1. Percent Change in Average Nongroup Premium Following Implementation of a State Individual Mandate, 2019 WA
–15.1%
NH: –13.7% ME
–10.7% MT
–11.1% ND
–15.4%
VT: –11.4% OR
–13.4% MN
–9.1% ID
–12.2%
MA: 0.0% SD
–12.5% WI
–9.7% NY
–9.9% WY
–11.4% MI
–12.5%
RI: –14.5% IA
–12.2% PA
–12.8%
CT: –10.2% NV
–15.5% NE
–12.5% IL
–12.3% OH
–13.1%
NJ: 0.0% UT
–12.7% CA
–12.4% IN
–14.9% CO
–15.5%
DE: –11.6% WV
–15.0% KS
–13.1% MO
–11.3% VA
–11.4%
MD: –13.5% KY
–16.7%
DC: –16.0% NC
–11.7% TN
–12.2% AZ
–12.2% OK
–11.0% AR
–13.9% NM
–21.1% SC
–10.7%
State mandate in place
State mandate proposed
No state mandate AL
–13.5% GA
–13.2% MS
–7.5% AK
–4.4% TX
–13.6% LA
–10.7% HI
–8.4% FL
–11.1%
Data: Urban Institute analysis of its Health Insurance Policy Simulation Model (HIPSM) Reform simulated in 2019.
Note: New Jersey and Vermont have both recently passed legislation; Vermont’s legislation requires specification of the penalties during the course of 2019 with implementation in Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maryland, and Washington have all considered or are continuing to consider their own legislation. See Dania Palanker, Rachel Schwab, and Justin Giovannelli, “State Efforts to Pass Individual Mandate Requirements Aim to Stabilize Markets and Protect Consumers,” To the Point (blog), Commonwealth Fund, June 14, 2018. 1