IBJNews

Report: WellPoint, Aetna may need relief from cost mandate

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The U.S. health overhaul’s mandate that insurers spend 80 percent of premiums on medical care may need to be loosened to keep companies from quitting the market for people who buy coverage on their own, state regulators said.

Lowering the requirement in some states “may be desirable” at least until 2014, when other provisions in the health-care law will make it easier to find insurance, according to a draft report released Monday by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. The group of state regulators is expected to send a final recommendation on the rules to U.S. officials by June 1.

The health law passed by Congress in March will force insurers, led by Indianapolis-based WellPoint Inc. and Aetna Inc. of Hartford, Conn., to give rebates to customers next year if companies don’t meet the medical-spending minimums. The commissioners’ draft report said the rule may be too strict for some individual policies, where marketing and administrative costs tend to be higher.

The disruption would depend on “the extent to which issuers would be unable or unwilling to meet the standards, and would therefore withdraw from the market and terminate existing policies,” the memo said. “In the worst case, this could lead to a lack of available coverage.”

Starting in 2014, insurance companies will be banned from denying customers based on their health, and states will open online “exchanges” to assist consumers in buying policies. Until those provisions begin to assist buyers, reducing the medical-cost requirement “in many states” may be the best solution, the report said.

The health-care legislation allows for the suspension of the 80 percent standard if it would destabilize the individual insurance market. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is expected to propose the final regulations later this year.

The memo, written by Rick Diamond, an actuary with the Maine Bureau of Insurance, said most insurers will meet the requirement for large- and small-group policies. Compliance will be easier because the law lets companies subtract state taxes on premiums while including as medical costs a range of “activities that improve health-care quality,” the memo said.

Diamond, in a conference call with fellow regulators Monday, said the association may ask for more time to draft its recommendations, or may issue only an initial guidance on June 1, to be updated later this year.

The final recommendation may also exclude as medical spending actions that reduce costs for insurers without improving quality, he said. The expense of negotiating lower rates from doctors would be one example, he said.

“Whatever costs we’re talking about, it seems like if it only does that and has no effect on quality, then it’s not a quality improvement expense,” Diamond said, while adding that the language may still change.

ADVERTISEMENT

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. Can your dog sign a marriage license or personally state that he wishes to join you in a legal union? If not then no, you cannot marry him. When you teach him to read, write, and speak a discernible language, then maybe you'll have a reasonable argument. Thanks for playing!

  2. Look no further than Mike Rowe, the former host of dirty jobs, who was also a classically trained singer.

  3. Current law states income taxes are paid to the county of residence not county of income source. The most likely scenario would be some alteration of the income tax distribution formula so money earned in Marion co. would go to Marion Co by residents of other counties would partially be distributed to Marion co. as opposed to now where the entirety is held by the resident's county.

  4. This is more same-old, same-old from a new generation of non-progressive 'progressives and fear mongers. One only needs to look at the economic havoc being experienced in California to understand the effect of drought on economies and people's lives. The same mindset in California turned a blind eye to the growth of population and water needs in California, defeating proposal after proposal to build reservoirs, improve water storage and delivery infrastructure...and the price now being paid for putting the demands of a raucous minority ahead of the needs of many. Some people never, never learn..

  5. I wonder if I can marry him too? Considering we are both males, wouldn't that be a same sex marriage as well? If they don't honor it, I'll scream discrimination just like all these people have....

ADVERTISEMENT