Is ObamaCare Helping Private Health Insurance Beneficiaries Get a Better Deal?
New estimates suggest that health insurers will pay out more than $1 billion in rebates this year due to a provision in the 2010 health care overhaul.
A success for ObamaCare? Maybe not. The rebates don't account for premium increases we've already seen during the administration's time in office. And pressure created by the provision, which caps the percentage of each premium dollar that can be spent on profit, marketing, and administrative costs, is likely to contribute to rising premiums rather than control them.
The health care law's medical loss ratio (MLR) rule requires health insurers to spend 80 percent of individual and small group plan premium revenues on "clinical services." Large group plans must spend 85 percent of their premium dollars on the same. Insurers who fail to meet those ratios must rebate the difference to customers. The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that those rebates will total about $1.3 billion this year, with an average rebate of about $39 per person in the individual market. Overall rebates will average about $127 per person, though rebates in the large group market will go to businesses rather than directly to individuals.
A little over a billion dollars in rebates isn't nothing. But in the context of recent increases in health insurance premiums, it's close. That's especially true considering President Obama's 2008 campaign promise that under his administration health insurance premiums would be reduced by an average of $2,500. As Chris Jacobs, a Republican Senate staffer with the Joint Economic Committee, points out, premiums have continued to go up since Obama took office, from $12,680 in 2008 to $15,073 in 2011.
We may see more rebates in coming years. But the existence of rebates does not necessarily indicate that health insurance customers are getting a better deal. It is possible that in the absence of the spending regulations, premium prices would have been even lower than premiums minus rebates under an MLR rule.
Indeed, the rule actually creates significant pressure to increase premiums over time: The discourages insurers from certain cost-saving activities and oversight by counting them as administrative costs. And because profits are capped as a percentage of premiums, the only way to expand profits is to increase premium revenues. So over time we'll probably see more wasteful health spending and more expensive premiums as a result of the rule. But at least people will get rebates.
Futher reading: MLR regs are so potentially restrictive that the Congressional Budget Office warned that, if the spending requirements were set any higher (as some legislators had suggested), the requirement would be "likely to substantially reduce flexibility in terms of the types, prices, and number of private sellers of health insurance."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
his administration would reduce health insurance premiums by an average of $2,500
My personal experience suggests otherwise. My insurer (Anthem) is jacking rates as fast as they can (about 15% this year) ahead of the start of ObamaCare.
Insurance mandates have a way of doing that.
So over time we'll probably see more wasteful health spending and more expensive premiums as a result of the rule.
No way! You mean that if the only way to increase profits is to increase payouts to doctors, that they may condone wasteful spending since it means increased profits, then pass it on to the poor schmuck who must buy insurance or become a criminal?
What could possibly go wrong?
lol, Obama care is a joke.
http://www.Gotta-Be-Anon.tk