Initial Response

It’s going to take some time to dive into the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision on the constitutionality of provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The opinion is now online for those who wish to wade through it. Here’s my initial take:

1. As noted in my first post today, the individual mandate isn’t much of a mandate, but the principle of a mandate could have brought down the entire health care reform package. It didn’t, but that doesn’t mean the individual mandate, as written, will have the impact supporters of the PPACA intend. The only thing that’s new today is that this provision of the law can now be described as a “tax.”

2. Chief Justice John Roberts makes clear that he believes an individual mandate would violate the Commerce Clause. However, because he interprets it as a tax, that observation is important, but doesn’t effect the outcome. The other four Justices in the majority (Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan), in a separate opinion, stated their belief an individual mandate is constitutional. However, in order to form a majority they’ve signed off on Chief Justice’s Robert’s interpretation. So while having four members of the Court interpret the Commerce Clause this way is significant to legal scholars and could impact the future, for now it’s immaterial.

3. The four Justices dissenting from the majority opinion (Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito) would have found the entire PPACA unconstitutional. Chief Justice Roberts often sides with this group of colleagues. He made history by parting ways with his more conservative colleagues. Justices might have lifetime tenure on the Court, but it still took courage for the Chief Justice to make this decision.

4. Politically, this decision is a two-edged sword for both presidential candidates. The Administration’s key domestic accomplishment has been upheld. The Administration can now move forward to implement the health care reform package without the cloud of court decisions making their work meaningless. But the President’s key domestic accomplishment is also one of his greatest liabilities in the upcoming election. The PPACA remains unpopular. Many Americans (including four Supreme Court Justices) believes it’s an unwarranted expansion of federal power at the expense of personal liberty. This decision will only flame the passions of those who take this view, meaning they’ll be going to the polls in November with one goal in mind: elect a President and Congress that will repeal the PPACA. Will supporters of the bill be as motivated and engaged? Not likely.

5. Just because the PPACA is constitutional does not mean we’ve seen the final version of the law. Congress will amend health care reform. Agencies (both federal and state) will interpret it. The PPACA is complicated and open to significant interpretation. The upcoming election will determine how much the law will change, not that it will be changing.

6. The PPACA accomplishes a lot of good things: increases access to coverage, provides some useful and meaningful consumer protections, takes the first steps needed to begin constraining health care costs, and more. The PPACA also botches a lot of important things: it will not make coverage more affordable, it doesn’t go far enough to constrain escalating health care costs, and more. Lawmakers owe it to their constituents to revisit the law and make some substantial changes. This doesn’t mean Democrats have to follow the GOP’s demand to repeal the law nor does it mean Republicans have to cave to the administration. But both sides need to recognize that the PPACA is the law of the land. Barring a GOP super-majority in the Senate come 2013, the PPACA is not going away. So responsible leaders will try to make it the best law possible.

7. The Court majority made clear an individual mandate is not justified by the Commerce Clause or the Necessary and Proper Clauses of the Constitution. This will have an impact on other social welfare efforts Congress might consider. Needing to fund expansion of the safety net through taxes is a tough political and practical challenge.

8. However, there were four votes to uphold the PPACA under the Commerce Clause. Which underscores the importance of this November election. Presidents appoint Supreme Court Justices. All of the Justices four of the Justices upholding the law under the Commerce Clause were appointed by Democrats. All four of the Justices voting seeking to overturn the law were appointed by Republicans. The Chief Justice shows that not every appointment votes in the way one would expect based on the party of their appointing President. And two of the liberal Justices joined with conservatives and agreed that the Medicaid expansion included in the PPACA was unconstitutional. But the fact is, the appointments of Republican Presidents tend to be more conservative; those appointed by Democrats tend to be more liberal. At least one, and maybe more, vacancies will open on the Supreme Court in the next four years. Who is President matters.

9. The Supreme’s decision on the Medicaid provision of the health care reform law will be interesting. In essence, a 7-2 majority said the law went too far in threatening to withhold Medicaid funding to states who refuse to expand Medicaid eligibility to those at up to 133% of the federal poverty level. They ruled the federal government can withhold the additional funding promised in the PPACA to pay for this expansion, but they can’t take all Medicaid funding away from non-participating states. Put another way: states have the ability to opt out of the Medicaid expansion. Given the importance of this expansion to reduce the uninsured, this is an issue President Obama and his allies in Congress will need to address. As noted above, the health care reform debate is far from over.

10. While watching the news about the decision, an ad by Concerned Women for America with a vicious (and somewhat inaccurate) attack on the PPACA aired on CNN. The upcoming election will be about the economy, but health care reform will be a major factor as well.

7. People who predict what the Supreme Court is going to do and how they are going to do it are making wild guesses. Pundits take another blow.

So, I don’t pretend to have any special insight on the meaning of the Court’s decision today. But my mother misses these posts so I thought I’d return to the keyboard again. I’ll try to write a more thoughtful piece later today or in the next few days. In the meantime, please let me know your thoughts on all this.

And the Winners Are … Maybe

According to SCOTUSblog, the winners are the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the administration of President Barack Obama and the individual mandate … as a tax. But as Amy Howe of that blog notes “It’s very complicated, so we’re still figuring it out.” Chief Justice Roberts joined with the more liberal members of the Court to find the individual mandate (such as it is) constitutional.

So, bottom line: the PPACA is upheld. Yes, the Medicaid provision that allows the federal government to terminate state’s Medicaid funds if they fail to expand coverage to 133% of the federal poverty level is limited a bit through a strict reading of the provision, but the bottom line is the bottom line: the PPACA

The sky is not falling as of yet. The Republic survives. And the Chief Justice, appointed by President George W. Bush (not Justice Anthony Kennedy) is the swing vote. Few predicted that one.

The critical quote, again as reported by SCOTUSblog (which, really, anyone reading this as it’s written should just move over to that site) is “Our precedent demonstrates that Congress had the power to impose the exaction in Section 5000A under the taxing power, and that Section 5000A need not be read to do more than impose a tax. This is sufficient to sustain it.” Section 5000A being the individual mandate.

I’m Just Sitting on a Fence

Hello. As you may have noticed, this blog has been dark a lot longer than the month or two I thought it would be. But what’s 10 months among friends? I haven’t made it back to regular blogging because things at SeeChange Health have simply been too busy. We’ve launched statewide in California back in September, have grown very consistently since then (thanks to all of you supporting our approach to health insurance) and we’re waiting on regulators in Colorado to begin selling there. All of which has kept me away from this blog.

But how can I ignore what’s happening in Washington today? With the U.S. Supreme Court ready to announce their decision in just a few minutes, I thought I’d return for one more day of comment. So like much of the industry, I’ll be tuning in to SCOTUSblog for their live coverage and I’ll be back to provide whatever insight I can add as soon as the Supremes do their thing. Later tonight I’ll try to offer a more considered evaluation.

One quick observation first: what’s amazing about all this is that the Supreme Court’s decision concerning the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will be based on the constitutionality of the individual mandate. A provision that, in practical terms, is hardly a mandate at all. The fine/tax/penalty/whatever-you-want-to-call-it in the PPACA is so modest as to be all but meaningless. Yet whether a mandate in concept (if not fact) is constitutional will have tremendous impact.

As far as predictions go? I’m with the Rolling Stones on this one: “I’m just sittin’ on a fence You can say I got no sense Trying to make up my mind Really is too horrifying So I’m sittin on a fence.”

Be back soon.

HHS to Pay Brokers for Enrolling Consumers in Federal High Risk Pool

Should brokers be compensated for helping consumers to enroll in government programs like the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan (PCIP) created by the new health care reform law? Until now, the federal government’s answer has been “no.” That changed today and a significant precedent is being set.

The National Association of Health Underwriters announced today that, beginning no later than October 1st, licensed agents and brokers will be paid a flat fee of $100 per enrolled applicant. (Payments could begin sooner if the changes to the application can be done more quickly).

This fee will only apply to the high risk pools set up by the federal government for the 23 states who declined or were unable to do so plus the District of Columbia. Many, if not most, state-run exchanges already pay brokers for assisting their citizens in enrolling in their pools. According to NAHU the average state-based fee is $85 per enrolled applicant.

In announcing the change, the Department of Health and Human Services noted the greater enrollment success achieved in states pools that compensate brokers for their work. As stated in the Department’s press release: “This step will help reach those who are eligible but un-enrolled. Several States have experimented with such payments with good success.,”

The decision to support and work with brokers is part of the Department’s efforts to increase enrollment in the PCIP high risk plans by removing administrative hurdles and lowering premiums. In fact,  in 18 of the states, premiums will be coming down as much as 40 percent according to a press release from HHS.

The PCIP was designed to provide coverage to individuals unable to obtain health insurance in the private market due to existing health conditions. 18,313 Americans have enrolled in the federal high risk pool through March 31st, a fraction of the 5 million consumers expected to enroll in the program (fraction as in “0.4%).

Progress usually comes in small steps, not giant leaps. The significance of HHS recognizing the value brokers bring to America’s health care system—and their willingness to pay for that value—should not be underestimated. For example, the House of Representatives will soon conduct a hearing on HR 1206, the legislation to remove broker compensation from the medical loss ratio calculations required by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Proponents of this law will be able to point to the recruitment efforts of HHS in support of the federal Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan to reinforce the need to keep brokers in their role as consumer counselors and advocates in the new health insurance world being created by the PPACA.

NAHU and other agent organizations worked hard to achieve this recognition. No doubt, however, some brokers will protest that the HHS program pays brokers only a one-time fee. This complaint is misplaced. Enrollment in the PCIP is fundamentally different than working with consumers shopping for coverage in the commercial market. The PCIP is, after all, a government health plan, more similar to Medicaid than to plans available on the open market. Further, enrollees in the high risk plan, by definition, cannot obtain traditional coverage. What’s significant is not the details of the compensation (although it is worth pointing out that HHS is setting the fee higher than the average paid by states), but the existence of compensation for enrolling Americans into a federal health plan.  When it comes to precedents, this is one that can aptly be described as “significant.”

States and Health Care Reform

Health insurance has long been a state affair in the USA. Insurance companies were even exempt from many aspects of federal anti-trust law to better enable state regulators to oversee their activities. Yes, there were federal laws that standardized certain aspects of the business—think HIPAA and COBRA. Think about Medicaid, Medicare and SCHIP while you’re at it. But when it came to health insurance regulation the states reigned supreme.

Enter Congress and President Barack Obama stage left. With the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act the federal role in shaping and regulating health insurance shifted significantly to Washington, DC. The Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services is now arguably the most important health insurance regulator in the country. The Department of Labor and Internal Revenue Service will also play significant roles in determining the future of the nation’s health insurance market and the choices (or lack of choices) Americans have to meet their health care coverage needs. No wonder critics of the PPACA condemn the law as a “federal takeover.”

That the nexus of health plan oversight has shifted to the federal government is beyond argument. The new health care reform law touches everything from how medical plans are designed, priced, offered, maintained and purchased. To conclude that state insurance regulators are shunted to the sideline, however, dangerously overstates the case. In fact, the PPACA invests tremendous flexibility in the states, allowing them to implement the federal requirements in what will likely be very divergent ways.

Rebecca Vesely, writing in Business Insurance, makes this clear in her article describing how two states, Vermont and Florida, are taking strikingly different paths in addressing health care reform. Vermont has taken the first step toward creating a single payer system by 2017. Legislation to set up a five member board to move the state in this direction has already been enacted. And while many details need to be worked out (funding, to name one) and Vermont will need to obtain a waiver from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to put the package together, the state is further down the road to single payer than any other.

Then there’s Florida where the move is in the opposite direction. That state is seeking to shift virtually all of its Medicaid population from government coverage into private plans starting in July 2012. These private managed care plans would be offered through large health care networks with health plan profits above five percent shared with the state. Whether this approach will achieve the $1.1 billion in first year savings promised by the Governor or not, it has brought new participants into the Medicaid marketplace such as Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida.

The Business Insurance article includes a prediction by Boston University law professor Kevin Outterson that the Obama administration will sign off on the waivers Vermont and Florida need to move forward.

What the starkly different approaches to reigning in skyrocketing health care costs being taken by Florida and Vermont demonstrates is the broad flexibility states retain in shaping their own health care destiny. Yes, federal waivers are required, but that would be the case even if the PPACA had never passed—Medicaid is a federal program after all. The CMS web site lists 451 state waivers or demonstration projects in place today. The concept of allowing experimentations and exceptions is ingrained in the Medicaid program just as they are in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. There’s nothing wrong with this any more than having shock absorbers on a car is an indictment of an automobile’s chassis or tires.

The marked variation in approaches being taken by Vermont and Florida are extreme examples of what we’ll see as states implement exchanges and other aspects of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Of course, whether this is good news or bad news depends a great deal on the state in which you live and work. States that are heavily tilted toward one party or the other (I’m looking at you California and Wisconsin) could make some of their residents yearn for the federal government to step in and keep things in perspective. Given the way the PPACA preserves state powers, however, they are going to be disappointed.

Catching Up on Health Care Reform

Hello. It’s been awhile. Hope you’re all well. To all who have inquired, my thanks for your concern, but all’s good. Hectic, but good. Lot’s going on (more on that later) and an awful lot of travel. I’ve had a chance to meet and talk with brokers in various parts of the country, including a few places I’ve never been before or haven’t been to for years: Boise, Omaha, Denver, Nashville. It’s been a great time to learn, recharge and stay a bit too busy to write any meaningful posts. While staying busy appears to be the new constant, I’ll try to find something worthy to share on a more regular basis. For now, however, let’s play some catch-up:

We’ll start with some (relatively) good news. One of the more popular elements of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is the ability for children up to age 26 to remain on their parents’ medical insurance. The Department of Health and Human Services estimated 1.2 million young adults would take advantage of this opportunity. A story at Kaiser Health News indicates the actual number may be much higher: at least 600,000 young adults have already obtained coverage under their parents’ health plans. While most of the growth has apparently been in self-insured groups, fully insured plans are experiencing the same upsurge in membership. WellPoint, for example, reports adding 280,000 young adult dependents nationwide and the federal government added a similar number (although the article didn’t state what percentage of these were in fully-insured plans).

Of course, when it comes to health care reform every silver cloud has a gray lining. The Kaiser Health News article quotes Helen Darling, CEO of the National Business Group on Health, as noting “I don’t think anyone is eager to spend more money. This is not something employers would have done on their own.” She further cites the unfairness of asking employers to cover adult children who may be employed elsewhere. And businesses (and their employees) will pay a bit more due to this expansion of coverage to young adults – about one percent more according to estimates. And while its unclear how many of these individuals would not be able to obtain coverage elsewhere, but the general thinking is that a large majority of these young adults would be uninsured or underinsured, but for this provision of the PPACA.

Next let’s pause to note how rate regulation can be big business for consumer groups. In some states, regulators must approve health plan rate increases before they take effect. In others carriers may need to file their rate changes with regulators, but so long as the rate increases are actuarially sound they move forward. California, where rate increases tend to generate national news, is in the latter camp. The state’s Insurance Commissioner, Dave Jones would like to change that. (Actually he’d like to put health insurance companies out-of-business by implementing a single-payer system, but that’s another matter). However, he and others are pushing to change that. Assembly Bill 52, authored by Assemblymen Mike Feuer and Jared Huffman. This legislation would give the Department of Insurance (which regulates insurers in the state) and the Department of Managed Care (which regulates HMOs) to reject rate or benefit changes the agencies determine to be “excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory.”

In the findings section of the bill (which are the “whereas” clauses justifying the bill), the legislation cites rising premiums and the need for the state to “have the authority to minimize families’ loss of health insurance coverage as a result of steeply rising premiums costs” are among the problems the bill is intended to address. The solution: give politicians and bureaucrats the power to reject rate increases. No need, apparently, to address the underlying cost of medical care. The assumption seems to be that the way to reduce health care spending is to clamp down on premiums. This, of course, is like saying that the way to attack rising gas prices is to limit what gas stations can charge at the pump. One might conclude that, to be charitable, the legislation is addressing only a part of the problem.

Not only does AB 52 give medical care providers a free pass, it is likely to result in a windfall for the consumers groups supporting its passage. Politico Pulse notes that AB 52 requires insurance companies to pay for costs incurred by groups representing consumers at rate hearings. For groups like Consumer Watchdog this can represent a substantial amount of income. The Politico Pulse post reports that “Under a similar California provision for property and auto insurance, Consumer Watchdog has recouped approximately $7 million in legal fees since 2003”

Then there’s the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals hearing on two Virginia law suits seeking to have the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act declared unconstitutional. A ruling from the three judge panel is expected in July. Much has been made of the fact that two of these three Appeals Court Judges were appointed by President Barack Obama – and the third by President Bill Clinton. While those so inclined are likely to consider this a conspiracy of cable news worthy dissection ad nauseum, it’s important not to make too big a deal about this.

First, courtrooms are not like the floor of Congress: partisan leanings have far less influence there. Second, as the Associated Press article points out, there are 14 judges on the court. Which of them hear a particular appeal is randomly determined by a computer program. There’s nothing sinister about the three judges selected for these appeals being appointed by Democrats, it’s just the way things turned out. No black helicopters are involved. Third, whatever this panel decides will be appealed by whichever side loses. The appeal could go to a hearing before all 14 Appeals Judges in the 4th Circuit or it could go straight to the Supreme Court. Finally, even if the appeals remain at the circuit level for another round, the final decision will be made by the Supreme Court. Everything going on in the lower courts (and there’s a lot of other suits out there needing to go through their appropriate Circuit Courts), is simply prelude. Yes, what the appeals court decide influences the Supreme Court Justices, but in a matter of this magnitude, far less than one might imagine. What happens at the District and Circuit levels is not unimportant, but it’s far from definitive.

While we’re playing catch-up: my previous post noted that Congress was likely to repeal the 1099 provision in the health care reform law. They did and the President Obama signed the law removing the tax reporting requirement from the PPACA. The PPACA no longer impacts 1099 reporting. I know you already knew that, but I wanted to close the loop on this issue. It’s now closed – and repealed.

Finally, a note about broker commissions and the medical loss ratio calculations required by the health care reform law. Where we last left our heroes, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners was debating whether to endorse bi-partisan legislation (HR 1206) that would remove broker compensation from the MLR formula used to determine a health plan’s spending on claims and health quality initiatives. The NAIC task force dealing with this issue wants time to review data being pulled together by the National Association of Health Underwriters, carrier filings and elsewhere.  Pulling together all this information, much of which has never been gathered before and is not maintained in a centralized data base, took a bit longer than initially anticipated. According to Politico Pulse, however,  the task force no”now believes it has all the data it will be able to get.” Which means the task force’s final report on broker commissions and the MLR calculation is now expected by May 27th.

Stay tuned.

And thanks again for staying tuned to this blog.  I look forward to continuing the dialogue with all of you.

Repealing PPACA’s 1099 Provisions Could Happen Soon — Maybe

Getting anything done in today’s Washington is never easy. Even when there’s widespread agreement. .

Congress has been trying to eliminate the 1099 requirements since last year. Everyone agrees that the provision is an unaffordable burden on American business. President Barack Obama supports removing it from the health care reform law. So do a majority of Democrats and Republicans in Congress. It’s not hard to see why. Today businesses file a 1099 with the Internal Revenue Service only when they pay contract workers $600 or more. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act expands this to all vendors and contractors providing $600 or more in goods or services. Meaning a business (non-profit or government agency) buying $600 in paper and staples per year from, say Staples, would be required to file a 1099 form. Same with paying the guy who waters the plants. Or UPS for delivering products. Or the printer, the security service, the landlord, the … well, you get the idea.

Even with what passes in the Capitol these days for near universal support, Congress has tried and failed to repeal the provision. The problem is that more thorough reporting of payments for goods and services is expected to bring roughly $20 billion into federal coffers over the next 10 years. Repeal the enhanced reporting and the money goes away.

Democrats and Republicans have differed on how to make up for these lost funds. The House approach is to increase the amount consumers will need to repay if they receive premium subsidy overpayments. (The PPACA will assist consumers purchasing coverage through exchanges set up by the health care reform law. The premium subsidies vary based on consumers’ income as reported in previous years. If their income turns out to be higher than anticipated consumers will need to repay a portion of the subsidy).

Here’s an example used by Representative Joseph Crowley as reported in the New York Times: “A family of four with an annual income of $88,000 buys a typical family insurance policy costing $13,000. The family would have to pay $8,360 in premiums and could qualify for a federal tax credit of $4,640, which the Treasury would pay directly to the insurance company. If the breadwinner receives a $250 bonus at work, the family would become ineligible for the tax credit and would have to repay the full amount, $4,640, with its income taxes.”

Democrats oppose this outcome because the overpayment of the subsidy was no fault of the consumer. As reported in the The New York Times article, they see this as a “tax increase on the middle class” claiming “honest taxpayers might find themselves owing large sums to the I.R.S.” This they consider a tax trap. Republicans in the House deny repaying money to which one is not entitled can be described as a tax increase. They also claim it’s the same offset Democrats proposed to pay for adjusting Medicare payments to doctors, according to The Hill’s On the Money blog.

The Senate has taken a different approach to paying for repeal of the 1099 provision. They want the Office of Management and Budget to recapture unused federal dollars from various governmental agencies. But it appears there may now be sufficient votes in the Senate to go along with the GOP approach. So things will happen quickly now, right? Perhaps, but maybe not.

Senator Robert Menendez wants the Senate to consider an amendment requiring Health and Human Services to determine the impact the subsidy claw-back provision in the House bill will have on the overall cost of coverage purchased in the exchange. If this amendment were to pass, the Senate version of the legislation would differ from that passed by the House. This, in turn, would require the bill to go back to the lower House delaying passage of the repeal.

Republicans, however, are expected to stand united in opposition to this amendment, effectively blocking its passage. Assuming this is the way things play out next Tuesday, the bill could wind up on President Obama’s desk sooner rather than later. The Administration, in the past, has expressed “serious concerns” about the way the House bill retrieves subsidy overpayments. A statement from the Office of Management and Budget notes “H.R. 4 could result in tax increases on certain middle-class families that incur unexpected tax liabilities, in many cases totaling thousands of dollars, notwithstanding that they followed the rules.” The statement goes on to support the Senate approach to paying for repeal of the 1099 reporting provisions in the health care reform law.

Whether President Obama signs the legislation in an act of bi-partisan compromise or vetoes it in the cause of avoiding a middle class tax cut won’t be known for sure until the bill is before him. It remains highly likely the tax reporting element of the PPACA will eventually be repealed. Whether this will happen soon remains an open question.

NAIC to Study MLR Impact on Compensation and Consumers Before Voting on Changes

Brokers holding their breath to see if their compensation will be removed from the medical loss ratio formula required by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will be turning a darker shade of blue. The hoped for support from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, which was expected to result from a meeting of the NAIC’s Professional Health Insurance Advisors Task Force this past Sunday, has been delayed at least four weeks.

While there was widespread and strong support for removing independent broker compensation from the formula carriers are used to calculate their medical loss ratio under the PPACA, the Task Force opted to ask their staff to provide additional data before making a decision.

While disappointing the delay is not really surprising. A substantial of the commissioners are new, having just been elected or appointed as a result of the November 2010 election. As Jessica Waltman at the National Association of Health Underwriters put it in a message to NAHU’s leadership, “[I]t was clear as soon as we arrived in Austin that some of the new Commissioners (and there are quite a few of them) had reservations about moving that quickly since this is their first meeting…. some of the more senior Commissioners were very sympathetic to their concerns about rushing things through. The NAIC almost never endorses legislation, so this is a huge deal for them.“

In addition, the issue is controversial. Consumer groups and some liberal Democratic Senators have voiced opposition to changing the MLR formula.

The Agent-Broker Alliance leading the charge for this change to the health care reform law met with several supportive commissioners and the decision was made to delay the vote. This would allow time for information relevant to the issue, already requested of carriers, to be received and considered. This time will also be used by the Agent-Broker Alliance to gather and submit data on how independent brokers are able to save clients money and the post-sale service brokers provide their clients.

Most observers I talk with are optimistic the NAIC will eventually endorse this change in spite of hesitancy from some liberal commissioners. In this regard, Politico Pulse is reporting that “Liberal insurance commissioners got a little feisty (well, for insurance commissioners) … pushing back against the speedy, one-month time line for” considering the broker compensation exemption proposal. Politico quotes California Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones as saying “I’d hate to see haste impede us having the information in front of us to make a relevant decision.” And Washington state’s insurance commissioner Mike Kreidler as declaring “I hope what we produce as a work product we can stand behind and that we’re more interested in accuracy than speed.”

When politicians speak of the need to “study” and “consider” an issue it means 1) they sincerely want to learn more about the topic or 2) they want to defeat the proposal without having to go on the record voting against it. While I hope I’m wrong, given the opposition to the exemption from liberal consumer groups, I’m betting on the latter motivation in this case. (Time will tell as I’m inclined to believe the data will be very supportive of moving forward with the exemption). That the NAIC went ahead with just a four week delay in spite of calls from Commissioners Jones and Kreidler to slow down is a sign that while there will be debate, there’s a better than even chance the NAIC will indeed support legislation to make changes to the medical loss ratio provisions of the PPACA.

Ultimately whether broker compensation is included in medical loss ratio calculations will be determined by Congress and President Barack Obama – which means nothing is certain. While I believe taking this action furthers the intent and purpose of the health care reform bill, the proposal will not enjoy smooth and speedy sailing. The bipartisan legislation introduced by Representatives Mike Rogers and John Barrow, HR 1206, has been referred to the House Energy and Commerce Committee, but no date for a hearing has yet been set.

That the idea is still alive, however, is both remarkable and encouraging. But it’s still too early to start breathing again quite yet.

Broker Testimony Before NAIC Concerning MLR and Commissions

The National Association of Insurance Commissioners will be meeting in Austin, Texas this week to consider a number of issues related to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. One topic will be how the medical loss ratio provisions of the health care reform bill impacts brokers and consumers. A coalition of broker organizations will be testifying this Sunday urging the NAIC to move forward with a proposal to exempt producer compensation from the MLR calculation.

The MLR targets (individual and small group carriers must spend 80% of premiums received on claims or health quality efforts; large group carriers must spend 85%) is a critical part of the PPACA’s scheme to “bend the cost curve” when it comes to premiums (never mind that the biggest driver of premium rates is the cost of medical care). Limiting the amount of premium dollars insurers can devote to administration and profit, supporters believe, will result in reduced insurance rates. Also, since the PPACA requires all consumers to obtain health insurance coverage the medical loss ratio rules are designed to prevent carriers from gaining an undeserved financial windfall.

Significantly, exempting broker commissions does not run contrary to either purpose. The legislation being considered by the NAIC will still limit the percentage of premiums carriers can spend on administration and profit – and to a greater degree than most state measures addressing MLR targets do today. In addition, carriers will still need to aware of the total cost of their policies – including broker compensation. From a consumer’s point of view, the total cost of coverage will be the carrier’s premium and the broker’s commission. Carriers will be unwilling to go to market with a total cost that is uncompetitive because of overly generous broker commissions. This is one, but not the only reason, broker commissions are unlikely to return to where they were before the passage of the PPACA even if broker compensation is removed from the MLR formula. That broker commissions should increase at the rate of medical inflation, as opposed to general inflation, for example, is hard to justify when medical inflation is increasing at twice the rate of increases to the Consumer Price Index. But this change will — and should — be driven by market forces, not arbitrary limits set by Congress.

The NAIC proposal is also consistent with the purpose of the PPACA’s approach to MLRs because, as I wrote last summer, exempting commissions from the medical loss ratio may actually reduce overall administrative costs in the system. Carriers today aggregate broker compensation from small groups and individuals then pass 100 percent of these dollars onto independent third parties, retaining none of it for themselves. This reduces paperwork costs for hundreds of thousands of brokers, businesses and families and is a cost-saving measure that should be encouraged by the PPACA.

Not everyone sees it this way, of course. The American Medical Association, consumer groups and some Democratic legislators have urged the NAIC to keep the medical loss ratio calculation put in place by the Department of Health and Human Services (with input from the NAIC) as is. On the other hand, a bipartisan group in the House of Representatives has introduced HR 1206 to remove broker compensation from the formula used to determine a carrier’s MLR.

The broker coalition, comprised of the National Association of Health Underwriters, the National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors, the Council of Insurance Agents & Brokers, and the Independent Insurance Agents and Brokers of America, was asked by the NAIC to present their views at Sunday’s hearing on the NAIC medical loss ratio proposal. Significantly, they were told there was no need to talk about the value brokers add to America’s health insurance system – this value was already recognized and appreciated by the Insurance Commissioners. Instead they were asked to focus on the economic impact of the MLR provisions as currently being implemented.

In a letter to NAIC from the Agent-Broker Alliance reports on a study that shows 25 percent of brokers surveyed are reporting business income reductions for individual and small group sales of 21-to-50 percent with another 25 percent describing losses at between 11 and 20 percent. The result is that brokers are leaving these markets, reducing the availability of their expertise to consumers just when the complexity of health care reform makes this expertise more critical than ever.

Past NAHU president Beth Ashmore will be providing testimony at the Sunday NAIC hearing. As a long-time Texas broker she will be able to provide Commissioners with a glimpse into how the “theory” of the PPACA is revealing itself in practical terms.

The NAIC has no vote in Congress, but they do have significant influence, especially to the extent the NAIC vote in favor of changing the MLR calculation is bipartisan. If they support exempting broker commissions it will give considerable momentum to efforts bills such as HR 1206. The legislative process takes time so there will be no quick fix. The key is to keep initiatives moving forward down the path. The NAIC meeting is a milestone along the way.

Bill to Exempt Broker Commissions from MLR Formula Introduced Today

A bit sooner than expected: Representatives Mike Rogers and John Barrow introduced legislation today to exempt broker compensation from the medical loss ratio calculations required by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Under the PPACA, health insurance carriers are obliged to spend 80 percent of the premiums they take in on policies sold to individuals and small group toward medical claims and health quality initiatives. For policies sold to larger groups this medical loss ratio target is 85 percent.

The purpose of the MLR requirement, in the words of Senator Jay Rockefeller, “is to encourage health insurance companies to deliver health care services to their customers in a more efficient and cost-effective way.” As a consequence of this provision, most health insurers have slashed broker commissions on policies sold to directly to individuals (as opposed to through an employer) and a significant number of carriers have made significant cuts to producer compensation for the sale and service of small group policies as well. This has forced many brokers are reconsidering the viability of continuing to service these market segments. Commissioners and others are concerned about

The National Association of Health Underwriters along with allied broker groups, specifically the National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors and the Independent Insurance Agents and Brokers of America have been seeking to have broker commissions exempted from the MLR formula almost since the law passed. In October they won support from the majority of Insurance Commissioners at a meeting of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners to accomplish this, but at the last minute attorneys convinced the decided they lacked the power to make the change through regulation. Instead they would need to seek legislation to make this change. And they’re working on doing so.

In the meantime, Members of Congress are looking to change the health care reform law to accomplish the same goal – thus the bill introduced today, HR 1206. What’ impressive about the proposal (which will receive a bill number soon) is the bipartisan support it has received. The primary The lead sponsors are Republican Congressman Rogers and Democratic Congressman Barrow. They have been joined by 10 additional Republicans and 3 Democrats. Given the partisan divide prevailing in Congress, this is a remarkable coalition.

Better still, Jessica Waltman, Senior Vice President of Government Affairs at NAHU tells me that a bipartisan companion bill will be introduced in the Senate as early as next month.

Passage of the legislation is far from certain. Some Democratic lawmakers, several consumer groups and the American Medical Association oppose removing broker compensation from the medical loss ratio calculation. And some Republicans may be loath to improve legislation they are hoping to repeal.

Nor would exempting broker compensation result in a return to pre-PPACA commission schedules. While some of the more recently announced draconian cuts would no doubt be walked back. But as I mentioned in yesterday’s post, even if the PPACA were repealed, the way brokers are compensated was likely to change. The benefit of the Rogers/Barrow legislation is that these changes will reflect market forces, not an arbitrary spending target.

I’ll add a link to the press release from Representative Rogers when it’s available online, but here’s some of the key passages:

“’The nation’s 500,000 insurance agents and brokers help consumers find the right health care, advocate on their behalf, identify cost-savings opportunities and inform them of new products and changes in the industry,’ said Rogers, a senior member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee Subcommittee on Health. ‘A mandate in the new health care law severely restricts their ability to perform such services, meaning small businesses are losing jobs or shutting down completely and consumers are finding it harder to access their services.’”

…

“Insurance agents’ and brokers’ commissions are never part of an insurer’s actual revenue, and should never be counted as an insurer administrative expense, as confirmed by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, the non-partisan experts on state insurance markets.”

…

“’Insurance agents and brokers serve as the voice of health insurance for millions of families and small businesses in rural communities,’ said Congressman Barrow. ‘These folks can help explain to consumers the many changes taking place in the healthcare world over the next few years, and so it’s important that our insurance agents are not hampered by provisions in the new healthcare law. This is another critical improvement that needs to be made to the healthcare law, and I’m hopeful that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will work with Mike and me to see that this important improvement is implemented.’”

Edited March 18th to add bill number: HR 1206