ACA marketplace premiums in Missouri and Kansas could see another double-digit bump in price 17%

By Suzanne King42%

8/8/2026, 2:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 18 faulty reasoning types, including Post Hoc (False Cause), Indoctrination, and Representativeness Heuristic, with Hasty Generalization as the most egregious example at 9.7% saturation with 95 hits. Analysis detected 650 faulty-reasoning hits from 983 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 25.3% and a BS Rank of 17% (25,458 of 30,584 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 83.20% of the article peer group.

Every carrier selling health insurance in the two states through the Affordable Care Act marketplace hopes to raise premiums in 2027, according to preliminary rate filings with state insurance regulators. 
They blame rising healthcare costs. 
Kansas Citians who buy health insurance through healthcare.gov can expect to pay much more for monthly premiums next year. 
According to preliminary rate filings submitted to state insurance regulators in Missouri and Kansas, every insurance company selling individual plans in the region through the Affordable Care Act marketplace wants to raise prices in 2027. 
Across both states, average premium increase requests range from 10% to 35% more than 2026 rates. 
And that follows a similar trend last year, when almost every carrier offering plans in the Kansas City area requested an increase. 
The companies argue that health services and medications continue to cost more, while the volume of patient claims is rising. 
Both factors increase the insurance companies’ costs and eat away at profits, justifying a price hike, they said. 
Nationally, a Peterson-KFF analysis found, individual marketplace insurers are requesting a median premium increase next year of 15%. 
Last year, the same analysis found the median national increase request was 18%, and it climbed to 20% once rates were finalized. 
The combined two-year upswing is significant for people who rely on the government marketplace for health insurance. 
The KFF analysis notes that if regulators grant the 2027 premium requests, typical premiums on the marketplace will have jumped by more than one- third in two years. 
Lacey Kennett of Alliance for a Healthy Kansas, a nonprofit that advocates for affordable healthcare, said the premium increases represent one on a long list of healthcare expenses people are having trouble affording. 
At an Aug. 2 event put on by One Nation Overcharged, a national coalition working to raise awareness about health costs, Kennett said she heard from people who are putting off routine doctors’ visits and skipping medications in order to save money. 
“Putting off care, waiting until it becomes more like an emergency,  then, of course, it’s even more expensive,” Kennett said. 
“Our goal is to make so much noise about the rising cost of healthcare that policymakers can’t ignore it anymore.” 
Missouri and Kansas regulators are reviewing the ACA rate request filings to determine if the increases are justified and to ensure the plans comply with state and federal law. 
States must publish insurance carriers’ premium increase requests along with justifications for them and give the public a chance to submit comments in response. 
In Kansas, people can submit comments with the insurance department. 
And in Missouri, people can go to the insurance department’s website to find more information about how to submit feedback. 
The deadline for public comments in Missouri is Aug. 
31. 
Final rates are expected by Oct. 
31. 
While fewer than one in 10 people buy insurance through the marketplace, according to the KFF report, the rate requests provide a window into how the industry is navigating the market, which could be a clue about how they may approach next year’s rates in other insurance sectors. 
Last fall, many private employers struggled to afford the growing health insurance costs they were facing for 2026. 
And the situation is likely to be similar when it comes time to renew policies. 
Missouri and Kansas’ small group markets, which sell insurance to businesses with between two and 50 employees, also project premium increases in 2027 of between 9% and 19%, according to state filings. 
The largest premium increase request came from UnitedHealthcare in Kansas’ individual marketplace. 
The company, which reported profits of $12.8 billion last year, has asked the state for rates to jump between 29.68% and 36.48%. 
In its filing with the state justifying the premium increase request, the company pointed to rising costs in U.S. healthcare spending. 
UnitedHealthcare said that in 2025 its “loss ratio,” the percentage of total premiums that go toward paying medical claims, was 95.85% on its Kansas individual plans. 
That is well over the loss ratio of 80%-85% required under the Affordable Care Act. 
UnitedHealthcare’s Kansas filing listed specific healthcare trends driving up costs, including: 
Increases in reimbursement rates the insurance company pays doctors, hospitals and drug companies. 
A rise in claims due to patients going to the doctor more and receiving more expensive health services  surgery, for example, “versus simply monitoring or providing medications.” 
“Deductible leveraging,” which the company said happens when healthcare costs rise but deductibles and copayments remain the same, forcing premiums to cover more. 
New medical technology, which the company said can lead to more expensive services and increased healthcare spending. 
In addition, the company pointed to the growing trend of healthier patients dropping out of the marketplace, leaving a more expensive patient pool behind, something other insurance carriers also called out as a reason for increasing 2027 premiums. 
People dropping ACA coverage has become increasingly common since the end of last year, when federal lawmakers allowed enhanced premium tax credits, which subsidized ACA plans for a larger portion of the population, to expire. 
By February, Missouri had already seen a 25% decline in ACA enrollment, to 260,999 from 347,424 a year earlier. 
In Kansas, enrollment had dropped about 20% to 143,880 from 179,920 a year earlier. 
Without the federal subsidies, many experts expect the departure of healthy people from the marketplace to continue, a trend insurers are anticipating as a reason to increase premiums for remaining policy holders. 
On the Missouri side, the Oscar Insurance Co. also listed healthier patients leaving the market as one justification for its 15.9% increase in rates next year. 
“Changes to the overall premium level are needed because of anticipated changes in the overall health of the marketplace,” the company wrote. 
This story was originally published by The Beacon, a fellow member of the KC Media Collective. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 1.8%Suzanne King: 1.7%Columbia Missourian: 1.6%Confirmation Bias1.8%This article: 3.9%Suzanne King: 0.6%Columbia Missourian: 0.8%Anchoring Bias3.9%This article: 1.2%Suzanne King: 2.4%Columbia Missourian: 2.5%Availability Heuristic1.2%This article: 4.9%Suzanne King: 0.6%Columbia Missourian: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic4.9%This article: 0.0%Suzanne King: 0.3%Columbia Missourian: 0.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Suzanne King: 0.6%Columbia Missourian: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Suzanne King: 3.8%Columbia Missourian: 5.1%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 2.8%Suzanne King: 1.4%Columbia Missourian: 1.0%Loss Aversion2.8%This article: 0.0%Suzanne King: 0.5%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Suzanne King: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Suzanne King: 1.7%Columbia Missourian: 4.3%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 4.8%Suzanne King: 3.0%Columbia Missourian: 1.5%Pessimism Bias4.8%This article: 3.3%Suzanne King: 6.5%Columbia Missourian: 5.0%Negativity Bias3.3%This article: 0.0%Suzanne King: 0.9%Columbia Missourian: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 4.4%Suzanne King: 0.7%Columbia Missourian: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error4.4%This article: 0.0%Suzanne King: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Suzanne King: 0.5%Columbia Missourian: 1.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Suzanne King: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Suzanne King: 0.2%Columbia Missourian: 2.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Suzanne King: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Suzanne King: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.2%Suzanne King: 0.7%Columbia Missourian: 0.8%Recency Bias2.2%This article: 0.0%Suzanne King: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Suzanne King: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Suzanne King: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Suzanne King: 0.5%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 1.8%Suzanne King: 2.1%Columbia Missourian: 2.7%Appeal to Authority1.8%This article: 0.0%Suzanne King: 0.5%Columbia Missourian: 1.0%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Suzanne King: 2.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Suzanne King: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 9.7%Suzanne King: 3.7%Columbia Missourian: 3.5%Hasty Generalization9.7%This article: 0.0%Suzanne King: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Suzanne King: 0.3%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 2.1%Suzanne King: 3.8%Columbia Missourian: 5.0%Appeal to Emotion2.1%This article: 2.2%Suzanne King: 0.3%Columbia Missourian: 0.6%Begging the Question2.2%This article: 9.3%Suzanne King: 3.0%Columbia Missourian: 1.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)9.3%This article: 0.0%Suzanne King: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Suzanne King: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Suzanne King: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Suzanne King: 0.5%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 2.1%Suzanne King: 3.5%Columbia Missourian: 2.5%Anecdotal2.1%This article: 0.0%Suzanne King: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Suzanne King: 0.9%Columbia Missourian: 1.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Suzanne King: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Suzanne King: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Suzanne King: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Suzanne King: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Suzanne King: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.1%Suzanne King: 0.4%Columbia Missourian: 0.8%Unattributed Quote2.1%This article: 0.0%Suzanne King: 0.3%Columbia Missourian: 0.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 2.0%Suzanne King: 1.1%Columbia Missourian: 2.7%Biased Writer Voice2.0%This article: 5.4%Suzanne King: 1.6%Columbia Missourian: 1.3%Indoctrination5.4%This article: 0.0%Suzanne King: 0.5%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Suzanne King: 0.4%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Suzanne King: 0.3%Columbia Missourian: 1.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

983 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers25%attributed speech736writer words
100%flagged-word coverage
74 attributed words30% of attributed speech44% writer coverage
0%37.5%75.0%Indoctrination+71.6 ptsWriter: 0.0%Lacey Kennett of Alliance for a Healthy Kansas: 71.6%71.6%Unattributed Quote+28.4 ptsWriter: 0.0%Lacey Kennett of Alliance for a Healthy Kansas: 28.4%28.4%Biased Writer Voice+27.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Lacey Kennett of Alliance for a Healthy Kansas: 27.0%27.0%

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.