|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Proposed double-digit health care premium increases could be even larger if a current federal tax credit expires, according to a statement released by the Green Mountain Care Board, the State of Vermont’s health insurance regulator.
On Monday, May 12, the Green Mountain Care Board (GMCB) received proposed 2026 health insurance premium rates from BlueCross BlueShield of Vermont and MVP Health Plan for both the individual and small group markets. The proposed rate filings have been posted to GMCB’s official rate review website at ratereview.vermont.gov, marking the start of a months-long public review process.
The average rate increases requested by the insurers are substantial, particularly for individuals. BlueCross BlueShield of Vermont is seeking a 23.3% increase for individual plans and a 13.7% increase for small group plans. MVP Health Plan has proposed smaller, yet significant, hikes of 6.2% for individual coverage and 7.5% for small group plans.
The filings come amid growing concern over the potential expiration of federal enhanced premium tax credits, which are currently helping to offset the cost of individual health plans. These enhanced tax credits are set to expire on December 31, 2025, unless Congress acts to extend them. Both insurers cited the anticipated loss of these credits as a contributing factor in their rate proposals, warning that the lapse could lead to even higher net costs for Vermonters.
“This marks the beginning of a rigorous public review process,” GMCB said in a statement. The board will hear from actuaries, the insurers, the Health Care Advocate, the Department of Financial Regulation, and members of the public before making final decisions, which are expected in August.
GMCB has scheduled public hearings to review the filings:
BlueCross BlueShield of Vermont: Monday, July 21 at 8:00 a.m.
MVP Health Plan: Wednesday, July 23 at 8:00 a.m.
A Public Comment Forum is also scheduled for Thursday, July 24 at 4:00 p.m., offering Vermonters an opportunity to voice their opinions and concerns directly to the board.
Public comments will be accepted through July 28, 2025, and GMCB encourages community participation. Details on how to attend or submit comments, along with meeting materials and updates, will be made available on the GMCB website.
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Health Care, Press Release
Wasn’t the purpose to level the field so individuals didn’t get screwed? Seems like things haven’t changed. This whole system was supposed to be cheaper for Vermonters, just like our schools.
Huh we have th highest school bill and now medical, you mean monopolies don’t work for the people? How is socialism working for us now?
Binge drinking, alcohol disorder, illicit drug use are all at least 10 percent higher in Vermont than most states. Rates reflect that. 60 percent of Vermonters drink alcohol. When people abuse, they get sick and need medical care. Most states are having 3-6 percent increases in blue cross.
Vermont is substance crazy. Gotta have their highs. So everyone pays.
Source AI: “Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Vermont (BCBS Vermont) is a subsidiary of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (BCBSM) following an affiliation agreement, not a full acquisition. The agreement allows BCBS Vermont to retain its local governance, decision-making, and leadership team while benefiting from BCBSM’s resources. This means BCBSM’s headquarters, board of directors, and leadership team in Michigan remain unchanged, and BCBS Vermont’s local identity, benefits, coverage decisions, and provider network are managed locally. ”
Is BC/BS Vermont hemorraging so badly that Michigan can’t manage the difference because they are failing as well? Here’s a hint: “Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan reported a hefty $1.03 billion loss in 2024 as rising costs in the sector batter the health insurer’s bottom line in “unsustainable” market conditions. ” (Crains Detroit Business March 3, 2025)
Two States with big differences in size and participation numbers – something besides their books not adding up here. How is that interstate agreements are considered local – when in fact, they are not? Three card monte making big bank for the top-tier and very little left to serve the actual purpose. No honor among thieves.