Health Insurance Rates are FALLING ALL ACROSS THE NATION

[longfisher]

Although I've seen numerous reports of companies cutting rates for new business in other parts of the nation in the last few weeks, today I rec'd direct notifications from two of my appointed insurers here in Texas that rates will be reduced effective immediately for new business.

I don't know whether or not it is due to:

1) The deals Obama cut behind closed doors with the hospitals, doctors and big pharma, or,

2) The money the Feds gave to the States to encourage them to review insurance rates, or,

3) The fact that the DHHS was going to post rate increases and the insurers' justifications for same on both the DHHS site and the insurers' sites, or,

4) The fact that the insurers Medical Loss Ratios in 2010 showed that they were incredibly profitable and they're embarrassed that the public now knows it, or,

5) All of the above and probably some more I didn't list.

But the rates are coming down. In some cases, they're coming down dramatically.

It sure looks like the average Joe out there who has maintained insurance can now switch to another policy and save a bundle soon. And, it looks like those who were frozen out of the market due to high prices may have a little better edge getting insurance now.

So, is Health Reform working? Did Health Reform actually target the right problem areas, the insurers. Are all the wierd calculations made by the Right which suggested that Health Reform would cost the country trillions over the next decade B.S. Does this early success without the individual and employer mandates in place suggest that, as Howard Dean has always insisted, the mandates are absolutely unnecessary and counterproductive.

Although it's a bit early in this breaking wave to make reliable projections, early indications suggest that these things might be true. These early results are trending in Obama's favor, for sure.

LF

[JD5652]

LF-

You had better call NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, NY Times, Washington Post, WS Journal and even Fox News......because you're the only that has this data and seen this trend..... call me Missouri......show me the proof....

[loosegoose]

Seems kinda funny since I just renewed our company's health insurance this month and the lowest quote we recieved was a 26% increase..... highest being 120% increase!!! WAY TO GO OBAMA!!!!!

[longfisher]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...aKH_story.html

http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-...-to-customers/

http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/05...al-health.html

There's more that aren't readily available as links as they're private communications to brokers that I can't post. But here CIGNA is reducing Individual / family rates as they're exiting the group health market altogether. In fact, they phoned me the other day about my customers who'd recently received renewal notices and politely asked me to phone them to tell them the rates quoted were too high and they'd be getting a new notice with reduced rates.

Also, here for group health I've seen Humana's rates decrease a full 20% for many new business quotes. Others say Humana's rate decreases are "unsustainable". I'm quoting the heck out of Humana plans now as they're cheap, cheap, cheap and I'm losing fewer bids as a result.

Hope that helps.

LF

[longfisher]

...absolutely need a new broker who will shop for you rather than sit back one his butt and hope you'll moan and groan but accept the higher rates anyway.

Time to change helmsman, I think.

LF

[longfisher]

California: http://professional.wsj.com/article/...333544990.html

Connecticut: http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/201...0/bise0601.htm

North Carolina: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...nce21_ST_N.htm

DHHS Publication that explicitly cites the Affordable Care Act as the root cause of the rate reductions: http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2010pr...20101122a.html

The rabid right wingers here who foolishly said that Health Reform wouldn't control costs appear to be quite silent now.

LF

[worldcat lemon]

LF, "Health Reform" has nothing to do with falling rates and more to do with people dropping plans due to the economy and insurers are forced to reduce the premiums to hold onto market share. Greed says "getting a little from alot of people is better than getting alot from a few". IMHO

[longfisher]

LF, "Health Reform" has nothing to do with falling rates and more to do with people dropping plans due to the economy and insurers are forced to reduce the premiums to hold onto market share. Greed says "getting a little from alot of people is better than getting alot from a few". IMHO

WCL, thanks for chiming in and thanks for your opinion.

At least in Texas, there's very little real price competition between insurers, and, we have 8 major health insurers here. The price difference between what these 8 charge for the same company census and for the same basic coverage seldom ranges more than single digit percents. I know, I quote all 8 almost every day as we have a practice of "shopping the market" for our customers as they come up for renewal.

Indeed, when we try to earn new business from another brokerage this is the principle reason we fail, the quotes we prepare for the prospective customer differ so little from what he's already paying and what his renewal rate is with his existing insurer that he doesn't see the advantage of switching. We win very few such bids unless someone, the broker or the insurer, has mightily pissed off the customer generally about something other than price.

So, I discount competitive pressures among insurers as an explanation for the price roll-backs.

A more convincing argument to me is that the insurers, now bulging with profits from premium overcharges, are facing a dilemna. Health Reform requires them to reimburse their policy holders for any premiums they collect 120% of their claims expenses. Most insurers are looking that reality dead in the face in 2011, but particularly UHC, CIGNA and Blue Cross here.

Most common folks believe that 20% profit is enough for any well-run business. But the profit we're talking about above is merely on premium revenues vs. claims costs. These figures don't take into consideration several other revenue streams these companies have, particularly investment income which results from their ability to invest their huge reserves and make a killing.

Of course, reimbursing customers for what amount to overcharges is embarrassing. Most common folks will take that to mean that they were unfairly treated (overcharged) in the first place. And, that might very well drive customers into the arms of those insurers who aren't overcharging and who, as a result, aren't required to reimburse customers.

The only way the insurers could avoid this would be if their overcharges were obscured somehow. In the past, the insurers did this by:

1) lack of transparency
2) lack of full-disclosure
3) manipulation of State legislators through campaign contributions to insulate them from new regulations which require disclosure and transparency
4) calculating the medical loss ratio in non-sensical ways so there was never any way to reasonably compare one company's performance to another.
5) simply misrepresenting the truth.

Health Reform stops most of that by requiring standard definitions and calculations and by requiring public disclosure of meaningful justifications of their rate hikes on the Internet. Like roaches exposed to an pre-dawn kitchen light being thrown on by a homeowner, they're scurrying trying to justify what has now been widely exposed as overcharging.

If anything, that's where the competitive pressure comes from. And, Health Reform's regulations about overcharging is the precise and sole cause of this pressure.

Again, WCL, thanks for your opinion and for voicing it here.
LF

[longfisher]

http://www.projo.com/news/stategover..._v7.3b867.html

The Republicans are trying to eliminate these funds. Who do the Republicans work for again?

LF

[longfisher]

U.S. Senators Commend Oregon Insurance Regulators
The Lund Report (08/04/11) Rosenfeld, David

The Oregon Insurance Division's rate review process has been praised for its public involvement, amount of information required from insurers, and the resulting reductions in premium increases. In testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions, Oregon Insurance Administrator Teresa Miller said the state has reduced health insurance premiums by $25 million as a result of the $1 million federal grant it received in 2010. She said, "In the year that followed the strengthening of our state's rate review law, we lowered rate review requests 50 percent of the time." The funding was used to hire another actuary, roll out the OregonHealthRate.org site to involve the public, and forge a contract with the Oregon State Public Interest Research Group to benefit consumers.


Those of you who complain about high insurance rates but don't write your congressmen and senators telling them to stop the Republicans who are trying to kill the funds to help states scrutinize insurance rates are pathetic.

Frankly, if you're not doing this you've lost the right to complain, IMHO.

LF