It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The Principal Financial Group announced on Thursday that it planned to stop selling health insurance, another sign of upheaval emerging among insurers as the new federal health law starts to take effect.
The company, based in Iowa, provides coverage to about 840,000 people who receive their insurance through an employer.
Principal’s decision closely tracks moves by other insurers that have indicated in recent weeks that they plan to drop out of certain segments of the market, like the business of selling child-only policies. State regulators say some insurance companies are already threatening to leave particular markets because of the new law. And some regulators in states like Maine and Iowa have asked the Obama administration to give insurers more time to comply with some of the new rules.
“What you’re seeing is the beginning of some serious math and some posturing,” said Len Nichols, a health economist and policy expert at George Mason University. While some insurers, like Principal, are choosing to leave the business rather than make the necessary investments to stay, others may be simply trying to delay some of the new rules or overturn them, he said.
At the Principal Financial Group, the company’s decision reflected its assessment of its ability to compete in the environment created by the new law. “Now scale really matters,” said Daniel J. Houston, a senior executive at Principal, which is headquartered in Des Moines. “We don’t have a significant concentration in any one market.”
Because Principal Financial is primarily in the business of asset management, it decided not to make the investments needed to remain competitive as a health insurer, Mr. Houston said. The company, which focused on plans sold to small businesses for their employees, does not participate in other markets, like selling policies to individuals or for people enrolled in Medicare or Medicaid.
Other aspects of the health care regulations are worrying some state insurance commissioners, who fear that insurers are going to stop selling policies in some areas of coverage. For example, in the case of child-only policies, the new rules require insurers to offer coverage to even those children who are seriously ill, leading some insurers to balk at the idea that they will be forced to cover too many sick children. Aetna, Cigna and WellPoint, among others, have said they will stop selling new policies in some states.
More insurers are likely to follow Principal’s lead, especially as they try to meet the new rules that require plans to spend at least 80 cents of every dollar they collect in premiums on the welfare of their customers. Many of the big insurers have been lobbying federal officials to forestall or drastically alter those rules.
“It’s just going to drive the little guys out,” said Robert Laszewski, a health policy consultant in Alexandria, Va. Smaller players like Principal in states like Iowa, Missouri and elsewhere will not be able to compete because they do not have the resources and economies of scale of players like UnitedHealth, which is among the nation’s largest health insurers.
Mr. Laszewski is worried that the ensuing concentration is likely to lead to higher prices because large players will no longer face the competition from the smaller plans. “It’s just the UnitedHealthcare full employment act,” he said.
source
Family premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance in the U.S. increased 119% between 1999 and 2008, far, far higher than any increase in wages, according to a new survey. If current trends continue, premiums are on course to increase another 94% by 2020, to an average of $23,842 per family. Employees pay on average about 30% of this amount.
Originally posted by Curiousisall
Wow, the poor insurance companies. They must have horrible profit margins...
Late Friday, the FDA announced it had postponed for 90 days — and until after the Election — a decision whether to ration the later stage cancer drug Avastin based on cost. With poll numbers that 60 Plus rolled out earlier in the week this is not a shock.
For the first time, an FDA sub-panel used cost as a factor in consideration of drug approval — opening the door to rationing for Avastin and other cutting edge drugs. The American people reject rationing. They do not want doctor’s choices limited by cost — undermining the basic premise of ObamaCare and when drugs are rejected because of their price tag, that is rationing.
Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by neo96
Private healthcare is an absolute failure in this country. Wake up and smell the bacon. We're the richest country in the world and yet, we have terrible healthcare standards. We can't take care of our veterans. We can't take care of our poor. We can't even take care of ourselves!
The fact that our tax dollars are thrown away on mindless defense spending instead of healthcare is an insult.
Remember when Barack Obama repeatedly promised that no one’s current coverage would have to change if Congress approved the health-care overhaul he demanded? When the ObamaCare bill passed, the Associated Press suddenly discovered that the change of tax law that would supposedly generate billions of dollars to pay for the costs of the bill would also drive companies to dump retirees from their existing drug coverage and push them into Medicare. Minnesota-based 3M became one of the first large corporations to do just that — and push retirees off of all their plans as well:
citing new federal health laws, said Monday it won’t cover retirees with its corporate health-insurance plan starting in 2013.
Instead, the company will direct retirees to Medicare-backed insurance programs, and will provide reimbursement for that coverage. It’ll also reimburse retirees who are too young for Medicare; the company didn’t provide further details.
The company made the changes known in a memo to employees Friday; news of the move was reported in The Wall Street Journal and confirmed Monday by 3M spokeswoman Jackie Berry.
Democrats that crafted the legislation say they tried to incentivize companies to keep their retiree coverage intact, especially until 2014. The law creates a $5 billion fund for employers and unions to offset the cost of retiree health benefits. More than 2,000 entities, including many large public companies, have already been approved to submit claims for such reimbursement. 3M did not apply.
How did Democrats come up with the $5 billion figure for subsidies to protect retirees from losing their plans? From the looks of it, they simply made it up. They also didn’t do much calculation to determine whether the subsidies would actually incentivize employers into rejecting this strategy for cost savings. To some extent, they may not have been able to make that calculation, because thanks to the massive amount of ambiguity in the bill, no one can really say for sure what the future costs would be. And of course, that’s why 3M chose now to dump the retirees.