The HC Summit

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from DamainAllen. Show DamainAllen's posts

    Re: The HC Summit

    In Response to Re: The HC Summit:
    In Response to Re: The HC Summit : As I said it all depends on whether this is small group market. Makes a HUGE difference on underwriting guidelines. Aging of employees and changes in group sizes have an affect on premium growth variability. Here's an example on an individual group basis to give you an idea. Take a company that has 9 employees: The rate increase if one employee of average age leaves the group, resulting in a group of 8 employees AND a current employee ages from 29 years to 30 years the rate increase would be 17.6% Same size company: Rate increase if one employee in early 60s retires and a 40-year-old replacement is hired is -5.3% The reason I picked 9 is because the average small group size (in MA) is 9 At an average size of 9 members in a small group market the variability of just even 1 member changing from a healthy 25 year old to a 60 year old smoker can have these large 40% year to year increases as reported by the Boston Globe. These increases are due to the Adjustment Factors for that group changing and not due to the insurer charging a much higher base rate  
    Posted by hawkeye01


    In the example I provided of Anthem Blue Cross - owned by Wellpoint, they sought to increase rates on individual plans not group plans so while this is good information it isn't relevant to the rate increases being sought out. 
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from 12angrymen. Show 12angrymen's posts

    Re: The HC Summit

    As I said it all depends on whether this is small group market. Makes a HUGE difference on underwriting guidelines. Aging of employees and changes in group sizes have an affect on premium growth variability. 
    Here's an example on an individual group basis to give you an idea. 
    Take a company that has 9 employees:
    The rate increase if one employee of average age leaves the group, resulting in a group of 8 employees AND a current employee ages from 29 years to 30 years the rate increase would be 17.6%

    Same size company:Rate increase if one employee in early 60s retires and a 40-year-old replacement is hired is -5.3%

    The reason I picked 9 is because the average small group size (in MA) is 9

    At an average size of 9 members in a small group market the variability of just even 1 member changing from a healthy 25 year old to a 60 year old smoker can have these large 40% year to year increases as reported by the Boston Globe. These increases are due to the Adjustment Factors for that group changing and not due to the insurer charging a much higher base rate

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    What you fail to acknowledge is that these formulas were written by insurance companies to maximize profits. You may try to make it sound equitable but the fact is the insurer is in business to makes as much money as possible. I'm sure the rates you quote used some actuary tables but they were primarily based on a profit motive. 

    Those are not 'break even' rate increases but profit maximizing increases.

    As an intellectual argument, I would like to see an independent accounting/actuarial company do a 'break even' analysis of insurance costs. It would be interesting to see how far over the baseline insurance companies put their pricing.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from hawkeye01. Show hawkeye01's posts

    Re: The HC Summit

    In Response to Re: The HC Summit:
    In Response to Re: The HC Summit : In the example I provided of Anthem Blue Cross - owned by Wellpoint, they sought to increase rates on individual plans not group plans so while this is good information it isn't relevant to the rate increases being sought out. 
    Posted by DamainAllen


    Individual plans are look at as a block so depending on shifts in population that can have a big effect. My point is that insurers, especially in this climate, don't just arbitrarily raise premiums. It's not done on a whim. Believe me, as someone who was in the business I, along with everyone else I worked with, would much rather have to give a group a small increase or none at all then to give a big increase. Cause more headaches than needed.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from hawkeye01. Show hawkeye01's posts

    Re: The HC Summit

    In Response to Re: The HC Summit:
    As I said it all depends on whether this is small group market. Makes a HUGE difference on underwriting guidelines. Aging of employees and changes in group sizes have an affect on premium growth variability.  Here's an example on an individual group basis to give you an idea.  Take a company that has 9 employees: The rate increase if one employee of average age leaves the group, resulting in a group of 8 employees AND a current employee ages from 29 years to 30 years the rate increase would be 17.6% Same size company: Rate increase if one employee in early 60s retires and a 40-year-old replacement is hired is -5.3% The reason I picked 9 is because the average small group size (in MA) is 9 At an average size of 9 members in a small group market the variability of just even 1 member changing from a healthy 25 year old to a 60 year old smoker can have these large 40% year to year increases as reported by the Boston Globe. These increases are due to the Adjustment Factors for that group changing and not due to the insurer charging a much higher base rate -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What you fail to acknowledge is that these formulas were written by insurance companies to maximize profits. You may try to make it sound equitable but the fact is the insurer is in business to makes as much money as possible. I'm sure the rates you quote used some actuary tables but they were primarily based on a profit motive.  Those are not 'break even' rate increases but profit maximizing increases. As an intellectual argument, I would like to see an independent accounting/actuarial company do a 'break even' analysis of insurance costs. It would be interesting to see how far over the baseline insurance companies put their pricing.
    Posted by 12angrymen



    Here's info put together by an independent company:
     Small Group
    (1-50)
    Mid-Size Group
    (<500)
    Large Group (500+)
    Administration7.5%6.1%6.2%
    Broker Commissions2.1%2.4%1.2%
    Contribution to Surplus2.8%2.8%2.2%
    Total Non-Claims Expenses12.4%11.3%9.6%
    Total Claims Expenses (100% minus Non-Claims Expenses)87.6%88.7%90.4%

    Contribution to Surplus is profit margin.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from 12angrymen. Show 12angrymen's posts

    Re: The HC Summit

    Thanks for the info.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from hawkeye01. Show hawkeye01's posts

    Re: The HC Summit

    In Response to Re: The HC Summit:
    Thanks for the info.
    Posted by 12angrymen


    No problem. We may not see eye to eye but at least we have discussions that don't evolve into name calling like some people. That's how it should be
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from 12angrymen. Show 12angrymen's posts

    Re: The HC Summit

    One thing to keep in mind is the presidents proposal does not impose pricing on the market in general. The gov't would create pools of individuals/small companies and set the rules for insurers to market to these people. It doesn't mandate they have to participate. If an insurer thinks it's in it's best interest to insure in this pool it will, if not, it won't. The gov't is only doing what big companies do, advocate for the best price.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from 12angrymen. Show 12angrymen's posts

    Re: The HC Summit

    No problem. We may not see eye to eye but at least we have discussions that don't evolve into name calling like some people. That's how it should be
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Cheers
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from hawkeye01. Show hawkeye01's posts

    Re: The HC Summit

    In Response to Re: The HC Summit:
    One thing to keep in mind is the presidents proposal does not impose pricing on the market in general. The gov't would create pools of individuals/small companies and set the rules for insurers to market to these people. It doesn't mandate they have to participate. If an insurer thinks it's in it's best interest to insure in this pool it will, if not, it won't. The gov't is only doing what big companies do, advocate for the best price.
    Posted by 12angrymen


    I hear you. I'm all for doing something in regards to reform. We obviously can't keep going the way we are. I would just like the govt to not rush things. This is a huge undertaking. Let's do it right once
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from smileybennyhana. Show smileybennyhana's posts

    Re: The HC Summit

    Just one thought on the health care summit 


    Reid was certain to mention the savings to govt and reduction of the deficit over the next 10 years (and beyond) if the dem legislation was enacted.

    My question is has anyone said what the expected amount of savings will be to individuals on their health insurance premiums?

    I don't recall seeing or hearing any proponent in Congress or the WH indicating what people should expect the amount of savings will be. All I recall hearing so far is what govt will save.
     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from 12angrymen. Show 12angrymen's posts

    Re: The HC Summit

    In Response to Re: The HC Summit:
    Just one thought on the health care summit  Reid was certain to mention the savings to govt and reduction of the deficit over the next 10 years (and beyond) if the dem legislation was enacted. My question is has anyone said what the expected amount of savings will be to individuals on their health insurance premiums? I don't recall seeing or hearing any proponent in Congress or the WH indicating what people should expect the amount of savings will be. All I recall hearing so far is what govt will save.
    Posted by smileybennyhana


    The CBO says premiums will go down by 14-20% for consumers.
    It also says that with the savings, people will buy better insurance which costs 13-17% more than their current premiums. So it appears it's a monetary wash but people will get better health insurance at the same cost of high deductable/catastrophic policies.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from 12angrymen. Show 12angrymen's posts

    Re: The HC Summit

    In Response to Re: The HC Summit:
    Do you think if this bill gets rammed through, do you think it will stand up Constitutionally. 10th amendment, States  rights.  12 did I understand you to say the congress will have the same plan as us and have to pay for it.  Thanks I've learned a lot from you guys.
    Posted by chiefhowie

    You're welcome chief.
    I haven't read the whole proposal so I can't answer if it'll be against states rights.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from sk8ter2008. Show sk8ter2008's posts

    Re: The HC Summit

    In Response to Re: The HC Summit:
    Do you think if this bill gets rammed through, do you think it will stand up Constitutionally. 10th amendment, States  rights.  12 did I understand you to say the congress will have the same plan as us and have to pay for it.  Thanks I've learned a lot from you guys.
    Posted by chiefhowie


    I don't think it will be rammed through because too many dems are too worried about the election in Nov.

    I do not think the bill will stand up against the plethora of lawsuits that will be filed immediately.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from 1984-Redux. Show 1984-Redux's posts

    Re: The HC Summit

    Would be fun watching them unroll this ball of string.

    Lose lose situation but I have $50 that says Obama will still press his personal social agenda of reparations.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: The HC Summit

    In Response to Re: The HC Summit:
    In Response to Re: The HC Summit : I don't think it will be rammed through because too many dems are too worried about the election in Nov. I do not think the bill will stand up against the plethora of lawsuits that will be filed immediately.
    Posted by sk8ter2008


    Don't pin your hopes on the vague provisions of the 10th Amendment.  I has virtually no legal history.  The Commerce Clause has plenty.   Nullification is not going to happen: it didn't work in the 19th century, it wont work in the 21st.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bill-806. Show Bill-806's posts

    Re: The HC Summit

    In Response to Re: The HC Summit:
    Would be fun watching them unroll this ball of string. Lose lose situation but I have $50 that says Obama will still press his personal social agenda of reparations.
    Posted by 1984-Redux
     REDUX.............  ALL PART OF THE  "BIG O's" EFFORT TO   "TRANSFORM" AMERICA !!!
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from hawkeye01. Show hawkeye01's posts

    Re: The HC Summit

    In Response to Re: The HC Summit:
    In Response to Re: The HC Summit : The CBO says premiums will go down by 14-20% for consumers. It also says that with the savings, people will buy better insurance which costs 13-17% more than their current premiums. So it appears it's a monetary wash but people will get better health insurance at the same cost of high deductable/catastrophic policies.
    Posted by 12angrymen


    I'll believe it when I see it. Certainly won't hold my breath on it
     

Share