SPECIAL COMMENT

INSURANCE
SEPTEMBER 9, 2014





Table of Contents:
SUMMARY OPINION 1
1. WHAT WE DO KNOW
PROFITABILITY WILL BE CHALLENGING
DESPITE HIGHER THAN EXPECTED
ENROLLMENT 2
2. WHAT WE DONT KNOW YET
DEVELOPING 2014 CLAIM EXPERIENCE,
UNCERTAIN CONSUMER BEHAVIOR IN
2015 4
3. CHANGES FOR 2015 AUTOMATIC
RE-ENROLLMENT PROCESS AND
START OF EMPLOYER MANDATE 6
4. INSURERS PLANS FOR 2015
EXPANSION BEING TOUTED BUT
PLANS ARE RELATIVELY MODEST 7
APPENDIX 9
MOODYS RELATED RESEARCH 10

Analyst Contacts:
NEW YORK +1.212.553.1653
Stephen Zaharuk +1.212.553.1634
Senior Vice President
stephen.zaharuk@moodys.com
Joel Levine +1.212.553.3871
Associate Managing Director
joel.levine@moodys.com
Robert L. Riegel +1.212.553.4663
Managing Director
robert.riegel@moodys.com



The Affordable Care Act Public Exchanges
Mid-Year Summary and Assessment

Summary Opinion
Last year as we approached the first open enrollment period under the Affordable Care Act
(ACA) health insurers were faced with many unknowns and uncertainties regarding
competition, enrollment, and profitability. Almost one year after the federal and state
exchanges opened for enrollment many of these uncertainties still exist. In this report we
examine what we do know and the challenges insurers are faced with as they prepare for the
upcoming 2015 enrollment period, including the uncertainties that remain and the impact of
changes scheduled to be implemented. In each instance we gauge the potential credit impact
for health insurers. Our key findings are:
The ACA individual health policies sold on and off the exchanges involve considerable
risks and uncertainties and the prospects for profitability will remain challenging for
several years. However, for Moodys rated health insurers, there is unlikely to be an overall
impact to their credit profile given the fact that this business makes up a relatively small
portion of any one insurers total business.
Due to remaining uncertainties and unresolved issues with respect to the profitability of
these products, consumer behavior, and the legal status of subsidies, insurers are faced
with making pricing decisions for 2015 with very limited claims data in 2014 in a
competitive marketplace ripe for irrational pricing amid an evolving regulatory
environment a credit negative to the sector.
While the planned changes for 2015 automatic re-enrollment for most individuals and
the start of the employer mandate appear to be credit positive on the surface, we
believe the actual credit implications for insurers are neutral.
Despite all the uncertainties and poor projected financial results for these products in
2014, insurers are planning on continuing their participation on the exchanges in 2015.
However, for many of the larger health insurers expansion plans are relatively modest.





INSURANCE
2 SEPTEMBER 9, 2014

SPECIAL COMMENT: THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT PUBLIC EXCHANGES MID-YEAR SUMMARY AND ASSESSMENT

1. What We Do Know Profitability Will Be Challenging Despite Higher Than
Expected Enrollment. Overall Credit Profile Of Larger Insurers Not Likely To
Be Impacted
A. Enrollment
Despite lowered expectations from the start of the open enrollment period due to technical problems
with the healthcare.gov website, enrollment exceeded official projections with the Obama
Administration reporting over 8 million enrolled by the end of March 2014. While not every insurer
has publicly reported the number of individuals enrolled in their plans, the following is a list of six
large health insurance companies rated by Moodys that have reported enrolled membership. While
the enrollment for these six insurers accounts for over 30% of total ACA enrollment, this business
segment comprises a relatively small portion of their total medical membership.
EXHIBIT 1
ACA Enrollment by Insurer

Insurance Financial Strength (IFS)
Rating and outlook
ACA Indidvidual Membership
June 30, 2014
Percent of Total
Medical Membership
WellPoint A2, stable 769,000 2.4%
Humana A3, stable 615,000 6.3%
Aetna A2, stable 600,000 2.6%
Health Net Baa3, positive 313,000 5.4%
Cigna A2, positive 150,000 1.1%
Centene Baa2, stable 75,700 2.4%
Source: Company Filings and Transcripts

B. Demographics
Beyond the actual number of members, more critical to insurers are the demographics and health
status of these members relative to their pricing assumptions. Since a large percentage of these
members enrolled near or at the end of the open enrollment period at the end of March, resulting in
their insurance coverage not beginning until May, insurers do not yet have enough information to
assess the overall health status of the group. However, some information is emerging:
i. Health Status Trending Credit Negative For Insurers:
In June, results from a survey conducted by The Kaiser Family Foundation
1
suggests that individuals
in new, ACA-compliant plans are somewhat sicker than those previously covered in the non-group
market. The survey also found that nearly six in 10 of those now covered by exchange plans were
uninsured prior to signing up. Additionally, a recent Wall Street Journal article
2
reported that newly
insured patients under the ACA this year were using health services at hospitals more frequently than
did the general population last year. These results are in line with initial reporting from insurers that
this business will likely generate losses in 2014 as a result of higher than expected medical loss ratios.

1
The Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) Survey of Non-Group Health Insurance Enrollees; June 2014
2
Hospitals Cash In on the Newly Insured, Wall Street Journal; August 4, 2014
This publication does not announce
a credit rating action. For any
credit ratings referenced in this
publication, please see the ratings
tab on the issuer/entity page on
www.moodys.com for the most
updated credit rating action
information and rating history.



INSURANCE
3 SEPTEMBER 9, 2014

SPECIAL COMMENT: THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT PUBLIC EXCHANGES MID-YEAR SUMMARY AND ASSESSMENT

ii. Average Age Late Enrollment Surge Of Younger Individuals A Credit Positive For Insurers:
A June Gallup survey
3
found that 29% of health insurance purchases on the exchanges were in the 18
to 29 age bracket. This compares favorably to the national percentage of 18 to 29 year olds (26%) in
the total population of adults under age 65 (i.e., not eligible for Medicare). Although age is not a
perfect gauge of health status, a younger insured population is generally believed to be healthier and
have fewer medical care needs.
iii. Percentage Dependent On Subsidies May Be A Credit Negative With Respect To Health Status:
A report by the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation
4
reported that through February 2014
approximately 83% of all enrollees nationwide had qualified for a subsidy. Again, while not a
substitute for the actual health status of a population, this finding indicates that a majority of insureds
were in low enough income brackets, and therefore there is a greater likelihood that many of these
individuals were previously uninsured or may have not been receiving proper medical care. The
implication for insurers is that health costs for this group may be higher than the costs for the general
population. On the positive side, the fact that government subsidies are paying for a substantial
portion of an individuals premium may result in a higher retention rate among these policyholders.
C. Insurers Profitability Outlook On Business Dependent On The Three Rs
5
:
As of the end of the second quarter of 2014, insurers were not painting a very rosy picture with respect
to the profitability of their health exchange insurance policies. At best, insurers were predicting a break
even scenario but most were anticipating losing money on the business for the full year. In addition,
most insurers were relying on the financial protections built into the ACA the three Rs of
reinsurance, risk adjustment, and the risk corridor. While there is some degree of accuracy in
projecting contributions from the reinsurance arm of the three Rs, the other two remain highly
uncertain and rely on assumptions with regards to the experience and results of the entire sector.
D. Credit Implications:
From what we know, this business involves considerable risks and for many insurers is likely to be
unprofitable or near break even for several years. The analysis that leads us to this conclusion is as
follows:
First, the risk pool has been compromised by provisions in the ACA and other provisions added or
changed since the law was enacted which allow many individuals to avoid purchasing policies on
the exchanges. These include exemptions from financial penalties and the ability to retain non-
ACA compliant health plans.
Second, in addition to the fact that two of the three Rs (reinsurance and risk corridor) are
temporary, their stability from both a political and financial perspective is uncertain.
And third, as premiums increase, a trend we are seeing with the 2015 plan submissions, it is likely
that some of the younger, healthier individuals who purchased policies on the exchanges may drop
coverage, resulting in an even less favorable risk pool.
While we understand the strategy for insurers to participate in this business for both business and
political reasons, from a credit perspective we see this business as having overall negative credit
implications, impacting both an insurers risk profile and profitability. However, given the fact that
currently this business makes up a relatively small portion of the analyzed insurers total business, their
overall credit ratings are unlikely to be impacted by this alone.

3
Gallup Daily Tracking; April 15 - June 17, 2014
4
How Much Financial Assistance Are People Receiving Under the Affordable Care Act?; The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation; March 2014
5
See Appendix



INSURANCE
4 SEPTEMBER 9, 2014

SPECIAL COMMENT: THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT PUBLIC EXCHANGES MID-YEAR SUMMARY AND ASSESSMENT

2. What We Dont Know Yet Developing 2014 Claim Experience, Uncertain
Consumer Behavior In 2015, And An Unsettled Legal And Regulatory
Environment Present Formidable Challenges For Insurers And Credit
Negative Implications
A. Financial Results, How Bad Will They Be?
As of 30 June 2014, insurers are not indicating good financial news from the policies they sold on the
healthcare exchanges. Most are reporting that they will lose money even with the potential payment of
funds from the government from the three Rs. However, the insurers are not providing specific details
and we cannot be quite sure what assumptions they have made regarding premiums and medical
claims for the remainder of the year. As discussed below, the lapse rate on these policies could be
higher than the historical lapse rates experienced on individual health insurance policies in the past.
With many policies not becoming effective until April or May this year, limited data is available and
there is the potential for higher than expected medical claims as well. Lastly, we have to be skeptical
with respect to any assumptions about risk adjustments and risk corridor payments as these rely on a
companys experience in relation to the entire sectors experience. Based on the anecdotal evidence at
hand, we expect that results will be worse for 2014 than currently reported.
B. Consumer Behavior With Respect To:
i. Retention/Lapse Rate:
A major concern with respect to 2014 enrollment is how many of the reported 8 million enrollees will
retain their coverage for the full year. While lapse rates have typically been high for individual health
polices in the past due to an individuals personal circumstances changing and healthcare insurance
becoming available from another source (e.g., employer or government sponsored), no one is sure what
other factors will impact how this current group of enrollees behaves. As an example, Aetna, which
initially reported 720,000 enrollees, reported only 600,000 remaining at the end of June, and is
expecting that number to decline to 500,000 by the end of the year. The concern is especially acute
for the reported 29% of policies purchased by those in the 18 to 29 age group. The risk is that as the
monthly premium bills become a financial annoyance, especially for those not receiving a premium
subsidy, and as individuals realize they will be unlikely to meet the high policy deductibles, many will
lapse their polices before the end of the year. Those most likely to fall into this group are healthier
individuals who are less likely to need medical care or insurance. This would, of course, be a major
concern to insurers as this would result in a smaller and unhealthier remaining insured population.
ii. Re-Enrollment:
In addition to lapse rates, insurers are concerned about how many of their current enrollees they can
re-sign for 2015. By the end of the year, insurers will have made a significant investment in some of
these individuals, assessing their health status and paying significant medical and pharmacy bills to
stabilize their conditions. If these individuals switch carriers, the benefits of this administrative and
medical spending will be reaped by the new insurer.
There are a number of issues that are unique and complicating to the re-enrollment process for these
policies that makes it very difficult to predict based on experience from prior years. These include:




INSURANCE
5 SEPTEMBER 9, 2014

SPECIAL COMMENT: THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT PUBLIC EXCHANGES MID-YEAR SUMMARY AND ASSESSMENT

1) Uneven premium increases by insurance plans. With a majority of enrollees relying on subsidies to
pay for their premiums, we suspect many enrollees will choose their 2015 policy based on their net
cost, which may result in them switching plans. Due to the complicated subsidy formula, which is
based on the premium for the second lowest priced silver plan in a region, individuals may find
the ultimate net cost for their current plan being significantly higher even if the insurer did not
increase premiums.
2) Consumers will be more educated and will choose policies that better meet their needs. For
example, many enrollees were dismayed to find that their doctor or local hospital was not included
in the plan they chose for 2014. We suspect that many enrollees will switch plans based on the
provider networks available to them.
3) Problems with the website. While no one expects a reoccurrence of the problems encountered last
year, some problems are expected, especially since the enrollment period is shorter this time
around (November 15
th
through January 15
th
), which could complicate matters. This means all 8
million or so enrollees need to return to the website to re-enroll along with another expected 5
million new enrollees during a two month period compared to the six month window provided
last year. While the Administration has proposed an automatic re-enrollment process, it has
shortcomings (see discussion below), which may result in many enrollees returning to the website
to choose their policies.
C. Unsettled Court Decision On Federal Subsidies:
On 22 July 2014, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Halbig v. Burwell that the ACA does not
permit the Internal Revenue Service to subsidize individuals who bought health insurance on federal
exchanges. Although the D.C. Circuit Court has decided to rehear the case, it may ultimately be
decided by the Supreme Court. Should the original ruling be upheld, it would threaten the status of
in-force policies sold through the federal exchange. According to the US Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS), of the 8 million individuals who bought insurance under the ACA, nearly 5.4
million did so through the federal exchange, and nearly 86% of those 5.4 million, or 4.6 million,
received a subsidy.
Without a subsidy, lapses among these 4.6 million policies would likely increase because policyholders
may no longer be willing or able to afford the policy premiums without the financial assistance that the
premium subsidies provide.
The resulting uncertainty could cause insurers to rethink their expansion and pricing strategies for the
2015 open enrollment period. While most insurers have already submitted their plans and premium
rates for 2015, the implications of the original ruling change the calculus regarding insurers marketing
and pricing assumptions. If subsidies are no longer available in the states that plan to rely on the
federal exchange in 2015, the profile of the potential insurance purchaser in these states would
drastically change. Under a no-subsidy scenario, insurers expect the federal exchange would attract a
less healthy population because only those who most need insurance coverage would likely purchase an
unsubsidized health plan. As a result, insurers have indicated that if the ruling were upheld, it would
lead to higher premiums.
D. Credit Implications:
The complications for insurers with the unknowns related to the ACA policies is that they will remain
unknowns for another several months and some information or issues may not be resolved well into
the 2015 policy year. In the meantime, insurers will need to submit initial plans and pricing for 2015
and make their final decisions with respect to their plan offerings by the end of September. Due to the
financial, consumer behavior, and legal uncertainties, these polices have credit negative implications



INSURANCE
6 SEPTEMBER 9, 2014

SPECIAL COMMENT: THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT PUBLIC EXCHANGES MID-YEAR SUMMARY AND ASSESSMENT

for insurers as they are forced to make pricing decisions with very limited data in a competitive
marketplace ripe for irrational pricing and in an evolving regulatory environment.
3. Changes For 2015 Automatic Re-Enrollment Process And Start Of Employer
Mandate Complicate Matters But Appear To Be Credit Neutral For Insurers
A. 2015 proposed enrollment process:
HHS has proposed that insured individuals who purchased policies on the federal health exchanges
and who are receiving premium subsidies be automatically enrolled in the same plan in 2015 unless
they elect otherwise. The catch is that individuals who automatically enroll will receive the same dollar
subsidy they received in 2014, with a true up accounting included as part of their 2015 tax filing.
There are two problems with this for individuals:
1) Because their subsidy is locked in at the same dollar amount they received in 2014, they will have
to pay any monthly premium increase made by the insurance company. While individuals may
ultimately receive a refund of some of these premium dollars if they were entitled to a larger
subsidy, they will have to wait until they file their taxes in 2016 to receive this refund.
2) Due to the complexities of the premium subsidy formula, the changes in relative pricing among
insurers, and the potential entry of new insurers, the plan that provided the lowest net premium
cost in 2014 might not be the lowest net cost plan in 2015. This second point is crucial as HHS
data indicates that a majority of federal exchange enrollees chose the lowest cost plans available to
them.
While on paper an auto-enrollment provision may appear to be beneficial to insurers to maintain the
individuals they enrolled in 2014, the economics for individuals may force them to shop for new plans
on the website anyway.
B. Partial Implementation Of Employer Mandate Employer Groups Of 100 Or More -
70% Of Employees Must Be Provided Affordable Coverage:
The employer mandate, originally set to begin in 2014, was delayed until 2015 and then it will be only
partially implemented. As originally developed, the employer mandate required that all businesses with
over 50 full-time equivalent (FTE) employees provide affordable health insurance for their full-time
employees, or pay a penalty or fee for each employee not covered. Instead, starting in 2015, the
employer mandate will only require employers with more than 100 FTEs to cover 70% of their full-
time employees. The annual fee is $2,000 per employee if this requirement is not met (the first 30 full-
time employees are exempt).
Initially, a concern for insurers was that their large employer health business segment would be under
pressure as a result of the employer mandate. The concern was that employers would drop their
employer provided health plans and opt instead to pay the relatively small penalty compared to the
portion of healthcare premium required to meet the mandate. This concern has not been borne out for
a number of reasons, primarily because employers were not ready to dump their employees into an
untested public exchange. We do not see any change in this trend after the troubled rollout in 2014
along with a number of concerns regarding exchange policies (e.g., high deductibles and narrow
networks). As a result, we dont think the start of this limited version of the employer mandate will
have any significant impact on insurers for 2015.




INSURANCE
7 SEPTEMBER 9, 2014

SPECIAL COMMENT: THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT PUBLIC EXCHANGES MID-YEAR SUMMARY AND ASSESSMENT

On the flip side, we do not see much potential for employers who do not meet the mandate
requirements to begin providing insurance for their employees in 2015. In fact, most employers
already are providing health benefits to their employees. In 2013, 91% of employers with 50 to 199
employees provided healthcare benefits. For employers with 200 or more employees, that percentage
was 99%
6
.
C. Credit Implications:
The credit implications from the exchange auto-enrollment and the employer mandate are neutral.
Early on, the auto-enrollment process might have appeared to be a credit positive for insurers that were
able to enroll a sizable number of individuals this year, but credit negative for insurers that were
planning to jump into the exchange market for the first time in 2015. However, while consumer
behavior in this marketplace is difficult to predict, the data indicates a very price sensitive population
and we are not convinced the auto-enrollment process will yield much in benefits to the established
insurers.
Due to the uncertainties that still linger concerning the public exchanges, we do not see employers
dropping their group health coverage and forcing their employees to buy exchange policies in 2015. In
addition, since most employers are already providing health insurance for their employees, we do not
see a significant opportunity for additional growth. Therefore, we see no appreciable change in
employer-provided coverage in 2015 as a result of the partial implementation of the employer
mandate.
4. Insurers Plans For 2015 Expansion Being Touted But Plans Are
Relatively Modest
Despite the enrollment success the following six insurers had on the exchanges, plans for expansion are
fairly modest. For some insurers, such as WellPoint, they are already offering plans in all their markets.
For others, such as Aetna, their limited expansion plans reflect the continued uncertainties and risks
associated with this business.
EXHIBIT 2
ACA Modest Expansion Plans by Insurer
Insurer 2015 Announced Plans
WellPoint No announced expansion plans
Humana No announced expansion plans
Aetna Expanding into 1 additional state
Health Net No announced expansion plans
Cigna Expanding into 3 additional states
Centene No announced expansion plans
Source: Company Filings and Transcripts

6
Employer Health Benefits, 2013 Annual Survey, The Kaiser Family Foundation, August 2013



INSURANCE
8 SEPTEMBER 9, 2014

SPECIAL COMMENT: THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT PUBLIC EXCHANGES MID-YEAR SUMMARY AND ASSESSMENT

The exception is UnitedHealth Group Incorporated, which has applied to sell plans in 24 states. In
2014 the company participated on exchanges in only four states taking a very conservative approach
for the first open enrollment period, waiting to see how the market developed before it jumped in.
It should be noted that insurers can change their plans for participation on any of the exchanges. Late
in 2013, some insurers pulled their applications in the last month before open enrollment due to
pricing and other competitive considerations. We expect we may see similar actions this year as
insurers have their submitted premiums adjusted by regulators, reassess the competitive landscape, and
have better insight into the developing financial experience of policies sold in 2014.
Balancing the Opportunities vs. Risks
Over the next few years, insurers will be balancing the pros for continuing their participation on the
exchanges: 1) revenue increase from new business, 2) knowledge gained from participating in the
marketplace, 3) potential to be seen as an advocate allowing them to work with the Administration
and influence changes; vs. the financial losses that will probably be absorbed for the next several years.




INSURANCE
9 SEPTEMBER 9, 2014

SPECIAL COMMENT: THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT PUBLIC EXCHANGES MID-YEAR SUMMARY AND ASSESSMENT

Appendix
The three Rs of the ACA - Reinsurance, Risk Adjustment, and Risk Corridor
Due to the expected influx of a significant number of previously uninsured individuals into the new
health insurance exchanges, the ACA contains provisions to mitigate some of the financial risks
insurers are absorbing by insuring this population. These provisions commonly referred to as the
three Rs are risk stabilization programs intended to protect insurers against the negative effects of
adverse selection and risk selection in the initial years of the rollout of the individual mandate. Brief
summaries of the three programs are provided below.
Reinsurance This program is temporary and is applicable for calendar years 2014 through 2016 only.
Reinsurance provides a safeguard against individuals with high medical costs. All non-grandfathered
plans on the individual market, both inside and outside the exchanges, are eligible for reinsurance
payments. For 2014, a health plan becomes eligible for reinsurance payments when an enrollee reaches
medical costs of $45,000 (the attachment point). Reinsurance payments stop when an individuals
medical claims reach a cap, which is $250,000. The federal government will reimburse the plan for at
least 80 percent of the claims cost between the attachment point and the cap in 2014. The reinsurance
program is funded through fees levied on all health insurance plans, including self-insured plans that
use a third-party administrator. Each insurers portion is calculated based on their enrollment and
translates to $63 per person for the 2014 benefit year. The funds available for reinsurance payments
are expected to total $10 billion in 2014.
Risk Adjustment This program is the only one of the three programs that is intended to remain
permanently in place. This program applies to individual and small group business sold on and off the
public exchanges. It requires a measurement of the relative health status of an insurers pool of insured
enrollees in each market. The program requires a transfer of funds from insurers whose pools have
lower than average risk scores to insurers whose pools have a greater than average risk score. The
program is revenue neutral.
Risk Corridor - The risk corridor program is a temporary program from 2014-2016 intended to share
gains and losses between plans and the federal government. The risk corridor program applies only to
qualified health plans in the individual and small group markets. This program requires each insurer to
calculate their Allowable Costs as well as a Target Amount. Allowable Costs is the sum of medical
claims and money spent on quality improvements. The Target Amount is equal to premiums collected
minus a limited percentage of administrative costs. The Risk Corridor Ratio is then derived by
dividing the Allowable Cost by the Target Amount.
For 2014, if the Risk Corridor Ratio is below 97%, the insurance issuer must share a portion of their
profit with HHS. However, if the Risk Corridor Ratio is above 103%, the insurer will be eligible to
recover some of that loss. The risk corridor program was intended to be revenue neutral with transfers
from profitable insurers matching payments to insurers with losses.




INSURANCE
10 SEPTEMBER 9, 2014

SPECIAL COMMENT: THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT PUBLIC EXCHANGES MID-YEAR SUMMARY AND ASSESSMENT

Moodys Related Research
Rating Methodology:
Moodys Rating Methodology for U.S. Health Insurance Companies, May 2011 (133040)
Industry Outlook:
US Healthcare Insurers: Outlook Changed to Negative from Stable, January 2014 (163188)
Credit Focus:
Medicare Advantage Cuts: Prognosis Not Bad For Most Health Insurers, July 2014 (173285)
Special Comments:
Q4 2013 Insurance CDS Spreads Tighten: US Health Insurers in Focus, February 2014 (163370)
US Healthcare Insurance - Industry Scorecard, November 2013 (160573)
Issuer Comments:
Highmark Transition Agreement with UPMC is Credit Positive, July 2014 (172580)
Aetnas Health Insurance CAT Bonds Provide Limited Risk Protection, January 2014 (163362)
Sector Comments:
Affordable Care Act Policies Automatic Renewal is a Mixed Bag for US Health Insurers, July
2014 (172579)
US Health Insurers Proposed Rate Increases on Affordable Care Exchanges Are Credit Positive,
June 2014 (172148)
Final Medicare Rates for 2015 Are Credit Negative for US Health Insurers, April 2014 (168032)
Affordable Care Act Open Enrollment Extension Is Credit Negative for Insurers, March
2014 (166679)
US Affordable Care Act Extension Is Credit Negative for Healthcare Insurers, March
2014 (165841)
US Health Insurers See Credit-Negative 2015 Preliminary Medicare Rates, February
2014 (165451)
Medicare Advantage Enrollment Results are Credit Positive for Health Insurers, February
2014 (165295)
Proposed Changes to Affordable Care Act Are Credit Negative for Health Insurers, February
2014 (164978)
Preliminary US Healthcare Exchange Demographics Are Credit Negative for Health Insurers,
January 2014 (162822)
US Health Insurers Get Dose of Complexity and Risk from New Requirements, December
2013 (161799)
Affordable Care Act Changes Are Credit Negative for US Health Insurers, December
2013 (161039)




INSURANCE
11 SEPTEMBER 9, 2014

SPECIAL COMMENT: THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT PUBLIC EXCHANGES MID-YEAR SUMMARY AND ASSESSMENT


Report Number: 175059
Author
Steve Zaharuk
Production Specialist
Prabhakaran Elumalai







2014 Moodys Corporation, Moodys Investors Service, Inc., Moodys Analytics, Inc. and/or their licensors and affiliates (collectively, MOODYS). All rights reserved.
CREDIT RATINGS ISSUED BY MOODY'S INVESTORS SERVICE, INC. (MIS) AND ITS AFFILIATES ARE MOODYS CURRENT OPINIONS OF THE RELATIVE FUTURE CREDIT RISK OF
ENTITIES, CREDIT COMMITMENTS, OR DEBT OR DEBT-LIKE SECURITIES, AND CREDIT RATINGS AND RESEARCH PUBLICATIONS PUBLISHED BY MOODYS (MOODYS
PUBLICATIONS) MAY INCLUDE MOODYS CURRENT OPINIONS OF THE RELATIVE FUTURE CREDIT RISK OF ENTITIES, CREDIT COMMITMENTS, OR DEBT OR DEBT-LIKE
SECURITIES. MOODYS DEFINES CREDIT RISK AS THE RISK THAT AN ENTITY MAY NOT MEET ITS CONTRACTUAL, FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS AS THEY COME DUE AND ANY
ESTIMATED FINANCIAL LOSS IN THE EVENT OF DEFAULT. CREDIT RATINGS DO NOT ADDRESS ANY OTHER RISK, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO: LIQUIDITY RISK, MARKET
VALUE RISK, OR PRICE VOLATILITY. CREDIT RATINGS AND MOODYS OPINIONS INCLUDED IN MOODYS PUBLICATIONS ARE NOT STATEMENTS OF CURRENT OR HISTORICAL
FACT. MOODYS PUBLICATIONS MAY ALSO INCLUDE QUANTITATIVE MODEL-BASED ESTIMATES OF CREDIT RISK AND RELATED OPINIONS OR COMMENTARY PUBLISHED BY
MOODYS ANALYTICS, INC. CREDIT RATINGS AND MOODYS PUBLICATIONS DO NOT CONSTITUTE OR PROVIDE INVESTMENT OR FINANCIAL ADVICE, AND CREDIT RATINGS
AND MOODYS PUBLICATIONS ARE NOT AND DO NOT PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS TO PURCHASE, SELL, OR HOLD PARTICULAR SECURITIES. NEITHER CREDIT RATINGS
NOR MOODYS PUBLICATIONS COMMENT ON THE SUITABILITY OF AN INVESTMENT FOR ANY PARTICULAR INVESTOR. MOODYS ISSUES ITS CREDIT RATINGS AND
PUBLISHES MOODYS PUBLICATIONS WITH THE EXPECTATION AND UNDERSTANDING THAT EACH INVESTOR WILL, WITH DUE CARE, MAKE ITS OWN STUDY AND
EVALUATION OF EACH SECURITY THAT IS UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR PURCHASE, HOLDING, OR SALE.
MOODYS CREDIT RATINGS AND MOODYS PUBLICATIONS ARE NOT INTENDED FOR USE BY RETAIL INVESTORS AND IT WOULD BE RECKLESS FOR RETAIL INVESTORS TO CONSIDER
MOODYS CREDIT RATINGS OR MOODYS PUBLICATIONS IN MAKING ANY INVESTMENT DECISION. IF IN DOUBT YOU SHOULD CONTACT YOUR FINANCIAL OR OTHER
PROFESSIONAL ADVISER.
ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS PROTECTED BY LAW, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, COPYRIGHT LAW, AND NONE OF SUCH INFORMATION MAY BE COPIED OR
OTHERWISE REPRODUCED, REPACKAGED, FURTHER TRANSMITTED, TRANSFERRED, DISSEMINATED, REDISTRIBUTED OR RESOLD, OR STORED FOR SUBSEQUENT USE FOR ANY SUCH
PURPOSE, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IN ANY FORM OR MANNER OR BY ANY MEANS WHATSOEVER, BY ANY PERSON WITHOUT MOODYS PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT.
All information contained herein is obtained by MOODYS from sources believed by it to be accurate and reliable. Because of the possibility of human or mechanical error as well as other
factors, however, all information contained herein is provided AS IS without warranty of any kind. MOODY'S adopts all necessary measures so that the information it uses in assigning a credit
rating is of sufficient quality and from sources MOODY'S considers to be reliable including, when appropriate, independent third-party sources. However, MOODYS is not an auditor and cannot
in every instance independently verify or validate information received in the rating process or in preparing the Moodys Publications.
To the extent permitted by law, MOODYS and its directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives, licensors and suppliers disclaim liability to any person or entity for any indirect, special,
consequential, or incidental losses or damages whatsoever arising from or in connection with the information contained herein or the use of or inability to use any such information, even if
MOODYS or any of its directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives, licensors or suppliers is advised in advance of the possibility of such losses or damages, including but not limited
to: (a) any loss of present or prospective profits or (b) any loss or damage arising where the relevant financial instrument is not the subject of a particular credit rating assigned by MOODYS.
To the extent permitted by law, MOODYS and its directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives, licensors and suppliers disclaim liability for any direct or compensatory losses or
damages caused to any person or entity, including but not limited to by any negligence (but excluding fraud, willful misconduct or any other type of liability that, for the avoidance of doubt, by
law cannot be excluded) on the part of, or any contingency within or beyond the control of, MOODYS or any of its directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives, licensors or suppliers,
arising from or in connection with the information contained herein or the use of or inability to use any such information.
NO WARRANTY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, AS TO THE ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE OF ANY SUCH RATING OR
OTHER OPINION OR INFORMATION IS GIVEN OR MADE BY MOODYS IN ANY FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER.
MIS, a wholly-owned credit rating agency subsidiary of Moodys Corporation (MCO), hereby discloses that most issuers of debt securities (including corporate and municipal bonds,
debentures, notes and commercial paper) and preferred stock rated by MIS have, prior to assignment of any rating, agreed to pay to MIS for appraisal and rating services rendered by it fees
ranging from $1,500 to approximately $2,500,000. MCO and MIS also maintain policies and procedures to address the independence of MISs ratings and rating processes. Information
regarding certain affiliations that may exist between directors of MCO and rated entities, and between entities who hold ratings from MIS and have also publicly reported to the SEC an
ownership interest in MCO of more than 5%, is posted annually at www.moodys.com under the heading Shareholder Relations Corporate Governance Director and Shareholder
Affiliation Policy.
For Australia only: Any publication into Australia of this document is pursuant to the Australian Financial Services License of MOODYS affiliate, Moodys Investors Service Pty Limited ABN 61
003 399 657AFSL 336969 and/or Moodys Analytics Australia Pty Ltd ABN 94 105 136 972 AFSL 383569 (as applicable). This document is intended to be provided only to wholesale clients
within the meaning of section 761G of the Corporations Act 2001. By continuing to access this document from within Australia, you represent to MOODYS that you are, or are accessing the
document as a representative of, a wholesale client and that neither you nor the entity you represent will directly or indirectly disseminate this document or its contents to retail clients
within the meaning of section 761G of the Corporations Act 2001. MOODYS credit rating is an opinion as to the creditworthiness of a debt obligation of the issuer, not on the equity securities
of the issuer or any form of security that is available to retail clients. It would be dangerous for retail clients to make any investment decision based on MOODYS credit rating. If in doubt you
should contact your financial or other professional adviser.