I am hearing and reading so much lately from the health insurance agent community about the future of agents under healthcare reform. Specifically as relates to the health insurance exchanges set for 2014. A minority believe that independent agents will have a place in the system while a majority, it seems, are suffering from "Chicken Little Syndrome". Truthfully, no one knows yet what place independent health agents will have in the new system. I do have some thoughts.
For those who know me and my business, I write a lot of HIPAA. HIPAA is guaranteed-issue health insurance, available kind of on an exchange (pick from available carriers and plans) and has no underwriting or medical screening component. Somewhat similar to the future exchanges (if you can get information which is generally only available on web sites like mine).
One would think that with the fairly small choice of guaranteed-issue plans (perhaps 25 at most in California) and fairly similar plan designs (HMO are similar and PPO/POS are similiar in deductible and general benefits) that choosing a HIPAA plan would be easy. Honestly, for every 10 people I help enroll under HIPAA, at least 9 of them need help in determining the most appropriate carrier and plan for their needs. And that is a good thing. Getting a coverage plan is important. Getting the best fit for coverage is more important.
There are a variety of factors that come into play during proper case development. Plan design and usage limitations are one area. Plan benefits and any exclusions or limitations is another. Then there is the network of participating providers and the prescription drug formulary to consider. All of these things before we really even look at the price of the plan. These services are easily and readily provided by independent agents who can compare multiple carriers and plans. The other option would be to call each carrier and then try to put it all together yourself. One of the problems with calling a carrier is...they only know their own plan. For example:
Blue Cross of California originated a plan in California called RightPlan PPO. It was the first no deductible non-maternity individuals-only PPO in California. It was subsequently copied by several other carriers and duplicated in their respective plan portfolios. Health Net has SimpleValue PPO (copy) and Blue Shield has ActiveStart PPO (copy).
Under the current market, you could call Anthem Blue Cross about the RightPlan PPO but they are not equipped to compare it against SimpleValue or ActiveStart. Each carrier only knows their own plans. You'd end up having to call three carriers, get whatever information you think is important, put it all together and try to decide which clone plan would work best. Or you could call an independent agent (for free by the way, there is no cost to have an agent) who can run that scenario for you.
Fast forward to the health insurance exchanges. Like HIPAA, the plans will all be similar but, like HIPAA, there will be differences between each insurance company's plans (network, formulary, benefits, tiers of drug coverage and so on).
Let's assume hypothetically that six companies in California offer plans to the exchange. The plans will be denoted as Gold, Silver, Bronze and Platinum. Benefit levels will be determined by mandates in the healthcare reform law. Seems simple enough, right?
Well, what if you take six medications and one of them is not in any drug formulary for the exchange plans? Which plans have tier 3 drug coverage and which don't. Are there restrictions on tier 3 benefits? How do I search their drug formulary? Are my doctors participating with this carrier's Gold plan? How about hospitals? Do the networks differ between Gold, Silver, Bronze and Platinum? Does this plan cover me locally only or can I use it in-network when I travel? Is this an HMO Gold, PPO Gold or POS Gold? What's the difference?
Needless to say, this list could go on forever.
Another factor that I believe may come into play are deviations from basic design. With Medicare Supplement plans, there are some carriers who offer the Medicare mandated benefits but also create enhanced plans with other options above the Medicare minimum standard. Could we see this in the exchange as well? I believe it is very possible. So instead of six carriers offer six Gold plans, you might see something like this:
Carrier A - Gold
Carrier B - Gold, Gold Preferred, Gold Plus, Gold Enhanced
Carrier C - Gold, Gold Preferred
Carrier D - Gold, Gold Select
Carrier E - Gold, Gold Select
Carrier F - Gold, Gold HMO
Gold = Standard Gold design based on reform rules for plan minimum standard
Gold Select = Gold plan benefits with a select network of providers (smaller)
Gold Preferred = Gold plan health benefits plus a long-term care rider
Gold Plus = Gold plan benefits with a dental HMO plan
Gold Enhanced = Gold Plus plan design (with dental) plus additional vision and chiropractic coverage
Gold HMO = HMO plan adhering to Gold plan design rules
Under this scenario, as many as 13 Gold plans could be available (or more, or less) from the six insurance companies. It could get really confusing really quickly. And what if they do the same with Silver and Bronze? Or Platinum?
The bottom line is that a person should not have to match their medical needs to a health plan. All of my case development for HIPAA plans is directed at matching the plan to meet the medical needs, not the other way around. While no plan is always absolutely perfect, good case development should find the one plan that, given overall medical needs, is the "best" fit for each client.
I would think, given these variables, that the role of the independent agent would be extremely important in matching people's medical needs with the appropriate health plan, whether through the exchange or privately outside of the exchange.
Certainly the states, or insurance companies, or federal government could set up "call centers" staffed by non-agents who would be available to review coverage options and answer questions. Would it be less expensive? Probably not. But more to the point, there comes a time in this business when experienced, veteran independent agents really get a feel for the way certain insurance companies operate with regard to networks, formulary and benefits. I have found that EOC (Evidence of Coverage) booklets are often sorely lacking in certain areas when it comes to benefit utilization or the way a claim is "really" processed. Just because something is written in a booklet or spreadsheet or benefit summary does not mean that is exactly how it works, or in all situations.
We learn from experience. I write mostly HIPAA. Claims for HIPAA tend to be much greater and much more varied than underwritten coverage. That is the nature of guaranteed-issue coverage. I have seen situations which absolutely contradict what was written in the benefit summary, spreadsheet or EOC. I have also learned over the years many of the little nuances of the plans and insurance carriers that can be very critical when a prospective client brings their medical needs to me.
I hope that our leadership understands the value that we independent health agents provide.
On a side note:
I was a bit saddened to read an article recently in an industry publication in which President Obama told a health agent who expressed concern about her career that she was "the one who has to tell her clients about the insurance company's rate increase". While that is part of our job, I'd like to think we do a bit more than just pass on rate increase information. I certainly hope this is not how our leadership sees us and perceives our value to our clients.
I don't always have time to tell people about rate increases since the carrier will tell them anyway. I am often quite busy running drug formularies, trying to find which network doctor X is actually in and trying to help my clients get the plan that will best cover their immediate needs like chemotherapy, heart surgery, infusion therapy, transplant surgery or self-injectible life saving medication.
Showing posts with label Individual Health. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Individual Health. Show all posts
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Sunday, May 9, 2010
HIPAA Enrollment Change (Yet Again) - Anthem
Anthem Blue Cross (CA) has made another enrollment change to the HIPAA plans.
Under the prior change, all enrollments in HIPAA were subject to approval followed by a premium notice. The notice would allow payments in two 15-day periods (1-15th, 16-31st paid or postmarked) to start on the first of the following month. Example:
*Premium paid or postmarked 1-15 June would start July 1 (30-day gap)
*Premium paid or postmarked 16-30 June would start August 1 (60-day gap)
Under the latest change, the premium payment period has changed as follows:
*Premium paid or postmarked 1-15 June would start June 1 (slightly retroactive)
*Premium paid or postmarked 16-30 June would start July 1
Also, Anthem Blue Cross CA has indicated that it will accept certain "substitute" documents in lieu of the Certificate of Creditable Coverage which is not issued until after the expiration of continuation coverage.
Under the prior change, all enrollments in HIPAA were subject to approval followed by a premium notice. The notice would allow payments in two 15-day periods (1-15th, 16-31st paid or postmarked) to start on the first of the following month. Example:
*Premium paid or postmarked 1-15 June would start July 1 (30-day gap)
*Premium paid or postmarked 16-30 June would start August 1 (60-day gap)
Under the latest change, the premium payment period has changed as follows:
*Premium paid or postmarked 1-15 June would start June 1 (slightly retroactive)
*Premium paid or postmarked 16-30 June would start July 1
Also, Anthem Blue Cross CA has indicated that it will accept certain "substitute" documents in lieu of the Certificate of Creditable Coverage which is not issued until after the expiration of continuation coverage.
Monday, May 3, 2010
Blue Shield CA Adds 5th HIPAA Policy
Effective May 1, 2010, Blue Shield of California has added a 5th policy to the HIPAA guaranteed-issue individual & family portfolio.
The new addition, Access+ Value HMO, is a lower-priced HMO option than the Access+ HMO that was made available 3/2/10.
This is the first time I have seen a carrier offer three plans under one plan registration for HIPAA.
The new addition, Access+ Value HMO, is a lower-priced HMO option than the Access+ HMO that was made available 3/2/10.
This is the first time I have seen a carrier offer three plans under one plan registration for HIPAA.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Anthem Fights Back (Finally!)
On Thursday, a "reporter" at Reuters wrote a story about Anthem/Wellpoint deliberately rescinding health insurance policies on women who developed breast cancer. The article, which was then rebroadcast by other media, is full of factual errors (one of the women was not even insured by Anthem/Wellpoint and another's name was mispelled throughout the article). The media "report" even caused HHS Secretary Sebelius to fire off a nasty letter to Angela Braly (CEO Wellpoint/Anthem).
After getting beaten up over the last few months and being portrayed as an evil cross between Attila The Hun and Adolf Hitler, Anthem finally is fighting back against this kind of lazy and inaccurate "journalism".
Anthem Response to Reuters Article
Anthem Response to HHS Sebelius' Letter
It gets better, folks. The url for the original story is no longer active and the "corrected" story (minus the woman who was not even a Wellpoint/Anthem insured) is available here. Here's the top quote on the "revised" article:
After getting beaten up over the last few months and being portrayed as an evil cross between Attila The Hun and Adolf Hitler, Anthem finally is fighting back against this kind of lazy and inaccurate "journalism".
Anthem Response to Reuters Article
Anthem Response to HHS Sebelius' Letter
It gets better, folks. The url for the original story is no longer active and the "corrected" story (minus the woman who was not even a Wellpoint/Anthem insured) is available here. Here's the top quote on the "revised" article:
Corrected: WellPoint routinely targets breast cancer patients(Removes all references to Robin Beaton in first paragraph and throughout to reflect that the insurance company that canceled her policy was not a WellPoint subsidiary)
The HIPAA Tango Continues (Anthem Blue Cross)
For those who may be looking at my HIPAA page and wondering what is going on with Anthem Blue Cross enrollments, I thought this might help (I hope!).
Effective 5/1/10, Anthem has a new enrollment process for HIPAA plans. The process works like this: application and supporting documents to get approval to enroll, premium notice sent out upon Anthem's "OK" to enroll (approval), then you pay future premium to get future start date. Gaps can run 30, 60, 90 days or more. Sounds crazy, huh?
I have spent the better part of this week tee-ing off Anthem trying to get clarification and work-arounds for enrollments for Californians in need of HIPAA coverage and don't want to gap coverage.
So, to answer the question of whether or not there would be a necessary gap in coverage from group to HIPAA, a firm "maybe". It is going to depend on how early on we can start the process.
It is possible to enroll under the new system at Anthem and have a seamless start date. But it is tricky. Here's what needs to happen to make it work.
60 days prior to the expiration of continuation (or loss of group is terminating active coverage), we will need to provide some or all of the following to help get you enrolled:
1. Completed HIPAA enrollment application.
2. Copy of Termination Notice (either COBRA, Cal-COBRA or from group. This is a letter you receive about 60 days prior to exhaustion indicating that your continuation coverage will expire on a certain date.
3. Records to reflect payments of premiums for the full period including the final month (bank online statements, letter from administrator, etc.). Something to show you've made 18 or 36 months of premium payments (if continuation coverage).
4. Copy of current health insurance ID card and name of employer (usually on the card)for those not eligible for the Cal-COBRA extension to 36 months.
5. If covered 1st 18 months federal COBRA and now on Cal-COBRA extension, a copy of your group health certificate issued after federal COBRA expiration (from the COBRA Administrator or Health Plan)
The purpose of such documentation is twofold. One, we need to help you get Anthem Blue Cross to generate a premium payment "approval letter" as soon as possible within the 60 days prior to eligibility date so that you can submit your HIPAA premium and receive your desired 1st of month start date. Two, your Group Health Certificate (Certificate of Creditable Coverage/Certificate of Prior Health Coverage, it goes by several names) will normally not be provided until 10 days AFTER the expiration of the group health plan. Anthem has stated that they will accept "substitute" proof of exhaustion in lieu of the CoCC to expedite the enrollment process.
Effective 5/1/10, Anthem has a new enrollment process for HIPAA plans. The process works like this: application and supporting documents to get approval to enroll, premium notice sent out upon Anthem's "OK" to enroll (approval), then you pay future premium to get future start date. Gaps can run 30, 60, 90 days or more. Sounds crazy, huh?
I have spent the better part of this week tee-ing off Anthem trying to get clarification and work-arounds for enrollments for Californians in need of HIPAA coverage and don't want to gap coverage.
So, to answer the question of whether or not there would be a necessary gap in coverage from group to HIPAA, a firm "maybe". It is going to depend on how early on we can start the process.
It is possible to enroll under the new system at Anthem and have a seamless start date. But it is tricky. Here's what needs to happen to make it work.
60 days prior to the expiration of continuation (or loss of group is terminating active coverage), we will need to provide some or all of the following to help get you enrolled:
1. Completed HIPAA enrollment application.
2. Copy of Termination Notice (either COBRA, Cal-COBRA or from group. This is a letter you receive about 60 days prior to exhaustion indicating that your continuation coverage will expire on a certain date.
3. Records to reflect payments of premiums for the full period including the final month (bank online statements, letter from administrator, etc.). Something to show you've made 18 or 36 months of premium payments (if continuation coverage).
4. Copy of current health insurance ID card and name of employer (usually on the card)for those not eligible for the Cal-COBRA extension to 36 months.
5. If covered 1st 18 months federal COBRA and now on Cal-COBRA extension, a copy of your group health certificate issued after federal COBRA expiration (from the COBRA Administrator or Health Plan)
The purpose of such documentation is twofold. One, we need to help you get Anthem Blue Cross to generate a premium payment "approval letter" as soon as possible within the 60 days prior to eligibility date so that you can submit your HIPAA premium and receive your desired 1st of month start date. Two, your Group Health Certificate (Certificate of Creditable Coverage/Certificate of Prior Health Coverage, it goes by several names) will normally not be provided until 10 days AFTER the expiration of the group health plan. Anthem has stated that they will accept "substitute" proof of exhaustion in lieu of the CoCC to expedite the enrollment process.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Impact - MLRs (Medical Loss Ratios)
I am watching President Obama sign the new health insurance (care) reform bill on CNN. I wanted to share some things I have heard recently that may eventually impact the number of carriers in California selling individual and family plans either through exchanges or privately, or both.
While carriers (insurance companies) can boast an overall MLR (medical loss ratio) above 85%, this number is generally inclusive of all sectors of insurance (large group, small group, individual and senior). However, when small group and individual (especially individual) is segregated out, the MLR often falls well below 80% with an average running about 74% on individual and family health plans.
"MLR" is the ratio of premiums paid in to what is paid out for medical care and wellness. The current reform will require in 2011 that all carriers selling individual and family plans must meet 80% MLR in that market. That means every company selling health plans in California by 2011 must be spending at least 80 cents of every dollar received in premiums on healthcare and related expenses.
I will save the reduction in administrative costs necessary for another post. Needless to say it certainly is probable that reduction in those expenses, including agent commissions, will occur.
My concern is if and how some carriers will be able to meet the new MLR.
I suspect that some carriers may choose to exit the market in California instead of trying to achieve 80% MLR on individual & family health coverage.
I will be curious to see who is left standing between now and 2014.
While carriers (insurance companies) can boast an overall MLR (medical loss ratio) above 85%, this number is generally inclusive of all sectors of insurance (large group, small group, individual and senior). However, when small group and individual (especially individual) is segregated out, the MLR often falls well below 80% with an average running about 74% on individual and family health plans.
"MLR" is the ratio of premiums paid in to what is paid out for medical care and wellness. The current reform will require in 2011 that all carriers selling individual and family plans must meet 80% MLR in that market. That means every company selling health plans in California by 2011 must be spending at least 80 cents of every dollar received in premiums on healthcare and related expenses.
I will save the reduction in administrative costs necessary for another post. Needless to say it certainly is probable that reduction in those expenses, including agent commissions, will occur.
My concern is if and how some carriers will be able to meet the new MLR.
I suspect that some carriers may choose to exit the market in California instead of trying to achieve 80% MLR on individual & family health coverage.
I will be curious to see who is left standing between now and 2014.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Health Insurance Reform - What To Expect
Happy Sunday to you all. I am watching the House vote and waiting for the final determination on the Health Insurance (Health Care) Reform Bill.
Since I have received many questions concerning changes I thought I'd quickly summarize here what to expect initially if/when this Bill is passed and signed into law today.
During the first year you can expect:
Pre-Existing Conditions - The Bill includes $5 billion in immediate support to provide temporary coverage to uninsured Americans with pre-existing conditions. The money would help until the new health insurance exchanges are created in 2014.
Elimination of Benefit Caps - New policies sold will not have annual caps on benefits nor lifetime caps on benefits.
Children with Pre-Existing Conditions - Children with pre-existing health conditions will not be excluded from purchasing health insurance coverage.
Preventive Care - New insurance policies will be required to offer free preventive care benefits.
Small Business Tax Credit - A tax credit for small businesses up to 50% of premiums to help small businesses purchase health insurance.
Help for Seniors - $250 towards drug coverage in the "donut hole" to help pay for prescription drugs.
Appeals Process - An independent appeals process will be set up for those who feel that they were unfairly denied a claim by their insurance company.
Other changes take place in 2014 and beyond.
Since I have received many questions concerning changes I thought I'd quickly summarize here what to expect initially if/when this Bill is passed and signed into law today.
During the first year you can expect:
Pre-Existing Conditions - The Bill includes $5 billion in immediate support to provide temporary coverage to uninsured Americans with pre-existing conditions. The money would help until the new health insurance exchanges are created in 2014.
Elimination of Benefit Caps - New policies sold will not have annual caps on benefits nor lifetime caps on benefits.
Children with Pre-Existing Conditions - Children with pre-existing health conditions will not be excluded from purchasing health insurance coverage.
Preventive Care - New insurance policies will be required to offer free preventive care benefits.
Small Business Tax Credit - A tax credit for small businesses up to 50% of premiums to help small businesses purchase health insurance.
Help for Seniors - $250 towards drug coverage in the "donut hole" to help pay for prescription drugs.
Appeals Process - An independent appeals process will be set up for those who feel that they were unfairly denied a claim by their insurance company.
Other changes take place in 2014 and beyond.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
California HIPAA Dance (Redux)
Another change for HIPAA in California.
Blue Shield of California, in response to Anthem's proposed premium payment arrangement (which is apparently not going to be fully implemented), has taken the following action with regard to HIPAA plan enrollments in California.
Effective 3/2/10, PPO enrollments from HIPAA plans will no longer offer any date of the month not before application receipt date. Now, 1st or 15th of the month following approval of the application.
Blue Shield of California, in response to Anthem's proposed premium payment arrangement (which is apparently not going to be fully implemented), has taken the following action with regard to HIPAA plan enrollments in California.
Effective 3/2/10, PPO enrollments from HIPAA plans will no longer offer any date of the month not before application receipt date. Now, 1st or 15th of the month following approval of the application.
Monday, March 1, 2010
From Wall Street Journal "The Wellpoint Mugging"
A very interesting article from the Wall Street Journal.
The Wellpoint Mugging
Some parts of the article are quite telling.
This next one hits home for me as one of the leading Anthem HIPAA producers in California. While I know that Anthem is taking losses on the guaranteed-issue side, I also am confident that my book of Anthem HIPAA business (which apparently is #2 in the state of CA right behind e-healthinsurance)is not creating losses. Yes, the whole pool is losing money and Anthem has been covering almost 80% of it for several years (same with MRMIP). However, I always strive to do proper case development before I pick the appropriate HIPAA plan for a client and find I have a fairly even spread between my three California major medical carriers. And no, Anthem has not invited me to lunch for my high HIPAA production LOL!
The Wellpoint Mugging
Some parts of the article are quite telling.
He ought to subpoena California's political class because Wellpoint's rate hikes are the direct result of the Golden State's insurance regulations—the kind that Democrats want to impose on all 50 states. Under federal Cobra rules, the unemployed are allowed to keep their job-related health benefits for 18 to 36 months. California then goes further and bars Anthem from dropping these customers even after they have exhausted Cobra. California also caps what Anthem can charge these post-Cobra customers.
This next one hits home for me as one of the leading Anthem HIPAA producers in California. While I know that Anthem is taking losses on the guaranteed-issue side, I also am confident that my book of Anthem HIPAA business (which apparently is #2 in the state of CA right behind e-healthinsurance)is not creating losses. Yes, the whole pool is losing money and Anthem has been covering almost 80% of it for several years (same with MRMIP). However, I always strive to do proper case development before I pick the appropriate HIPAA plan for a client and find I have a fairly even spread between my three California major medical carriers. And no, Anthem has not invited me to lunch for my high HIPAA production LOL!
This explains why Anthem lost $58 million in California on its post-Cobra customers in 2009. If WellPoint didn't raise premiums amid these losses, it would soon be under assault from its shareholders, if not out of business.
The company presented its findings to California insurance commissioner Steve Poizner last November, who had a month to review the proposed increases and never objected. But recently amid the White House campaign, Mr. Poizner has joined the chorus claiming to be "skeptical" of the increases and demanding that Anthem postpone them while he conducts a review. Anthem has done so.
More HIPAA Dancing
I have learned that Anthem Blue Cross California has again changed its position with regard to HIPAA enrollments.
Apparently they have backed off of the "no premium" with application design (which virtually guaranteed a 60-day minimum gap in coverage) and will allow premium submission with the application in the near future.
The current no premium program was only in effect on the HMO HIPAA plans, not the PPO HIPAA plans. Anthem had indicated a desire to have a unified HIPAA application with no premium pre-payment possible. Apparently this has been scrapped and HIPAA applicants will soon be able to pre-pay premiums for both HMO and PPO HIPAA plans with Anthem Blue Cross CA.
Apparently they have backed off of the "no premium" with application design (which virtually guaranteed a 60-day minimum gap in coverage) and will allow premium submission with the application in the near future.
The current no premium program was only in effect on the HMO HIPAA plans, not the PPO HIPAA plans. Anthem had indicated a desire to have a unified HIPAA application with no premium pre-payment possible. Apparently this has been scrapped and HIPAA applicants will soon be able to pre-pay premiums for both HMO and PPO HIPAA plans with Anthem Blue Cross CA.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Part Deux: Is The California Individual & Family Health Insurance Market In Critical Condition?
Having recently watched the "bi-partisan" meeting in Washington and many videos on youtube, I wonder if the problem is "un"-fixable.
Speaker Pelosi, in a recent youtube video answering questions on the meeting, pointed out two things which are absolutely of concern. 1, our health insurance system is employer-based in design and function. 2, there are many more people not covered under the employer-based system who choose to remain on the sideline than those who participate in the non-employer health insurance market.
I won't go through the numbers again since they are covered under part one of this topic below. Suffice to say, nearly two-thirds of those who should participate in the health insurance market in California for individual & family coverage do not. No employer-sponsored health plan, whether fully insured or self-funded, could operate at a participation level of 33% or less. Employer plans require 75% of all eligible employees to participate. I have worked in the past for employers who made it mandatory to buy a health plan through their fsa/cafeteria plan unless one had a valid waiver (so as not to mess up participation).
With rare exception, most every vlog I have seen, including the grilling of Anthem/Wellpoint CEO Braly in Washington, have had a nasty, negative tone. While it is without doubt that people are upset by the rate changes and popular press, there are implications to this notwithstanding the fact that my study below shows that even with the "massive" rate increase, Anthem prices below most of the other California carriers for like coverage (including 2 not-for-profits).
Now here's your "inside scoop" for the day, dear readers. I have it on good authority that a very large health insurance company in California (which shall remain anonymous), in the last six months, approached the state regulatory agency/ies to review the option of cancelling the individual & family market product and bailing out. To be clear as to what is at stake....
IN THE LAST SIX MONTHS, ONE OF THE LARGEST HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANIES IN CALIFORNIA ADDRESSED TO A STATE REGULATORY DEPARTMENT THE POSSIBILITY OF NO LONGER SELLING HEALTH INSURANCE TO INDIVIDUALS & FAMILIES IN CALIFORNIA.
The writing is on the wall across the spectrum of carriers. Sales of new plans are flat. HIPAA plans have been reformated to high deductibles and expensive HMO plans to stem the bleeding in that pool. Programs like Tonik for individuals and BeneFits for small group have experienced less-than-stellar sales.
The only two PPO programs (non-HIPAA) that are selling at all right now are SmartSense by Anthem and VitalShield by Blue Shield. Even in those cases, the sales of new plans is not keeping up with the cancellation of existing subscribers.
Anthem has launched three new product portfolios for IFP in the last six months--Core Guard, Clear Protection, and coming April 1, Premier. I will be curious to see whether or not new enrollments in these plans (lower cost) will overtake defections off of coverage as is the current trend.
Until and unless this trend shifts, the IFP market is going to be chaotic at best. Continuous premium increases will become the norm, and this in turn will drive more people off of coverage which will create a repetitive cycle.
So, Dave, you ask, what is your solution to the problem?
Well, I see two choices.
One, like Speaker Pelosi mentioned, mandate coverage and penalize those who do not participate. Increase participation to as close to 100% as possible, guarantee-issue health insurance coverage with no pre-existing conditions problems and create an incentive (tax or othewise) for people to participate in addition to a penalty.
Two, and this is one I may favor over the first one, kill off all non-employer coverage plans and go to a single payer exchange for coverage (with a mandate or incentive). The exchange could offer compliant private plans from carriers that wish to offer them and/or public plans like Medicare/FEHB or other plans designed under federal mandates. Allow carriers to sell private plans outside of the exchange to those who can qualify and wish to purchase outside of the exchange.
Make the exchange available to those who cannot obtain employer-sponsored coverage and do not wish to or cannot purchase a private plan outside of the exchange. Also, provide that any employer under 20 employees (2-19) who chooses the exchange over the group plan must pay a penalty per employee to the exchange, and any company over 20 employees must either provider group coverage or pay a payroll tax penalty per employee to the exchange.
Speaker Pelosi, in a recent youtube video answering questions on the meeting, pointed out two things which are absolutely of concern. 1, our health insurance system is employer-based in design and function. 2, there are many more people not covered under the employer-based system who choose to remain on the sideline than those who participate in the non-employer health insurance market.
I won't go through the numbers again since they are covered under part one of this topic below. Suffice to say, nearly two-thirds of those who should participate in the health insurance market in California for individual & family coverage do not. No employer-sponsored health plan, whether fully insured or self-funded, could operate at a participation level of 33% or less. Employer plans require 75% of all eligible employees to participate. I have worked in the past for employers who made it mandatory to buy a health plan through their fsa/cafeteria plan unless one had a valid waiver (so as not to mess up participation).
With rare exception, most every vlog I have seen, including the grilling of Anthem/Wellpoint CEO Braly in Washington, have had a nasty, negative tone. While it is without doubt that people are upset by the rate changes and popular press, there are implications to this notwithstanding the fact that my study below shows that even with the "massive" rate increase, Anthem prices below most of the other California carriers for like coverage (including 2 not-for-profits).
Now here's your "inside scoop" for the day, dear readers. I have it on good authority that a very large health insurance company in California (which shall remain anonymous), in the last six months, approached the state regulatory agency/ies to review the option of cancelling the individual & family market product and bailing out. To be clear as to what is at stake....
IN THE LAST SIX MONTHS, ONE OF THE LARGEST HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANIES IN CALIFORNIA ADDRESSED TO A STATE REGULATORY DEPARTMENT THE POSSIBILITY OF NO LONGER SELLING HEALTH INSURANCE TO INDIVIDUALS & FAMILIES IN CALIFORNIA.
The writing is on the wall across the spectrum of carriers. Sales of new plans are flat. HIPAA plans have been reformated to high deductibles and expensive HMO plans to stem the bleeding in that pool. Programs like Tonik for individuals and BeneFits for small group have experienced less-than-stellar sales.
The only two PPO programs (non-HIPAA) that are selling at all right now are SmartSense by Anthem and VitalShield by Blue Shield. Even in those cases, the sales of new plans is not keeping up with the cancellation of existing subscribers.
Anthem has launched three new product portfolios for IFP in the last six months--Core Guard, Clear Protection, and coming April 1, Premier. I will be curious to see whether or not new enrollments in these plans (lower cost) will overtake defections off of coverage as is the current trend.
Until and unless this trend shifts, the IFP market is going to be chaotic at best. Continuous premium increases will become the norm, and this in turn will drive more people off of coverage which will create a repetitive cycle.
So, Dave, you ask, what is your solution to the problem?
Well, I see two choices.
One, like Speaker Pelosi mentioned, mandate coverage and penalize those who do not participate. Increase participation to as close to 100% as possible, guarantee-issue health insurance coverage with no pre-existing conditions problems and create an incentive (tax or othewise) for people to participate in addition to a penalty.
Two, and this is one I may favor over the first one, kill off all non-employer coverage plans and go to a single payer exchange for coverage (with a mandate or incentive). The exchange could offer compliant private plans from carriers that wish to offer them and/or public plans like Medicare/FEHB or other plans designed under federal mandates. Allow carriers to sell private plans outside of the exchange to those who can qualify and wish to purchase outside of the exchange.
Make the exchange available to those who cannot obtain employer-sponsored coverage and do not wish to or cannot purchase a private plan outside of the exchange. Also, provide that any employer under 20 employees (2-19) who chooses the exchange over the group plan must pay a penalty per employee to the exchange, and any company over 20 employees must either provider group coverage or pay a payroll tax penalty per employee to the exchange.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Is The California Individual & Family Health Insurance Market In Critical Condition?
With the recent LA Times article and notifications to approximately 800,000 CA residents by Anthem Blue Cross of California, the future of individual & family health insurance coverage is looking bleak. Anthem announced a rate increase for March 1, 2010 ranging between 30-39% on many private health plans.
I received information just yesterday that Aetna has now laid off the IFP staff support for northern California (and I supposed SoCal as well). The last time Aetna laid off people in these positions, they exited the market in California.
First a look at some "interesting" numbers and how they relate to this issue.
California population (2009) - 36,900,000 (probably 37,000,000 by now)
# California residents covered by private health plans - 2,100,000
# California residents on average uninsured - 6,000,000
# California residents covered under Group/Medicaid/Medicare - 28,800,000
Those numbers tell us a lot about what is going on. IFP (Individual & Family Plan) represents an average enrollment of 6% of the total population, and 7% of the total insured population of California. 76% of the total population is covered under an employer-sponsored health plan, Medicaid or Medicare and 93% of the total insured population is covered under an employer-sponsored health plan, Medicaid or Medicare.
Sadly, the uninsured population is nearly three times as large as those who have private health insurance.
Group plans (employer-sponsored) flourish in California. The plans are heavily mandated by benefit and also represent a true actuarial "pool" of risk. Carriers require 75% of all eligible employees to participate, thereby spreading the risk across a large and balanced company population. I have heard over the years that actuarily, group plans tend to run 20% using major benefits, 30% using some benefits and 50% using no benefits in any plan year.
While group plans will certainly experience rate increases due to health care costs, they are often minimized by mandated participation. So long as the actuaries do their job, group tends to be more stable.*
Individual plans have few if any mandates and there is no participation requirement. As such, plans react to utilization of benefits and increases in health care costs on a more radical scale than employer-sponsored group plans.
Also, plan benefit levels are continuously being adjusted to keep the utilization in check. Lower deductibles give way to higher deductibles, first-dollar benefits give way to services under deductibles first, co-insurance splits continue downward (Health Net has plans 50/50),and so on.
When I first started in health insurance in California, then Blue Cross of California (now Anthem) had a very impressive set of PPO plans. $10, $20, $30 and $40 co-pay plans with no deductible, low out-of-pockets and 80%-90% coinsurance levels. They also covered all normal benefits including maternity. The $40 co-pay plan was so inexpensive that it became a loss-leader. The plans were retired around 2000 to make room for plans with lower co-insurance levels, deductibles and higher out-of-pockets. This trend has continued since.
The bottom line is that slowly but surely IFP will become undesireable to consumers and carriers. Carriers will bleed money on accelerating health care costs and consumers will hate the plan designs. Every year the IFP carriers introduce "new" plans, all of which are stripped-down from the preceeding plan designs. Carriers will continue to retire plans that are no longer profitable (see Anthem Share PPO plans and Blue Shield Spectrum PPO plans). At the rate things are going, IFP plans in a few years will be completely catastrophic coverage with little or no preventive care, generic only drug benefits and deductibles in the 10-20,000 range. Oh, and you can pretty much forget about maternity on PPO plans in a few years, too.
HMOs will continue to offer richer and stronger benefits (with access restrictions), however, they will eventually price so high as to be unaffordable for many consumers.
* the exception was the major rate increase in the Lumenos HSA plans a couple of years ago for group. This was due to an actuarial error in terms of anticipated benefit utilization. Lumenos group HSA plans offer free no-cost preventive medicine. The utilization by the traditional 50% who normally don't use benefits in a plan year as almost 100% which totally blew the curve. Rates were increase between 25-39% at the first Lumenos plan anniversary to compensate.
I received information just yesterday that Aetna has now laid off the IFP staff support for northern California (and I supposed SoCal as well). The last time Aetna laid off people in these positions, they exited the market in California.
First a look at some "interesting" numbers and how they relate to this issue.
California population (2009) - 36,900,000 (probably 37,000,000 by now)
# California residents covered by private health plans - 2,100,000
# California residents on average uninsured - 6,000,000
# California residents covered under Group/Medicaid/Medicare - 28,800,000
Those numbers tell us a lot about what is going on. IFP (Individual & Family Plan) represents an average enrollment of 6% of the total population, and 7% of the total insured population of California. 76% of the total population is covered under an employer-sponsored health plan, Medicaid or Medicare and 93% of the total insured population is covered under an employer-sponsored health plan, Medicaid or Medicare.
Sadly, the uninsured population is nearly three times as large as those who have private health insurance.
Group plans (employer-sponsored) flourish in California. The plans are heavily mandated by benefit and also represent a true actuarial "pool" of risk. Carriers require 75% of all eligible employees to participate, thereby spreading the risk across a large and balanced company population. I have heard over the years that actuarily, group plans tend to run 20% using major benefits, 30% using some benefits and 50% using no benefits in any plan year.
While group plans will certainly experience rate increases due to health care costs, they are often minimized by mandated participation. So long as the actuaries do their job, group tends to be more stable.*
Individual plans have few if any mandates and there is no participation requirement. As such, plans react to utilization of benefits and increases in health care costs on a more radical scale than employer-sponsored group plans.
Also, plan benefit levels are continuously being adjusted to keep the utilization in check. Lower deductibles give way to higher deductibles, first-dollar benefits give way to services under deductibles first, co-insurance splits continue downward (Health Net has plans 50/50),and so on.
When I first started in health insurance in California, then Blue Cross of California (now Anthem) had a very impressive set of PPO plans. $10, $20, $30 and $40 co-pay plans with no deductible, low out-of-pockets and 80%-90% coinsurance levels. They also covered all normal benefits including maternity. The $40 co-pay plan was so inexpensive that it became a loss-leader. The plans were retired around 2000 to make room for plans with lower co-insurance levels, deductibles and higher out-of-pockets. This trend has continued since.
The bottom line is that slowly but surely IFP will become undesireable to consumers and carriers. Carriers will bleed money on accelerating health care costs and consumers will hate the plan designs. Every year the IFP carriers introduce "new" plans, all of which are stripped-down from the preceeding plan designs. Carriers will continue to retire plans that are no longer profitable (see Anthem Share PPO plans and Blue Shield Spectrum PPO plans). At the rate things are going, IFP plans in a few years will be completely catastrophic coverage with little or no preventive care, generic only drug benefits and deductibles in the 10-20,000 range. Oh, and you can pretty much forget about maternity on PPO plans in a few years, too.
HMOs will continue to offer richer and stronger benefits (with access restrictions), however, they will eventually price so high as to be unaffordable for many consumers.
* the exception was the major rate increase in the Lumenos HSA plans a couple of years ago for group. This was due to an actuarial error in terms of anticipated benefit utilization. Lumenos group HSA plans offer free no-cost preventive medicine. The utilization by the traditional 50% who normally don't use benefits in a plan year as almost 100% which totally blew the curve. Rates were increase between 25-39% at the first Lumenos plan anniversary to compensate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)