iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Insurance Industry Already Finding Ways To Game New System

First Posted: 05/31/10 06:12 AM ET Updated: 05/25/11 05:00 PM ET

Health Insurance

The insurance industry's attempt to weasel out of one of the few provisions of the new health care reform law that took effect immediately is a harbinger of what's to come.

In this case, the companies that were balking at covering sick children quickly relented under media, congressional and White House pressure.

But far from being satisfied with a windfall of new customers and massive government subsidies, the nation's insurance companies appear to already be busy devising ways to game the new system. Their goal, as ever: Maximizing profits by paying out as little on actual health care as possible.

And next time they start to weasel, Congress and the White House -- and the media -- may not be paying attention anymore.

"This is what you're going to see as each element in this plan comes up for implementation," said Marcia Angell, a former editor of The New England Journal of Medicine who now teaches at Harvard Medical School. "This insurance industry is going to give up nothing."

In the short run, companies are expected to keep doing what they've been doing, which means, among other things, jacking up their rates. "There's nothing to stop them from raising their premiums, and that's what they're going to do," said Angell, a supporter of "single-payer" health insurance.

The new law's ban on discriminating against adults with preexisting conditions doesn't kick in until 2014.

"In the meantime, they can continue to cherry pick the healthiest customers, while foisting the sick into the new high-risk pool," said Wendell Potter, a former senior health insurance executive at CIGNA who went rogue and became a consumer advocate.

That's only the beginning, though.

"They also will continue to try to shift more and more of the cost of health care from them to the people that are enrolled in their plans," Potter said. That involves moving people currently in managed care, with its relatively modest co-pays, "out of those plans and into high-deductible plans that make people pay thousands of dollars before the company will pay a dime," Potter said.

"Managed care was last decade's silver bullet," he told HuffPost. "The new silver bullet for the insurance industry is the high-deductible plan. More and more people will not get a dime from their insurance companies."

And for people who can't afford to pay the full deductible, that's a lot like not having insurance at all.

What else will the industry do? "The companies will certainly be tightening up internal practices to avoid paying claims," Potter said. "One way to do that is to make it more burdensome on providers and make it more difficult for providers to get the reimbursements that they're due. They already are difficult to work with for a lot of providers."

The more burdensome the paperwork, the more likely a provider is to make a mistake. "And if they make a mistake, the claim is kicked out," Potter said.

In the longer run, companies will still be in a race for more profits. The trick will be coming up with ingenious new ways to avoid covering the sick.

One particularly ripe area of speculation concerns how aggressively and imaginatively the insurance companies will market themselves to attract profitable healthy clients and avoid the sick and the old.

"You can do little things with marketing materials," said John Gorman, chief executive officer of Gorman Health Group, a Washington, D.C.-based managed care consulting firm. "How you set up your Web site" could make a difference, he said; so could "where you put certain drugs on your formulary" -- i.e. which drugs cost how much.

"And the plans will play those games," Gorman said. "You're going to see a lot of marketing materials with rocket bodies on the cover."

Potter agrees: "They'll certainly be offering programs that will appeal to people that are younger and more likely or able to exercise and otherwise lead healthier lifestyles."

Henry Aaron, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution think tank, told HuffPost he recently overheard a major insurance company executive joking about the prospect of being forced to sell plans to the elderly. "We'll sponsor dances and make our pitch at 11 p.m.," Aaron recalled the executive saying. Another possibility Aaron mentioned, only half joking: putting the company's offices on the second floor -- with no elevator.

But Gorman also noted that "at the end of the day, there really isn't any place to run and hide from these patients anymore," and that companies need to start preparing for an influx of clients who were "pre-existed" or medically underwritten out of the current system: "Very sick people with health and medical needs that have been unaddressed for years."

The new law, Gorman pointed out, does include some modest efforts at "risk adjustment" to level the playing field. The government will apply some sort of formula so that "based on diagnostic codes, the government will either tack on or take away a little money" from insurers, depending on how sick or healthy their clients are.

There is one provision in the new law that could limit insurance company revenue: It concerns the "medical loss ratio". (The industry considers the amount of each premium dollar spent on actual medical care to be a "loss".)

In 1993, 95 cents of the average premium dollar went to health care, Potter said. Now the average is closer to 80 cents, and as low as 75 cents for some major companies. The rest of the money goes to overhead -- and profit.

The new law requires companies to maintain a medical loss ratio of at least 80 to 85 percent.

But there are still ways to game even that limit. One is, paradoxically, to spend more on health care, either by offering more services or driving up costs. Insurance companies typically want to spend less on this stuff, but if the 80 percent slice gets bigger, so can the 20 percent slice. Another way, of course, is to label more and more company expenses as health care.

And Angell told HuffPost that come 2014, despite no longer being allowed to raise rates or deny coverage to adults explicitly based on preexisting conditions, insurance companies will still find a way to discriminate.

One provision she expects them to exploit is the one allowing companies to charge as much as 50 percent more for people who engage in unhealthy behaviors. "With anyone who's chronically ill, you can always find an unhealthy behavior," she said.

"So that's the new preexisting condition."

Angell also pointed out that there's been very little coverage of the fact that insurance companies will still be allowed to charge older people (over age 55) much more than younger people. Three times as much, to be precise.

As a result, people between ages 55 and 65 (when Medicare kicks in) who don't have enough income to pay high premiums will be left with two options: Not buying insurance and being hit with a fine; or paying premiums they can't afford.

"These people are not going to be the annoyance they might be now, because either they're going to pay through the nose -- or they're not going to buy insurance," Angell said.

"This is a bonanza. They get captive customers. They get to charge whatever they want."

The industry is also mobilizing on other fronts.

"The insurance companies have dozens if not hundreds of lawyers and lobbyists scouring this legislation for any possible loopholes they can take advantage of," Potter said. "They absolutely will look for any way they can to circumvent any part of the legislation that they think might make them spend more for medical care than they want to spend," he said.

"One thing in particular is they'll be trying to manipulate how regulations are written." The intent of the regulations is set forth in the law, but not spelled out; that job has been left to the Health and Human Services Department (HHS) and the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC), Potter said. "The industry will spend an enormous amount of money to try to influence how those regulations are written."

Potter recently attended a NAIC conference. There are 50-plus insurance commissioners. Potter was there as one of 29 consumer representatives. "There were 1700 representatives of the health insurance industry there," Potter said. "They converge on these meetings just as lobbyists converge on Capitol Hill."

And each state legislature has to implement the regulations individually, including establishing their own regulations for the new health-insurance exchanges, where people not covered through their employers would be able to comparison shop for insurance at competitive rates.

"A key question is how the 50 states are going to handle the implementation of the health insurance exchanges, which they are tasked to do," said Henry Aaron of Brookings. "Whether they will and what happens if they don't is, I think, going to be a very interesting thing to see."

Companies won't just be selling insurance on those regulated exchanges, either. And they may try to game that distinction as well.

"I think the worst-case scenario is they keep cheap customers in plans offered outside the exchanges, and leave the exchanges with high-cost customers, making it look like the exchanges are inefficient," Aaron said.

A lot of these dynamics would have been completely different if people had a so-called public option: A government-run insurance plan without the same toxic incentive structure. Then consumers would have had an alternative when private industry rates shoot up and services decline. But there is no such option in the new law.

And without it, the law's goal of reforming the insurance market is much more of a challenge.

"It's asking this industry not to do what it's set up to do," Angell said. "What it's set up to do is to profit."


* Do you work in the insurance industry? How is your company approaching the new law?
*Are you trying to get insurance for a child with a pre-existing condition? How's that going?
E-mail me at froomkin@huffingtonpost.com.

Dan Froomkin is senior Washington correspondent for the Huffington Post. You can bookmark his page; subscribe to RSS feed, follow him on Twitter, friend him on Facebook, and/or become a fan and get e-mail alerts when he writes.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST BUSINESS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Money newsletter!
The insurance industry's attempt to weasel out of one of the few provisions of the new health care reform law that took effect immediately is a harbinger of what's to come. In this case, the companie...
The insurance industry's attempt to weasel out of one of the few provisions of the new health care reform law that took effect immediately is a harbinger of what's to come. In this case, the companie...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 606
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (15 total)
07:22 AM on 04/02/2010
The US is the only westernized country in the world that does not provide universal health care for its citizens. Even China and many third world countries have health care whether or not you agree with the quality provided is irrelevant. Our citizens are not as important as corporations or profits. We do not have the best health in the world. Most US residents have poor or no health care. Only the rich have great health care, ask Congress for theirs. My own health care has diminished over the years. My "insurance" is more restrictive than Medicare. We 'celebratize' our doctors. My own grandfather was a great doctor, never got rich, worked hard, never turned down a patient who couldn't pay, because he cared about his patients. Today they care 9-4. We treat doctors and ball players like gods instead of our police, fire, and teachers. Soon, we will be the third world country we snear at if we don't start treating people better than we do now. Our so called freedom is a double-edged sword; we have cut ourselves badly and we are bleeding to death. As one person in here said, in the long term, it's actually cheaper to provide health care to all than to subsidize those when they can no longer work because of health problems. We have never looked to the long term in this country and it's time we started. Otherwise, it will do us in. Read some history; start with Rome.
09:26 PM on 04/01/2010
Here it goes, villianize the insurance industry, villianize profit, villianize coorporations. Do any of you have jobs? Work for Coorporations? Get a paycheck out of the profit that is made by a coorparation that provides a service? And you feel good about charging your employer for your time. How greedy.
When are you all going to realize that you are all pawns in the left's bigger plan. Listen to everybody screaming for the Public Option. This is exactly what they want. They knew they couldn't get it all with one swipe. You are all just little marching soldiers fulfilling their plan, stupid little puppets being controlled by strings. The dems create a law that forces an industry to raise it prices and look at who everybody is screaming at, the industry, instead of the lawmakers. you are all suckers.
Until competing "for profit" entities can justify entering the market to compete with the "evil" existing insurance companies, this is what you are going to get. So why don't you wake up and realize you are being led like a starving puppy right into their public option where they can feed you what they want while they create laws to keep the market from offering you what you really want. Wake up.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Janetshusb
12:23 AM on 04/02/2010
What I really want is single payer health insurance so every American is covered because in the long run it's cheaper for everybody to be covered. My neighbor has early stage glaucoma and he recently lost his job because the paper mill closed. So, he has no job and no insurance and can't afford either regular doctor visits or the expensive glaucoma meds. He will probably be legally blind in a few years and will never be employed again, so he and his family will have to receive financial assistance both for living expenses and for assistance in dealing with the blindness for the rest of his life. Now if he had had health coverage, been able to control the glaucoma, he would have been able to find another job and support his family. How smart is it to save thousands of dollars by not providing health care and then have to spend millions on life long assistance to families with health problems that could have been avoided by timely medical attention. Nobody is making insurance corporations into villains. They are doing that quite nicely themselves. Nobody is against making a profit. And would hazard a guess that most of us have jobs, work hard, get a pay check, pay taxes and understand the cost saving benefit of single payer health insurance.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Janetshusb
05:32 PM on 04/01/2010
To ajincali: don't despair. The civil servants in our federal government runs many valuable, cost effective programs smoothly and efficiently.

To name a few: rural electrification, NOAA, CDC, FDA, the interstate highway system, Bureau of Reclamation, National Park Service, Medicaid, air traffic controllers, Fish and Wildlife Department, land and water conservation, veterans' services, Coast Guard, Social Security, National Bureau of Standards, federal courts, Cooperative Extension, OSHA (not popular but well run, LOL) Public Health Service the Smithsonian and so on and on.

And, yes, I believe that the health care reform bill will evolve until we all have something like Medicare; an efficient, cost effective program run by the federal government. Is it a perfect program? No, but then no program whether public or private is perfect. The private sector has had it's share of spectacular failures: Enron, Lehman Bros.., Daimler-Chrysler, the Edsel, Hewlett Packard under Ms Fiorina, Worldcom and new Coke to name a few. So, don't lose hope. Change will come, just a lot slower than most of us would like. PS Sorry about your state's DMV. Ours works beautifully; no long lines, no grouchy clerks, and no slow processing. Even state government programs can work.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Janetshusb
05:43 PM on 04/01/2010
Oops correction before the grammar police give me a ticket................ it should read .......The civil servants in our federal government run................. not runs
photo
rikster
buy the ticket-take the ride
09:13 PM on 04/01/2010
how about the Department of Redundancy....in the Department of Redundancy....within the Department of Redundancy...working with the Department of Redundancy..
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Janetshusb
11:50 PM on 04/01/2010
OK, knock your government. But just once sometime when you are feeling rational ask yourself what exactly would your world look like with no government. Then in your other lucid moment ask yourself what you would do to make it better.

Lack of government is not freedom; it's anarchy.
03:17 PM on 04/01/2010
Just a question?
Why didn't Obama use any of his strong arm tactics for the public option?
Obamacists. The he's only one man who inherited a terrible mess story is way past its expiration date.
05:28 PM on 04/01/2010
WOW a for profit company that is trying to maximize it's profit and minimize it's costs! what is capitalism coming too. Health care is a business not a charity why would you expect anything less from them. With out a competitive option they have no motivation to do anything else.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Janetshusb
06:12 PM on 04/01/2010
Nothing wrong with maximizing profits and minimizing costs. Insurance corporations make their money by playing the odds. Nothing wrong there. They're betting that I and and my neighbors won't use our fire insurance and they will make a profit. They set the price of their insurance based on their understanding of the risks involved. Still nothing wrong. However, health insurance companies are clearly in the wrong when they try to eliminate all the risks after the individual or group has purchased their insurance. Try dealing with your bookie that way and see what happens.

If health insurance corporations had assessed risk, based prices on that risk, honored their policies and generally behaved in a somewhat civilized manner as they do with insurance for car, homeowners, flood, fire, etc nobody would have been rallying for health insurance reform. They did themselves in.
photo
rikster
buy the ticket-take the ride
09:14 PM on 04/01/2010
health care should not be a 'business"....
12:45 PM on 04/01/2010
Although I agree that reform of the Healthcare Industry is required. The implementation of the current plan can only go one way. That is the way of all massive government programs: The way is called inefficiency, waste, corruption and abuse. Without competition, any entity becomes fat, lazy and incompetent. There is no reason for efficiency, because there is no competitive route.

Image the difference for an end-user, if the workers at the DMV were paid a commission on each transaction they completed? Increased earning potential only happens in a competitive environment, how can we honestly expect 159 new government entities to work efficiently together?

The federal government has never innovated anything; they have only ever implemented the innovations of others. On their own, they have managed monopolies into the ground (USPS). They have mis-projected costs on nearly every program, and tey have been wrong by hundreds of percent points. In the private sector, being off by hundreds of percentage points on cost projections means you’re out of business (or working as a government contractor).

Does anyone, not currently tripping on LSD, actually believe that the cost projections for this massive overlay of an already broken system are going to cost less expensive moving forward?

I know we voted for Hope & Change, but…Can we try not to Change Common Sense?

Save our Green, Recycle Congress!
06:50 AM on 04/02/2010
I agree, recycle Congress! Leaving years for insurance companies to figure out how to 'get around' the rules is silly. Just like they gave banks six months to raise all their fees and interest rates before the new regs took effect was ludicrous. Who are they working for? No, we know who they work for and that was reflected in the Supreme Court ruling about corporations as individuals for donating to political parties. Wait til you see how many 'billions' will be spent on the election this Nov. And most of it vilifying the new health reform bill. Why is it that some will spend a ton of money fighting something when they could actually save money just paying the bill to begin with? In IN we had a woman rejected for a $437 utility bill subsidy and the state has already spent $20,000 fighting her claim! How stupid is that? Plus all the paperwork time they've spent on it. Replace them all!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Janetshusb
10:17 AM on 04/01/2010
At the bottom of our problem is the corrupt way we run campaigns. An elected representative will listen to the person or corporation that contributes the most to their campaign. Money talks!!!!!!! Check out who contributes the most to your representatives re-election war chest and who is fighting hardest against campaign reform and you will begin to understand why your representative doesn't vote for your interests. Reforming the way campaigns are funded will not cure the problem but it will go a long way toward making our legislators listen to us, the general public, instead of corporations.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
08:51 AM on 04/01/2010
As long as the High Crime of Bribery (Article 2, Section 4, Word 25) remains un-acknowledged and un-prosecuted, our entire system of Federal Government effectively does not exist. Bribery is an "enabling crime." It is a crime that enables other crime to exist, to grow and prosper ... and to destroy, to destroy, to destroy.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lstl4
08:32 AM on 04/01/2010
Insurance companies, because of their greed, will put themselves out of business. Trust me, unfortunately, when things get bad enough, the Congress and Senate will finally give us the public option or single payer. When enough people rise up, it will happen!!
03:15 AM on 04/01/2010
If what's stated above is true there is no point continuing.
The current situation will only become worse and a bigger scale.
The ONLY SOLUTION is a public option or Medicare buy-in.
I pray the Ways & Means will grant Mr. Grayson's request and vote affirmatively on the Medicare buy-in for all....or else it will be typically American political business as usual....."passed the legislation, signed off, it's not perfect but it's 'good enough', can't be bothered with the details even though the details are the most important, know that the oppressors will swiss-cheese the legislation, but gotta move on, there's another cause i need to champion to get re-elected".

FOUR YEARS is a long time. People will get older. People will get sicker..hello square-one all over again UNLESS WE FINISH THE JOB NOW! and FINISH IT FULLY AND FAST !

whaddaya ya say people? Hammer this baby Home and make our elected officials follow ALL THE WAY THROUGH or know that "imperfect' is as good as it gets, the Oppressors win, and wait for the dead bodies to pile up?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Janetshusb
03:25 AM on 04/01/2010
You can talk to your congressman or woman until you are blue in the face but it won't do any good because your congressperson has been bought, lock stock and barrel by the corporations. You may receive serious letters from your congressperson assuring you of their deep concerns about a problem but their votes are already preordained by the corporations that pay for reelection.
03:51 AM on 04/01/2010
But we can't just accept the status quo . it's soul destroying.
10:07 PM on 04/01/2010
EXACTLY! ...and those Congresspeople don't get that we are talking about people with jobs, children, mortgages....i'm in CA ...our unemployment is through the roof and still climbing, commercial real estate is on grease slick downward spiral...what is a small business person supposed to do anymore?
03:43 AM on 04/01/2010
I am with you 100%. I love Alan Grayson. I think his idea is the best solution.
What is the excuse for waiting for four years?
Its incredible to me.
03:14 AM on 04/01/2010
HAS EVERYONE FORGOTTEN WE ARE ONLY IN 2010? 2014 IS A LOOOOOOOOOOONG WAY OFF.

I've been in depositions all week against UnitedHeatlthcare because they refused to pay our claims
FOUR YEARS AGO (i'm a medical health professional)...not only did THEY not pay, they also "spread the word" and Healthnet, Aetna, CIGNA, Blue Shield and Blue Cross all stopped within days of each other as well. Their only goal has been to bankrupt our company. We are in the life-SAVING business, they are in the MURDER BUSINESS.

I was about to go to bed feeling a glimmer of hope after today, maybe just wishful thinking, and then I read the above....everyone at work spends so much time trying to get just an OFFICE VISIT paid by these behemoth money-grubbing a$$holes...we're all burned out...MD's included...I'm calling a meeting in the morning with the entire staff and have a serious sit-down as to whether its worth continuing.

I have always been a glass half full guy....I'm at my breaking point.....
03:38 AM on 04/01/2010
I am so sorry. I find it so infuriating dealing with the nonsense those b - - - - - d - pull.
Good luck tomorrow.
12:42 AM on 04/01/2010
Just get rid of the middlemen.
We do not need to have for-profit health insurance companies.
America needs to take a page from Europe and the rest of the advanced developed nations of the world.
We still don't have a healthcare system in this country.
We barely have insurance company reform.
There are insurance companies in other countries but they are not allowed by law to arbitrarily raise prices , they are not allowed to drop a person due to age or sickness. The term "pre-existing condition" only exists in America.
Why do we continue to allow ourselves to be treated in such a manner?
Socialized medicine works. Its too bad so many people freak out when they see that word.
Other Western nations have socialized medical healthcare. This does not make them socialists and communists, It makes them westerners who are lucky enough to have government healthcare.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Janetshusb
02:49 AM on 04/01/2010
The Supreme Court has ruled that corporations are people, that money is speech and corporations are free to speak (spend money) as often and as they wish. Corporations have used these rights irresponsibly to manipulate Congress and the voters into turning over our country to them. And that's why we don't have a health care delivery system that works for everyone. Until we make corporations behave they will keep making laws that benefit them rather than us.
03:21 AM on 04/01/2010
So true. Bush stuck us with a couple of young reactionary Supreme Court Justices.
12:09 AM on 04/01/2010
Once again, IMO we are making a wrong call and failing to address real problems. Instead we use cliches and slogans. This time, through this article, they are coming from the "Progressive-Left."

Real concern of the Right is the rapid escalation of govt borrowing. Undoubtedly many of the reasons for this started in the Bush administration. But with due credit Republicans were against the big-banks and auto bailouts.

In the healthcare debate, reform is badly needed. I am all for it. Yet I still wonder why more revenues are needed. We spend 17.3% of GDP on healthcare, which is 30% more than the next Western economic competitor.

The high healthcare costs is seen in the Northeast (Democratic) states, where average cost per Medicare enrollee is twice that in the Midwest and Southern (Republican) states. Yet neither politicians nor academics from Northeast states have put forth a practical plan to bring down their OWN costs. Yes, there have been many articles with platitudes in the newspapers, magazines and scientific papers; many from the Northeast establishment telling us how to reform the healthcare system; that is broken in their own front- and back-yard.

I hope we can replace hubris with action. With no more excuses, we need to practice what we publish.
02:23 AM on 04/01/2010
We spend more and get less because of the bureaucracy of the for profit system we have in this country, which by the way, we pay for.
It is because we have a system where the middleman makes up the rules. Our system is a business system that cares about profit.
Other western nations treat the sick. When people get sick they get the treatment and follow up care they need,
We have the bureaucrats who come between us and our doctors and that is a fact.
In America ins companies take our money and spend it on other things,
They hire people to comb through your health history for pre existing conditions then weasel out of paying for your care . They deny people care and raise premiums.
Every aspect of our health care system is for profit business and that creates a conflict of interest.
WE pay for the business of for profit med insurance companies.
Our western cousins get healthcare.
They don't spend millions on corporate holidays; they don't hire people to comb through your health history trying to weasel out of providing treatment.
Because the government runs the health care system you don’t have CEO’s who are paid millions per year.
That would be considered a waste of money and the people would not stand for tax dollars to be wasted in that manner.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:34 PM on 03/31/2010
Why would anyone want to be covered by a company that is always trying to find a way to not pay
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Icantbelieveher
I'm for the separation of church and hate!
09:18 PM on 03/31/2010
Wouldn't the best revenge against a corporation that continues to be the problem instead of trying to be part of the solution, be Medicare for everyone?
11:25 PM on 03/31/2010
Yes !
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
parlimentMike
Terrorists keep you in fear
02:44 AM on 04/01/2010
There's no problem for Congress or the president to fix, the Insurance Companies are maintaining their campaign contribution levels.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Hopeforu
09:04 PM on 03/31/2010
Here, here! Let's have our Public Option! This should be enough for our government to hear to have a change of course immediately!!!!!