Reply With Quote
BigInsurance will us all, and most state regulators will let them.
^ctrl-v
BigInsurance will us all, and most state regulators will let them.
That article fails to factor in deductibles, co-pays and the drastic narrowing of networks. Before ACA, I had a PPO plan with low deductible and could go to any doctor/hospital in the country. Now, the crappy second lowest silver plan costs more than that plan, the deductibles and copays are sky-high and I'm restricted to doctors/hospitals in my area.
Average rate request of 24 percent this year. That's according to findings from independent analyst Charles Gaba, who has crunched the numbers for insurers participating in the ACA exchanges in all 50 states, including a handful of recent updates.
Story Continued Below
For instance, Cigna and Humana recently revised their rate requests in Tennessee, and the new filings are dramatically higher. Cigna is now asking for a 46 percent average increase, up from 23 percent, and Humana is requesting a 44 percent increase, up from 29 percent, The Tennessean reported on Friday.
Average approved rate increase so far: 17 percent. That's according to weighted averages across just five states — Mississippi, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island and Vermont — Gaba reports, so there's bound to be fluctuation.
http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/po...percent-215881
I'll remind you of the 85-15 rule - 85% must be spent on healthcare - blame Obama and the democrats for the mandated essential benefits on all policies (regardless of whether you can even use them). Insurance companies now have the data to back up their increase requests. Admit it, boutons, unless one gets a subsidy, this is one crappy law.
tell that to people who can now get health care they couldn't afford without the law.
ACA is "crappy" because it's trying co-exist with the butt- ing BigInsurance that WROTE THE LAW.
Try again, splits.
Destroyed in the comments section.
This blog post contains several material methodological errors, omissions, and distortions, such that it presents a misleading picture of the insurance marketplace.
First, the authors completely ignore multiple prior studies — including one published by one of their Brookings colleagues — all showing a significant increase in premiums when PPACA’s major insurance provisions took effect in January 2014. A paper published by Brookings non-resident fellow Amanda Kowalski in the Fall 2014 issue of Brookings Papers on Economic Activity concluded that “Across all states, from before the reform to the first half of 2014, enrollment-weighted premiums in the individual health insurance market increased by 24.4 percent beyond what they would have had they simply followed state-level seasonally adjusted trends.” This conclusion, as part of a paper studying the broader welfare effects of PPACA, utilized actual National Association of Insurance Commissioners data for 2013 and 2014 — unlike the post above, which compared 2009 data (extrapolated to 2013) with 2014 premiums. (Also unlike the blog post above, Dr. Kowalski’s paper was peer-reviewed by colleagues prior to publication.)
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content...A_Kowalski.pdf
Likewise, a recent Mercatus Center study (also peer-reviewed, unlike the above post) found that premiums for PPACA-compliant qualified health plans (QHPs) were significantly higher than non-PPACA compliant non-QHPs in 2014 — again suggesting a significant e in premiums due to the law. Despite the higher premiums for the new PPACA plans, however, insurers also suffered losses in 2014 — a point not acknowledged by the Brookings researchers. Again, this Mercatus Center study utilized actual insurer data from 2013 and 2014, not the extrapolation method used by the above post.
http://mercatus.org/publication/affo...certain-future
The post above also conflicts with data from Standard and Poor’s showing significant increases in individual market costs in 2014 — a trend which continued in 2015. The data show a nearly 38% increase in total health care costs for the individual market in 2014, and an aggregate 69% increase in total health care costs for the individual market from 2013 to 2015. As with the Kowalski and Mercatus studies, the S&P report uses actual pre-post data, as opposed to an extrapolation of premium costs for the 2013 pre-PPACA period.
http://media.mhfi.com/do ents/SP_G...t-May-2016.pdf
Second, as noted above, the authors make their estimates based on CBO’s estimate (using MEPS data) of premiums for 2009, extrapolated forward based on inflation measures to 2013, rather than actual 2013 premiums. They provide insufficient support and justification for doing so. While PPACA was enacted in March 2010, its largest regulations did not take effect until January 2014. Moreover, as the authors themselves admit, by utilizing 2009 rather than 2013 data, they omit much of the effects of the slowdown in health spending that occurred following the 2008-2009 recession. Given that the studies using ACTUAL (as opposed to extrapolated) pre-post data all show significant increases beginning in 2014, it is reasonable to question whether their conclusion is primarily, if not solely, the result of the use of a favorable inflation measure for the years 2009 through 2013. Utilizing more recent MEPS premium data could have functioned as a sensitivity test — to determine whether their findings were solely a result of missing the effects of the health spending slowdown — but the authors chose not to undertake such analysis.
In a similar vein, the authors provide no explanation why they used 2009 CBO/MEPS data as the starting point, but then used a different inflation measure to adjust premiums upward from 2009-2013. If the MEPS premium data (as utilized by CBO) were sufficient to provide the
point, but then used a different inflation measure to adjust premiums upward from 2009-2013. If the MEPS premium data (as utilized by CBO) were sufficient to provide the starting point, then why not use MEPS data going forward, to provide the inflation measure for years 2010 and following? The authors neither acknowledge nor answer this question.
Third, the authors acknowledge — but failed to make any attempt to quantify — the effects of reinsurance on plan premiums in 2014 through 2016. A recent Mercatus Center study using actual data from insurer filings found that in 2014, reinsurance payments to insurers amounted to approximately 20.4% of gross premiums — yet still suffered over $2 billion in losses. Reinsurance payments alone account for all — if not more than all — of the supposed 10-21 percent premium “reduction” in premiums form 2013 to 2014. It undermines entirely the authors’ argument that PPACA “lowered premiums” if said premium “reduction” came solely based on redistribution of reinsurance funds from employer-based plans (via the Treasury) — particularly when the reinsurance program will end following this calendar year.
http://mercatus.org/publication/affo...tial-subsidies
Fourth, the statements about PPACA plans providing “more” and “better” coverage because the law “increased the quality and robustness of coverage” were made in the absence of evidence. http://www.chrisjacobshc.com/2016/07...ve-a-wonk-gap/ The law included new requirements regarding minimum actuarial values, but it also — as the authors admit — has resulted in narrower physician and hospital networks, as studies by Avalere Health and McKinsey have demonstrated.
http://mercatus.org/publication/affo...tial-subsidies
http://healthcare.mckinsey.com/hospi...ears-exchanges
The talking point that “people are getting more for less” under PPACA remains key to press coverage of this post — despite the lack of research or analysis to support it. A Los Angeles Times article last week highlighted that talking point, as have prior pieces elsewhere:
http://www.latimes.com/business/hilt...nap-story.html
http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog...ge-study-finds
http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/po...ts-next-215479
In sum, with respect to the assertion that PPACA lowered premiums, the authors 1) did not explain why they used CBO/MEPS data from 2009 rather than more recent data, 2) did not explain why they used the inflation measures they did, rather than MEPS data, 3) did not attempt to quantify the effects of reinsurance on premiums, and 4) ignored the multiple studies — including one from a Brookings colleague — using actual pre-post data (as opposed to an extrapolation based on a 2009 estimate) that have all found PPACA raised premiums, and 5) undertook no research to prove that PPACA coverage is “better” or of higher quality than prior plans — in other words, the first half of the “people are getting more for less” equation has no evidence to support it.
While not mentioned on Brookings’ site, Mr. Adler previously worked as a data analyst for then-Senator Obama’s campaign for the presidency in 2008. This “analysis” properly belongs in that arena — as a political talking point for a campaign, not a scholarly study undertaken by a heretofore reputable organization like Brookings, or published (even in blog form) in a forum such as Health Affairs. The authors should respond to the legitimate criticisms I (and others) have raised about their methodology — and if they cannot, or will not, the post should be taken down in its entirety.
Actually, under that rule insurance companies have an incentive to ask providers to charge more, as that grows the 15% share they get to keep. Since cost was never a discussion with this law, providers are free to charge whatever the market will bear, and a lot of what the market will bear in this case is what the insurance company wants to pay. See the conflict of interest there?
I mean, I have zero intentions of defending the law because I also agree it's crappy (although it's certainly debatable it's worse than what was there before).
Now that I'm reading this article on Aetna leaving a bunch of markets, it's also a good reminder of what this is all about.
We used to have a system that only cared about healthy people. People with pre-exisiting conditions were basically either priced out or shunned completely, and that's people that needs care the most. That was nice gig for insurance companies while it lasted.
Now we have this monstrosity that tried to bring those in (and at this point even republicans coincide that people with pre-exisiting conditions should not be denied coverage), by basically partially subsidizing it through the government, but without actual control on cost and prices, you're basically back to the profit motive vs access competing interests.
This is why, IMO, you're never going to find a "free-market" solution to this. The state will always have a compelling interest in access, but it won't be able to achieve it until it can at least severely tame the profit-motive aspect of it, and then you're not in a free market anymore. If you let profit-motive reign supreme (compounded with monopolistic instruments like patents and copyrights), then you're going to price people out, or severely restrict access (businesses are not in it to lose money).
Now we're full circle again to where we were before Barrycare passed. Access vs profit-motive.
We need VA for all
I sense sarcasm, but actually isn't the VA the only one allowed to negotiate prices with drug companies?
Health care is all about maximizing profits for mgmt and investors, aka, wealth transfer. tiest possible product for highest possible price (and under no or minimized compe ion)
Estimates say that Americans pay about $1T/year too much for health care, transferred to the capitalists.
Health care is just another way America is ed and un able.
BigHealthcare owns enough politicians at all levels that it will NEVER allow its profits to be reduced by a Medicare-for-all. Even Medicare has been corrupted by the Repugs and their Medicare Advantage scam of taxpayers.
Learn how to read, dumbass.
your argument was young people shouldn't be forced to pay health insurance because they don't get sick, don't have accidents, never need medical care
Got damn you are stupid.
In your auto insurance analogy, if auto insurance was run like the ACA you could drive without insurance until you had a wreck, Then under ACA-AUTO you could go to a health insurance company and pay a new monthly car insurance premium and have your wreck covered as a pre-existing condition.
Your argument was that young people shouldn't be forced to pay health insurance because they don't get sick, don't have accidents, never need medical care.
People (sick or healthy) who don't buy health insurance get penalized on their income tax, so not buying health insurance until one gets sick isn't "free".
People pay one way or the other. (The penalties for not buying are too low but have ramped up nicely.)
And you seem to be really concerned about (mostly poor) people trying to game ACA, but don't give a flying about BigHealthCare gaming the system to rip all of us off for profit (from which you yourself profit nicely, IIRC), and getting their s in Congress to criminalize citizens for buying BigPharma's drugs MUCH cheaper in Canada, etc.
The "penalty" is a joke. It's not even close to the cost of health insurance premiums.
I'm not making this up, dumbass. ACA isn't working because they can't get enough healthy people to buy into it.
It's a tremendous joke, yet people will always defend it no matter what because it fits their agenda.
You don't have to pay the penalty - just adjust your withholding so you don't get a refund - IRS cannot get it any other way. There are other ways of not paying the penalty like turning off your utilities (shut-off notice from utility company is a hardship exemption). Besides the penalty is small - it doesn't offset those who enroll, get checkups/labs/procedures done and then cancel after.
Also known as running a business... there's nothing inherently wrong with that. But, there's (or should be) an obvious competing state interest in guaranteeing access. This is a riddle the rest of the world figured out a long time ago.
The only positive about ACA, IMO, is that it shook the status quo. It's a terrible law, but it did put us into a road to change a deeply flawed system.
running a business to maximize profit by minimizing health care delivery is inhumane.
It's the ing idea that BigCorp/capitalists profits MUST BE SERVED, at all costs, which includes letting diseased people suffer and die for want of health care.
It's the horribly inhumane idea that health care is privilege not a right, because EVERYTHING in America must make a profit.
Greedy, bloodsucking health care company pulls out of ACA after losing almost half a billion dollars...
http://www.marke ch.com/story/why...are-2016-08-16When Aetna Inc. announced that it would withdraw from three-quarters of the states where it offers Affordable Care Act exchange plans, the move wasn’t entirely unexpected: The company had signaled its woes early this month.
But the decision by one of the nation’s largest health insurers AET, -0.20% to withdraw from 11 of 15 state exchanges follows similar moves by UnitedHealth Group Inc. UNH, -0.38% , the largest U.S. health insurer, and Humana Inc. HUM, +0.00% , another large health insurer.
The string of bad news marks a tidal shift for the ACA. Where insurers, including Aetna, had once planned on exchange expansions next year, many are instead curtailing their coverage.
Aetna’s pared-down 2017 exchange participation “raises further questions about the long-term viability of the ACA marketplaces,” said Susquehanna analyst Chris Rigg.
Read: Aetna to retreat from most of its Affordable Care Act markets
Aetna explained the decision as a way to “limit our financial exposure moving forward,” after pretax losses of $200 million in the second quarter and losses totaling $430 million on individual products since January 2014. The company did not specify what portion of the losses was attributable to individual public plan offerings.
The company criticized the ACA’s “inadequate” risk-adjustment mechanism, which is meant to limit insurers’ losses as they start covering sicker individuals. It’s a common criticism from health insurers, which have long said that the risk-pool program isn’t working the way it’s supposed to, though others say big insurance companies should instead change their model to keep costs down.
See: Aetna just became the fifth big health insurer with Obamacare exchange issues
Of Aetna’s exchange membership this year, more than half is new, with those needing expensive care making up “an even larger share” in the second quarter, the company said.
Coupled with the risk pool, this makes premiums costlier and “creates significant sustainability concerns,” the company said.
Off topic
Do you do any volunteer work? And donating money does not count, like actual, physical volunteer work, for anybody.
yes Hillarys telling lies makes it okay for the repugnatin to wish death on any
Does anyone think Hillary really will follow thru on Berns designs for free heathcare and college?
Nothing is a right in this country. Everything is privileged. Housing, clothes, food, etc. Health care is included.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
