Carriers filing for 2027 ACA coverage face actuarial work they have not done since 2017: pricing a structurally sicker risk pool, not a temporarily disrupted one. Blue Shield of California’s 2026 rate filing, submitted July 30, 2025, documents a 225 basis point gross morbidity increase attributed to enhanced subsidy expiry, offset to a net 150 basis point premium impact after a 75 basis point favorable mix adjustment from reduced Silver cost-sharing reduction plan enrollment (Blue Shield of California, July 2025). Most 2026 filings disclosed a single aggregate premium increase percentage. Blue Shield’s filing showed the structure beneath it, and that structure is the actuarial framework every 2027 bid cycle must rebuild from actual experience.

The 225 Basis Points, Decomposed

The gross morbidity load and the mix offset are distinct phenomena that move in opposite directions from the same root cause. The 225 basis point morbidity increase is what happens to the expected cost distribution of the enrolled pool when healthier enrollees exit: the remaining population costs more per member, not because any individual’s health changed, but because the composition shifted toward higher utilizers. The 75 basis point favorable offset flows from a concurrent change in benefit utilization. When Silver enhanced cost-sharing reduction plan enrollment falls, because the enrollees who chose those plans for their low out-of-pocket costs are the same healthier, price-sensitive members now exiting, the induced utilization embedded in those plans drops with it, producing a cost reduction that partially counteracts the morbidity deterioration.

Decomposing gross morbidity from induced utilization is not cosmetic. An actuary who treats the net 150 basis point figure as a single factor and rolls it forward as a trend adjustment risks miscalibrating both the 2027 projection and the risk adjustment receivable estimate. The two components respond differently to what 2027 brings: morbidity will worsen further as additional enrollment contraction arrives from the OBBBA administrative barriers; the induced utilization offset will not necessarily repeat, because the CSR-eligible population has already contracted and a second round of healthy attrition does not generate another favorable mix credit of the same size.

Pool Segmentation and the Price-Sensitivity Gradient

The first step in the four-step framework is segmenting the enrolled population by income band and health status to identify which cells are most exposed to lapse. KFF’s analysis of 2026 marketplace enrollment shows the income-cohort concentration in concrete terms: consumers with incomes between 400% and 500% of the federal poverty level represented just 3% of 2025 plan sign-ups but accounted for 27% of the decline in sign-ups from 2025 to 2026, with plan selections for this group falling 44%, or roughly 321,000 people (KFF, 2026). Consumers above 500% FPL contributed an additional 21% of the decline. Those above the 400% FPL subsidy cliff together made up 7% of 2025 enrollment but nearly 48% of the plan selection decrease.

The actuarial mechanism is price elasticity by health status. Higher-income enrollees with lower expected utilization face the largest relative net premium increase when enhanced credits expire, because the credits were structured as a percentage-of-income cap and the benefit was proportionally largest for those previously paying near-zero net premiums. Healthier enrollees in this income cohort can tolerate a coverage gap or shift to short-term limited-duration plans without facing material financial risk from a medical event. KFF data confirms the demographic direction: adults 18 to 34 accounted for 542,000 fewer sign-ups in 2026, representing 46% of the total enrollment decline (KFF, 2026).

Step two applies differential lapse rates by health status within each income segment. Within any income band, healthier enrollees are more price-sensitive than sicker ones. The 450% FPL enrollee managing a chronic condition cannot easily forgo coverage; the 450% FPL enrollee with no ongoing health needs can. A carrier that applies a uniform lapse rate across health status within an income segment will understate the residual pool’s morbidity regardless of how accurately it models the income-band exit percentage. The combination of these two steps, income-cohort segmentation followed by within-cohort health status differentiation, is what converts a headcount loss into a defensible morbidity factor.

Risk Adjustment’s Structural Blind Spot

Step three is running the adjusted pool composition through the ACA risk adjustment transfer formula to estimate transfers and, critically, how much of the morbidity load the formula will undercompensate because of calibration lag. This is the step most actuarial commentary on ACA pricing omits, and it is where the 2027 pricing problem becomes technically harder than 2026.

The HHS-HCC risk adjustment formula is calibrated to the prior year’s national risk pool distribution. The coefficients that translate diagnosis codes into risk scores reflect claims experience from a period when the enrollee population included the 4 to 5 million higher-income, lower-morbidity enrollees who subsequently exited. When those enrollees leave, the remaining pool’s actual HCC distribution shifts upward, but the formula’s coefficients remain anchored to the prior calibration. Risk scores across all plans in the market will therefore systematically understate the actual morbidity of the current enrollee population relative to the calibrated baseline. Carriers with above-average remaining-pool morbidity receive transfer payments smaller, in true-cost terms, than they would if the formula reflected the current year’s pool composition. The Milliman analysis of cost-sharing reduction disruption identified this calibration lag as the core mechanism that makes risk adjustment a partial hedge against an acute adverse selection shock rather than a complete one (Milliman, 2018).

For 2027 bids, the practical question is not "what is our risk adjustment receivable?" It is "how much of our true morbidity does the formula systematically undercompensate this year, and in which direction will the 2028 recalibration move?" The formula eventually corrects, but the correction arrives after the rate year closes, meaning the financial impact of the calibration lag runs through actual-versus-expected experience rather than through pricing.

The Residual Load That Risk Adjustment Cannot Reach

Step four is the residual morbidity load: the portion of true cost deterioration that survives risk adjustment and must be recovered through premium. Blue Shield’s 225 basis point figure is this residual. It is not the total morbidity increase in the remaining pool; it is the component the risk adjustment formula will not compensate given the calibration lag. The actuarial work in steps one through three feeds directly into the size of the step-four load, which is why treating the disclosed net figure as a starting assumption rather than a derived output understates the methodology required.

The residual varies by market geography and plan type for a structural reason: risk pool concentration. In markets where one carrier holds 60% to 70% of exchange enrollment, cross-carrier risk adjustment transfers are small because there are few counterparties. The calibration-lag undercompensation falls disproportionately on the dominant carrier. In competitive markets with four or five carriers of comparable size, the formula redistributes across a larger transfer pool and the per-carrier residual is smaller. Blue Shield’s 225 basis point statewide figure blends these market structures across California. A carrier concentrated in rural, single-carrier counties should expect a materially higher residual; a carrier concentrated in competitive urban markets should expect a lower one.

Carrier Exit Redistribution: The 2027-Specific Problem

Aetna’s exit from ACA exchanges at the end of 2025, affecting approximately 1 million enrollees across 17 states, creates a redistribution problem distinct from the subsidy-expiry adverse selection the four-step framework addresses (AJMC, 2025). The standard actuarial assumption for an exiting carrier’s population is that it skews healthier: carriers that price competitively attract price-sensitive, lower-utilization enrollees, and those enrollees, faced with switching, are more likely to exit coverage entirely than to migrate into a remaining carrier’s plan. That assumption is directionally supported by historical data from prior exchange exits.

The 2026 market complicated the assumption in a specific way. The simultaneous expiry of enhanced subsidies compressed the migration decision across all income bands at once, meaning the healthier Aetna migrators who might have paid the 2026 average of $178 per month (up from $113 in 2025, a 58% increase per KFF 2026 data) faced the same affordability threshold as the market’s healthier enrollees generally. The overlap between "Aetna migrator" and "at-risk-of-lapsing healthy enrollee" is higher in 2026 than it would be in a stable-subsidy migration year. For 2027 bids, carriers that received Aetna migration volume in 2026 now have roughly six to eight months of claims experience on those members. Running a retrospective HCC score comparison on the migration cohort, actual utilization against the formula-assigned score, is the primary empirical check on whether the morbidity adjustment for this sub-population should differ from the market average.

The 2027 AV Band Expansion Overlay

CMS’s 2027 Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters final rule adds a structural complication that did not exist in the 2017 to 2019 adverse selection cycle. The rule expands de minimis flexibility for metal tier actuarial value levels and permits bronze and catastrophic plans to exceed the statutory maximum out-of-pocket limit where the ACA’s mathematical requirements create an irreconcilable conflict between the required actuarial value and the cost-sharing structure (CMS, 2026). For actuaries pricing 2027 bids, this means simultaneous uncertainty across three dimensions: enrollment composition, benefit design constraints, and risk adjustment calibration. Each has its own direction and magnitude; they interact in the rating structure in ways that standard trend-based pricing cannot address independently.

The bronze plan shift in 2026 data illustrates the interaction. Bronze plan share rose from 30% of plan selections in 2025 to 40% in 2026, while silver plan share fell from 57% to 43% (KFF, 2026). Bronze migration operates on both sides of the morbidity equation: bronze enrollees have higher deductibles that suppress induced utilization, but they also self-select for health relative to silver enrollees. Average annual deductibles rose from $2,759 to $3,786, a 37% increase of $1,027 per person (KFF, 2026). If the 2027 AV band expansion allows carriers to offer bronze plans at modified actuarial value levels, the enrollment response will shift the plan mix again, altering the risk adjustment pool composition and the Silver CSR enrollment that drives the induced utilization offset in Blue Shield’s filing. An actuary pricing a 2027 bronze or silver plan without modeling the enrollment response to the AV band change is missing a feedback loop the 2027 rule specifically opened.

What 2017 to 2019 Tells 2027 Actuaries

Carriers that built one-year stabilization assumptions into 2018 ACA filings after the CSR defunding consistently found their 2019 and 2020 experience running above the initial morbidity load. The actual stabilization took two to three years, not one, and the moderation that eventually arrived came as much from insurer exits concentrating the remaining pool as from genuine risk pool improvement. Georgetown’s Center on Health Insurance Reforms noted in May 2026 that early 2027 rate signals point to a second consecutive year of double-digit marketplace premium increases across most states, confirming that stabilization has not arrived even two years into the subsidy expiry cycle (CHIR, May 2026).

The structural expiry of enhanced subsidies is a more durable shock than the 2017 CSR defunding, which was a unilateral executive action that courts partially reversed and states partially absorbed through silver loading. There is no near-term legislative pathway to restore the American Rescue Plan premium credits. The administrative enrollment barriers in the OBBBA legislation will further constrain the healthy enrollment that might otherwise stabilize the pool from the demand side. Actuaries building mean-reversion into 2027 morbidity loads are repeating the 2018 error in a structurally harder market, without the silver-loading offset that contained the financial damage in 2018 and 2019.

What This Means for 2027 Rate Filing Actuaries

The four-step framework, pool segmentation by income and health status, differential lapse rates within each segment, risk adjustment calibration lag quantification, and residual load estimation, produces a defensible morbidity factor only if all four steps are run explicitly and documented separately. Carriers that rolled a single gross morbidity percentage from their 2026 filing into 2027 using a trend multiplier are conflating the gross load with the net load and skipping the calibration lag analysis. Their 2027 risk adjustment settlements, which will reflect two years of accumulated calibration-lag undercompensation, will not deliver the offset they expected.

The 2026 first-year experience data is the empirical anchor that should drive 2027 load calibration. Carriers whose 2026 residual load ran higher than experience should reduce the step-four factor; carriers whose experience exceeded the load should increase it. The risk adjustment settlement timing means this feedback often arrives after the 2027 filing deadline for most states, which is precisely why building the full step-three calibration lag analysis into the filing framework, rather than relying on settlement retroactivity, is the actuarially defensible path. Carriers that shortcut this will find the retroactive settlement does not make them whole, in the same way that the 2019 and 2020 CSR settlements did not fully compensate actuaries who priced on a one-year recovery assumption. The methodology is harder than the headline number suggests. That is the point.

Further Reading

Sources