Insurers: Added Regulations Through Health Reform Will Increase Plan Costs
For those who see private health insurance as a major problem in the healthcare system, reform is a chance to get insurers in line. But insurers and their supporters say added industry regulations will simply increase healthcare costs.
The health insurance industry has already come forward to say that it will accept certain regulations if the federal government requires all Americans to have health insurance. America's Health Insurance Plans said health plans will accept everyone regardless of preexisting conditions and not charge women more for individual insurance if an individual mandate is part of healthcare reform.
Health insurers will allow these two changes without a fight because an individual mandate would flood the system with an influx of millions of newly insured (including young people with low health costs).
"Guaranteed issue can only work if everyone–the young and healthy, as well as higher-risk individuals–purchases coverage. This would help keep premiums affordable," says Justine Handelman, executive director of legislative and regulatory policy at the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association.
As long as everyone is required to have health insurance coverage, Handelman says, the BCBSA supports new rating rules, including phasing out the practice of varying premiums based on health status. She added the change must be phased in gradually state by state "to avoid major disruptions and large premium increases for current enrollees. It would still be critical for insurers to adjust premiums based on age [and] wellness factors, such as non-smoking and geography."
But there are other regulations being discussed in Congress that health insurers are not ready to accept, such as benefit design requirements that include removing lifetime benefit limits and limiting premiums based on differences in age, community, and family size; guaranteed issue without the individual mandate; and coverage mandates. Private insurers say these kinds of requirements would increase premiums and have the biggest effect on the less-regulated states.
Rather than finding ways to regulate insurers, Joseph Antos, Wilson H. Taylor Scholar in Health Care and Retirement Policy at American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, says lawmakers should look to reduce healthcare costs. Focusing on insurance regulation does not improve "a very inefficient healthcare system" or address the "fundamental cost drivers," says Antos.
"The question is how onerous do we want those regulations to be and do we want regulations that will substantially increase costs of insurance?" says Antos.
"If you tell insurers that they have to take on all comers regardless of their cancer diagnosis they just got and now they want to buy insurance, that means the average premiums will have to go up to account for the fact that they are taking on people they were not taking on before," says Antos. "That means average cost of insurance goes up. That means young healthy people will buy insurance less and it will have less value to them."
- Sebelius Lashes Out at Anthem for Premium Increases
- 10 Ways to Improve Handoffs in Your Hospital
- Nurse Anesthetists Say They Practice Safely Without Physician Supervision
- There are Big Bucks in Better Patient Flow
- Doctors Sue To Stop Unsupervised Nurse Anesthetists from Administering Anesthesia
- CT Hospital was Prepared for Power Plant Explosion
- Can Nurses Drive Health Reform?
- Expectant Moms, The White House is Calling
- Texas nurse to stand trial for reporting doctor
- HIPAA Harm Threshold Works, Say Providers


Brandon E. (7/8/2009 at 5:22 PM)
I find this debate very interesting. Hospitals have agreed to cut already-deficient Medicare reimbursement to make reform happy. Big pharma has agreed to substantial cuts, and most people believe physicians are up next. We can argue about the substance of these cuts, but it's money coming out of their coffers (not going into them). The question is, what exactly have payors given up? They've agreed to cover people with preexisting conditions IF there is an individual mandate. So the big sacrifice is to accept millions of new members? MLR requirements - 85% or 88% - would be a real contribution. Naturally profits could be affected, but so are profits for hospitals and physicians, and hospital margins are much slimmer than payor margins. Health reform won't get done on the payors' backs, but they should help shoulder the burden.
John W. (7/2/2009 at 2:14 PM)
It is so gracious of the insurers to go along with guaranteed issue and some form of community rating, if the rules are "phased in" and if insurance industry conditions are met, and if they can keep lifetime caps. If, if, if! It is sad that an accident of history leaves us in this position where a financial-sector industry is the gatekeeper to healt hcare, with no good way to extricate ourselves. Other nations with private insurance as part of hybrid public/private payer systems seem able to make the private insurance available to everybody without conditions. I haven't heard of insurers in those countries going out of business. Why is the recently exposed payment database not considered price fixing under antitrust laws? How powerful are these guys that they point blank told a congressional committee that they would not change the despicable practice of retroactively rescinding coverage in cases where people did not intentionally mislead on their insurance applications?