Minimum medical loss ratio requirements have been around for decades and were designed to keep health insurers from gouging consumers with higher than necessary premiums, with regulators, of course, defining what is “necessary”. While not the worst idea in insurance regulation, it isn’t the best either, with a number of unintended consequences. The federal health reform act picked up this mediocre idea as a centerpiece of its supposed efforts to keep down costs and protect consumers. An analysis from the American Action Forum summarizes the usual criticisms of the MLR provisions, with some twists unique to the reform law. (AAF Paper) As the authors point out, the law may actually encourage insurers to raise premiums, even if they have to pay more rebates, because they still will make more profits. And because of the subsidies in the law, many consumers won’t care about the higher premiums, so there in essence is an even more massive transfer of funds from taxpayers to both the health plans and those receiving subsidies. The authors also claim that higher premiums could result because state regulators might require them to ensure that insurers have adequate reserves. There are other issues than those mentioned by the authors. One is that the natural effect of any regulatory “price-fixing”, which this is, is for prices, in this case margins, to clump at the limit. So insurers who might have been more efficient and had higher MLRs, will tend to migrate down. But the biggest problem is that an MLR removes an incentive to keep medical costs down. The higher medical costs are, the higher the premium and the more absolute dollars an insurer makes. There is also a clear incentive to spend less on the “administrative” functions which are covered by the non-MLR part of the premium, in the interest of a higher profit, which could worsen customer service. The paper provides a useful function by pointing out the problems with MLR regulation. A better approach is to use competitive bidding to determine subsidy levels, employer and employee contribution levels and to thereby control insurer pricing.
✅ Subscribe via Email
About this Blog
The Healthy Skeptic is a website about the health care system, and is written by Kevin Roche, who has many years of experience working in the health industry. Mr. Roche is available to assist health care companies through consulting arrangements through Roche Consulting, LLC and may be reached at [email protected].
Healthy Skeptic Podcast
Research
MedPAC 2019 Report to Congress
June 18, 2019
Headlines
Tags
Access
ACO
Care Management
Chronic Disease
Comparative Effectiveness
Consumer Directed Health
Consumers
Devices
Disease Management
Drugs
EHRs
Elder Care
End-of-Life Care
FDA
Financings
Genomics
Government
Health Care Costs
Health Care Quality
Health Care Reform
Health Insurance
Health Insurance Exchange
HIT
HomeCare
Hospital
Hospital Readmissions
Legislation
M&A
Malpractice
Meaningful Use
Medicaid
Medical Care
Medicare
Medicare Advantage
Mobile
Pay For Performance
Pharmaceutical
Physicians
Providers
Regulation
Repealing Reform
Telehealth
Telemedicine
Wellness and Prevention
Workplace
Related Posts
Commentary
March 28, 2024
More Economic News
The Congressional Budget Office is expressing increasing alarm at the federal deficit and debt situation.
Commentary
March 27, 2024
Funniest Story of the Day
Would would have thought that hail could destroy a solar farm? Certainly not the nut-case…
Commentary
March 27, 2024
What Is Going on in the US Debt Markets?
The Treasury seems determined to rely on massive amounts of short-term debt to finance our…