All Health Insurance Exchanges Are Not the Same

The Massachusetts Connector has a $40 million administrative budget that employs 45 people earning an average $100,000 salary. In contrast, the Utah Exchange has just two employees and a budget of $600,000. The authors write, “Fewer than 1,500 small business employees receive coverage through the Connector. In Utah, with a far smaller population, about 55,000 small business employees have purchased health insurance through the Exchange. It offers 66 plans from a number of carriers, including the largest ones in the state.”

Comments (7)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Neil H. says:

    Interesting. I’ve heard that the Utah connector isn’t that bad.

  2. Joe S. says:

    The Utah connector isn’t trying to enforce a universal coverage mandate or administer a system of subsidies. That makes its job easier.

  3. artk says:

    Sources count, once again you’ve posted a biased op ed piece as a news story. This article was written by the Pioneer Institute, a major financial contributor to the Americans for Prosperity and The Club for Growth. Is the article interesting, perhaps. Is it biased, certainly.

  4. John Goodman says:

    I have found the Pioneer Institute to be a pretty good source on things relating to Massachusetts. I’m almost certain they do not contribute to to Americans for Prosperity or to the Club for Growth –especially since Pioneer is a 501(c)(3) and the other two organizations are 501(c)(4)s and the former cannot legally give to the latter.

  5. artk says:

    John, sorry, I should have been more precise, their founder and Chairman is a big contributor to the Americans for Prosperity and The Club for Growth.

  6. Jim Stergios says:

    @artk: Pioneer’s has never taken a position on the Mass health care reform. Our view has always been that the reform was unique to Massachusetts because of existing factors (minimum creditable coverage, a considerable “free care” pot of money that could be put to other uses, and a pre-2006 uninsurance rate that stood in the single digits. We have commissioned five report cards on the reform to see what is working, what isn’t, and what we don’t know yet. Hardly “bias.” Bias would have been one report that took the head off of the Connector. We are in this game to change what isn’t working and to ensure that we learn lessons from other states.
    As for AFP and Club for G, we do not fund these entities. We have a board that is well-respected int he community and includes half a dozen Democrats. Try something other than ad hominem attacks – really. You’ll feel better for it, and it may lead to a constructive dialogue, something perhaps better than what Washington was able to put on display during the federal health care debates.

  7. Devon Herrick says:

    The Commonwealth Connector and the Massachusetts Plan reinforces what most economists already knew. That is: it’s relatively easy to give something away for free, but much harder to convince people to spend their hard-earned money on a service they don’t want just because the government things they should have it.