What are the states that stand to lose ACA subsidies doing to prepare for a possible government defeat in King v. Burwell? And how are they likely to respond if the subsides are withdrawn?
David K. Jones and I set out to answer these questions. With the help of a crack team of J.D. and Ph.D. students—Phillip Singer, Diane Hilligoss, and Andrew Brown—we took a close look at five different states: Florida, Michigan, New Hampshire, North Carolina, and Utah. The first installment in a three-part series detailing our findings is now out at the Health Affairs Blog.
The news is pretty grim. None of the five states has a contingency plan in place. In none does the political establishment appear likely to support a transition to a state-based exchange (with the possible exception of New Hampshire). And there’s just not enough time for the states to set up a new exchange for 2016.
