STAT42%

Obamacare rolls shrank dramatically in many states over the past year, new federal data shows 19%

By Associated Press60%

7/6/2026, 7:58:23 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 26 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Appeal to Authority, and Recency Bias, with Post Hoc (False Cause) as the most egregious example at 29.8% saturation with 227 hits. Analysis detected 1,718 faulty-reasoning hits from 761 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 33.5% and a BS Rank of 19% (17,367 of 21,203 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 81.90% of the article peer group.

NEW YORK  States across the country saw steep drops in the number of people covered by the Affordable Care Act over the past year, with Ohio and Oklahoma each losing nearly one-third of enrollees, according to new federal data that provides the first complete 50-state breakdown of sharp enrollment declines following the January expiration of enhanced subsidies. 
The data, posted in late June by the Trump administration and first reported on by The Associated Press, reveals how changes in each state’s insured population led to around 2.6 million fewer Americans having Obamacare plans in February compared with the same time last year. 
It captures not only how many people signed up for or were automatically reenrolled in plans in 2026, but how many paid their first monthly premiums to keep coverage, according to Cynthia Cox, a vice president and director of the ACA program at the health care research nonprofit KFF, who reviewed the dataset. 
She said it accounts for people who were retroactively removed from coverage after a nonpayment grace period ended. 
“This is the first time we’ve seen state-level data that shows how much ACA marketplace enrollment truly fell,” Cox said. 
“It’s in line with our expectations, but it does show a very steep drop in the number of people with ACA coverage.” 
Health care affordability is a central issue to voters 
Health insurance costs have been rising across ACA and other health insurance programs at a time when voters in the approaching November elections say affordability is among their top concerns. 
In a report released last week, the U.S. 
Department of Health and Human Services suggested the significant drop in enrollment this year could be attributed to a federal crackdown on fraudulent or “phantom” enrollment. 
But analysts have said it was more likely related to the Jan. 1 expiration of federal subsidies, and other changes, including tightened requirements on which immigrants could access subsidized plans. 
Ohio, Oklahoma and Arizona saw the most significant drop-offs 
An AP analysis of the data finds that Ohio and Oklahoma each saw a more than 32% decline in ACA enrollment over the past year. 
They lost larger shares of their covered populations than any other state. 
Following closely behind, and losing more than a fourth of their enrollees, were Arizona, South Carolina, Minnesota, Indiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Louisiana and Missouri. 
Florida, a state that relies highly on ACA insurance in part because it did not expand Medicaid and is home to many gig workers and entrepreneurs, still has more residents in the marketplace than any other state, at nearly 4 million. 
But it also saw the highest number of enrollees drop coverage this year  around 443,000. 
The data doesn’t show whether people who dropped ACA health insurance this year found coverage elsewhere, and chances are some of them became insured through employer plans or other options. 
But Cox said most people who left the marketplace are likely going without insurance, because it is typically a “place of last resort” to get health coverage for people who aren’t eligible elsewhere. 
Some of the states that saw the largest enrollment declines were the same ones that saw the biggest enrollment gains after the federal government introduced enhanced subsidies during the COVID-19 pandemic. 
Cox said that isn’t surprising, because those states likely had large numbers of people who enrolled only because the enhanced subsidies made coverage much more affordable. 
Only one state saw an increase in its covered population. 
New Mexico gained some 14% more enrollees in the government health insurance program compared with the same time last year. 
It was the only state in the nation that fully replaced the lost federal subsidies using its own funds. 
Federal marketplace states saw biggest enrollment losses 
About three in five states use the federal marketplace Healthcare.gov, while the rest operate their own state-based marketplaces for ACA insurance. 
The new data shows that federal marketplace states overall lost larger shares of enrollees than states with state-based exchanges. 
One reason for that could be that many states with their own marketplaces took steps to offset costs for their residents when the enhanced subsidies expired in January. 
New Mexico, which saw double-digit enrollment gains, is the most extreme example of that. 
In a special legislative session last fall, lawmakers in the state approved a plan to use state funds to make up for the missing subsidies through mid-2026. 
In March, the state’s governor signed a bill to continue making up the difference through mid-2027. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 8.8%Associated Press: 2.2%STAT: 3.2%Confirmation Bias8.8%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.8%STAT: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 3.0%Associated Press: 3.1%STAT: 3.8%Availability Heuristic3.0%This article: 3.4%Associated Press: 0.8%STAT: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic3.4%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.6%STAT: 0.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 10.9%Associated Press: 1.1%STAT: 1.3%Overconfidence Bias10.9%This article: 4.1%Associated Press: 7.2%STAT: 8.2%Framing Effect4.1%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.4%STAT: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 5.4%Associated Press: 0.5%STAT: 0.9%Status Quo Bias5.4%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%STAT: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 3.9%Associated Press: 2.1%STAT: 3.4%Optimism Bias3.9%This article: 8.3%Associated Press: 1.5%STAT: 1.5%Pessimism Bias8.3%This article: 29.4%Associated Press: 8.8%STAT: 8.3%Negativity Bias29.4%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 2.0%STAT: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.8%STAT: 0.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%STAT: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 1.1%STAT: 0.4%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.4%STAT: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 2.5%Associated Press: 2.4%STAT: 1.4%Halo Effect2.5%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%STAT: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%STAT: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 18.9%Associated Press: 1.4%STAT: 1.5%Recency Bias18.9%This article: 5.9%Associated Press: 0.3%STAT: 0.4%Primacy Effect5.9%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%STAT: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.8%STAT: 0.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%STAT: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 22.9%Associated Press: 3.4%STAT: 4.7%Appeal to Authority22.9%This article: 3.9%Associated Press: 0.8%STAT: 1.5%False Dilemma3.9%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.6%STAT: 1.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 4.3%Associated Press: 0.0%STAT: 0.1%Circular Reasoning4.3%This article: 12.7%Associated Press: 2.7%STAT: 4.6%Hasty Generalization12.7%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%STAT: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.4%STAT: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 4.3%Associated Press: 4.7%STAT: 3.6%Appeal to Emotion4.3%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.6%STAT: 0.9%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 29.8%Associated Press: 2.3%STAT: 2.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)29.8%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%STAT: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.4%STAT: 0.7%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%STAT: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 2.5%Associated Press: 0.1%STAT: 0.3%Composition/Division2.5%This article: 3.9%Associated Press: 1.8%STAT: 3.4%Anecdotal3.9%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%STAT: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 7.2%Associated Press: 1.2%STAT: 2.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)7.2%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%STAT: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%STAT: 0.3%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%STAT: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%STAT: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%STAT: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 7.0%Associated Press: 1.3%STAT: 1.5%Unattributed Quote7.0%This article: 2.6%Associated Press: 1.2%STAT: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection2.6%This article: 12.5%Associated Press: 3.0%STAT: 5.9%Biased Writer Voice12.5%This article: 3.4%Associated Press: 0.7%STAT: 2.1%Indoctrination3.4%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.8%STAT: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 3.9%Associated Press: 0.2%STAT: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias3.9%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.5%STAT: 3.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

761 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers29%attributed speech538writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 58 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 45 words • 0.0% coverageCynthia Cox • 53 words • 0.0% coverageCynthia Cox • 18 words • 0.0% coverageCynthia Cox • 20 words • 100.0% coverageCynthia Cox • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageU.S. Department of Health and Human Services • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageAssociated Press • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageCynthia Cox • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageCynthia Cox • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Cynthia Cox

100%flagged-word coverage
172 attributed words77% of attributed speech83% writer coverage
0%17.5%35.0%Unattributed Quote+30.8 ptsWriter: 0.0%Cynthia Cox: 30.8%30.8%Biased Writer Voice-0.8 ptsWriter: 13.6%Cynthia Cox: 12.8%12.8%Quote-first Misdirection+11.6 ptsWriter: 0.0%Cynthia Cox: 11.6%11.6%Politically Right Leaning -5.6 ptsWriter: 5.6%Cynthia Cox: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.