Just a slender slice of Minnesotans — roughly 5 percent — buy their health insurance on their own instead of getting it through employers or through government programs such as Medicare.

Nevertheless, it is a colossal problem when the company getting the bulk of the state's so-called "individual market" winds up losing money hand over fist. That's why Blue Cross Blue Shield's recent announcement that it is dramatically paring back individual health plans for 2017 ought to have set off the policy equivalent of a storm siren in the offices of legislative leaders, Gov. Mark Dayton and state Commerce Commissioner Mike Rothman, whose agency's marquee mission is insurance regulation.

The individual market plays a foundational role in the Affordable Care Act's health reforms. By design, this market is where the uninsured go to get coverage. The ACA's new financial assistance to help pay monthly premiums targets consumers who buy health plans this way through new health marketplaces such as MNsure.

And yet Blue Cross Blue Shield is now the second major Minnesota health plan to have beaten a high-profile retreat from this private market niche. PreferredOne, which offered the lowest price for health plans in MNsure's inaugural year, announced in 2014 that it was losing too much money to continue its MNsure business. Medical claims far outstripped premiums paid in.

Blue Cross, the dominant insurer in the individual market, found itself in the same situation with plans sold both on and off MNsure, projecting a loss of about $500 million over the next three years. Though its Blue Plus division will continue to sell individual plans for 2017, Blue Cross has said it will stop selling popular individual plans that offer a broad choice of health providers.

Other insurers will continue to sell individual plans, and likely dozens of plans to choose from (there were 99 on MNsure for 2016). Still, it's alarming when cornering this Minnesota market niche — generally, a winning business strategy — instead can yield heavy losses. Where is the incentive to compete for business? Another question: Narrowing provider networks is a critical way private insurers keep costs down for those in employer plans and individual plans. But if consumers reject this, what else can insurers do?

The state needs to act on — not just talk about — what's wrong with the individual market. It appears there aren't enough people in it to offset the costs of those with costly, ongoing medical needs. Many people in Minnesota's "high-risk" health insurance pool — set up before the ACA's preexisting condition protections — now buy individual health plans. Historically high levels of employer-provided health insurance here have limited the number of people buying individually.

Solutions to consider include merging the individual market with the one serving small employers to increase consumers paying in. Implementing a state-level financial safety net for insurers while this market stabilizes also merits scrutiny. It's worth noting that congressional Republicans led the charge to cripple one federal program intended to aid health insurers during the ACA's rocky inaugural years. A statement from Blue Cross said its losses reflect the absence or reduced amounts of these "risk corridor" payments.

Another important idea would allow consumers to buy into the state's popular MinnesotaCare program, a reform proposed during the 2016 legislative session that didn't get adequate consideration. This public program has broad networks of providers and long served its enrollees well.

The state's health care task force aired some of these solutions, but little came of its work. Dayton should assign influential Lt. Gov. Tina Smith to identify, evaluate and then implement fixes. Improving the health of the state's private individual market is urgent and should be a bipartisan rallying point in this election year.