Market Rating Reforms
Market Rating Reforms
State Specific Rating Variations
The Market Rules and Rate Review Final Rule (45 CFR Part 147) provides that each state will have age rating ratios of 3:1 using a federally established age curve, tobacco rating ratios of no more than 1.5:1 and per member rating unless a state requests ratios less than the standard, is a community rating state with uniform family tiers, or allows for averaging of enrollee premiums in the small group market.
The Protecting Affordable Coverage for Employees Act (Pub. L. 114-60) amended the definition of small employer in section 1304(b) of the Affordable Care Act and section 2791(e) of the Public Health Service Act to mean generally an employer with 1-50 employees, with the option for states to expand the definition of small employer to 1-100 employees.
The table below includes only states that have implemented standards other than the federal defaults. If a cell is blank or a state is not listed, the federal default applies. Please scroll down for more specific information on:
Updated December 10, 2021
| Individual Market | Small Group Market | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| State | Age Rating Ratio | State-Established Age Curve | Tobacco Rating Ratio | Uniform Family Tiers | Age Rating Ratio | State-Established Age Curve | Tobacco Rating Ratio | Uniform Family Tiers | Average Enrollee Premiums1 | State-Specific Composite Premium Method2 | State expanded definition of small employer3 |
| Alabama | Yes | Yes | |||||||||
| Alaska | Yes | ||||||||||
| Arizona | Yes | ||||||||||
| Arkansas | 1.2:1 | 1.2:1 | Yes | ||||||||
| California | 1:1 | 1:1 | Yes | ||||||||
| Colorado | 1.15:1 | 1.15:1 | Yes | Yes | |||||||
| Connecticut | 1.5:1 | 1:1 | |||||||||
| Delaware | Yes | ||||||||||
| District of Columbia | Yes | 1:1 | Yes | 1:1 | Yes | ||||||
| Florida | Yes | ||||||||||
| Georgia | Yes | ||||||||||
| Hawaii | Yes | ||||||||||
| Idaho | Yes | ||||||||||
| Illinois | Yes | ||||||||||
| Indiana | Yes | ||||||||||
| Iowa | Yes | ||||||||||
| Kansas | |||||||||||
| Kentucky | 1.4:1 | 1.4:1 | |||||||||
| Louisiana | Yes | ||||||||||
| Maine | Yes | ||||||||||
| Maryland | Yes | ||||||||||
| Massachusetts | 2.1 | Yes | 1:1 | 2.1 | Yes | 1:1 | Yes | ||||
| Michigan | |||||||||||
| Minnesota | Yes | Yes | |||||||||
| Mississippi | Yes | Yes | |||||||||
| Missouri | |||||||||||
| Montana | Yes | ||||||||||
| Nebraska | Yes | ||||||||||
| Nevada | |||||||||||
| New Hampshire | |||||||||||
| New Jersey | 1:1 | 1.824:1* | Yes | 1:1 | |||||||
| New Mexico | |||||||||||
| New York | 1:1 | 1:1 | Yes | 1:1 | 1:1 | Yes | Yes | ||||
| North Carolina | 1.2:1 | ||||||||||
| North Dakota | |||||||||||
| Ohio | |||||||||||
| Oklahoma | |||||||||||
| Oregon | Yes | 3:1** | Yes | 1.5:1** | Yes | Yes | |||||
| Pennsylvania | |||||||||||
| Rhode Island | 1:1 | 1:1 | Yes | ||||||||
| South Carolina | |||||||||||
| South Dakota | Yes | ||||||||||
| Tennessee | Yes | ||||||||||
| Texas | Yes | ||||||||||
| Utah | Yes | Yes | Yes | ||||||||
| Vermont4 | 1:01 | 1:01 | Yes | 1:01 | 1:01 | Yes | Yes | ||||
| Virginia | Yes | ||||||||||
| Washington | |||||||||||
| West Virginia | |||||||||||
| Wisconsin | |||||||||||
| Wyoming |
* Overall 2:1 variation for small groups: NJSA 17B:27A-25.
**Overall 3:1 variation for small groups: ORS 743.737(11).
1 Average Enrollee Premiums: the state requires that all issuers use a composite premium methodology to bill consumers instead of a per-member only billing methodology. Unless the state has a CMS-approved state-specific alternative composite premium methodology, for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2015, issuers in the state must composite using the federal default method of two tiers: one tier for all adults and a second tier for all children under 21.
2 State-Specific Composite Premium Method: the state has received authorization from CMS to require that all issuers use an alternative method to the federal default method using two tiers. In a state that has an approved alternate composite premium method, issuers that offer composite premiums in addition to per-member premiums must use the state-specific method when compositing premiums. If the state requires composite premiums, the state-specific composite premium method is the only billing method allowed. Employers and issuers in states with an approved alternate composite premium method should check with the state department of insurance to assure understanding of the alternate composite method.
3 State has notified CMS that it will expand the definition of small employer from 1-50 employees to 1-100 employees.
4 Vermont’s individual and small group markets were merged, but will become separate markets on January 1, 2022.
State Specific Age Curve Variations
2017 State Specific Age Curve Variations 8-9-2013 (PDF)
2018 State Specific Age Curve Variations 5-31-2017 (PDF)
State Specific Family Tier Ratios
| State | One Adult | Two Adults | One Adult and One or More Children | Two Adults and One or More Children |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| New York | 1 | 2 | 1.7 | 2.85 |
| Vermont | 1 | 2 | 1.93 | 2.81 |
Page Last Modified:
09/06/2023 05:05 PM