ShareThis Page
Enrollment count in federal health care law padded, House panel says |

Enrollment count in federal health care law padded, House panel says

FILE - In this Feb. 8, 2011 file photo, Jonathan Gruber poses in his home in Lexington, Mass. Newly surfaced videos have revived the push by congressional conservatives to repeal President Barack Obama?s health care law, about to begin its second year of coverage for millions of Americans. The videos show an MIT economist who was an adviser in the law's drafting saying ?the stupidity of the American voter? helped Democrats pass the complex legislation, among other incendiary claims. Republicans, both lawmakers and activists, quickly mobilized to seize the off-handed comments, while Democrats dismissed economist Jonathan Gruber as an outsider who over-stepped in his remarks. (AP Photo/Charles Krupa, File)
AFP/Getty Images
TOPSHOTS China's President Xi Jinping (C) receives a hongi, a traditional Maroi greeting, from a Maori Warrior during a welcoming ceremony at Government House in Wellington on November 20, 2014. Xi is on a two day state visit to New Zealand for talks with the government and business leaders in Auckland and Wellington. AFP PHOTO / Diego Opatowski / POOLDiego Opatowski/AFP/Getty Images

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration recently inflated Affordable Care Act enrollment statistics by as many as 400,000 people by including stand-alone dental plans in its official count, according to an Oversight House committee investigation.

The administration in September said 7.3 million people at the time were enrolled in health plans through the federal health care law’s insurance marketplaces.

The House investigation, first reported by Bloomberg, found that this number also counted people enrolled in just dental coverage, a change from how previous enrollment figures have been counted that the Obama administration did not disclose. Without counting those dental plans, enrollment in so-called Obamacare would have been 6.97 million.

That 7.3 million figure reported by the Department of Health and Human Services was down from the 8 million people who had signed up through the end of April. HHS has not provided a comprehensive accounting of why enrollment fell — such as how many people did not pay their premiums or whether those enrollees found another source of coverage.

On Thursday, after news of the House investigation broke, the administration said its total was “erroneously counted” in recent announcements.

HHS said it made this mistake twice. The agency overstated its September figures by about 400,000. Then in November, it reported an inaccurate figure again when it said 7.1 million people were enrolled at the time; the actual figure was 6.7 million.

“The mistake we made is unacceptable,” HHS Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell wrote on Twitter on Thursday. “I will be communicating that clearly throughout the ⅛department.”

Despite these corrected figures, HHS said it still aims to have 9.1 million covered in marketplace plans next year, which is about 4 million people fewer than the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office had projected for 2015.

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., chairman of the House Committee on Government Oversight and Reform, accused the Obama administration of trying to obscure the number of people who had dropped out of the ACA insurance marketplaces, or exchanges, during the year.

HHS has been especially stingy about providing enrollment data. Reporters have constantly pushed the department for more up-to-date information, and the answer from HHS is usually the same: The agency can’t provide real-time information because it needs to make sure all the data it’s putting out is clean. Meanwhile, some states running their own insurance marketplaces provide much more regular performance updates — like Massachusetts, which releases one every day.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.