10%+ Increases Will Now Be "reviewed"

How could the example you give be anything other than a reasonable increase sure a 40% jump isn't fun but the carrier is paying out 88% in medical cost in your example so the increase was not just justified but needed.

I agree with you, but again, the issue was whether the MLR requirements would identify an unreasonable rate change. My post is that the MLR requirements would not be able to identify an unreasonable or reasonable rate change.
 
I agree with you, but again, the issue was whether the MLR requirements would identify an unreasonable rate change. My post is that the MLR requirements would not be able to identify an unreasonable or reasonable rate change.

Why not if the rate change causes the MLR to be broken excess premium will be refunded, if the MLR with the increase is still under the requirement how can that be determined to be unreasonable.....Why bother with a MLR requirement if the regulators are then going to come in and determine if an increase is reasonable or unreasonable if it meets the required MLR?

What am I missing....Granted I don't sell IFPs because I live in a Utopia of a GI state...oh did I mention we have extremely high rates and a non-existant health market.
 
Why not if the rate change causes the MLR to be broken excess premium will be refunded, if the MLR with the increase is still under the requirement how can that be determined to be unreasonable.....Why bother with a MLR requirement if the regulators are then going to come in and determine if an increase is reasonable or unreasonable if it meets the required MLR?

What am I missing....Granted I don't sell IFPs because I live in a Utopia of a GI state...oh did I mention we have extremely high rates and a non-existant health market.

Let's assume that there is not other way to determine "unreasonable" except via the MLR. Use the same example; $100 rate ($85 to med, $15 to admin) and a rate change to $140. Assume the admin remains at $15, but the medical side is different and the carrier only needs $90 for the medical. The carrier now has extra money to spend/hide in the organization. Someone will need to look at the flow of dollars within the carrier and determine if needed.
 
Let's assume that there is not other way to determine "unreasonable" except via the MLR. Use the same example; $100 rate ($85 to med, $15 to admin) and a rate change to $140. Assume the admin remains at $15, but the medical side is different and the carrier only needs $90 for the medical. The carrier now has extra money to spend/hide in the organization. Someone will need to look at the flow of dollars within the carrier and determine if needed.

In your new example they would be required by law to refund $29 to get back into compliance with the law...Yes and the someone should be the state Dept of Insurance not the Federal HHS...Medical Loss Ratios MLR have existed for some time they are not new what is new is the bump up to 85% also in Maine there is a complaint about each and every Anthem BC rate increase and they are running a 95% MLR meaning $95 out of every $100 dollars is spent on medical care.
 
This new requirement, if it can pass muster, will do nothing more than embolden politicians to use the industry as a whipping boy.

Frankly, I am fed up with the entire mess and feel the public that voted these idiots in deserve what they get.

Obamacrap is a jobs killer and not just limited to agents.

Of course we all know Obamacrap does nothing to hold down the cost of health care or make health insurance more affordable.

It makes me ill every time I hear another lie from these turds.
 
You know what pisses me off about this stuff? This was supposed to be Healthcare Reform....How come Health and Human Services is only spotlighting carriers that have 10%+ increases regardless of cost increases and there is nothing here about Medical costs rising..How about they investigate every Medical bill that increases by a % over the previous year this would also have the side benefit of helping to keep insurance increases down.....yeah yeah I know this political and not really about healthcare or keeping costs down.
 
Back
Top