Thanks for the datapoints, yes, “noisy” is the best description, my datapoints are a little different, my corner bodega/market … the owner an Ecuadorian, apologies for yet another 25 cent increase in the price of a cup of coffee… the owner, “Everything is more expensive for me,” the customers, mostly white guys on the way to work, snarling, directed at T …
That quarter may symbolize the beginning of the end of MAGA & company
Is there such a thing as retro economics where you remove these effects from the past and see where we would have been if they never happened? Okay, it's not exactly a time machine, just wishful thinking and maybe a good campaign ad.
Not only is there but my pal and former CEA chief econ have a short paper on this "counterfactual" coming out very soon, prob next week! I'll feature it here.
Always thinking of the healthcare part of the cost of living myself, as well as the ways that our hyper-byzantine healthcare system makes life difficult for people from its administrative complexity, let me add info to the issues over which the end-of-last-year closure was over: extension of the ACA expanded subsidies, and the OBBB problems for Medicare. (Both of which the shutdown did not succeed at changing.)
1) The statistics out in wonk-world so far, based on data through the end of open enrollment for 2026, show only about a 4.9% decline in the number (so far), from 24 million people, with ACA on-exchange coverage.
However, if you focus on the group that is most hard hit: people over the returned 400% of Federal Poverty Level (FPL) "subsidy cliff", where you have a large proportion of humongo premium jumps -- like in Wyoming, a couple aged 62 with an income of $88,000 a year has had their annual premium jump from about $6,000 a year in 2025 to about $40,000 a year in 2026, in 2026 but not 2025 this is for the cheapest plan with a $20,000 out-of-pocket max--you get a bleaker picture.
a)Using recently released datasets from CMS, I have come up with about a 38% drop so far in coverage for the just-over-the-returned-cliff 400% to 500% of FPL, with it being even higher in especially-high-premium states, like Wyoming and West Virginia, where you get 70% and 60% enrollment drops, respectively.
b)There is also evidence, from an unexpected 7% increase in enrolled people reporting, on the exchanges, being in the 300% to 400% of FPL group, that lots of people mis-stated their estimated 2026 income a little low to be in that under-the-cliff group, to try and save up to tens of thousands of dollars in premium. (Little do they know, the official rules that if they they are over the cliff when they file their 2026 tax returns in early 2027, they will have to repay the whole "savings"!)
2) Charles Gaba, using the same recently-released data as me, and KFF, using separate survey data, indicate that well over 10% of people (KFF has 28%) kept coverage, but downgraded the level of their plan, say from gold to bronze, in order to lower their net premium from the decreased subsidy. This, of course, means that the lower-metal-plans will give them higher deductibles and out of pocket maximums, which will be an affordability problem for some of them, to show up later this year, if significant medical bills roll in.
Charles has a few posts on that downswitching. the latest of which is here:
3) Then we have the OBBB changes, which are mostly to Medicaid and ACA expanded Medicaid. These were timed to start after the midterms, though I think some of the problems it gives people will start at least as early as the start of open enrollment Nov 1.
51 State+DC Medicaid agencies, many under-resourced and not as technically adept as we might like, will have to try and institute checks for people being working, and increase the frequency of checks of eligibility for expanded Medicaid to at least twice a year (from once a year).
No way we're not going to have many botching the job, and causing both frustration, and people being not covered who are supposed to be covered!
I also realized yesterday that the twice-a-year expanded Medicaid checks will force states to thrash some people off of expanded Medicaid onto an on-exchange plan (or the reverse) at least twice a year--thus many times midyear. With a complete change in provider network each time!
though that message about the more frequent thrashing has been stated adequately in this comment. The thrashing up and down mid-year on the ACA has happened to me a few times already (before I aged into Medicare-for-me), based on my state government not managing its systems in as smart of a way as we might like, but now all states will be forced to do this mid-year, or even more frequent, thrashing.)
The other piece of data news today. I’d just say everybody’s worried.
U.S. consumer sentiment fell to a record low in the University of Michigan survey of consumer sentiment released today.
The preliminary April sentiment index slumped to 47.6 from 53.3 in March. The survey period includes responses from March 24 to April 7. That was below all but one estimate in a Bloomberg survey of economists.
Consumers expect prices to rise at an annual rate of 4.8% over the next year, jumping a percentage point from March in the biggest advance since President Donald Trump announced sweeping tariffs a year ago.
Consumers see inflation rising at an annual rate of 3.4% over the next five to 10 years, up slightly from a month earlier.
The current conditions index slid to a record-low of 50.1 in April, while the expectations index declined to the weakest since 1980. Consumers’ perceptions of their current financial situation matched the worst since 2009. The outlook for business conditions over the next year fell to the lowest since mid-2022.
“Comments show that many consumers blame the Iran conflict for unfavorable changes to the economy,” Joanne Hsu, director of the survey, said in a statement. “Economic expectations will likely improve after consumers gain confidence that the supply disruptions stemming from the Iran conflict have ended and gas prices have moderated.”
Just when we were getting used to the inflationary spike from crazy tariffs, we get this bigger spike from the misadventure in the Persian Gulf. For what? Who knows? Was it because a senile president was roped in by Netanyahu? Was it because Melania was about to blow the whistle on still unknown associations with a pedophile? Your guess is as good as anybody's.
Thanks for the datapoints, yes, “noisy” is the best description, my datapoints are a little different, my corner bodega/market … the owner an Ecuadorian, apologies for yet another 25 cent increase in the price of a cup of coffee… the owner, “Everything is more expensive for me,” the customers, mostly white guys on the way to work, snarling, directed at T …
That quarter may symbolize the beginning of the end of MAGA & company
I'm never sure about that kind of political thing, but I hope you are right!
Is there such a thing as retro economics where you remove these effects from the past and see where we would have been if they never happened? Okay, it's not exactly a time machine, just wishful thinking and maybe a good campaign ad.
Not only is there but my pal and former CEA chief econ have a short paper on this "counterfactual" coming out very soon, prob next week! I'll feature it here.
Always thinking of the healthcare part of the cost of living myself, as well as the ways that our hyper-byzantine healthcare system makes life difficult for people from its administrative complexity, let me add info to the issues over which the end-of-last-year closure was over: extension of the ACA expanded subsidies, and the OBBB problems for Medicare. (Both of which the shutdown did not succeed at changing.)
1) The statistics out in wonk-world so far, based on data through the end of open enrollment for 2026, show only about a 4.9% decline in the number (so far), from 24 million people, with ACA on-exchange coverage.
However, if you focus on the group that is most hard hit: people over the returned 400% of Federal Poverty Level (FPL) "subsidy cliff", where you have a large proportion of humongo premium jumps -- like in Wyoming, a couple aged 62 with an income of $88,000 a year has had their annual premium jump from about $6,000 a year in 2025 to about $40,000 a year in 2026, in 2026 but not 2025 this is for the cheapest plan with a $20,000 out-of-pocket max--you get a bleaker picture.
a)Using recently released datasets from CMS, I have come up with about a 38% drop so far in coverage for the just-over-the-returned-cliff 400% to 500% of FPL, with it being even higher in especially-high-premium states, like Wyoming and West Virginia, where you get 70% and 60% enrollment drops, respectively.
b)There is also evidence, from an unexpected 7% increase in enrolled people reporting, on the exchanges, being in the 300% to 400% of FPL group, that lots of people mis-stated their estimated 2026 income a little low to be in that under-the-cliff group, to try and save up to tens of thousands of dollars in premium. (Little do they know, the official rules that if they they are over the cliff when they file their 2026 tax returns in early 2027, they will have to repay the whole "savings"!)
If interested, that stuff is here:
https://normspier828307.substack.com/p/aca-2026-enrollment-after-expanded
2) Charles Gaba, using the same recently-released data as me, and KFF, using separate survey data, indicate that well over 10% of people (KFF has 28%) kept coverage, but downgraded the level of their plan, say from gold to bronze, in order to lower their net premium from the decreased subsidy. This, of course, means that the lower-metal-plans will give them higher deductibles and out of pocket maximums, which will be an affordability problem for some of them, to show up later this year, if significant medical bills roll in.
Charles has a few posts on that downswitching. the latest of which is here:
https://charlesgaba.substack.com/p/final-2026-open-enrollment-report-d4f?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
3) Then we have the OBBB changes, which are mostly to Medicaid and ACA expanded Medicaid. These were timed to start after the midterms, though I think some of the problems it gives people will start at least as early as the start of open enrollment Nov 1.
51 State+DC Medicaid agencies, many under-resourced and not as technically adept as we might like, will have to try and institute checks for people being working, and increase the frequency of checks of eligibility for expanded Medicaid to at least twice a year (from once a year).
No way we're not going to have many botching the job, and causing both frustration, and people being not covered who are supposed to be covered!
I also realized yesterday that the twice-a-year expanded Medicaid checks will force states to thrash some people off of expanded Medicaid onto an on-exchange plan (or the reverse) at least twice a year--thus many times midyear. With a complete change in provider network each time!
(I have some references on that here: https://normspier828307.substack.com/p/one-of-many-problems-coming-from ,
though that message about the more frequent thrashing has been stated adequately in this comment. The thrashing up and down mid-year on the ACA has happened to me a few times already (before I aged into Medicare-for-me), based on my state government not managing its systems in as smart of a way as we might like, but now all states will be forced to do this mid-year, or even more frequent, thrashing.)
The other piece of data news today. I’d just say everybody’s worried.
U.S. consumer sentiment fell to a record low in the University of Michigan survey of consumer sentiment released today.
The preliminary April sentiment index slumped to 47.6 from 53.3 in March. The survey period includes responses from March 24 to April 7. That was below all but one estimate in a Bloomberg survey of economists.
Consumers expect prices to rise at an annual rate of 4.8% over the next year, jumping a percentage point from March in the biggest advance since President Donald Trump announced sweeping tariffs a year ago.
Consumers see inflation rising at an annual rate of 3.4% over the next five to 10 years, up slightly from a month earlier.
The current conditions index slid to a record-low of 50.1 in April, while the expectations index declined to the weakest since 1980. Consumers’ perceptions of their current financial situation matched the worst since 2009. The outlook for business conditions over the next year fell to the lowest since mid-2022.
“Comments show that many consumers blame the Iran conflict for unfavorable changes to the economy,” Joanne Hsu, director of the survey, said in a statement. “Economic expectations will likely improve after consumers gain confidence that the supply disruptions stemming from the Iran conflict have ended and gas prices have moderated.”
Just when we were getting used to the inflationary spike from crazy tariffs, we get this bigger spike from the misadventure in the Persian Gulf. For what? Who knows? Was it because a senile president was roped in by Netanyahu? Was it because Melania was about to blow the whistle on still unknown associations with a pedophile? Your guess is as good as anybody's.