Last night, former insurance industry executive Wendell Potter appeared on Countdown, claiming that the industry could get around the requirements on the medical loss ratio through accounting tricks. To recap, under the Senate bill, the insurance industry would be required to spend 85 cents of every dollar in the large-group market, and 80 cents in the small-group and individual markets, on medical care, rather than overhead, administrative costs, salaries, marketing and profit.
An article at Smart Money magazine suggests that the insurance industry is already looking for ways to wiggle out of this requirement:
It’s not all good news for insurers. The Senate bill would impose a “medical loss ratio” of 80% to 85%, depending on the market segment, meaning insurers would have to spend 80 to 85 cents of each dollar they collect from plan members to provide health care. Carl McDonald, a health care analyst with Oppenheimer & Co., an investment bank, wrote in a note to clients Monday that the number was “workable” for insurers, especially if they can label certain items that count as corporate expenses for accounting purposes as health care for purposes of meeting the spending minimum.
Note that McDonald used the qualifier “if.” Clearly there are accounting tactics that can be used to get around the MLR. Countdown reported that Aetna had to acknowledge that they fudged their MLR numbers in the small-group market. And Potter, in his appearance, noted that insurance companies believed that they could categorize certain spending in certain areas to “live” with an 85% MLR.
There’s nothing specifically in the bill allowing this kind of fudging. But it would only work if there were strong regulations and strong transparency, enforcing the medical loss ratio and ensuring that the data about insurer spending is clear. Asked about the enforcement of this rule, Potter said:
POTTER: No, it’s not clear to me, and there’s, and that’s a very important thing. We need to know who will be doing the regulating, who will be defining the terms, who will be setting the rules. And I don’t think that we have that clarity yet.
As Lawrence O’Donnell noted, there’s nobody in the federal government with the knowledge of how to determine medical loss ratios of insurance companies.
What this comes down to is that moving to a regulatory environment to manage the health care system rather than a public-private competition environment can work, but only with an actual police force. And it’s unclear where that police force is right now.
I have reached out to Sen. Al Franken, who with Jay Rockefeller was one of the two Senators most involved in creating this MLR regulation, and if I get an answer on this from him I’ll let you know.



43 Comments


Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
“if I get an answer on this from him I’ll let you know.”; look forward to hearing what you are told.
Let me guess. An insurance baron from the Bush gang? An ex-CongressWhore married to a lobbyist?
What keeps these companies from owning interest in providers (cancer centers, labs, etc.), making those providers ‘preferred’, jacking up prices, and cranking up premiums to keep up with these inflated ‘costs’?
Recipe for spiraling costs to consumers and profits for the insurers…
Oops – and Big Profits not subject to MLRs.
Why should people in the individual/small group markets be gouged 5% more than those lucky enough to have employer-provided coverage?! Talk about taking more money from the least fortunate. As someone in that market, I’m extremely offended. Not only will my premiums be higher, the insurer will only be on the hook for, on average $0.80 per dollar I pay them.
Maybe that’s not the worst pile in this POS bill, but it sure as Hell gores my ox!
FunnyWheelieDiva
Man. Lawrence O’Donnell’s been doing awfully good work in KO’s place, but he’s letting an awful lot of BS and weaselling on HCR slide tonight. Wish he’d go the whole hog and actually articulate the logical conclusion to his questions and the answers he’s actually getting.
Sigh. I guess that’s a bridge too far. His salary probably depends on his not reaching/articulating that logical conclusion.
Feh. Faugh, even!
FWDiva
Unfortunately, I believe all you mention is actually a Feature not a Bug from the POV of the powers that be.
Feh. Faugh, even!
FWDiva
Kaiser Permanenete historically set its loss ratio at 95%. They did this by dividing into an insurance side (Kaiser) and a partnership side (Permanente). When the MLR is less than 95% they transferred money to the partnership. I don’t know if they still do this, but obviously it can be done.
On another topic PNHP has a good post about the sorry state of HCR here:
http://pnhp.org/news/2009/december/an-inglorious-end-to-the-promise-of-reform
What is the current aggregate MLR for the medical insurance industry? The figures I’ve read have been all over the place. I think I recall Jane once saying 70%. But the numbers I find when I search all seem to cluster around 81%, including one quote from Wendell Potter saying that it was “just over 80%.”
Do any of you have definitive sources on this?
Thanks.
This is somewhat tangential but is a follow up on a post I did a few weeks ago. The major charity hospital in Atlanta which served the poor from Reconstruction times was privatized a few months ago.
Who thinks for a New York minute this won’t continue to happen under corporate insurance that is “self regulated?” even with some kind of caveat in this bill that undocumenteds should get emergency care.
I am ill with grief.
Second Grady Dialysis Case Dismissed as Patients Have Died
Jonathan Springston, and additional reporting by Matthew Cardinale
(APN) ATLANTA – A Fulton County Superior Court judge on Tuesday, December 15, 2009, dismissed a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of uninsured dialysis patients, some of whom are undocumented, against the Grady Health System.
http://atlantaprogressivenews.com/news/0572.html
Kaiser Permanente has an insurance side (Kaiser) and a partnership side (Permanente). When they want to get their MLR up (it’s usually 95%) they transfer money to the partnership. Wendell Potter seems to think a MLR requirement is meaningful but it’s awfully easy to fudge.
On another note, PNHP has a good wrap-up of HCR here:
http://pnhp.org/news/2009/december/an-inglorious-end-to-the-promise-of-reform
I have a suggestion: Liz Fowler, who was SO kind as to help frame Max Baucus’ Senate bill (thanks to her expertise in the field, having served as vice-president for public policy and external affairs at Wellpoint) would make an extra vigilant regulator, making sure to moderate the interests of all concerned: the insurance companies, the pharmaceutical industry, trial lawyers, medical equipment manufacturers, the AMA…you know, everyone concerned.
We will not likely have that much influence on what or if regulators are appointed but we certainly can continue to take the fine reporting by folks like David and expose what they are doing or not doing and, most important, the consequences to our fellow creatures.
I keep thinking of a post by Selise defining solidarity.
Your’s In solidarity.
the word isn’t “fudge,” the word is “cheat.”
Per the Wikipedia:
I’m sure between now and the signing statment, that is the only thing Barack Obama and Rahm Emanuel will be concerned with. They’ll create a new cabinet position devoted solely to making sure the insurance industry plays by the rules. You know, the rules the insurance company paid Congress to establish for them.
This MLR is a scam and a distraction folks. There is no way that any meaningful change in insurance behavior will come from it. It was put in the bill as boiler plate. No point in beating it to death. Report on the consequences.
Same as the permitting discriminatory premiums. Private industry will just game that also.Community rating is the only thing that works. But that begins with C and C rhymes with Communism…..
Wendell Potter warned months ago:
They make it difficult for us to know whether or not the insurance co’s pay what they should or are they cheating us already. We are at such a disadvantage. There should be a way that “WE” know whether or not they or us have to pay a bill. HC is the only service that I get that when I ask how much will my bill be I am told “we have to wait and see how much they will pay” I some times get a health care bill from 6, 8, 12 months previously. And I think, why did it take so long to send it to me, maybe I already paid it, should I pay this? It doesn’t seem right.
Senator Bernie Sanders has a quick health care poll on his website. To the right 1/3 of the way down.
http://sanders.senate.gov/
With great gratitude to Kerr Mills and the tax payers I have been on Medicare with a supplemental policy for some years. The past 2 with a high cost illness. Medicare automatically sends their information to the supplement and I have full information from both as to what and how much is covered and when it is paid, which is promptly. I had one procedure initially turned down. The appeal process was smooth and within 60 days resolved, gratefully in my and the clinic’s favor. .
Does the impending health-care bill require community rating?
Not even close. Even assuming the bill contains some effective enforcement mechanisms, it permits insurance to discriminate against virtually all demographics, most notable to charge older people up to 3 times the premiums they charge younger people, to charge higher rates for so-called pre-existing disorders, and vary premiums on the basis of employee pool size, There are I know more details to be found but these are according to Howard Dean.
It is offensive that an industry that has a term such as “Medical Loss Ratio” to describe the amount of money that it spends providing the precise services which are at the center of its primary product, the insurance policy, is being saved.
The perspective that cooked up the term “Medical Loss Ratio,” defines the context of the debate in Congress, one that views providing services to keep people healthy as a losing proposition.
This 80-85% is about what they pay now. I read that even in the early 90′s insurance companies paid out about 95 cents on the dollar. So this is more BS. Unbelievable. I’m ashamed to think how many countries must pity us.
Maybe someone should ask Kathleen Sebelius how she intends to enforce this?
not without very strong risk adjustment.
The pressure the insurance companies face to show ever rising profits and share prices is as inexorable as the sex drive. It really is a silly thing to let Wall St. be the driver of policy pricing and coverage quality.
With anything short of broad community rating It stops being insurance and becomes individual or small group pre-paid health care fees. Of course this is where the corporations skim their immense profits and the people most in need run out of money.
In my view this will eventually come tumbling down as the people run out of money. The choice the rich and powerful in and out of government will have is to accept third world status for the nation or through taxes on the rich (and eventually a recovering middle class) establish a true community program for caring for the ill. Medical care is not a commodity and for profit business can only be destructive..
David,
Thanks for the post. I have been commenting for two weeks the MLR% and the loopholes have got to be addressed as well as the relationship of MLR% to health care investment banking. This a key spot in the lobbying on this legislation. More must be exposed. Wendell Potter needs more interview time to give this relationship a bright bright spot light on the criminal element.
Health care investment banking has been the most stable and profitable during the financial crisis.
This legislation is just as much about the health care investment banking arm of the financial industry as it is about the power of the health care lobby. And with what has gone down with the financial industry to date, I wonder if this is not more about the financial industry.
Additionally, the admin costs and marketing should be lower due to the mandate. These are new customers by force, not by the persuasion of marketing. Their payments will be collected by the government. The admin costs for those mandated into their insurance should be half the the % as those on private plans. There is no way the industry can argue it will be the same cost or more.
klynn, i don’t understand why this should be so. unless there is only one insurance company, competition means marketing, etc.
By region and population modeling, the companies have an idea now how many new customers they are about to receive.
The competition will not be that great. The % breakdown will remain the same.
Additionally, there will not be the same admin costs for collecting $$$ from customers with the government involved.
Hey, if my non-profit had to provide care and keep admin costs at 6% or lower to qualify for grant $$$, the health care industry can do it.
And the industry knows this too.
Just to add a point. The government should run a webpage where individuals can click on and get a listing of providers and plans to select from in their area. Then the marketing to the ” new mandated” customers can be under the government thumb and take away the
“marketing” element in MLR. Just streamline it for the insurance co.s.
Currently, the private policies and group policies insurance co’s have, covers their marketing. Adding new customers will not “change” their campaigns, it just extends them over to another set of customers.
mod: some of my edit got cut off.
Thanks for fixing!
i don’t disagree that admin costs can be much much lower. where i disagree is that the mandate makes any substantial difference to admin costs.
we have that in MA. imo, it’s completely useless because not all plans are listed. i still have to go to the individual company webpages to find all the plans.
sometimes all it takes it to refresh the page to see your comment edits.
There is no competition for the new mandated customers. The insurance industry knows this. They ran models years ago on the uninsured in their key coverage areas. Their growth curves will remain the same competition-wise.
It would take someone coming in and creating an insurance co with a plan that HAD to be beaten to create a high enough competition threshold. Unless this is what Walmart plans to do. McHealthcare. Walmart will most likely be a subcontractor of McHealthcare services for lowest common denominator plans.
I do not see that competition happening.
Require the companies to provide full plan information for the government site or they cannot receive mandated customers.
i must really be missing something. why do you think there will be no competition between insurers for healthy customers with a mandate and competition now between insurers when there is no mandate?
not all (or maybe even most) competition is price competition.
did competition decrease when MA implemented a mandate?
the exchanges are limited to certain kinds of pre-approved plans. alternative plans can be offered off exchange (and i’m glad about that because i prefer an off exchange plan).
You are so right. We have got to stop using the insurance industry’s obscene terms. Let’s come up with our own label for the amount that actually goes to health care. I hope I never see “Medical Loss Ratio” or “MLR” — even in quotation marks — on this site again.
Selise. If you are still reading this thread I have a diary up over on the Seminal with a tip of the hat to you. And a Christmas message for all of you.
How about “Profit loss ratio,” or “overhead loss ratio?”
(((TalkingStick)))
what a wonderful christmas message. i’m so glad i saw it… thank you for leaving me the note, as i just stopped by this thread in case there was a reply from klynn (who i hope is having a wonderful time with her family) and would have probably missed your diary otherwise. now i’m really in the christmas spirit thanks to you.
in solidarity,
selise