IBJNews

Health insurers expect hit from reform rule

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A new health care overhaul mandate that once stirred fear among insurers is proving to be challenging — but not too challenging — as it makes its debut in 2011.

Major health insurers say a provision that requires them to spend a certain percentage of the premiums they collect on care-related costs will eat into earnings this year. But Aetna Inc. and Cigna Corp. both say their profits could still grow in 2011, and Aetna also plans to start paying a significantly higher dividend to shareholders this year.

Indianapolis-based WellPoint Inc., the largest health insurer based on enrollment, expects to take a $300 million hit this year just from the so-called medical-loss ratio provision, and it forecast a lower profit than 2010.

But Citi analyst Carl McDonald predicts the insurer will soon announce its own shareholder dividend. A spokeswoman for WellPoint, which runs Blue Cross Blue Shield plans in several states, declined to comment on that and said the company will discuss its capital deployment plans at its annual investor meeting Feb. 23.

The medical-loss ratio, or MLR, scared insurance investors and industry representatives at first because it essentially regulates company profits.

"It sounded worse than it is when you actually look at the financial impact," said Morningstar analyst Matthew Coffina, who termed the provision a "mild negative" for the industry.

Starting this year, insurers have to spend at least 80 percent of the premiums they collect on care-related costs for individual and small-group insurance and 85 percent for large-group coverage, or offer customer rebates. The goal behind the law is to make sure a good portion of the premiums an insurer collects goes toward care and not profits or big salaries.

The industry trade group America's Health Insurance Plans warned last fall, while the nuts and bolts of the rule were being debated, that it could reduce competition and lead to coverage disruptions. But regulators worked to avoid that with final rules that allow states to apply for waivers if regulators conclude insurers may leave a market because they won't be able to meet the minimums.

Insurers, meanwhile, adjusted to comply with the ratios. Many are slashing commissions for individual and small-group insurance brokers. They also are figuring out how to operate more efficiently or invest money back into their business to meet the required minimums and make their product more attractive.

That might mean running more nurse call centers to manage the cost of care for heart failure patients, said Dan Mendelson, CEO of the research firm Avalere Health.

"I feel like the rules of the road changed, and now everybody is figuring out how to drive on the left side as opposed to the right side," he said.

To be sure, the industry will feel an impact from the new rule. Aetna could pay rebates ranging from $80 million to $100 million next year based on its 2011 MLRs, according to a BernsteinResearch estimate.

The MLR impact largely depends on an insurer's business mix. Analysts say the 80 percent requirement for individual and small-group coverage will be much more challenging for insurers than the large-group requirement.

Wells Fargo Securities analyst Peter Costa said some insurers may still eventually leave unprofitable markets, especially if they get hit from multiple angles.

Insurers also face other costs from the health care overhaul and growing scrutiny of their individual rates from regulators. On top of that, low interest rates will pressure them this year. Health care use, which was lower than expected last year, is expected to return to normal levels in 2011, which drives up costs.

"There will, in my opinion, be a point where companies won't be willing to stick with it and continue to take losses," Costa said.

But BMO Capital analyst Dave Shove said insurers for the most part will adjust to the MLR requirement.

"It doesn't take the growth away . it changes the base off of which you grow," he said.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Ahhhh--poor babies!
    They are making alot of money as it is-------maybe they should trying going up and beyond to help their insured.

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. In reality, Lilly is maintaining profit by cutting costs such as Indiana/US citizen IT workers by a significant amount with their Tata Indian consulting connection, increasing Indian H1B's at Lillys Indiana locations significantly and offshoring to India high paying Indiana jobs to cut costs and increase profit at the expense of U.S. workers.

  2. I think perhaps there is legal precedence here in that the laws were intended for family farms, not pig processing plants on a huge scale. There has to be a way to squash this judges judgment and overrule her dumb judgement. Perhaps she should be required to live in one of those neighbors houses for a month next to the farm to see how she likes it. She is there to protect the people, not the corporations.

  3. http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/engineer/facts/03-111.htm Corporate farms are not farms, they are indeed factories on a huge scale. The amount of waste and unhealthy smells are environmentally unsafe. If they want to do this, they should be forced to buy a boundary around their farm at a premium price to the homeowners and landowners that have to eat, sleep, and live in a cesspool of pig smells. Imagine living in a house that smells like a restroom all the time. Does the state really believe they should take the side of these corporate farms and not protect Indiana citizens. Perhaps justifiable they should force all the management of the farms to live on the farm itself and not live probably far away from there. Would be interesting to investigate the housing locations of those working at and managing the corporate farms.

  4. downtown in the same area as O'malia's. 350 E New York. Not sure that another one could survive. I agree a Target is needed d'town. Downtown Philly even had a 3 story Kmart for its downtown residents.

  5. Indy-area residents... most of you have no idea how AMAZING Aurelio's is. South of Chicago was a cool pizza place... but it pales in comparison to the heavenly thin crust Aurelio's pizza. Their deep dish is pretty good too. My waistline is expanding just thinking about this!

ADVERTISEMENT