One of the claimed successes by Obamacare supporters has been the distribution of rebates from insurance companies that did not reach the required percentages of spending on medical treatment under what is known as the “medical loss ratio.” Under the Affordable Care Act, insurance companies that fail to spend 80% of their premium dollars on medical care in the individual and small group markets, or 85% for large-group employer-based plans, must return the balance of the premiums back to the subscriber. Abby Goodnough reports on this for the New York Times today. But she adds a new wrinkle that the supporters of the MLR might want to hide:
Insurers will pay out $1.1 billion this year, according to the Department of Health and Human Services, with an average rebate of $151 per household. The highest average amounts are going to people in Vermont ($807 per family), Alaska ($622) and Alabama ($518). No rebates will be issued in New Mexico or Rhode Island, because all the insurers in those states met the 80/20 requirement [...]
So is your check in the mail? Don’t count on it.
Self-insured employers, which cover more than half the nation’s workers, are exempt from the new rule, as are Medicare and Medicaid. And of the 75 million people in health plans subject to the rule, only about 17 percent, or 12.8 million, will see a rebate this year, according to the Obama administration. Many individuals who buy coverage directly from insurers, such as self-employed people like Ms. Harkenreader, are receiving checks. But in most cases rebates are being sent to employers, who can chose to put them toward future premium costs instead of distributing them to workers. “I’ve been trying to explain that to people — that very few people would be getting a check,” said Timothy S. Jost, a law professor at Washington and Lee University who is an expert on the health care law.
I have personal experience with this, which only recently led me to understand this point. I have health coverage through my wife’s employer. We got a letter from Cigna in the mail saying that they were rebating X amount of dollars to the employer, because they did not reach the 85% medical loss ratio (I believe they said their ratio was actually 70%). But the money would get rebated to the employer, who could then do whatever they wanted with it. Cigna offered some suggestions for ways the employer could handle the rebate, like lowering the premium money it takes out of employee paychecks, increasing services in their health care program, or transferring it on directly to employees. But really it’s up to the employer. They are under no obligation to pass that on.
Now maybe some of the more generous companies will pass along this rebate in some manner. But I don’t think there’s any guarantee. And in the case of self-insured companies, which as the article notes is the norm for over half of those with employer-based health plans, those workers benefit from almost none of the regulations under the ACA. That’s a very under-the-radar revelation as well.
Perhaps medical companies will shift their premiums to account for this, lowering their end-of-the-year rebates. But I don’t see why. They’re essentially borrowing money from their subscribers at no interest. Sounds like a sweet deal. And the subscribers, in the case of those with employer coverage, may never see the benefit of the regulation.




14 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Hmmm.
It is likely that many of the ardent Obamacare “supporters” did not realize that what they were proclaiming as a measure of the “success” of that program, did not, in fact, realize that the rebates would be going to the companies which provide insurance to their employees.
Presumably, however, Obama and the other architects of Obamacare DID, in fact, realizes that such would be the case?
One wonders if those “supporters” might feel just a bit “used” or whether they will conclude that the half-truths they were spreading, unknowingly, were and are all for a “just” cause?
One further imagines that this revelation will be met with denial and semantic evasion from all parties involved, that it will be quickly swept aside as “we” are all urged to “move on” to consider the “greater evil” rather than the “more effective evil” … which this wee, little sin of omission, somewhat effectively, underscores.
Ah, well …
“Tis but noise and fury … Cigna-fying nothing …
They say it is very effective for writers to write about things with which they have personal experience … for it will resonate with those who have had or will have similar experience, and informs those who have never experienced anything like what the writer addresses.
Which leads me to suggest that President Obama and the entire political class, which includes the media, could well benefit from exposure to your words, DDay. One hopes that they might have that pleasure … more often than not, “looking forward” …
DW
One of your better comments as of late.
Thanks David for your continued “pulling back of the curtain exposing the wizard”.
I just wish, as do many, that once, just once Scarlett Johansson would be there in a bikini.
May I say that my boss(es) got an insurance rebate, not for health care mind you, but they shared it.
THey shared it with the three kids and they all went to Bali.
“Under the Affordable Care Act, insurance companies that fail to spend 80% of their premium dollars on medical care in the individual and small group markets, or 85% for large-group employer-based plans, must return the balance of the premiums back to the subscriber.”
Would this not be a driver of health care costs–a vicious cycle–in a drive by insurance companies to hang onto every dollar?
The very term “medical loss ratio” is evidence enough that the private sector insurers have no business in health care. But since they are there, a regulation tsunami is needed to protect the public interest.
In all such situations, like the card-swipe kerfuffle, a huge populist win results in a minor 1% to 1% transfer of wealth. Nothing more.
Obama’s signature policy initiative will be seen, as his entire presidency will be, as aspirational. He opened up possibilities for the future. You know, after the revolution.
I got three-cornered hats here.
What size do you wear???
Maybe that was the job? Crush the Middle Class making them ripe for “something new” not necessarily improved.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITbPL_GI2Fc
for your viewing pleasure…the song of KABUKI theatre
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJvwpufbLyM
For those slavishly devoted to Obama, like TBogg, they will find some excuse to rationalize another pro-corporate betrayal by their boyfriend.
just another way the bloodsuckers suck our blood.
Obama was at a $40,000 a plate fundraiser tonight in New York City.
Wonder who’s left liking Obama enough to donate to him.
the lies of Raygun and the lies of Rush actually have had a grain of truth buried under the mountain of shit since at least 1980 when I was 20 -
too many parts of too many programs programs DO suck, AND too many of the senior CONsultant bureaucrat cla$$ running the suck are elitist f’ks who can afford to fix the suck …
which means they’ll NEVER have to deal with what sucks.
after wasting 8 POTUS votes on dim-0-crap$, I’m voting ‘medicare forall’ or ‘little itty bitty bird’ – to hell with all of them.
rmm.
Anyone who’s ever worked for a living knows not only that that’s the way it works, but that’s the way it was designed to work.
Your story reminded of my experience years ago working in a corporate job. The bosses called a solemn meeting to relay their regrets that there wouldn’t be any Holiday bonuses. Found out later that upper management all got huge bonuses that year.
The money should go back to the person who paid the premiums. Just because you get insurance through your employer doesn’t mean they pay one dime of the premium. By the way this law was purposely designed with huge loopholes. The insurance companies will simply cook their books if this ever had a chance of coming into play.
Clap louder.