published Monday, August 23rd, 2010

Protecting premium dollars

by Emily Bregel

Consumer advocates and doctors are praising reforms that force health insurers to direct more dollars to actual medical care and less to profits and executive bonuses.

“People want to know that their insurance premium dollars are buying them health care coverage, and they don’t want it spent on fat salaries for executives or outrageous marketing expenses,” said Paula Wade, assistant director of managed markets analysis for HealthLeaders Interstudy in Nashville, a health business research group.

But some in the industry are lamenting the federal health care reforms’ impact on small insurance companies, insurance brokers and consumer choice.

Starting in January, health insurers must spend at least 80 percent of their premium revenue on medical claims for individual and small group plans. For large groups, 85 percent of premium dollars must go to health care.

Insurers who don’t meet those benchmarks will have to pay rebates to consumers.


Cigna Healthcare’s medical-loss ratio to date this year was 82.3 percent, spokeswoman Judy Hartling said.

She said officials couldn’t comment on the potential impact of medical-loss ratio rules until all details were finalized, but she said the company does not expect reform will slow health care cost increases by regulating premiums.

BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee’s most recently calculated medical-loss ratio from December — for both group and individual under-65 plans — is 85.3 percent, spokeswoman Mary Thompson said.

She also declined to comment on the impact of the new rules before all definitions are finalized.

Wade said that as Americans face a mandate to buy health insurance starting in 2014, oversight of insurers will guarantee that consumers’ money will be spent on medical care.

“You need to guarantee there’s value there,” she said.

An August report from Health Care for America Now, which supported health care reform, found that executives for the 10 largest for-profit insurance companies earned a combined compensation of $228.1 million in 2009, up from $85.5 million in 2008.

“The current structure of our insurance industry is to make sure the insurance industry makes money,” said Tony Garr, executive director of the Tennessee Health Care Campaign.

“It’s not to make sure that enrollees are covered. It’s not to make sure they get the best care, not to make sure the premiums are the lowest possible.”

But insurers say the profits are a tiny fraction of the nation’s total health care costs. In 2009, insurers’ profits were just 0.52 percent of national health expenditures, according to America’s Health Insurance Plans, an industry trade group.


Reform also seeks to rein in unreasonable premium rate increases. Last week, $51 million in new federal grants were released to help states keep a closer eye on proposed insurance premium rate increases.

Family premiums for employer-sponsored health coverage have increased by 131 percent in 10 years, according to the nonprofit, nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation, a research foundation focused on health care issues.

Dozens of states already exercise some oversight of insurers’ rates. Tennessee requires state approval for premium rates in the individual market. Under federal reform, that oversight will expand to include groups.

Georgia officials did not apply for the grants to increase regulation of premiums.

Ken Ellinger, a political science professor at Dalton State College and self-described progressive, said the new rules represent “appropriate government regulation” of the insurance industry.

“It prevents them from just pocketing the money and getting rich, which is pretty much what they’re been doing. What company doesn’t want to make bigger profits?” he asked.

Even for those with qualms about health reform, the provisions are fair consumer protections, said B.W. Ruffner, a Chattanooga oncologist and president of the Tennessee Medical Association.

“Anything we do that basically throws down the gauntlet that (insurers) can’t keep adding more staff and making more attempts to control the health care system at the expense of the premium payers is a good thing,” he said.


Regulators are still finalizing how they will define medical-loss ratios, and insurance department officials in Tennessee and Georgia say they’re unsure what the impact will be.

Medical-loss ratios vary widely by plan type. Individual plans allocate much more of their premium dollars to administrative costs compared to large group plans, according to a study published in April by the Senate Commerce Committee.

In 2009, the six largest for-profit insurers spent an average of 73.6 percent of individual plan premium dollars on health care, compared to 85.1 percent for large groups. On the low end, Humana spent just 68.1 percent of individual premium revenues on actual medical care in 2009.

But on average, insurers appear able to meet the new minimum requirements. A study by Pricewaterhouse-Coopers commissioned by America’s Health Insurance Plans found that in 2007, about 87 percent of insurance premiums were spent on medical care and 13 percent on administrative costs, including profits.

Wade said that for market dominators such as BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee, which has 43 percent of the fully insured market in the state, reaching those minimum standards shouldn’t be hard.

Nonprofits also benefit from tax benefits and from not having shareholders, which will make the change easier, insurance agents said.

But insurers with a smaller footprint and higher per-customer overhead costs — such as Aetna and United Healthcare in Tennessee — face a greater challenge, Wade said.

Reform could result in smaller insurers merging or abandoning some products to stay profitable, she said, and that could constrain choices for some consumers.

The impact on insurance brokers — those who sell plans to employers and individuals and take part of the premiums as their commission — could be dire, some in the industry said.

Broker commissioners are about 5 percent for small group plans and 1 to 3 percent for larger employers, said local insurance agent Russ Blakely.

Insurance companies looking to rein in expenses could slash those rates, forcing some agents out of business, he said.

“For some brokers, it definitely would affect their ability to remain a broker, particularly smaller agencies with just a handful of people,” Blakely said.

Click here to vote in our daily poll: Should insurance companies spend more on health care?

Continue reading by following these links to related stories:

Article: Premium increase modest for Medicare drug plans

Article: Hospital cuts jobs to stay afloat

Article: Obama praises Senate committee’s health care vote

about Emily Bregel...

Health care reporter Emily Bregel has worked at the Chattanooga Times Free Press since July 2006. She previously covered banking and wrote for the Life section. Emily, a native of Baltimore, Md., earned a bachelor’s degree in American Studies from Columbia University. She received a first-place award for feature writing from the East Tennessee Society of Professional Journalists’ Golden Press Card Contest for a 2009 article about a boy with a congenital heart defect. She ...

Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
shawnmichael23 said...

yeah that is true, major brands do give out free samples of their popular health products best place to get yours is tell your friends and family too

August 23, 2010 at 1:48 a.m.
shawnmichael23 said...

Health care (transformation) is one of the best issues this current administration has done thus far. With this change individuals will have the opportunity to seek professional and quality health care services. Who would want to return to the days of the horse and buggy, b/w tv sets, manual typewriters, pac man, you get the point? That's about how old the health care system was in the USA. Each day the news is filled with social tragedies in which lives are taken at the hands of known acquaintences and/or family members. Our society is stricken with the institutions of white collar crime permeating throughout this great nation and greed which tends to strike at the very fabric of our country. If you are looking for affordable health insurance check out . I hope everyone will soon recognize and use the resources made by this transformation to seek professional medical attention as the need arises rather than turning to illegal and criminal activities to resolve their issues.

August 23, 2010 at 4:45 a.m.
xsiveporsche said...

Maybe I am wrong but I always thought that the government did not regulate businesses. Free trade. Now with the government in the auto business and getting involved in health care what else are they going to try and run. They are already trying to run our lives. Now making us buy health insurance, what happened to freedom in this country. Just like seatbelt use. It should be my choice if I wear a seat belt or not. I am a firm beleiver in seat belts but still it should be my choice. Why should I be forced to buy health insurance. If the people would get up of their lazy rears and rebel against this sort of communism then we might get our country back but the American people have become to Lazy and to self absorbed.

August 23, 2010 at 8:03 a.m.
harrystatel said...

Want to bring down health insurance premiums?

Let me and not the State decide who I can choose for insurance. Let insurance companies cross State lines.

Competition for best prices and best services--not the corporatism that pays lobbyists and legislators for protection.

Harry Statel

August 23, 2010 at 10:44 a.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »


Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.