RSS Feed for This PostCurrent Article

Surprise! Health Insurers ‘Reclassifying’ Expenses

Bet you didn’t see this one coming.

One of the cost control measures under the new health care law passed just last month was “medical loss ratio” floors that go into effect on January 1, 2011. The MLR floor requires health insurers to spend at least 80 cents out of every insurance premium dollar in the individual and small group markets, and at least 85 cents in the large group market on medical expenses (as opposed to administrative costs and profits).

But according to the just released report from  U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on how health insurance companies spend the billions of dollars in premiums that American consumers pay them annually for health care coverage, the MLR floors could present a problem for health insurers.

2009 medical loss ratio results show that the largest for-profit health insurers are still spending too much of consumers’ premium dollars on administrative costs and profits. In the individual health care market, for example, the largest health insurers spent on average more than 26 cents out of every premium dollar on administrative costs and profits. In some individual markets, insurers are spending more than one third of each premium dollar on non-medical expenses.

That is ten percent below the floor.  Ouch!  That means compliance could take a sizable chunk out of health insurers profits (and bonuses). But never fear, the insurers are already working on a fix.

the insurance industry is beginning to consider the financial impact of the new federally required minimum loss ratio requirements, including questionable changes in their accounting practices. WellPoint, for example, has already “reclassified” more than half a billion dollars of administrative expenses as medical expenses. A leading industry analyst also recently released a separate report explaining why for-profit insurers might attempt to satisfy consumer protections in the law through an “MLR shift” – reclassifying previously identified administrative expenses as medical expense to create the appearance of a higher medical loss ratio.

So is anyone out there surprised by this?

What would you bet that the accountants had  this all worked out long ago?

It will be interesting to see how the National Association of Insurance Commissioners debates the meaning of medical care and medical costs.

While several states impose their own MLR requirements for commercial and individual policies, the U.S. minimums that the group of state insurance commissioners is developing with the Department of Health and Human Services are new and frequently higher.

Even though the law calls on the NAIC [National Association of Insurance Commissioners] to provide the uniform MLR definitions by year end, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, who must certify them, asked the group this week to provide the guidelines, as well as standardized calculation methods and other related information, by June 1, as the provisions will be effective for plan years starting later this year.

Wendell Potter, a former Cigna Corp. (CI) spokesman turned health-reform activist, is now a consumer representative to the NAIC. He said he will suggest that the NAIC use what has been standard industry practice in deciding what counts in the MLR, which would mean keeping nurse hotlines and disease management as administrative costs.

So how confident are you that insurers will get to keep their reclassifications and more?

Dylan Ratigan discussing this issue

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

  • HARP

    Good job Dylan, of proving just how insignificant you really are.

  • Ferd Berfle

    2009 medical loss ratio results show that the largest for-profit health insurers are still spending too much of consumers’ premium dollars on administrative costs and profits.
    ========================
    Gee, how many times did I say that a process-driven analysis should be performed on the current HC system and that the HC bill would only exacerbate that? Well, bots?

    No, I’m not prescient–just someone who understands systems far better than the morons who write these stupid bills.

  • Ferd Berfle

    2009 medical loss ratio results show that the largest for-profit health insurers are still spending too much of consumers’ premium dollars on administrative costs and profits.  
    ======================== 
    Gee, how many times did I say that a process-driven analysis should be performed on the current HC system and that the HC bill would only exacerbate the current problems, especially with overhead because an analysis wasn’t performed? Well, bots? 
     
    No, I’m not prescient–just someone who understands systems far better than the morons who write these stupid bills.

  • PssttCmere

    All I know for sure….we are going to get screwed every which way to Sunday!!

    “Say What You Will…It Feels So Good”

    http://www.saywhatyouwill.proboards.com

  • Tricia

    Geesh–The insurance companies will make their profits any way they can.  I put nothing past them.

  • sowsear

    They wrote the playbook.

  • Rosa

    I’m no genius but I figured this type of thing would happen and will happen again in other way, because, like the credit card companies they have plenty of time  to raise thier rates or find some sneaky way to increase their profits before the plan even gets off the ground…  I really think it was intentional planning .{deals made when no one was paying attention}

  • Freedom Fighter

    Well, it looks like the perfect fix to the problem is government take over of health insurance companies to ensure there is no profit in health insurance.

  • Linda Anselmi

    I agree with you Rosa.  It was intentionally planned.

  • Armymom

    Yea, I can see it now, go down to your local DMV to get your physical. Because we ALL know just how well the government can run things. (sarc)

  • Freedom Fighter

    Armymom, aren’t you a government employee? I guess it takes one to know one.

  • Cindy

    Claude—-LOL!!

  • Armymom

    Wrong again.

  • Freedom Fighter

    Aren’t you an army enlistee, PFC Armymom? LOL.

  • Armymom

    Clueless again, I see

  • Freedom Fighter

    Didn’t you indicate, a few blog posts back, that you sworn an oath to serve Barack Obama, your commander in chief, when you enlisted? I am pretty sure you did.

  • Armymom

    Nobody swears an oath to the president, they swear an oath to the constitution. That’s probably why you don’t understand things very well.

  • Cindy

    Well here is a reclassification that I can live with:

      Americans will reclassify the Senators and Congresspersons who voted for the HCB as “Former Senators and Congresspersons” come November.

    Good post, Linda. Thanks!

  • sybilll

    This was neither healthcare reform, nor health insurance reform.  It is a trojan horse to single payer. 

  • lorac

    OT – sorry, I couldn’t find an open thread on the whole page.

    Someone posted this over on Puma Pac
    http://townhall.com/columnists/CarolPlattLiebau/2010/04/19/
    interested_in_hillarys_plans_just_watch_bill

    Never under estimate a Clinton
    Interested in Hillary’s Plans? Just Watch Bill

    As Barack Obama’s approval numbers trend ever lower – and a new Gallup poll reports that 50% of Americans believe the President doesn’t even deserve a second term – it’s going to be very interesting to watch Hillary Clinton. Well, not the Secretary of State herself, of course. She’s busy at Foggy Bottom, burnishing her foreign policy credentials. Instead, watch her husband.

    Notwithstanding news accounts about the détente between the Clintons and Obama, surely the former president and his wife can’t help but feel that their predictions about the political disaster that would result from Obama’s inexperience and naivete, reportedly made during the 2008 campaign, amply borne out. With Hillary turning 65 in 2012, can anyone blame her (or her husband) for entertaining the idea of challenging Obama in two years if his popularity continues to plummet?

    In fact, Democrats might be well-advised to take with a grain of salt any advice Bill Clinton offers in months to come. The greater the damage to the President (and his party) that accrues in the interim, the greater the justification for a new (yet experienced!) candidate to step in to “rescue” the tarnished Democrat brand in 2012.

    Certainly, this rationale would explain the advice that President Clinton offered the Democrats in the midst of the health care debate. Push forward, he told them, predicting that “the minute health care reform passed, President Obama’s approval ratings would go up 10 points.” Of course, that simply didn’t happen, and every day, the ObamaCare vote looks like nothing so much as a Democrat political suicide pact. If Democrats are nervous now, consider that the ex-President insisted at the same time that Obama’s ratings would increase by 20 points by next year.

    Most recently, President Clinton emerged to insult the members of the Tea Party. Invoking memories of the Oklahoma City bombing, he implicitly compared administration critics to domestic terrorist Timothy McVeigh, insisting that “all you have to do is read the paper every day to see how many people there are who are deeply, deeply troubled.” If polls are to be believed, more Americans identify with Tea Partiers than with the President himself – and so Clinton’s remarks couldn’t be better designed to alienate voters from the Democrat establishment. At the very least, his comments will serve further to energize the administration’s most fervent opponents.

    All of this could be attributed simply to political wrongheadedness and clumsy posturing – if it weren’t Bill Clinton. For years, Americans have been informed of his formidable political and strategic skills – and his political adversaries have learned, to their detriment, of his dexterity in assessing and responding to the public mood. If he is truly seeking to help the Obama administration, then it’s fair to say that the Comeback Kid has lost a lot of his kick.

    On the other hand, if the former President dislikes being sidelined and upstaged by a younger, more powerful man – who is singlehandedly shredding the Democrat coalition that Clinton himself did so much to assemble – and misses the attention of being the undisputed leader of his party, then his actions aren’t so difficult to understand. If Clinton still resents the battering his image (especially in the black community) suffered at Obama’s hands in the 2008 campaign, then perhaps his words aren’t so inexplicable. Oh, yes, and if he wants to see himself and his legacy vindicated (and his wife’s years of hard work and forbearance repaid) by helping Hillary take her own shot at The White House – then maybe, just maybe, Bill Clinton’s behavior makes perfect sense.

  • No Longer Banned in Beantown

    Acountants cook the books. Dog bites man. Attorney says client is not guilty.

    A very big household name company I worked for in the 80′s routinely took our expense budgets and miraculously turned them into Capital expenditures for the year end report to shareholders and SEC filing.

    It makes the company’s profit look bigger because it turns operating expenses into assets.

    Many were doing it. I am pretty sure Sarbanes-Oxley made that illegal, but I am sure they found another trick around it. That is what accountants do.

  • Cindy

    lorac—that is interesting. Personally, I don’t think Hillary will run again…But she may want on Supreme Ct…which is where I’d like to see her.
    I do agree with the article in that Bill Clinton definitely made those remarks recently because he is so political, and had something in mind when he made them.
    Thanks for printing that.

  • lorac

    Big Pink also has an article suggesting that Bill Clinton has ulterior motives for “supporting” Obama….

    I’m sure glad I’m not a politician.  Too many games….

  • Cindy

    lorac—-when people stay in office over a period of time and become career politicians, the only way they know to survive is acting on political instincts.  No matter how well-meaning they are when they go into office, if they stay too long, they become political robotic animals, IMO.
    It’s sad to see, especially with the ones you have liked and respected.

  • NoBama

    How did Congress identify how much of the premium should pay benefits if none of the insurers were hitting the target BEFORE this takeover?  Does anyone really think the insurers want to pay administrative costs (i.e., employees to administer benefits, answer phones, review bills, etc…)?  This sounds like the buttinski know-nothings in Congress didn’t even take the time to figure out would be a reasonable amount to pay on administration of the benefits. 

    This should scare you guys…..the customer is going to suffer and the people left working in that industry are going to have nervous breakdowns trying to get their job done while working longer (free) hours.

  • helenk

    I will try again to post this. I can not link,
    the NRO has an article by Robert A Levy entitled Taxing Power of Obamacare. The twists and turns to make forcing people to by private insurance or be fined legal.

    WOMEN WITH INTELLIGENCE AND EXPERIENCE,MEN WHO SUPPORT THEM AND COUNTRY BEFORE PARTY ALWAYS

    PUMAS,BUBBAS,EQUALISTS AND THOSE PEOPLE RULE

  • Noogan

    It wasn’t “morons” who wrote the bill, Ferd. It was the health care lobby who wrote it. They weren’t “morons” at all! They know how to game the system.  

  • Juliezzz

    Well, how come I didn’t see this 3 weeks ago?   Look how they are floating out “Chipping” as an acceptable progression.

    Please Please Please watch and spread this

  • Juliezzz

    =-O   Fox had a story on Microchipping too!

    It’s said that micro-chipping Americans will be required to get health care. It is believed that we are headed for a complete cashless society. It is believed that all commerce will be done by the wave of an arm with an embedded Microchip. Will your kids or grand kids need to have a chip to get into school. Will it contain all your medical records including vaccination records. Will you be refused health care if your vaccinations aren’t up to date? If you are labeled obese and you scan a bag of potato chips at the grocery store along with your arm, will you be refused purchase of that item?

  • Morph

    I was reading some where that administrative cost for the health is much more then the actual health cost which is given for the USA residents. There was a suggestion that If we will control the administrative cost and will reduce it certainly, it will help the other people to have better cure.
    insurance for therapists