual market has undergone significant disruption. The expiration of enhanced premium tax credits (ePTC) at the end of 2025 and sweeping eligibility changes under the 2025 Budget Reconciliation Act (OBBBA) have reshaped鈥攁nd will continue to reshape鈥攖he individual market.

The number of changes facing states and issuers in coming years are significant. As a result, it is unsurprising that discussion and analysis on the individual market impacts of the new Medicaid requirements is limited and expected to result in large numbers of Medicaid beneficiaries being disenrolled. Between community engagement requirements (i.e., work requirements), increases in eligibility checks, and loss of eligibility for certain immigrant population, the expectation is that millions of people will leave Medicaid in 2027.

This brief explores how these coming changes will reshape coverage pathways and costs, and examines implications for consumer affordability and churn, issuer pricing and risk pools, and state administrative burdens鈥攁longside strategies for states, issuers, and policymakers to mitigate adverse effects.

Outlook 2026: ACA Marketplace Trends鈥揂 Conversation with Michael Cohen and Zach Sherman

Read Blog

As the 2026 Affordable Care Act (ACA) Marketplace open enrollment period nears its close鈥攁nd with enhanced subsidies expiring, rates shifting, and consumer behavior evolving鈥攓uestions about enrollment stability, affordability, and operational readiness have rapidly moved to the forefront. Andrea Maresca, Senior Principal, at 红领巾瓜报, caught up with Zach Sherman, Managing Director for Coverage Policy and Program Design at 红领巾瓜报, and , PhD, who leads much of the federal policy analysis advanced by Wakely, an 红领巾瓜报 company, to unpack what they鈥檙e seeing so far.

Q: This year鈥檚 open enrollment period has been unusually complex. At the federal level, what stands out most so far? 

Michael: The headline is that new enrollment is down sharply, while returning consumers have held steadier than expected. That reflects the reality that the enhanced subsidies are gone, premiums have risen, and consumers are facing higher net costs across nearly every market. 

But nuance matters: The real question now is how many of these plan selections will effectuate鈥攎eaning consumers pay their first month premium, and how many will stay enrolled the entire year? Average effectuated enrollment throughout the year is what truly determines 2026 risk mix and market stability. 

Q: Enrollment appears to vary considerably from state to state. What are you hearing from state partners? 

Zach: It鈥檚 a tale of two markets. StateBased Exchanges (SBEs) are generally seeing less attrition and, in some cases, even modest increases in plan selections. The reason is simple: Many states are doing a lot of heavy lifting to offset the loss of federal support. 

For example, SBEs perform earlier and have more customized outreach. We鈥檝e also seen some states step in and offer state-funded subsidies, which are cushioning the affordability loss in places like New Mexico, Maryland, and California. 

While still early, the data suggest that states with heavy investment in awareness and enrollment assistance, operational support, and affordability are weathering the transition better because they have more tools to stabilize the consumer experience. 

Q: There鈥檚 been a lot of speculation about how consumers are responding to the end of enhanced subsidies. What are the early signs? 

Michael: Consumers appear to be buying leaner benefits or different metal tiers to manage premium increases. 

Another underrecognized but incredibly important dynamic is that autoreenrolled consumers may not effectuate coverage once they see the final outofpocket premium. That dynamic won鈥檛 be fully understood until March, April, and even May. 

Q: Idaho is a particularly interesting early case study. What are you learning from the first state to complete enrollment? 

Zach: Your Health Idaho鈥檚 open enrollment finished on December 15, and while they saw a slight increase in plan selections, state officials are not celebrating as they expect a large wave of cancellations鈥攗p to 20,000鈥攄ue to the expiring subsidies. 

That鈥檚 the clearest early indication that affordability is the defining issue of 2026. States are preparing for higher-than-usual enrollment attrition in quarters one and two (Q1 and Q2), and they鈥檙e thinking hard about customer service capacity as consumers navigate changing net premiums, increased deductibles and out-of-pocket costs, and nonpayment grace periods. 

Q: Are there policy levers states can still pull to mitigate affordability challenges going forward? 

Zach: We鈥檙e seeing states explore options for mitigating affordability gaps and enrollment losses, including through state subsidy programs and increased investment in existing reinsurance programs. SBEs are also leaning on their core competencies鈥攖ailored and specific education campaigns and enrollment and plan comparison tools鈥攖o help their customers cut through the noise and navigate to the best option within their budget.  

These aren鈥檛 perfect or quick fixes and most states don鈥檛 have the resources necessary to backstop the expiring subsidies, but state leaders increasingly view doing something as necessary to stabilize their markets. 

Q: What should health plans, exchanges, and policymakers watch most closely over the next three months? 

Michael: Effectuation, effectuation, effectuation. The composition of the effectuated population will define 2026 risk. 

Zach: Agree. In addition, future regulatory action on affordability, eligibility and enrollment processes, and program integrity. The federal government is expected to issue its annual payment notice, the proposed 2027 Notice of Benefits and Payment Parameters, in the near future. 

You can find more insights on the initial enrollment patterns to date in this 红领巾瓜报-Wakely paper,  and register for the 2027 ACA Considerations: Proposed NBPP and Other Key Changes and Trends.  

Webinar Replay – 2027 ACA Considerations: Proposed NBPP and Other Key Changes and Trends

Watch Now

This webinar was held on February 4, 2026 at 12pm ET.

Upon the release of the CMS final 2027 Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters and the accompanying Letter to Issuers in January, health plans and state policymakers will face critical decisions that shape the next phase of the individual and small group markets.

Experts from 红领巾瓜报 and Wakely discussed what the proposed rule means in practice and how stakeholders can begin preparing now. This webinar provided a clear overview of the final 2027 NBPP** and Letter to Issuers, highlighted the most significant policy changes and clarifications, and explored the operational and strategic implications for states. Speakers focused on how the final policies may influence market stability, affordability, program administration, and longer-term planning for 2027 and beyond. 听听

** We expect that the NBPP will have been released before the webinar takes place, but if the NBPP is not yet released we will cover likely scenarios based on our best available information.

Learning Objectives:

鈥nderstanding the proposed 2027 NBPP and Letter to Issuers

鈥wareness of key implications for states and issuers

鈥iscussion of key planning considerations for 2027

2025 Year-End Wrap-Up: ACA Subsidies and What to Expect in 2026

Read Blog

As 2025 draws to a close, Congress finds itself at a crossroads on several critical health policy issues, with the fate of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies front and center. The year has been marked by intense negotiations and a flurry of proposals, many of which remain unresolved as lawmakers look ahead to a pivotal January 30 deadline for appropriations spending bills. In this article, policy experts from 红领巾瓜报 (红领巾瓜报)鈥攊ncluding Leavitt Partners, an 红领巾瓜报 company鈥攑rovide a comprehensive wrap-up of Congress鈥 work on ACA subsidies, executive agency actions, and what stakeholders should anticipate in early 2026. 

ACA Subsidies: A Year of Uncertainty and Political Maneuvering 

The expiration of enhanced ACA subsidies at the end of 2025 has been a focal point for congressional debate. Despite numerous bipartisan groups and a multitude of proposals circulating, consensus has proven elusive. The Senate voted on an ACA-related measure December 11, 2025, but neither the Democrats鈥 proposal for a three-year extension nor the Republican alternative to replace subsidies with health savings accounts advanced and revise certain other Medicaid policies. 

The situation in the House has been equally complex. House GOP leaders unveiled a healthcare package designed to lower costs, expand association health plans, and increase transparency for pharmacy benefit managers. The package would not extend the expiring enhanced ACA subsidies, and even if the House bill passes, the Senate is unlikely to consider it. In addition, on December 17, House Democrats secured enough support to force a vote on a bill that would provide a three-year extension of enhanced subsidies, although House rules preclude scheduling a vote on the bill until January.  

The听prevailing sentiment among policy experts is that no substantial action will be taken before year鈥檚 end.

The White House briefly floated a two-year extension of the enhanced subsidies, but walked back the proposal, signaling fluidity in the policy discussions within the administration and among congressional Republicans. The absence of consensus on both policy and political ramifications has left the ACA subsidy issue in limbo. 

Looking Ahead: January鈥檚 Appropriations Deadline and ACA Options 

December 15, 2025, marked the last day for consumers to enroll in ACA coverage policies that take effect January 1, 2026, meaning that for many health insurance purchasers, choices for 2026 are already set. Policymakers are now focused on another deadline for potential ACA subsidy action鈥擩anuary 30, 2026, when temporary funding for the current federal fiscal year expires. It is possible that a solution could be attached to the spending package, potentially affecting 2026 premiums, although operational challenges abound. The most feasible option at this stage would be a premium rebate, which would avoid reopening enrollment but require complex rate adjustments. Any substantive changes to the subsidy structure would demand significant actuarial analysis and could disrupt both health plans and state activities. 

Congressional Dynamics: Appropriations, Extenders, and Policy Riders 

The appropriations process is center stage as Congress approaches the January 30, 2026, deadline. Lawmakers are seeking to continue passing 鈥渕inibus鈥 packages鈥攕mall groups of appropriations bills鈥攖o avoid another government shutdown. Most Medicare and Medicaid policy priorities, including must-pass extenders like telehealth flexibilities and the hospital at home program, are dependent on appropriations vehicles to advance. If Congress resorts to a stopgap continuing resolution, only the most essential extenders are likely to be included, with broader policy riders at risk of being sidelined. 

Policy Outlook 

Pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) reform stands out as a top bipartisan priority, with both House and Senate members eager to advance transparency and de-linking measures. Other lingering issues from the December 2024 healthcare package include Medicaid spread pricing prohibitions, streamlined enrollment for out-of-state providers, and targeted benefits for military service members. In Medicare, multi-cancer early detection screening and digital health policies may resurface, though larger reforms like Medicare physician fee schedule changes are likely to be deferred until later in 2026. 

Agency Developments: CMS Innovation and Regulatory Changes 

Beyond Congress, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has been active, rolling out new models and rules that will shape the landscape in 2026 and beyond. Highlights include the 2027 Medicare Advantage Policy and Technical Changes Proposed Rule. Although it introduces no major policy shifts, the proposed rule addresses quality measurement, special needs plans, the Health Equity Index, and administrative burden reduction. It also codifies changes from the Inflation Reduction Act, such as cost-sharing and out-of-pocket limit reforms. The new ACCESS model (Advancing Chronic Care with Effective, Scalable Solutions) is intended to incentivize tech-enabled care for chronic conditions, with the model beginning July 2026. 

CMS also released updates to the outpatient, home health, and durable medical equipment rules, with a continued focus on site neutrality (aligning payments across settings) and removing barriers to beneficiary choice. The agency is placing ongoing emphasis on data collection, price transparency, and updated payment methodologies to reflect modern practice and technology. The  (GENErating cost Reductions fOr U.S. Medicaid)鈥疢odel introduces most favored nation pricing for Medicaid, while additional mandatory Medicare drug pricing models are under review. Rural health transformation remains a CMS priority, with expectations for further announcements and awards before the end of the year. 

We expect 2026 to be another busy year for CMS with more new models being announced, continued policy refinements in the fee-for-service payment systems, and changes in Medicare Advantage based on feedback from the requests for information. 

Connect with 红领巾瓜报 Policy Experts 

As the new year approaches, uncertainty remains the defining feature of federal health policy. The fate of ACA subsidies, the appropriations process, and a host of other reforms will hinge on negotiations in the coming weeks. For stakeholders navigating these complex dynamics, 红领巾瓜报鈥檚 team of policy experts stands ready to provide guidance, analysis, and support. 

Ready to talk?