TEXAS: #HB700 (& #SB344) look to jump on the state-based exchange bandwagon as well (updated):
https://acasignups.net/23/04/01/texas-hb700-looks-jump-state-based-exchange-bandwagon-wellupdated
(My concerns about Texas making the move to a SBM have been greatly reduced w/the knowledge that Sen. Nathan Johnson is onboard w/his own version. There's some differences between them, however...)
4/01/23: See important update at bottom. Back in early February, I wrote: If this was any other state besides Georgia--even any other GOP-controlled state--I'd say good for them since it would presumably just mean that they were the latest state to move to their own state-based exchange (which is how the ACA was originally envisioned anyway). This would give them the ability to hook the SBM into their state databases for auto-enrolling residents receiving SNAP benefits/etc into $0-premium coverage, or to integrate supplemental subsidies as nearly a dozen states do today, and so forth. There's several upsides to moving to an SBM, up to & including reducing the user fees (although those have been significantly reduced on the federal exchange in recent years anyway). Until now, there's only been a single completely Republican-controlled state (governor + both legislative chambers) which has established its own fully state-based ACA exchange: Idaho, which did so under GOP Gov. Butch Otter, way back in the fall of 2014 (Idaho utilized the federal exchange, HealthCare.Gov, for the first tumultuous Open Enrollment Period but moved to their own exchange a year later).
Because there aren't enough big news stories today...
TEXAS: #HB700 looks to jump on the state-based #ACA exchange bandwagon as well...
https://acasignups.net/23/03/30/texas-hb700-looks-jump-state-based-aca-exchange-bandwagon-well
Back in early February, I wrote: If this was any other state besides Georgia--even any other GOP-controlled state--I'd say good for them since it would presumably just mean that they were the latest state to move to their own state-based exchange (which is how the ACA was originally envisioned anyway). This would give them the ability to hook the SBM into their state databases for auto-enrolling residents receiving SNAP benefits/etc into $0-premium coverage, or to integrate supplemental subsidies as nearly a dozen states do today, and so forth. There's several upsides to moving to an SBM, up to & including reducing the user fees (although those have been significantly reduced on the federal exchange in recent years anyway). Until now, there's only been a single completely Republican-controlled state (governor + both legislative chambers) which has established its own fully state-based ACA exchange: Idaho, which did so under GOP Gov. Butch Otter, way back in the fall of 2014 (Idaho utilized the federal exchange, HealthCare.Gov, for the first tumultuous Open Enrollment Period but moved to their own exchange a year later).
Ulrich_Jones
Charles Gaba