Health Insurance Brokers to the GOP: “Et Tu?”

Health insurance brokers are appropriately worried about the impact health care reform will have on their livelihood. That’s human nature. Politics is about the management of self-interest. When it comes to health care reform, the list of concerned onlookers is long. Patients, doctors, hospitals, carriers, government bureaucrats, health insurance agents, employers, lawyers, dentists, chiropractors, pharmaceuticalfirms and, well, you get the idea.  Anymeaningful change is going to require sacrifice by most all of these stakeholders. 

When it comes to balancing all these competing interests, the partisan nature of American politics usually comes into play. Public policy flowing from the Democratic party tends to benefit some at the expense of others. The same holds true with the Republican party.

Health insurance brokers, for example, tend to rely on the GOP to promote policies supportive of their profession. One reason for this connection is political. I’ve no empirical data, but long experience in working with health insurance brokers leads me to believe that the majority vote Republican. Another reason, however, is ideological. Republicans tend to support market-based health care reform solutions  and brokers are integral to making the market work. Brokers take competing health plans and interpret them to their prospects and clients. One method they use is to take the different explanations of benefits used by different competitors and put them into a consistent template. They serve as consumer’s advisers and, when needed, their advocates to assure they get full value from their health plans.

As President Barack Obama’s Administration works with the Democratic majority in Congress to fashion health care reform, many brokers are relying on Republicans in Congress to stand firm against a public plan (which most brokers believe would eventually drive private plans out of existence — and take brokers down the drain with them). And they are trusting Republicans will make the case for the value brokers add to the system.

This trust may be misplaced.

Last week four leading Republicans put forward “The Patients’ Choice Act.” The Act is their call to action for fixing what they refer to as America’s broken health care system while at the same time seeking to preserve much of the current market driven arrangement. The authors of the proposal, Senators Tom Coburn and Richard Burr and by Congressmen Paul Ryan and Devin Nunes, are leading voices within their party on health care reform. It’s not clear whether the Patients’ Choice Act is the official position of the Republican caucuses in Congress, but no other proposal has been forth by the GOP. And the media is certainly treating it as the “Republican health care reform plan.”

Not suprisingly, the GOP lawmakers explicitly reject a public health program. Indeed, while acknowledging other factors leading to runaway costs (new technology, an aging population) their document proclaims the primary reason America’s health care system fails so many patients is “government intervention.”

Nonetheless, there are several elements of the Patients’ Choice Act which occupy common ground with Democrats (more on these in a future post). Some of what’s in The Patients’ Choice Act summary is, suprising and even amusing. For example, Republicans have taken to accusing Democrats of seeking to move America to “European-style socialism.” Yet, in justifying some of their ideas the sponsors of the Act turn to similar programs working in — wait for it — Europe.

Some elements of the reform package are just foolish. For example, under the Patients’ Choice Act carriers to accept all applicants regardless of their health condition (often referred to as “guarantee issue”). However, explicitly reject requiring individuals to obtain coverage stating that “if individuals do not want health insurance, they will not be forced to have it.” In fact, they go so far as to suggest that individuals be able to purchase coverage at any time “through places of employment, emergency rooms, the DMV, etc.”

In taking this position it appears the the Republicans have adopted the greatest flaw in then candidate-Obama’s health care reform plan – and made it worse. Why would anyone purchase coverage before they need it? Any reasonable person would wait until they’re on their way to the doctor, stop by the DMV and purchase coverage. In case of an accident, all they would need to do is go to the emergency room (the most expensive place to receive care), sign up at the receiving desk and enter the facility as a fully insured patient. As soon as they’ve recovered, it would be safe to drop the coverage.

(I find it hard to believe the Republicans are taking such a naive view of insurance. And, to be fair, the Patients’ Choice Act is somewhat lacking in details. However, what I’ve described comes from the Republican lawmakers’ own document. If they are creating safeguards to prevent such gaming of the system, there’s no evidence of it yet.)

As with any health care reform proposal, there’s elements to like and to dislike in the the Patients’ Choice Act. What will be most troubling for brokers, however, is the GOP’s call for creating state-based exchanges. The benefits of such exchanges includes a “one-stop marketplace for health insurance. Individuals would get a hassle-free opportunity to choose the plan that best meets their needs through an Exchange.” Most brokers believe that’s their role in the current system. To have Republicans propose a state agency to take on this responsibility is disconcerting at best; a betrayal at worst.

Then there’s the “auto-enrollment” feature touted by the Republicans allowing individuals to obtain health insurance at the DMV and other locations. Apparently the GOP sees little value in having consumers work with licensed, regulated agents and brokers, not when there’s a clerk at the DMV available.

To be fair, the Republicans are not explicitly excluding brokers from their version of a new health care system. In fact, they are expected to remain a part of the system. In the GOP’s “Patients’ Choice Act Q&As they write, “Whether an individual uses an insurance broker, an internet [sic] comparison page, or calls a toll free number, individuals are provided the information needed to choose a plan tailored to their individuals [sic] needs.” This basically equates the knowledge, skills and expertise of  independent brokers to what can be delivered by an Internet site or a customer service rep at the state Exchange. How comforting.  Perhaps they are relying on the Exchange to standardize health insurance so much that professional guidance is no longer required. Although if coverage is that standardized, then perhaps calling their proposal the Patients’ Choice Act might be somewhat misleading.

The National Association of Health Underwriters, the primary professional organization for health insurance brokers, is working hard to educate lawmakers concerning the value independent brokers add to the system — value which should be preserved in whatever reform package emerges from Washington.  To the extent the Patients’ Choice Act represents Republican thinking on health care reform, relying on the GOP as an ally in this effort could be a painful path to disappointment.

Hybrid Health Care System: The Search for Common Ground

As the debate intensifies over the wisdom of including a publicly financed health plan to compete with private carriers serving the individual and small group market, it’s only natural that a search for a compromise intensifies, too. As noted in previous posts, Professor Uwe Reinhardt has promised to unveil a proposal that would enable a public health plan to compete with private offerings without destroying them.  And President Barack Obama’s Director of the White House Office for Health Reform, Nancy-Ann DeParle, has expressed confidence compromise is possible.

One place they’ll be looking to for examples is the experience states have in running government financed plans in competition with private carriers in coverage programs offered to state workers. For example, last month Lee Nichols and John Bertko of the New America Foundation examined what could be learned from these state programs in a policy paper entitled “A Modest Proposal for a Competing Public Health Plan.” The authors consider the polarized debate on the topic of a public health plan unnecessary. “It is possible to structure a new insurance marketplace so that public and private health plans compete on a level playing field,” they claim.

Examining state employee programs like California’s Cal-PERS, Mr. Nichols and Mr. Bertko conclude that the solution is to separate “oversight of the public plan from that of the managers of the marketplace or exchange(s). It will also require that all rules of the marketplace – benefit package requirements, insurance regulations, and risk adjustment processes — apply to all plans equally, whether public or private.” They also call for a system-wide approach to containing medical costs and warn against “relying heavily on the public plan’s potential market power” to bring down those costs.

The New America Foundation report does a good job of summarizing the positions of those in favor and opposed to creating government-run health plans. For that reason alone it’s worth reason. But the paper is also noteworthy for being among the first to offer a solution that, while not wholly satisfactory to partisans on either side of the issue, at least proves that common ground is possible.

Their emphasis on the need for a level playing field between the private and public health plans is especially critical. And the hardest to assure. Even if a program starts off with good intentions, over time the temptation to tweak the system in order to favor the government program could become overwhelming for lawmakers. If how Congress and the Pentagon deal with defense contracts is any indication, it won’t be long before a public health plan becomes a political toy for lawmakers to play with.

I have other concerns about the report. For example, like many others, the authors treat state employee health plans as fair equivalencies of the individual and small group market. But that’s a questionable assumption. The general public is far more diverse, dispersed and expensive to reach than state employees. There’s a reason why carriers who excel at serving large group clients flounder when they enter the small group or individual marketplace. It’s not just that the dynamics and challenges of the two segments differ, but so do the needs and expectations of the insureds.

Comprehensive health care reform is too complicated, controversial and complex for the partisans to harden their positions this early. There are going to be a host of issues to work through; creation of a hybrid system is merely one of them. By putting forward a compromise solution, instead of simply taking sides in the debate,  Mr. Nichols, Mr. Bertko and the New America Foundation have made a valuable contribution to the health care reform process. Assuming, of course, that the partisans on either side of the issue are able to consider compromise in the din of the debate.

A Hybrid Health Care System: Good Politics; Unrealistic Policy

When it comes to topics as complex as health care reform, the legislative dance generally involves two steps.  The first focuses on educating decision makers. It’s a sincere effort to learn the facts, understand the options and identify the trade-offs. Yes, there’s a political element to this phase, but there’s more often a genuine desire to learn about the issue.

The second step in the dance is when the actual language is drafted. This is the phase in which partisanship dominates, where the goal is to win, not educate. Yes, compromises will emerge, and hopefully they’ll be informed by the educational phase that went before, but this is when decisions get made. Which means it’s when political muscle matters more than the ability to educate.

We’re still in the educational step — for now. But the step is coming soon and outlines of the political phase are becoming clear. As I’ve written before, one of the key issues will be whether there should be a government-run health plan competing with private carriers for consumer’s premium.   Proponents see this hybrid approach as a way to drive down costs while keeping private health plans honest. Opponents see it as a big step to government takeover of the health insurance industry.

The Lewin Group published a study today that bolsters the argument of opponents. Entitled “The Cost and Coverage Impacts of a Public Plan: Alternative Design Options” the report attempts to quantify the impact a federal offering would have on private competitors (and on the income of providers). And that impact is substantial. The study assumes health plan offers coverage comparable to the Blue Cross Blue Shield Standard Option within the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan (meeting President Barack Obama’s promise to offer all American’s access to the same coverage as members of Congress).  If this government competitor sets doctor and hospital reimbursement at the same level as is used by Medicare, the Lewin Group predicts over 131 million Americans would enroll — approximately 119 million of them shifting from private plans.

If the government alternative is made available only to individuals, the self-employed and small businesses the impact is significantly less, but still substantial.  The study estimates 42.9 million Americans would enroll in the government offering — 32 million of them moving from private plans.

While several factors were taken into account by the study’s authors, John Sheils and Randy Haught, the most impactful driver was cost. The theory is that the federal-plan would impose Medicare reimbursement rates on doctors, hospitals and other medical care providers. This gives the public plan a 30-to-40 percent premium advantage over comparable coverage offered by private carriers. The reason: as noted by in the study “payment levels for hospital services under Medicare are equal to only about 71 percent of what is paid by private health plans for the same service.” Indeed, this reimbursement rate covers “only between 92 percent and 95 percent of the cost of the services provided by the hospitals.” 

When it comes to doctors, the Medicare reimbursement rates are about 81 percent of that paid by private carriers.  The study assumes the public plan would have a further pricing advantage due to lower administrative costs resulting from there being no need to earn “insurer profit and insurance agent and broker commissions and fees.” But the big savings comes from the reduced claims costs.

Today, hospitals and other providers make up for the shortfall in revenue received for services to Medicare patients by increasing the fees charged to their insured patients. While this hidden tax raises the costs of premiums, it impacts on private carriers is somewhat equal. Since the Medicare population is distinct from the commercial market, the playing field remains level.

If the government were to step onto the field as a player, however, the dynamic changes. Now a competitor gains the pricing advantage — and that advantage would grow over time. As the public plan attracts more members, providers will see an increasingly negative impact on their income. The severity of the impact depends greatly on whether the public plan is open to all employers or only small businesses, the self-employed and individuals. If everyone has access to the public plan, the ability to shift costs to privately insured patients is greatly reduced. Under the latter scenario, providers could more than make up for the government’s underpayment by charging higher rates to large group insureds while also benefiting from a reduction in the number of uninsureds.

The likelihood, however, is that all Americans will have access to the public plan. President Obama has clearly linked health care reform to his economic recovery efforts. Large companies (think the auto firms) need the relief offered by the availability of a public plan — especially a public plan offering a 30-to-40 percent premium advantage.

The spiral would kick in rather quickly. As the public plan attracts more members, rates charged by private plans would go higher driving even more insureds to the government offering. Eventually, the only health plan standing would be the government’s.

Some might claim that the public plan would be unable — or unwilling — to use Medicare reimbursement rates. But why? The entire purpose of the government coverage is to drive down costs. Voluntarily paying providers more than Medicare would run counter to the governing agency’s mission.

There’s some caveats to this bleak scenario. It’s a good idea to be skeptical of all studies that estimate the future impact of unknown legislation. I’m not questioning the authors motivation or scientific rigor, but studies like this are, ultimately, educated guesses based on assumptions that may not come to pass and whose unintended consequences cannot, by definition, be anticipated.

Nonetheless, the study does raise the likelihood that the coming debate over whether there should be a public alternative available in the private market is the wrong topic. The Lewin Group Study underscores how difficult it will be for the government to maintain a level playing field while it competes on that field. And once the playing field begins to tilt in its favor, the result is inevitable: eventually the public plan will be the only player on the field.

So the debate is really whether Americans want a private health care system or a public system for all. There is no middle ground. The hybrid approach won’t last — eventually it will become a public system. So while the hybrid approach is attractive politically, it’s a false choice from a policy perspective.

There’s a legitimate debate to be had over whether the government should replace private carriers. That’s the debate lawmakers should have – especially while we’re still in the educational phase of the legislative dance. Calling for a mixed system sounds nice, but it’s not really an option. And health care reform is too important to debate fantasies.

Out-of-Network Scandal is a Good Thing

As they said in the 60s, “you’re either on the bus or off the bus.” Were Ken Kesey talking in a more modern medical context he might have said “you’re either in the network or out of the network.” And being out of the network can be costly.

Unlike HMOs, which are closed systems — your health plan covers treatment within their network or, with few exceptions,  doesn’t cover the service at all — PPOs are more open. You get a higher reimbursement for seeing providers within the health plan’s network or you get reduced coverage for services from non-network physicians. The benefits to all concerned are rather straightforward: the physicians and other providers offer the health plan lower rates in exchange for the health plan encouraging patients to see those providers. The health plan pays less so can offer their coverage at a lower cost, increasing their market share. Consumers pay less out-of-pocket when they use one of these preferred providers. Yet, if the consumer does seek medical care from a provider outside the network, the health plan pays a significant portion of the bill.

In theory, what the carrier pays for out-of-network services is a percentage of the usual, reasonable and customary (”UCR”) charges imposed by most providers in that community. That sounds fair: if a consumer chooses to engage a doctor who is more expensive than the norm, the consumer should pay for excess cost.

The problem is that few people know what the UCR cost is for any given treatment. Heck, physicians rarely know what the UCR is for their community for a particular service. When the carrier notifies the patient that their doctor charged more than what is typical it’s too late for the patient to do much about it. The result: angry patients, frustrated doctors and another deposit of ill-will in the industry’s karma account.

At the heart of the problem is defining “usual, reasonable and customary.” In the end, despite all the surveys and actuarial work, a high level of subjectivity is involved. How is it measured? Who determines if the costs are “reasonable” even if they are usual and customary. There’s a lot of wiggle room in the data base.

For years, the “decider,” as a past president would put it, for the nation’s largest health plans has been a company called Ingenix. Ingenix is owned by UnitedHealth Group, Inc., which also owns the health plan United HealthCare. Even though Ingenix is owned by a competitor, most of the major health plans in the country relied on its billing information for determining what out-of-network charges they would pay.

Not for long. New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo went after Ingenix and UnitedHealth for manipulating reimbursement rates and defrauding consumers. As a result of Attorney General Cuomo’s actions, Ingenix will exit the billing database business and UnitedHealth will pay $50 million to help create a non-profit assigned to maintain a new, independent database.

While the New York legal action is no doubt painful to some carriers, most notably UnitedHealth, it could work to the industry’s benefit. It replaces a point of intense friction with an objective, common definition. It’s not that the definition of UCR put out by the non-profit won’t still be significantly subjective — it will be. But it will be the definition of the non-profit.  And it’s not that consumers won’t blame the health plans when they disagree with the non-profit’s definition of UCR — they will. But the carriers will be able to refer their members to the non-profit.

Given the low regard the industry is held in by the public, any action which stems that flow of ill will deposits is a good thing.

Of course, this being America, the path to better karma is not an easy one. The industry will first need to go through the political gauntlet of law suits and public hearings. Next in line: The Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee.  It’s Chair, Senator Jay Rockefeller, is holding a hearing Tuesday in which executives from United HealthGroup and Ingenix will be the star witnesses. As reported by the Associated Press, Senator Rockefeller claims, UnitedHealth and Ingenix are “lowballing deliberately. They deliberately cut the numbers so the consumer as to pay more of the cost. … It’s scamming. It’s fraud.”

In that UnitedHealth has already paid $350 million to settle a suit on the matter brought by the American Medical Association, albeit without admitting guilt, the accusations are hardly surprising. And while UnitedHealth would like to put the UCR scandal behind them, there’s a script to these things and they tend to run through Washington. So this is just something they need to do. And it’s something they should do.

Because the UCR situation wasn’t fair to consumers. And if the industry needs to pay a price as part of fixing it, so be it. At the end of the day, there will be a more fair way of defining what out-of-network charges should be. And that’s a good thing for consumers, providers and health plans.

Obama’s First Health Care Reform Test: His Tax Increase Proposal

Health care reform rarely is accomplished in a process that is anything like a straight line. In 2009, for example, changing America’s health care system first requires addressing the nation’s tax system. That may not be intuitive, but it does seem to be the way things are working out.

President Barack Obama makes very clear that comprehensive health care reform is an integral part of his economic recovery program. Impressively, he has already accomplished a number of his goals, specifically inclusion of funding for health care technology as part of the recently passed stimulus package and the renewal and expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Plan (SCHIP). Those were just the start of his reform efforts, however. And now comes the difficult part.

President Obama wants to change the way Americans purchase and use their health care. He wants to achieve near universal coverage, reduce the cost of both health insurance and of medical care, and vastly reduce wasted spending on health care. This is not an easy task — just ask California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Or Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, for that matter.

President Obama’s mission is complicated by the withdrawal of former Senator Tom Daschle to lead the Administration’s health care reform efforts. Senator Daschle had tremendous credibility in Congress and policy wonks alike. He was a superb choice to serve as President Obama’s Secretary of Health and Human Services and to be Director of the White House Office of Health Reform.  His nomination withdrawn due to Senator Daschle’s tax problems, the Administration is unlikely to find a replacement of equal political heft, access to the President and in-depth knowledge of the issue.

Finding a leader for is the Administration’s second most pressing health care reform challenge. The first is passing a tax increase. Here’s how it plays out.

The stimulus plan supported by President Obama greatly increases the nation’s spending. At the same time, the Obama Administration inherited a budget deficit of about $1.3 billion courtesy of the Bush Administration. This week, in a White House summit on fiscal policy and in an address to Congress, President Obama will make clear his commitment to slashing the deficit to $533 billion by 2013. To do that, according to the Associated Press, he will: 1) reduce spending on the Ira war; 2) end “temporary” tax breaks enacted during the administration of President George W. Bush on those making $250,000 or more a year; and 3) increase government efficiency. Among those programs slated for streamlining is reducing Medicare Advantage subsidies to insurance companies according to the New York Times.

The Administration is also likely to propose treating investment income earned by hedge-fund and private-equity partners as ordinary income according to the Bloomberg Press. This income is currently taxed at the capital-gains rate of 15 percent. Ordinary income is taxed at as much as 35 percent (but could go up to 39.5 percent if the Bush tax cut for those earning $250,000 or more is repealed.

Without these savings, President Obama will be hard pressed to finance expansio of health care reform and his energy  initiatives, increase education spending and enact his homeowners assistance program and send more troops to Afghanistan and reduce the deficit.

Of these, make no mistake: health care reform is near or at the top of the list.  As Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag puts it, as quoted in the New York Times, “He wants to present an honest budget, he wants to focus on health care ….”  The Times quotes senior adviser David Axelrod as explaining, “The president believes there are essentially three areas that have to move forward even as we pare back elsewhere — health care, energy and education.”

It all comes down to the economy, however. And most objective observers would agree that America needs health care reform to have a sound economy. (The debate is not over whether reform is needed, it’s what kind of reform is required). So health care, taxes and the rest are all tied up in the Administration’s effort to right America’s fiscal ship.

We’ll have updated estimates as to how much revenue the tax increases are expected raise over the next four years when President Obama introduces a summary of his budget later this week. Clearly, however, it will be a critical component to the Administration’s fiscal goals. If the tax increases fail, it will be substantially harder for President Obama to finance a big ticket item such as his health care reform proposal. With the increases, he will have demonstrated his political acumen and bolstered his bargaining position with Congress while, at the same time, finding the revenues he needs to implement his plans.

So the first test of whether President Obama can pass his health care reform will not be a vote on creating a Federal Health Board or establishing a national purchasing exchange. It won’t mention guarantee issue or community rating nor even provider reimbursement levels. It will be a vote on whether a tax reduction scheduled to expire in 2011 will be allowed to so, then or sooner. Not a straight line, but a necessary course of action nonetheless.

Quarter of Legislature Missed California’s Year of Health Care Reform

One day the politicans in Sacramento may pass a budget. Once (if?) that happens, lawmakers will turn their attention to, well, making laws. And some of those laws will impact health care coverage in California.

A lot of progress was made during the Year of Health Care Reform (2007 and a bit of 2008). The debate was intense and comprehensive reform nearly passed. It was approved by the State Assembly and supported by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, but defeated in the State Senate. The new debate is likely to start somewhere near where the last one ended.

For many legislators, however, the health care debate will be somewhat a matter of first impression. Of the 11 new Senators, all previously served in the Assembly. And of the 28 new Assembly Members, two have previously served in the Senate. However, four of the new Senators and one of the freshman AssemblyMembers were out of office during at least since 2006. So they missed all the educational opportunities the Year of Health Care Reform offered.

Needless to say there’s a lot of interested parties seeking to bring them up to speed. And California isn’t the only state where newbie lawmakers need to figure out how the current health care system works before they start in on messing with it. One resource they’ll have is the 2009 State Legislators’ Guide to Health Insurance Solutions and Glossary published by the Council for Affordable Health Insurance and the American Legislative Exchange Council. (My thanks to agent Bruce Jugan for bringing this Guide to my attention). CAHI is an insurance industry group so, guess what? Yep, it’s got a spin to it. Meaning few wil agree with everything it says (I don’t).

Nonetheless it’s an interesting overview of health care reform issues at a very high level. The Guide is not state specific, so it won’t fill in the gaps for legislators looking for a refresher course on California’s recent debate, but that lack of specificity is also a plus. The high-level perspective provides a good foundation for understanding the broad outlines of the issue. And the glossary is very handy.

If anyone out there knows of similar guides, but from other perspectives, please send them my way. Understanding the upcoming health care reform debate requires an understanding of how lawmakers think about the issue. And to understand that it can’t hurt to read what they are reading. Or at least, what they should be reading.

The Flawed Health Care Reform Plans of McCain and Obama

Both Republican Senator John McCain and Democratic Senator Barack Obama have put forward substantial healthcare reform plans. They both seek substantial changes in the current system. That they take starkly different approaches reveals a great deal about how their view of the current system and what they perceive the role of government to be in overcoming them. That both health care reform plans are dramatically flawed would seem to be of great concern, but probably isn’t. After all, these are just starting points and whatever new health care system emerges from Washington in the next few years is likely to be significantly different than either of these plans regardless of which candidate is elected.

As I’ve noted previously, the two plans are campaign promises, meaning they are more an expression of the candidates’ attitudes towards reforms than a blue print for legislation. That both starting points are flawed should be of concern, but is neither fatal nor devastating. They are, after all, just starting points.

Interestingly, the biggest flaw in each plan is the mirror image of the other. Senator McCain would encourage consumers to buy coverage in the individual market, assuming their employer isn’t providing health insurance, by offering tax credits — $2,500 for an individual and $5,000 for a family. While this would help many Americans buy coverage, there’s no requirement imposed on health plans to accept them for coverage (although there might be high risk pools under his plan for those turned down by carriers). Senator Obama, on the other hand, requires health plans to accept all applicants, but he fails to require everyone to purchase medical insurance. As has been demonstrated time and again, this is a sure path to higher premiums. Just look at New York and New Jersey where carriers must sell, but consumers need not buy, coverage. The premiums there are twice that in California.

Each health plan has other problems. Senator McCain would allow carriers to shop for the most lenient jurisdiction in which to file their plans, then impose this lack of regulation on other states. It’s competition without representation that is sure to result in consumer distress, political shenanigans that would embarrass an earmark addict, and undermine the credibility of the system.

Senator Obama, on the other hand, wants to create a government-run health care program to compete with private plans. The idea is to increase fair competition, but the result will be anything but fair. When the umpire picks up a bat, he’s rarely called out on strikes. Similarly, when the government competes in a market it regulates, the playing field is invariably tilted in favor of the government. The danger inherent in Senator Obama’s approach is that the government program, given unfair advantages, will squeeze out the private sector. The result will be a government-run system imposed on the nation without the accompanying debate such a policy shift warrants.

At Tuesday’s presidential debate in Tennessee expect to hear a great deal about their health plans. They’ll both be eager to dive into specifics about their own program — and to describe the failings of the other side’s plans. There will be heated exchanges concerning taxes and government takeovers. There will be fierce arguments over regulation versus goverment getting out of the way. As you watch, keep one thing in mind: none of it matters all that much.

Come November 4th one of these candidates will win. Come January 20, 2009 the winner will be sworn in as President of the United States. Unless there’s a miracle, the economic situation will push back meaningful efforts on healthcare reform for at least a few months. Yes, there will be a team put in place with orders to produce a meaningful plan within, let’s say, 100 days. But the real work of shaping the reforms could be delayed several months or a couple of years depending on the nation’s economic health.

Most importantly, once the plan is put forward, it will be changed profoundly by Congress and the new Administration as they respond to the public policy advice and political pressure of the nation. Some form of health care reform is likely to emerge before the next presidential election. Hopefully the major flaws in what’s currently on the table will be addressed — ideally without introducing new and bigger problems.

The Need to Do Something — But SB 1440 Isn’t It

We elect politicians to solve problems. That’s their job. It’s what we pay them for. No one campaigns for office proclaiming their intent to accomplish nothing. There’s always some injustice to right. There’s always a mess to fix. So no one should be surprised that current lawmakers in Sacramento are desperate to do something about California’s health care system. After all, there are real problems in the current system.

But there’s a difference between lawmakers really addressing problems and simply looking like their addressing problems. Take Senate Bill 1440 authored by Senator Shiela Keuhl. The bill would require carriers to spend 85 percent of the premium they take in on medical care. As originally introduced, SB 1440 would have had a devastating impact on the individual health insurance market. It would have increased costs, decreased competition and made it nearly impossible for independent agents to assist consumers in finding the right plan for their needs.

Fortunately, SB 1440 has been substantially amended since its original introduction. As it reads today, the biggest problem with the bill is it requires carriers to segregate their Department of Managed Care regulated plans from those regulated by the Department of Insurance. While it’s not surprising regulators and legislators perceive these plans to be worthy of distinction, from a consumer’s point of view it’s a meaningless difference. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Senator Keuhl should address this issue in their negotiations concerning the legislation. But that’s not the overriding problem with SB 1440.

What’s wrong with SB 1440 is that it won’t lower premiums, which is the stated purpose of the bill. The Rand Corporation in a report by Neeraj Sood and Eric Sun titled “Health Insurance Premiums in California: The Role of Administrative Cost and Profits” examined the results of similar legislation in other states. They found states with no Medical Loss Ration legislation spend statistically the same percentage of premium as those that regulated the entire market (83 percent and 84 percent, respectively). While it’s true that states limiting the loss ratio of all coverage (individual, small group and large group) set targets at levels lower than the 85 percent called for by SB 1440, the report suggests consumers are unlikely to benefit from any premium savings.

The reason is that profits and administrative costs aren’t the problem with skyrocketing health care costs; it’s the price of medical treatment that drives premiums. The study found that 85 percent of the increase in revenue per enrollee between 2002 and 2006 was the result of medical costs.

Lawmakers could address 85 percent of the problem. But that’s hard work. It requires examining the drivers of increased medical costs and making tough decisions on how to reduce their rate of increase. It’s far easier (if less impactful) to go after health insurance companies and HMOs. Never mind that, as reported by the Rand study, the profits of California HMOs are less than the profitability of the companies comprising the S&P 500. The reality is that, along with oil and tobacco companies, they are about as easy a political target as exists.

So lawmakers will pass SB 1440 and declare a blow against rising insurance premiums. They may not be able to pass a budget, but they can teach those insurance companies a lesson. The fact that the legislation won’t have much, if any, impact on premiums is irrelevant. The fact that it won’t bring medical inflation down to general inflation levels doesn’t matter.

Because while we pay them for results, we have a tendency to elect lawmakers based on appearances. Which means the underlying problem remains.

Individual Coverage an Endangered Species?

I know I said I wouldn’t be posting anything for awhile, but recent articles could be indications that private market individual medical insurance could be a candidate for the endangered species list. Which is a shame because individual coverage offers consumers some major advantages over the alternative. Fortunately, some of the threats to the future of this market may hold the seeds of a brighter future.

Take for instance, the intent of Congressman Henry Waxman, Chair of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that “the individual market demanded more scrutiny, especially of cancellation practices,” as reported by Lisa Girion in the Los Angeles Times. The fact is, the way carriers handled their rescission powers have hurt innocent members, undermined their own credibility and battered whatever good will they might have possessed.

What’s ironic is that carriers rarely invoke their rescission rights. Consequently, whatever carriers gained in using it to fight fraud has been more than offset by the political damage they’ve taken.

Which brings us to Congressman Waxman’s hearings. Congressman Waxman is one of the House’s brightest members. He is passionate and committed to fighting injustice. His hearing will be thorough and, considering the political context of these things, fair. All sides will be heard and, with luck, some good might come of it. But it certainly will be a grilling causing strong insurance executives to sweat and bring weak ones to the verge of nervous breakdowns. Taking the oath before the Committee is not anything a CEO looks forward to: just ask all those former tobacco CEOs Congressman Waxman humbled a few years ago.

The real danger, however, is not the reputations of a few CEOs, but what “reforms” might emerge from the hearings. A lot of people simply don’t like individual coverage. They believe the carriers have too great an advantage in the transaction. To them, baring a government takeover of the health insurance system, the only other option is having the government micro manage the market.

Yet government micromanagement will inevitably lead a blander market of vanilla coverage and reduced choice. That’s what’s happened when states have intervened to create purchasing pools for consumers. While the pools have generally failed to lower the the cost of coverage, they have succeeded in limiting consumer choice.

Yet it’s the flexibility of the individual market that is one of its greatest strengths (along with its availability being independent of one’s job). Choice in the individual market makes it easier to find a solution for consumers’ unique needs. And those needs do differ. Ask a 22 year old fresh out-of-college and a recently retired 60 year old what they need from their health insurance. It will quickly become clear health insurance is not a product where one size fits all.

Increased flexibility brings the potential to lower costs, making coverage more accessible for more consumers. In short, there’s a lot of benefits to the individual market. It would be a shame if mistakes carriers made involving recessions results in over regulating the market. That’s could happen soon in California. Along with several rescission bills, legislation to regulate the kind of plan designs carriers can offer is moving forward. SB 1522, authored by incoming President Pro Tem Senator Darrell Steinberg is currently on the Assembly Appropriation Committee’s Suspense File. Which means it’s ready to be passed if the Legislature ever resolves the budget impasse.

I’ve written previously about problems with the bill’s specifics. Beyond those, the legislation also is symbolic of lawmakers’ desire and willingness to insert themselves into the market at a very granular level. It’s not a long leap from defining what policies must be offered to regulating their price, distribution and implementation.

So where’s the silver lining in all this? Individual coverage rules and regulations vary widely from state-to-state. This means consumer protections vary widely across state boundaries. It also reduces competition in some states. Senator John McCain and others propose to address this by allowing policies approved in one state to be sold in any state. This approach, however, would result in a disastrous dash by carriers to file their products in the states with the most lenient rules and the laxest enforcement.

Congressman Waxman’s hearings, however, could lead to a different solution: national standards establishing a credible structure to enable policies to be sold nationally. These structure would, ideally, bring increased credibility to the individual market without diminishing consumer choice.

OK, it’s a long shot. And it may only replace the spectre of over-regulation by state lawmakers with the danger of over-regulation by federal lawmakers.

But, hey, I only claimed it was the lining. But sometimes that’s all endangered species can hope for.

SB 1522: Political Judgment versus the Wisdom of Crowds

I guess the theory is that regulators know perfection when they see it. And have the wisdom and detachment from mundane concerns like politics and pressure to deliver it. At least that seems to be the thinking behind Senate Bill 1522.

Under this legislation, introduced by Senator Darrell Steinberg, California regulators would establish five classes of individual health plans. The bill requires these categories to would gracefully arc from low cost (and, presumably, lower benefit) plans to higher cost (and higher benefit) offerings. All medical plans would need to fit into the five defined categories.

Supporters claim this approach will allow consumers to make apple-to-apple comparisons among plans. Todays market, they argue, is too confusing. Consumers are hard pressed to select from the dozens of options before them which one suits their needs the best. (As discussed below, they never seem to mention the availability of professional agents to help consumers make these choices — that would undermine the need for this particular solution).

Supporters are also concerned about risk segmentation. Their concern is that healthier individuals gravitate to lower cost plans and their less healthy neighbors rush to buy richer benefits at a higher cost. As a result, those high end plans get more expensive more quickly.

The arguments in favor of SB 1522 are not without merit. But that doesn’t mean the bill deserves passage — at least not in its current form.

The trade-off for simplifying the market is eradicating choice. If all medical plans have to fit into prescribed categories, innovation and improvements in terms of plan design goes away.

Imagine what would have happened if in the 1980s government regulators defined five categories of cars. No other vehicles would be available to consumers. The political battles between groups advocating inclusion of their pet enhancement would be fun to watch. Muscle car enthusiasts would be pitted against gas mileage advocates. Proponents of big trunk space would duke it out against those pushing for smaller cars (the better to fit them into those “compact” parking spaces just coming into vogue. 

The battles would be fierce and there would be winners and losers. One thing for certain: the cars of today would look pretty much like those of the 1980s. And whether hybrids or other offerings unanticipated 20 years ago would have emerged is uncertain. Instead, choice would be determined by the political winds blowing through Sacramento at the time. The influence of the market would be secondary at best, and perhaps marginal.

Which makes no sense. The market is the collective decisions of millions of consumers. It’s the wisdom of crowds. Proponents of SB 1522 would replace that wisdom with the judgement of politicians and their appointees.

The problem of risk segmentation is serious. Unfortunately, SB 1522 does little to solve it. The segmentation will still exist, just within the confines of the five categories. Unless the regulators cram the tiers together into minor variations on a single theme, there’s going to be significant differences between the rates and benefits along the regulated continuum. Consumers will gravitate to the one that makes the most sense for their needs. Supporters of SB 1522 claim there will be substantial differences between the tiers, but if so, then the bill won’t solve the segmentation challenge.

SB 1522 is flawed, but it’s likely to pass (whether the Governor will sign it in its present form is unknown — at least by me). Its author, Senator Steinberg, is the President Pro Tem in Waiting.  That makes it extremely difficult for lawmakers to challenge his proposals. This is the pre-honeymoon stage of his ascension during which everyone makes nice. Voting no is not generally considered to be an effective way to make nice.

But perhaps some lawmakers will step forward and offer ways to improve the bill. For example, there’s no need to make the five categories defined by regulators exclusive. Carriers could be required to offer at least one plan in each category, but still remain free to offer coverage outside those tiers. This would allow easier comparison for some offerings while maintaining a market that delivers choice, diversity and innovation. It would also provide useful feedback to the regulators. If consumers consistently choose plans outside the defined tiers, they would know corrective action is required.

Can consumers be trusted to handle a diverse marketplace offering innovative choices? Will they always make the right choice? There’s no guarantees. Even if the government eliminates a great deal of the diversity in the marketplace, consumers may make the wrong decision.

But there’s already a resource available to those looking for the right health insurance plan: independent agents. Professional agents understand the language. They can explain the trade-offs between Plan A and Plan B. They can get to know the prospect and help them explore their choices. They can even help them through the application process and help with any problems arising after the sale.

Choice can be daunting, but it can also lead to innovation and help the system evolve as needs, expectations and desires change. Helping consumers find the plans that best fit their needs is something better left to shoppers and their agents than to a political process. Just ask anyone driving a Prius.