IBJNews

Health reform rule could cost WellPoint

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

There are more than 1,000 regulations waiting to be written as part of the recently passed health care law, but Indianapolis-based insurer WellPoint Inc. has about $800 million riding on one arcane rule: how to calculate a medical-loss ratio.

The ratio quantifies the percentage of customers’ premiums that were spent on medical care, rather than on overhead or profits. The new health law, signed by President Obama in March, requires the ratios to hit at least 80 percent on insurance policies for individuals or small business and at least 85 percent for large businesses.

If they don’t, health insurers must refund premiums to make up the shortfall.

The Wall Street Journal called the rule a “game changer” in a July 2 article.

“This is the biggest issue right now for the companies,” Sandy Praeger, the Kansas insurance commissioner who is chairing the National Association of Insurance Commissioners committee writing the medical-loss ratio rule, told the Journal.

A key issue is whether health insurers will have to meet the new threshold at each of their subsidiary companies, or whether they’ll be allowed to aggregate their companies’ results and produce one, corporate-wide medical-loss ratio.

At WellPoint, if the 80- and 85-percent rules had been applied to all its subsidiaries in 2009, the company would have had to refund about $800 million, according to an IBJ analysis of data collected by the U.S. Senate's Commerce Committee and the California Department of Managed Care.

That’s roughly 2.5 percent of the $33 billion in medical premiums that WellPoint’s state-regulated subsidiaries collected last year. It also represents about 40 percent of WellPoint's 2009 adjusted pre-tax profit margin.

The losses at WellPoint's subsidiaries would have been about the same even if the company had been allowed to pool its results, which is one option the insurance commissioners are considering.

However, some observers fear that health insurers will simply leave markets where they are well below the threshold, which could reduce consumer options.

To soften the blow of the new rule, WellPoint would like to include its spending on wellness programs, which it formerly characterized as administrative costs. Now, WellPoint wants to count those dollars as medical expenses.

The difference, which WellPoint adopted in its accounting in April, would helped the company add 1 percentage point to its medical-loss ratio—which would translate to about $330 million of that $800 million that it would not have to refund to customers.

WellPoint officials continue to be upbeat about the company’s chances under the new law. Chief Strategy Officer Brad Fluegel told the Wall Street Journal that the company’s size—33 million insured customers—would allow it more opportunities than its competitors to reduce costs, thereby meeting the new medical-loss-ratio caps.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • self inflicted
    I have zero sympathy for Wellpoint. They did this to themselves. If they hadn't been raising their rates by 39%, there wouldn't have been a need to take this step.
  • Look to the future...
    Look to the 7/7/10 WSJ article re the MASS healthcare reform plan if you wish to see where all this is headed.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT