Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sam who wrote (134228)	3/22/2010 3:59:12 PM
From: Sam	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542797

Steve should like this. Will insurers raise rates before health-care reform? Katerina asks: Is there anything in the bill that will put increased pressure on insurers like Anthem to back away from their intended 40-50% increases this year or will exchange oversight over such increases only begin years from now? (In other words, is there going to be so much time before regulation kicks in that insurers will be able to jack up their premiums like the credit card companies jacked up their interest rates?) There's nothing the bill will do to roll back past rate increases. But a lot of people are concerned that private insurers will jack their rates up in anticipation of the exchanges. This is not a concern I fully understand, to be honest. The virtue of a competitive market -- that is to say, a market in which it's easy for a lot of people to compare products and prices -- is that this sort of behavior is actually very difficult. For a rate-raising strategy to work for insurers, you'd need pretty impressive collusion. They way a market normally works is that if five of six players are overpricing their product, the sixth player will decide to get a whole mess of new customers by charging less, and then her competitors will be forced to follow suit lest they lose their market position. This is even more true given that the subsidies are tied to the lowest-cost plans in, if I remember, the second-to-best coverage tier. In other words, if two plans are holding their costs down and six plans are pushing their costs up, the structure of the subsidies will make it very hard for people to afford the overpriced plans, which will mean those plans will lose millions of customers. The fear of deceptive rates comes, I think, from the fact that people really, really hate and mistrust private insurers. And they have good reason for that. But private insurers aren't monsters. They're capitalists. And when the rules and incentives of the market change, so too will their behavior. Update As Jim notes in comments, insurers are exempt from antitrust law (though probably not for long), so collusion wouldn't be illegal. It would just be difficult to uphold. That said, economist Austin Frakt notices that there's actually a policy that will directly police rate increases. "The rate reviews that take effect this year (85% and 80% loss ratio minimums in the large and small/individual markets, respectively) would be a means by which to cap rate increases," he e-mails. "Consumers are supposed to get rebates if those minimums are exceeded. Thus, the vast majority of rate increases will have to be justified by actual medical expenses." That's exactly right, and I should've noticed it. What it means is this: Starting in 2011, insurers will have to spend at least 80% of every premium dollar on medical care. If they don't, they have to rebate the difference to consumers. So a giant rate hike would have to be traceable back to a giant increase in medical receipts. If it's not, all that money would have to be rebated to enrollees, and it wouldn't do insurers any good. In other words, rate hikes between now and 2014 would just mean rebates for the affected consumers. By Ezra Klein \| March 22, 2010; 2:29 PM ET voices.washingtonpost.com

To: Sam who wrote (134228)	3/22/2010 8:20:00 PM
From: quehubo	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 542797

Yes a noble cause to take from others and provide a $11K subsidy to a family in this example. What happens when this person decides damn I cant afford the pay the co premium, the deductible and further co pays? What happens with costs when many families with low income are fully subsidized and have no skin in the game? They can use the system as much as they like. So now the onus is on the system to find ways to treat patients cheaper with chronic diseases. What motivation does the patient have? I can tell you from experience most people expect pills and treatment to displace diet and exercise. What recourse does the service provider have? Much like Medicare cost projections Obamacare will be drive usage up and healthcare as a % of GDP through the roof. I am still waiting to see how Obama care gets us $100 MRI's like the Japanese were reported here to have.