Tag Archives: grandfathered plans

Obama administration shocking decision to drop individual mandate — but only for some

I’m going to have to wait until tomorrow to say much more, but the Obama administration issued a shocking decision late today to exempt those who had individual policies cancelled this year from the individual mandate contained in the Affordable Care Act.  The Wall Street Journal apparently broke the story.  Here is the New York Times article.  Here is a Washington Post article from a strong Affordable Care Act supporter. Here is the Huffington Post article. Here’s Fox News. (CNN has yet to publish anything I can find on the subject) Not surprisingly, the insurance industry has already protested the apparent move. “This latest rule change could cause significant instability in the marketplace and lead to further confusion and disruption for consumers,” said Karen Ignagni, president of America’s Health Insurance Plans, the industry’s main trade group.

A copy of the decision, made thus far only in a letter from Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to six senators (all of whom are apparently facing tough re-election battles) is here.

Excerpt from Sebelius letter to senators
Excerpt from Sebelius letter to senators

Legality

The purported legal basis for the exemption comes in 26 U.S.C. 5000A(e)(5), which reads:

(e) Exemptions

No penalty shall be imposed under subsection (a) with respect to— …

(5) Any applicable individual who for any month is determined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services under section 1311 (d)(4)(H) to have suffered a hardship with respect to the capability to obtain coverage under a qualified health plan.

The Obama administration is now apparently interpreting having to comply with the mandate itself — but only after one’s individual insurance policy was cancelled — as the requisite hardship. A prior regulation issued on July 1, 2013, by HHS had taken a narrower view of what the requisite hardship was:

(g) Hardship—(1) General. The Exchange must grant a hardship exemption to an applicant eligible for an exemption for at least the month before, a month or months during which, and the month after, if the Exchange determines that—
(i) He or she experienced financial or domestic circumstances, including an unexpected natural or human-caused event, such that he or she had a significant, unexpected increase an essential expenses that prevented him or her from obtaining coverage under a qualified health plan;
(ii) The expense of purchasing a qualified health plan would have caused him or her to experience serious deprivation of food, shelter, clothing or other necessities; or
(iii) He or she has experienced other circumstances that prevented him or her from obtaining coverage under a qualified health plan.

I look forward to hearing from others, and in particular from people with a commitment to the rule of law who previously have supported the ideas behind the ACA, but it is not clear to me that any of the pre-existing bases contained in this regulation for claiming a hardship exemption would apply to having a predicted cancellation in one’s individual insurance policy. Maybe at this late hour there are arguments and other documents I am not considering. Surely, however, the existence of the ACA itself can not be the human-caused event creating the hardship. Moreover, I have trouble seeing how the cancellation of a plan makes it more difficult for these individuals — as opposed to others in similar circumstances — from obtaining coverage under a qualified health plan.  I can well imagine cynics saying that the only real hardship involved here is having believed President Obama when he said that if you liked your health plan you could keep it and thus not having saved up for the higher prices that often exist in policies with “Essential Health Benefits.” Of course, if , as the Obama administration has claimed, many of these cancelled policies were junk that the policyholder should be glad to be rid of, it becomes yet more challenging to see much of a hardship at all in being offered real insurance coverage with all of its greater benefits.

In any event, it does not take a fertile imagination to foresee legal challenges to this limited exemption from those not fortunate enough to have had health insurance in the past but who are not being given a similar exemption from the individual mandate. I can easily see challenges based on failures of administrative procedure and equal protection.

The Death Spiral

I and others will need to think hard about the issue of magnitude. Obama administration officials are reported as having stated at a briefing that all but 500,000 of those with canceled policies will be enrolling in policies under the Exchange. This claim, however, is impossible to reconcile with existing enrollment statistics and assertions that millions of individuals have had their individual policies cancelled.  It is difficult to see how this decision would not exacerbate at least somewhat the risk of an adverse selection death spiral overtaking the Exchanges in many states.  The tax created by the mandate has always been justified as necessary to induce people of low or moderate risk to join those of higher risk in purchasing policies on the Exchange. By now exempting perhaps millions of people from this requirement — and, in particular, people who are most likely to have satisfied medical underwriting in the recent past — the Obama administration decision will likely diminish enrollment, at least somewhat, in the insurance Exchanges and, correlatively increase price pressures and insurer losses during 2014. To the extent that insurers systematically lose money as a result of this apparent decision, the federal government will be spending millions more — perhaps hundreds of millions more — in payments under the Risk Corridors program.

Implications

There’s one more implication we need to think about.  Although experts vary greatly on the magnitude, clearly a number of small businesses are going to lose their health insurance policies this coming year for failure to conform to the new ACA requirements.  This is the “second wave” that is sometimes spoken about. Are the significant number of employees and dependents who are thus subject to a risk of loss of coverage likewise going to receive an exemption from the individual mandate?

Share Button

Phantom costs: The lawless proposal to buy off the insurance industry via a “fix” to Risk Corridors

In my last blog post, I began to explain the proposed “fix” to the Risk Corridors program that the Obama administration seeks to achieve through modifications of its regulations. This is the provision of the Affordable Care Act under which the federal government reimburses large proportions of money lost by insurers over the next three years selling insurance to individuals in the Exchanges or to small employers.  Originally thought by many to be budget neutral, if, as appears increasingly possible, insurers on average lose significant money in the Exchanges, Risk Corridors could cost the federal government hundreds of millions of dollars or more.

I also suggested in that prior blog post that the “fix” raised serious concerns about the rule of law and separation of powers.  In this post, I want to follow up and explain further the accounting trickery and word play in which the administration is engaged and why it is not authorized by any law passed by Congress. Basically, the proposed changes in the regulations amount to an illegal pay off to the insurance industry so that they do not exit the Exchanges after having had the rug pulled out from under them by another decision not to enforce the law as written.

In sum, the Obama administration is proposing without any statutory authorization to let insurers increase the amount they get from the federal government under the Risk Corridors provision of the Affordable Care Act by treating as a “cost” money that the insurers have not spent and that can not be fairly said to be a cost of doing business.  The Obama administration makes this use of phantom costs appear more palatable by terming it “profit” and likening it to an opportunity cost of capital. But the increased “profits” the Obama administration now seek to permit insurers to subtract as a cost has completely detached itself from anything to do with real opportunity costs of running a business. The Obama administration would have been equally dishonest had they permitted insurers to place triple their rent on their Risk Corridor accounts and term the extra 200% a cost of business that entitled them to yet more money from the government. The proposed regulations should be seen as unlawful as an attempt by the Executive branch to change hard percentages used in the statute such as  80% into 95% simply because the Executive thought it better balanced the interests at stake.

Background

The fundamental problem stems from the divergence between what the President repeatedly told Americans during his presidency — if you like your health care plan, you can keep it — and what the Affordable Care Act (a/k/a Obamacare) really said, particularly as it ended up being implemented by the President’s own executive agencies (here and here). The insurance industry acted as if the rule of law mattered, not the campaign rhetoric or people’s perceptions of it, and set its prices in the healthcare Exchanges in accord with the law and the administration’s own forecasts of its effects on competing policies otherwise available to healthy people.  So, when the President announced on November 14, 2013, that his administration would conform the law to his rhetoric and public expectations (by declining under certain circumstances to execute sections 2701-2709 of the Public Health Service Act as modified by the Affordable Care Act), the insurance industry had a fit. It appropriately warned the President that, by reviving competitive sources of health insurance for some of their healthiest potential insureds, he was destabilizing the insurance markets. And, since the keystone of the President’s signature piece of legislation, the Affordable Care Act, depends on happy private, profitable insurers, this was a warning the President and his executive agencies had to heed.  Instead of backing down on the November 14, 2013 announcement, the President doubled down on regulatory change. This past week the Department of Health and Human Services proposed in the Federal Register how current Risk Corridor regulations might be amended to give insurers relief.

A Quick Look at the Statute

For ready reference, here’s an excerpt of the key part of the Risk Corridors statute in question.  You can try to read it now or refer to it periodically as you progress through the remainder of this blog entry.

(b) PAYMENT METHODOLOGY.—
(1) PAYMENTS OUT.—The Secretary shall provide under the
program established under subsection (a) that if—
(A) a participating plan’s allowable costs for any plan
year are more than 103 percent but not more than 108
percent of the target amount, the Secretary shall pay to
the plan an amount equal to 50 percent of the target
amount in excess of 103 percent of the target amount;
and
(B) a participating plan’s allowable costs for any plan
year are more than 108 percent of the target amount,
the Secretary shall pay to the plan an amount equal to
the sum of 2.5 percent of the target amount plus 80 percent
of allowable costs in excess of 108 percent of the target
amount.

The Federal Register Proposal

The fundamental idea in the new Risk Corridors proposal is to put the insurers back in the same position they would have been in had the non-enforcement announcement (“the transitional policy”) not been made.One can see this point made repeatedly in the Federal Register proposal:

Therefore, for the 2014 benefit year, we are considering whether we should make an adjustment to the risk corridors formula that would help to further mitigate any unexpected losses for issuers of plans subject to risk corridors that are attributable to the effects of the transition policy. (78 FR 72349)

We are considering calculating the State-specific percentage adjustment to the risk corridors profit margin floor and allowable administrative costs ceiling in a manner that would help to offset the effects of the transitional policy upon the model plan’s claims costs. (78 FR 72350)

Although the adjustment that we are considering would affect each issuer differently, depending on its particular claims experience and administrative cost rate, we believe that, on average, the adjustment would suitably offset the losses that a standard issuer might experience as a result of the transitional policy. (78 FR 72350)

Two clearly illegal ways to “fix” the problem

The problem the administering agency (Health and Human Services) faces, however, is how. How does HHS “suitably offset the losses that a standard issuer might experience as a result of the transitional policy?” One simple way might have been to adjust the reimbursement percentages contained in the statute, changing them from 50% and 80% for different levels of losses to higher levels. The problem is that the statute (42 U.S.C. § 18062) specifically sets forth the 50% and 80% reimbursement percentages and it would challenge even the most fertile imaginations to contend that it was within the province of an administrative agency to interpret those, as, say, 70% and 95%. And in the current gridlock — and with proposals to repeal Risk Corridors circulating —  getting such a proposal through Congress would seem impossible.

Alternatively, the administration might have made the insurers whole by adding state-by-state constant terms to the formula for reimbursement that roughly approximated the amount a typical insurer might lose in that state. Again, though, that would just constitute a statutorily unauthorized give away of federal taxpayer to the insurance industry.  Congress did not authorize payments so that insurers could maintain the same profits they would have earned in an alternative regulatory environment; instead Congress attempted to compress the profits and losses of insurers based on the regulatory environment that they in fact were in.

The “fix” suggested by the Federal Register proposal: what’s the difference?

What I now want to persuade you of, however, is that, after one strips away the confusing accounting, the Federal Register proposal, in its essence, amount to the same thing as these clearly unauthorized alternatives.  They are, in effect, a coverup for a giveaway of government money. The are very much the assumption of legislative powers by the executive branch of government.

The conceptual problem

One can almost see the problem without doing the math. The very objective set forth repeatedly in the Federal Register proposal — of putting the insurer back into some alternative financial condition, almost as if the government had taken their property or committed a tort by changing the rules — is nowhere to be found in the Risk Corridors statute. Section 1342 speaks of real premiums earned and real costs incurred and looks at their ratio in order to determine federal aid to insurers writing in the Exchanges. That perspective is echoed in the initial regulations published in the Federal Register months before the “transitional policy” brouhaha broke out. The definitions of critical terms adopted in those regulations speak of costs “incurred” or the “sum of incurred claims” or “premiums earned.” (See note below on definitions). Moreover, the definitions are nationwide. There is no sense that the values in the regulations (such as limits on the amount of administrative costs that can be claimed by an insurer) need to be adjusted on a state-by-state basis. And that refusal to adjust the regulations based on different economics in different states exists under the current regulations even if insurers in different jurisdictions have different financial experiences under the Affordable Care Act or face different state regulatory environments.

So, with those darned percentages statutorily nailed down, how does one achieve the objective in the Federal Register proposal of giving insurers their anticipated profits back? The answer is that the Federal Register proposal attempts to add a phantom cost that will vary state-by-state in precisely the amount needed to do the job.  Of course, writing “state-specific phantom cost” into the regulations would alert everyone that the plan was just to shovel money to insurers to keep them happy regardless of what was in the law. So, instead, the idea was to seize upon a word already in the regulations — “profit” — and alter its definition beyond recognition. Expanded “profit” could then do the same job as “state specific phantom cost.”

The math

Here are the specifics. The statute makes the amount the insurer receives in Risk Corridor payments (or pays) depend on a ratio.  A higher ratio often results in more payments and never results in smaller payments from HHS. The numerator of the ratio is something called “allowed costs,” so the higher the allowed costs, the better HHS treats the insurer under Risk Corridors.  The denominator of the ratio is something called “the target amount.” Because higher ratios are good for the insurer, the smaller the “target amount” the better HHS treats the insures under Risk Corridors. (Remember, dividing by a smaller number yields a higher result.) And “target amount” is defined as total premiums less administrative costs.  So, the more an insurer can stuff into administrative costs, the smaller the denominator, the higher the ratio, and the better the insurer fares under Risk Corridors. Indeed, much of the regulatory effort has been appropriately devoted to deterring insurers from exploiting the formula by stuffing overhead they incur servicing non-ACA policies into “administrative costs” that increase their Risk Corridor payments. (Good idea!)

Back in March of 2013, in trying to figure out how to operationalize the ideas contained in the Risk Corridors statute, HHS decided to recognize that the insurer risks its capital in order to operate an insurance company. HHS recognized that it is therefore appropriate to treat some of that opportunity cost as a true cost. (I have no particular problem with the concept). Perhaps unfortunately, but as a convenient shorthand, HHS called this opportunity cost “profit.” Be clear, however, the term “profit” as used in the regulations had little to do with how much money the insurer actually made; it was just an easy term to reflect the fact that when insurers use money to establish offices and buy computers they forgo interest and dividends  that they might otherwise have earned.

But how much of this opportunity cost called “profit” should an insurer be entitled to use to reduce its Risk Corridor denominator?  After receiving comments that were apparently almost uniform on the subject — the one dissent advocated a lower number — HHS decided to use 3% of after-tax premiums. It called this number, “the profit margin floor.”

Several things are significant about the decision to use 3% of premiums.  First, the profit margin floor is 3%, not 6% or 9% or some higher number yet. No one apparently thought the number should be higher. Second, the number is uniform across states. This is entirely sensible because, to the extent that an allowance for capital costs is appropriate at all, capital costs of an insurer are incurred in a national market. Insurers in California do not have opportunity costs of capital that differ very much from insurers in Texas. And, third, the number is a coefficient of net premiums rather than assets probably because use of premiums provides a sensible surrogate for the amount of capital risked by running an Exchange insurance operation instead of running one’s entire insurance business.

What the new Federal Register proposal does is to increase the profit margin floor and to do it in a state-specific way. By increasing the profit margin floor, one can decrease the target ratio denominator and increase the Risk Corridors ratio, which in turn can increase the payment made by HHS to the insurer.  Mathematically, increasing the profit margin floor is little different than permitting the insurer to count triple-rent on its offices rather than real rent or to just pad its electric bills by, say, a million dollars. All are additions of non-existent “phantom costs” that act to decrease a denominator and, derivatively, increase a ratio upon which reimbursement depends.

Moreover, the amount by which the profit margin floor will need to be increased is not a trivial amount.  As shown in the Risk Corridors Calculator, “profit margins” may need to be tripled or more to bring an insurer back to the same position they were in originally.  I would not be surprised to see the profit margin floor in some states in which adverse selection proves particularly problematic to be upwards of 12%.  I am not aware of many insurers making 12% of their premiums in profits, which is precisely why, before they saw the need to repair the damage done by the President’s change of mind, HHS was using 3% as the appropriate figure with only lower numbers being suggested.

Why the proposed fix is unlawful

Any thought that the proposed increase in profit margin floor might have something to do with economic reality, with changes in the cost of capital, is belied by the way HHS explains the change and by the state-by-state approach it now proposes to take.  The HHS explanation is that, because different states are implementing “the transitional plan” differently, the need to adjust Risk Corridors to bring insurers back to their former position differs as well.

We believe that the State-wide effect on this risk pool will increase with the increase in the percentage enrollment in transitional plans in the State, and so we are considering having the State-specific percentage adjustment to the risk corridors formula also vary with the percentage enrollment in these transitional plans in the State. (78 FR 72350)

Of course, in some sense, this is true. But this simply highlights the point that the adjustments to profit margin floor have nothing to do with real costs, the concept the statute cares about.

Not enough? Take a look at the explanation for why HHS did not adjust profit margin floors it on an insurer-by-insurer basis.  It has nothing to do with different costs of capital that different insurers might face, but again, the state-by-state approach is used because it is a simpler way of approximating and offsetting the loss insurers would face in each state as a result of differential effects of the transition policy.

Although the adjustment that we are considering would affect each issuer differently, depending on its particular claims experience and administrative cost rate, we believe that, on average, the adjustment would suitably offset the losses that a standard issuer might experience as a result of the transitional policy. (78 FR 72350)

The administrative law and separation of powers issue is whether the agency empowered with administering Risk Corridors can count as a cost not an expense the insurers actually incur as a result of being in an Exchange but the “regulatory taking” that will occur differentially in each state as a result of President Obama changing his mind. I suppose that, if there is someone with standing to challenge this give away of government money, it will ultimately be for the courts to decide this question.  (By the way, if anyone can suggest someone who might have standing, email me). And I suppose someone can argue that it actually fulfills some general intent of the ACA to keep insurers involved in the Exchanges and not have them flee when other regulations change.

Executive administrative agencies such as the Department of Health and Human Services have the authority under some circumstances to interpret statutes; courts will often then defer to their interpretations. But this fix is not a stretch; if it actually does what its drafters intend, it will be a redraft of the Affordable Care Act itself. I see no difference except opacity between what the Obama administration has done by seizing on a code word “profit” and expanding its definition beyond recognition and saying that when the statute says 80% of losses, surely that could be construed as 95%. Both are unlawful.

Two final notes

The allowable administrative cost cap percentage and the medical loss ratio

Careful readers of the Federal Register will note that there are two other matters it discusses.

The Federal Register proposal also discusses the need to adjust the “allowable administrative costs ceiling (from 20 percent of after-tax profits) in an amount sufficient to offset the effects of the transitional policy upon the claims costs of a model plan.” This provision is needed because otherwise, even if the profit margin floor were increased, insurers would bump up against the existing administrative cost ceiling of 20%.  So, to make sure that the phantom cost “profit margin floor” increase really works, the proposed regulations propose removing that constraint. And to make sure that evil insurers do not take advantage of the relaxed constraint to allocate more of their costs to Exchange plans, the regulations make clear that the insurer would had to have met the 20% standard before consideration of increased “profit” was made.

The Federal Register proposal also discusses a need to adjust the Medical Loss Ratio (MLR) percentages. This is the provision of the ACA that says that if insurers spend too much of their money on non-claims matters, they have to pay a rebate to their insureds.  The problem becomes that if insurers are permitted to treat more than 20% of their premiums as administrative costs for purposes of Risk Corridors they might want to treat more than 20% of their premiums as legitimate administrative costs for purposes of MLR rebates. It’s a little fuzzy, but it sounds as if HHS wants to tweak the MLR regulations so that the MLR provisions do not take away from insurers what they will be winning if the remainder of the Federal Register proposal goes into effect.

The typo in the statute

There’s a complication we have to work through. This whole area is complicated by the fact that there is a typographic error in section 1342.  Here again is the relevant part.

(b) PAYMENT METHODOLOGY.—
(1) PAYMENTS OUT.—The Secretary shall provide under the
program established under subsection (a) that if—
(A) a participating plan’s allowable costs for any plan
year are more than 103 percent but not more than 108
percent of the target amount, the Secretary shall pay to
the plan an amount equal to 50 percent of the target
amount in excess of 103 percent of the target amount;
and
(B) a participating plan’s allowable costs for any plan
year are more than 108 percent of the target amount,
the Secretary shall pay to the plan an amount equal to
the sum of 2.5 percent of the target amount plus 80 percent
of allowable costs in excess of 108 percent of the target
amount.

See in subparagraph (1)(A) where it says “the Secretary shall pay to the plan an amount equal to 50 percent of the target amount in excess of 103 percent of the target amount.” But if you think about it, this could never happen.  Taken literally, there could never be a payment under this provision. So long as the target amount is a positive number, which it always will be since premiums are positive, the target amount can NEVER be in excess of 103% of the target amount.  5 can never be in excess of 103% of 5 (5.15).  10 can never be in excess of 103% of 10 (10.30). Can’t happen.

Looking at the next subparagraph, (1)(B), resolves the mystery of subparagraph (1)(A). It speaks about paying “ 80 percent of allowable costs in excess of 108 percent of the target amount.” (emphasis mine). And this makes complete sense.  The more the insurer loses, the more the government reimburses the insurer.  That’s the whole point of the provision.  I therefore believe that  subparagraph (1)(A) should be interpreted to mean “the Secretary shall pay to the plan an amount equal to 50 percent of  allowable costs in excess of 103 percent of the target amount.”

So, I assume that courts will interpret the statute to read as Congress must have intended it and not as some sort of cute joke resting on a mathematical impossibility.  See United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, 489 U.S. 235 (1989) (“The plain meaning of legislation should be conclusive, except in the ‘rare cases [in which] the literal application of a statute will produce a result demonstrably at odds with the intentions of its drafters.’ Griffin v. Oceanic Contractors, Inc., 458 U. S. 564, 571 (1982). In such cases, the intention of the drafters, rather than the strict language, controls. Ibid.” )

Note on Definitions

As set forth in the regulations, “Allowable costs mean, with respect to a QHP [Qualified Health Plan], an amount equal to the sum of incurred claims of the QHP issuer for the QHP.” The regulation sensibly uses the word “incurred.” This is so because costs are things the insurer has to pay out or has to accrue liabilities for, not things that, under some other set of circumstances they might otherwise have had to pay out.  If that were not the case, the administration could redefine costs to include anything at all, such as the costs the insurer would have faced if every one of their insureds had cancer.

The regulations tweak the definition of “administrative costs” by adding an extra adjective. They introduce the concept of “allowable administrative costs.”  The insurer is not permitted to reduce its “target amount” by claiming some enormous sum (such as private jets for the CEO) as non-claims costs, subtracting them from premiums and reporting low net premiums (target amount) in order to get paid more by the government under the Risk Corridors program. Instead, the regulations define “allowable administrative costs” as non-claims costs that are not more than 20% of premiums. That makes some sense because section 10101 of the ACA (42 U.S.C. § 300gg-18) often requires insurers whose administrative costs are more than 20% of premiums to pay a rebate to their insureds.

Premiums are also reasonably defined under the existing regulations. They sensibly say, “Premiums earned mean, with respect to a QHP, all monies paid by or for enrollees with respect to that plan as a condition of receiving coverage.” Thus, under the statute and existing regulations, premiums must refer to real premiums, not hypothetical premiums. Premiums are moneys the insurer receives, not money the insurer might have received under some other set of circumstances. Again, this just has to be the case; if it were not true, the administration could funnel virtually an infinite amount of money to the insurance industry by saying that premiums are funds the insurer would have received if no one signed up for their plan. 

Share Button

The Risk Corridor Calculator: How the government plans to use fictitious profits to shovel more money to insurers

Snapshot of the Risk Corridor Calculator
Snapshot of the Risk Corridor Calculator

This is a different kind of blog entry.  There isn’t going to be too much text here. Instead, I want to direct you to a spreadsheet I created (The Risk Corridors Calculator) available on Google Docs and the first (click here to watch it on YouTube) of two videos I’ll be making that explain

(1) how Risk Corridors work under the regulations originally proposed by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)

(2) how the insurance industry could lose money notwithstanding Risk Corridors as a result of President Obama changing his mind and conditionally permitting certain insurers for one year to “uncancel” certain  policies that the Affordable Care Act would otherwise have have prohibited starting in 2014; and

(3) how the proposed revisions to the Risk Corridor regulations will shovel money to many insurers and could put them back in the same position they would have been had President Obama not changed his mind.

[Note from 8:32 a.m. 12/6/2014: I discovered a small error in the Risk Corridors Calculator. It has been fixed.  It does not affect anything essential in this blog. Unfortunately, I will need to conform the video to the Calculator, which is likely not to happen until later today. So, if you watch the video today, it is conceptually fine, but just be aware that one of the formulas was off.]

In essence, however, the proposed HHS regulations impute fictitious “profits” to insurers that they then get to subtract from their net premiums.  As a result, it will look to the Risk Corridors program as if the insurer is losing more money in an Exchange plan and therefore entitled to greater government assistance.  (The government has now acknowledged that, although the Congressional Budget Office scored it as costing nothing, Risk Corridors need not be budget neutral.) Another way of thinking about the proposal is that it creates phantom costs that affect the apparent (though not the real) profitability of the insurer and then shovels money to insurers based in part on those phantom costs. It is little different than the government insisting that the insurer lost money due to claims that it actually did not pay and is therefore entitled — even under a formula that is formally unchanged — to greater payments from the government.  Viewed yet another way, it is almost as if the proposed regulations treat what President Obama did as a “tort,” and remedy the wrong by licensing the aggrieved insurers to use contorted accounting to place themselves back in the same position they would have been in had the President not, in effect, interfered with the prospective economic advantage they thought they had in the Exchanges.

Neither this blog entry nor the video will address whether the proposed regulations are permissible as a matter of administrative law or separation of powers. Nor will I explore today whether the regulatory changes can be seen as a necessarily evil. Exposing what is actually going on here, however, must create some serious concerns for all concerned about the rule of law. When section 1342 of the Affordable Care Act (42 U.S.C. § 18062) speaks of “allowable costs,” one would initially think it referred to costs actually incurred by the insurer as a result of running its program. Those costs might be paying claims, paying the electric bill, marketing costs and, perhaps, some reasonable allowance for profit — such as the 3% of after tax premiums actually placed in the original regulations.

But it is going to take some work to show that, by “allowable costs,” the statute meant costs that the insurer did not actually incur in running its program. The burden will be even higher due to the fact that the proposed regulations apparently contemplate varying this heightened profit allowance from state to state. This will be done not in response to different rates of return on capital in the different states, but only to take account of differential losses to insurers caused by different state responses to President Obama’s about-face on whether certain plans that violate ACA requirements could continue to be sold outside of the Exchanges.

In short, the increase in “profit” sure looks like a book-keeping entry whose sole purpose has nothing to do with anything in the statute but is instead designed to restore the insurer to the position it would have been in had federal policy not changed. It is as if the insurers are being given some sort of entitlement to the profits they would otherwise have made and the administration is looking for any term in the statute not glued down (such as an 80% reimbursement rate on certain losses) in order to accomplish this goal.

Fleshing out  more fully these matters of statutory interpretation, separation of powers, and administrative law will be left for later, however, along with a fuller explanation of what is going on inside the Risk Corridor Calculator that I created. For now, play with the spreadsheet and enjoy the video.

Resources

Society of Actuaries, Health Watch: Risk Corridors under the Affordable Care Act — A Bridge over Troubled Waters, but the Devil’s in the Details

Share Button

Proposed cuts in transitional reinsurance could increase Exchange premiums 7-8% in 2015

Late last week, HHS released its 255-page HHS Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters for 2015. Buried away in this technical documents are at least two interesting matters.

  1. HHS is planning to cut reinsurance payments to insurers participating in its Exchanges in a way that, in and of itself, could increase gross premiums 7-8% in 2015 and increase the risk of further adverse selection
  2. HHS has validated the claims of insurers that President Obama’s recent about-face on the ability of insurers to renew certain policies not providing Essential Health Benefits could destabilize the insurance market.  The Notice proposes changing the way insurers calculate their profits and losses so that the amount of payments made by government to insurers in the Exchange would increase. It claims, however, that it does not know how much this will cost.
The HHS Notice for 2015
The HHS Notice for 2015

Less reinsurance

Under the system in place for 2014, if insurers in an Exchange have to pay between $45,000 and $250,000 on one of their insureds, the government picks up 80% of that loss (assuming the $63 per insured life it taxes various other health insurance plans is sufficient to pay that amount). But in 2015, the money that goes into this transitional reinsurance pool (section 1341 of the ACA, 42 U.S.C. sec. 18061) declines by a third from $12 billion to $8 billion and the head tax correspondingly declines from $63 to $44. As a result, HHS proposes to now pick up only 50% of the tab for losses between $70,000 and $250,000. Thus, losses between $45,000 and the new $70,000 attachment point will now fall entirely on insurers without federal help and insurers will have to pay 30% more on losses between $70,000 and $250,000.

This reduction in free reinsurance provided by the taxpayers will almost certainly result in increased premiums for insureds. My estimate is that the average premium hike induced by this reduction in reinsurance is likely to be about 7-8%.

Here’s how I did this computation. I took loss distributions contained in the government’s “Actuarial Value Calculator.” That’s the Excel spreadsheet the government (and insurers) use to figure out what metal tier, if any, their policy falls into. I then performed the following steps.  You can verify what I have done in the Computable Document Format (CDF) document I have placed on Dropbox. You can view the document using the free CDF player or using Mathematica

Step 1.  I determined the expected value of claims under those loss distributions with reinsurance parameters set at the 2014 rates.  I get four results, one for each metal tier: {3630.52, 4223.87, 4468.95, 5556.06}. I then do exactly the same computation but use the 2015 reinsurance parameters. I get four results, one for each metal tier: {3906.67, 4550.95, 4807.06, 5948.53}.

Step 2. I multiply each result by the actuarial value of the associated metal tier to approximate the size of the premium needed to support the expected level of the claims. I get {2178.31, 2956.71, 3575.16, 5000.46} for the 2014 reinsurance parameters and {2344., 3185.67, 3845.65, 5353.68} for the 2015 reinsurance parameters.

Step 3. I then simply compute the percent increase in the needed 2015 premiums over the needed 2014 premiums and get {0.0760631, 0.077436, 0.0756584, 0.0706371}

If losses are, as I suspect they will be, greater than those assumed in the actuarial value calculator — because the pool is going to be drawn for a variety of reasons from a riskier group than originally anticipated —  the diminution in reinsurance is yet more significant and, standing by itself, could add more than 7-8% to the gross premiums charged in the Exchanges.

Whether the increase in gross premiums is about 7-8% or whether it is higher, it creates a heightened risk for an adverse selection problem.  This is so because, although subsidies insulate many people in the Exchanges from increases in gross premiums — net premiums are pegged to income rather than gross premiums for them — it will affect the significant number (estimated by HHS to be about 18% (4/22)) who are expected to purchase policies inside the Exchanges without subsidies.  The higher premiums go, however, the more we would expect to see the healthy drop out and find substitutes for the non-underwritten policies sold in the Exchanges. (If premiums are low enough, adverse selection is not a problem: insurance is a good deal for everyone and healthy and sick purchase it alike. See, e.g., Medicare Part B, which is very heavily subsidized and does not suffer seriously from adverse selection.)

Note to experts. Some of you might think I erred in saying that the 2014 reinsurance attachment point is $45,000 and not $60,000. But the 2015 notice says on page 11 that it will retroactively reduce the attachment point to $45,000.

HHS Validates Insurer Fears About Obama Reversal and the Destabilization of Insurance Markets

Many individuals, including me, have claimed that President Obama’s recent decision to permit insurers to “uncancel” certain individual plans that do not contain Essential Health Benefits could destabilize insurance markets. The Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters just released appears to validate that assertion. Stripped of bureaucratese, the HHS document basically says that insurers are right to be disconcerted by the President’s about face.

For those who enjoy bureaucratese, however, or who properly want to validate my own conclusions about the document, here’s what it actually says.

On November 14, 2013, the Federal government announced a policy under which it will not consider certain non-grandfathered health insurance coverage in the individual or small group market renewed between January 1, 2014, and October 1, 2014, under certain conditions to be out of compliance with specified 2014 market rules, and requested that States adopt a similar non-enforcement policy.

Issuers have set their 2014 premiums for individual and small group market plans by estimating the health risk of enrollees across all of their plans in the respective markets, in accordance with the single risk pool requirement at 45 CFR 156.80. These estimates assumed that individuals currently enrolled in the transitional plans described above would participate in the single risk pools applicable to all non-grandfathered individual and small group plans, respectively (or a merged risk pool, if required by the State). Individuals who elect to continue coverage in a transitional plan (forgoing premium tax credits and cost-sharing reductions that might be available through an Exchange plan, and the essential health benefits package offered by plans compliant with the 2014 market rules, and perhaps taking advantage of the underwritten premiums offered by the transitional plan) may have lower health risk, on average, than enrollees in individual and small group plans subject to the 2014 market rules.

If lower health risk individuals remain in a separate risk pool, the transitional policy could increase an issuer’s average expected claims cost for plans that comply with the 2014 market rules. Because issuers would have set premiums for QHPs in accordance with 45 CFR 156.80 based on a risk pool assumed to include the potentially lower health risk individuals that enroll in the transitional plans, an increase in expected claims costs could lead to unexpected losses.

So, the government wants help in figuring out what to do. One method it is contemplating involves technical adjustments to the Risk Corridors program in a way that would get insurers more money (pp. 101-105).  Although I will confess to considerable difficulty in understanding exactly what it is that HHS suggesting, the basic idea, as I understand it, would be to assume that those who, by virtue of the President’s about face, “uncancel” their policies would have had claims expenses equal to 80% of the average claims of the rest of the pool (page 103-04). HHS will then, on a state-by-state basis figure out what the position of the insurer would have been and try to adjust Risk Corridors such that the position of the insured after application of adjusted Risk Corridors is similar to that which it would have been in had these persons, who pay the same premium as the rest but who tend to have only 80% of the claims expenditures, enrolled in their plan.

It is not clear to me where the statutory authority to make this change comes from. Section 1342 of the ACA (42 U.S.C. 18062) does not define its key terms of “target amount” and “allowable costs” in a fashion that would appear to my eye to extend to hypothetical costs and hypothetical premiums. I will also confess to being unsure as to who would have standing to challenge this proposed give away of taxpayer money to the insurance industry.

What is clear to me, however, is the proposed reform, by necessity, will result in greater previously unbudgeted expenditures by the federal government. If we are really talking about making insurers whole and the people in question might have profited insurers something like $1,000 a person, the federal government appears to be suggesting a change in regulations that could cost it hundreds of millions of dollars.  The HHS Notice declines to put an exact figure on the cost of the change:

Because of the difficulty associated with predicting State enforcement of 2014 market rules and estimating the enrollment in transitional plans and in QHPs, we cannot estimate the magnitude of this impact on aggregate risk corridors payments and charges at this time.

HHS is probably correct in saying it is difficult to estimate the cost of the proposed changes to Risk Corridors.  I don’t think we have a good feel for how many people will return to the plans President Obama has carved out for special treatment.  It does look, however, as if a floor of a couple of hundred million dollars on the cost of the proposal would be quite reasonable. This, of course, could give some ammunition to those, such as Florida Senator Marco Rubio, who have called for repeal of the Risk Corridors provision as an insurance “bailout.” (For a discussion, look here, here and here)

Final Note

Yesterday, I said I hoped to provide a major post.  This actually is not the post I was speaking about. There’s still more news coming.  Maybe today or maybe while recovering from a turkey overdose tomorrow.

Share Button

Could the American Enterprise Institute possibly be right there is this massive second wave of cancellations coming?

Short answer: The AEI estimate looks high but, yes, a massive second wave of cancellations is coming

The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) has received considerable press over the past 24 hours for asserting that the Affordable Care Act will generate a massive second wave of insurance cancellations this summer as small employers (and their employees) will be compelled to abandon policies that do not provide “Essential Health Benefits” and meet other standards of the Affordable Care Act.  Fox News has asserted that the AEI statement means that up to 100 million people could be canceled next year.  Other news sources and  at least one influential conservative radio talk show host are making similar claims.

If this were true, it would obviously be a subject of considerable importance.  Anyone doubting this point should consider the firestorm that erupted over the recent cancellations of a much lower number of individual health insurance policies as a result of the Affordable Care Act’s insistence that health insurance meet its full standards starting in 2014 and the tough limitations on “grandfathering” exemptions for older health insurance plans.

But, is it true?  Is it really true that there could be a large number of cancellations?  Could we really be talking about 100 million people? Could the very conservative AEI  be making political hay rather than something more factual? Let’s look at the argument.  It’s part legal and part statistical. I’m going to break the argument down into pieces and see how it holds up.

1. Legal Basis

The legal part stems from the claim that although large businesses (more than 100 employees) are not required to provide “Essential Health Benefits” under the Affordable Care Act for all insurance plans beginning after January 2, 2014, small businesses are.  That appears to be true.  Section 1201 of the Affordable Care Act, which, among other things, amends section 2707 of the Public Health Service Act, reads as follows: “A health insurance issuer that offers health insurance coverage in the individual or small group market shall ensure that such coverage includes the essential health benefits package required under section 1302(a) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care.”  (emphasis added. It does not say “in the individual, small group or large group market” but rather “in the individual or small group market.”  And if one goes through the statutory labyrinth from Section 1304(a)(3) of the ACA to 1304(b), one learns that, at least until 2016, the small group market means insurance purchased by employers with 100 or fewer employees.

There is, however, an exemption for grandfathered plans.  Section 1251(a)(2) makes clear that almost all of the provisions of the Subtitle that contains section 1201 of the ACA doe not apply to “to a group health plan or health insurance coverage in which an individual was enrolled on the date of enactment of this Act.” There’s an exception to the exemption, but it does not apply to this situation.

So, it sure looks to me as if all non-grandfathered plans issued in by 100 of fewer workers will, beginning for plan years that begin after January 1, 2014, be compelled to provide “Essential Health Benefits” along with other requirements of the ACA.

2. How many policies are we talking about?

The Census Bureau keeps track of how many employees are employed by firms of different sizes. The last time they looked, 2010, there were roughly 39 million people employed in such firms.  So, an upper bound on the number of policies — note, policies, not persons — affected is 39 million.

The 39 million policy figure must be reduced, however, in figuring out how many cancellation notices are likely to go out in 2014. This is so for several reasons (two of which I will confess to having forgotten about during a very transitory first posting of this blog entry).

The first reason the 39 million figure is too high is that not all small employers provide health benefits.  According to the Kaiser Family Foundation’s 2013 Annual Survey of Employer Health Benefits (page 39), about 57% of employees in firms with under 200 employees provide health benefits.  It doesn’t have data on firms under 100 employees, but if one eyeballs the data that is provided, I don’t think one would be too far off estimating that about 50% of firms with fewer than 100 employees provide health benefits. So, this takes us down to about 19.5 million employees.

But the 19.5 million employee figure needs to be reduced because not all employees accept health insurance even when it is offered. According to Kaiser (same report as above, page 49), the take up rate among those with fewer than 200 employees is 62%.  It doesn’t look like it varies too much according to firm size in that range, so we’ll say there are roughly 12 million employees in small firms who get health insurance through their jobs.

But the 12 million figure needs to be yet further reduced because some policies will remain grandfathered and thus exempt from the Essential Health Benefits requirement.  According to the same Kaiser report  (page 223), about 49% of employees in firms with under 200 employees were in grandfathered plans.  It doesn’t have data on firms under 100 employees, but if one eyeballs the data that is provided, I think it is fair to say that about 50% of employees in firms with under 200 employees were in grandfathered plans as of 2013. This figure needs to be reduced, however, to take account of the decay in the proportion of plans that can remain grandfathered as time goes on.  From 2011 to 2012, for example, the percentage of workers in smallish firms in  non-grandfathered plans grew from 37% to 46%. And from 2012 to 2013,  the percentage of workers in smallish firms in  non-grandfathered plans grew from 46% to 51%.  So, it’s not unreasonable to believe that something like 56% of workers in firms with 100 or fewer workers will be in non-grandfathered plans at some point during 2014.  Could be a few percentage points higher, could be a few percentage points lower.

If we do the multiplication, however, that means that we are at roughly 7 million policies that will be required to provide Essential Health Benefits at some point during 2014.  But we need to do a little more subtraction because, surely, there must be some of these policies that are essentially in compliance with the ACA right now.  There might be “cancellation notices” with respect to these policies but if the policy content and prices doesn’t change as a result, few people will care.  How many such compliant policies are there?

I will confess that I don’t know how many small group policies already comply with the requirements of the ACA and would thus likely not change substantially if they needed to be cancelled. But my guess is that the number is rather small.  The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation noted several years back that a lot of individual and small group policies did not provide Essential Health Benefits such as substance abuse benefits. The independent research firm HealthPocket found recently that only 2% of individual health insurance plans covered all Essential Health Benefits and that the average plan covered about 76% of those benefits.  HealthPocket did not, however, study small group policies.

In the absence of great evidence, I am going to assume, probably quite liberally, that 1/3 of the plans that will be required to provide Essential Health Benefits either already provide them or provide something sufficiently close to them that any cancellation of those policies will not require significant alteration of the plan. This means, however, there are — just to keep the numbers round — 5 million small group policies that will be cancelled in 2014 and that will need to be altered significantly as a result of the ACA’s EHB requirement.

3. How many people are we talking about?

But policies do not equal people.  There is often more than one person on a policy: a spouse and a dependent or two. This means that while 5 million is a plausible lower bound on the number of people who will be getting potentially unwelcome cancellation notices in 2014, it is likely to low an estimate. And on this point, we have decent data. A 2009 report by America’s Health Insurance Plans found that the average policy covered 3.03 lives.  There is no reason to think that this number has either materially changed over the past few years or that small group plans are different from other plans.

So, again doing some rounding, if we do the multiplication of 5 million policies by 3 lives per policy, that means that 15 million or so Americans now getting health insurance through a small employer are likely to get meaningful cancellation notices this coming year. Another 6 million Americans now getting health insurance through a small employer will get cancellation notices but might receive similar coverage without large disruption. 

4. Conclusion

Is the claim true?

Bottom line: so far as I can see at this time, the American Enterprise Institute statement is truthy but somewhat exaggerated. The 100 million figure looks very high to me, but the real number of something like 15 million Americans (many of whom will be voting in Congressional elections right after receiving the notice) should be high enough to get the nation’s attention. Indeed, if my figures on the number of already-compliant policies is overly generous, the real number might be as high as 21 million Americans.

Does it matter?

To be sure, some of the plans into which these displaced Americans may end up may be better than those they have presently. Not being able to keep your health insurance doesn’t always make you worse off.  Some of the adjustments that need to be made to bring the policies into compliance may be relatively small and relatively inexpensive.  Many of the policies will not have been the sort of “junk” that can exist in the individual market. and thus transitioning to compliant plans, though initially stressful, may not end up being permanently traumatic. Moreover, under section 1421 of the ACA (26 U.S.C. § 45R), for some employers with 25 or fewer (not well paid) employees there will be tax credits of up to 50% to help them purchase insurance.

But the fact that the cancellation notices may not be calamitous for some does not mean that they will not pose serious problems for millions of employers and employees. For the many employees in firms with more than 25 employees or who are in firms with fewer than 25 employees but who are somewhat better paid, the tax credit provision offers no relief.  For the many small businesses whose policies were close to compliant, even having to pay a little more for “better” policies may be a big deal.  If the experience of these 15 million policyholders is similar to those of the millions of those with recently ACA-cancelled individual policies, many of them are going to find that the better insurance policies mandated by the ACA comes with a significant price tag that they or their employer, or a combination of the two, are going to pay.

Share Button

Can its reinsurance and risk adjustment provisions salvage the Affordable Care Act?

The Problem

Let us suppose, for the moment, that enrollment in the Exchanges increases as healthcare.gov becomes less dysfunctional and as we get closer to the January 1, 2014 and March 1, 2014 deadlines. It is, after all, unrealistic to think that enrollment will remain at the pathetic/paltry/miserable levels recounted by today’s testimony from Kathleen Sebelius,  notwithstanding her counting of people who merely put a plan in their shopping cart.  But it does seem likely to many , including me, that

  1. sticker shock,
  2. the small and difficult-to-enforce penalties for 2014,
  3. President Obama’s decision to let insurers “uncancel” ungrandfatherable policies and let some of those insureds stay out the Exchanges,
  4. the website debacle, and
  5. whatever short-sightedness or financial liquidity issues led to most of even the sickest uninsured Americans not enrolling in the Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan

will likewise lead the enrollment in the Exchanges to be considerably smaller than projected. This is particularly likely to remain true, I believe, in states such as Texas in which institutional forces and political culture often do not encourage participation and in which fewer than 3,000 out the estimated 3,000,000 eligible to do so have enrolled thus far.

The key question is how resilient are the Exchanges to low enrollments in which, one would expect, the enrollees are — even more than they were projected to be — disproportionately older and disproportionately less healthy. And have the Exchanges been rendered yet more fragile by what many cheered as the surprisingly low premiums charged by many insurers? Could those insurers, who are likely to swoop up most of the business in a price sensitive market, in fact be about to face the winners curse? The answer to these questions may lie deep in the details of one of the least studied and yet one of the most important set of provisions in the Affordable Care Act: the reinsurance and risk adjustment provisions contained in sections 1341-1343 of that Act and now codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 18061-18063.

Here’s the (long) paragraph-length explanation of how these reinsurance and risk adjustment provisions work. 42 U.S.C. § 18061 basically creates a transitional (2014-16) government operated stop-loss reinsurance program funded out of a special tax on other health plans ($63 per covered life). The reinsurance attaches when a person covered by a plan in an Exchange incurs $60,000 or more in claims per year.  After that point, the reinsurer pays for 80% of the claims up to a cap of $250,000.  Thus, if an individual had claims of $180,000 in a year, the government would reimburse the insurer for $96,000, which is 80% of the difference between $180,000 and $60,000. What this provision appears to do is make insurer profit and loss less sensitive to attracting high claims insureds. 42 U.S.C. § 18062 basically redistributes money in a complex way from insurers whose Exchange plans profit to insurers whose Exchange plans lose money. Again, the idea is to reduce the insurer anxiety either that their plan and their marketing (if any) happens to attract an unhealthy pool or that they selected a premium too low for the actual risk that materializes.  Finally, 42 U.S.C. § 18063, the only program that is supposed to persist past 2016, imagines an incredibly complex system in which the risk posed by an insurer’s pool is assessed and the states or, in their default, the federal government (see 42 U.S.C. 18041(c)(1)(B)(ii)(II)), transfers at least some money from those with the riskiest pools to those with the least.

Will these provisions really rescue the insurers?

All of this might seem a comfort to insurers that might permit them to survive and continue in the Exchanges even if the pools are, on average, considerably more expensive than originally projected. But to get a better handle on the degree of solace these provisions might provide, we need to look at some of the limitations of these programs and the actual numbers.

Stop-loss reinsurance under 42 U.S.C.  § 18061

First, let’s look at how much risk the transitional reinsurance provided by 42 U.S.C. § 18061 really slurps up. What I contend is that while this provision should — and probably did — lower the premiums the insurer would otherwise need to charge to avoid losing money, it does less to rescue insurers if the pool is less healthy than they foresaw.  While to really see this, we need to get deep into the weeds and do some math, I’m going to hold off on that fun for now. We have to save some things, such as the Actuarial Value Calculator, for other blog entries. I believe I have developed a plain English explanation that gets us most of the way there.

The key concept is to recognize that sophisticated insurers (are there other kinds?) took the free reinsurance into account when they priced their policies.  They computed an expected value of the reinsurance reimbursements and lowered their rates by something approximating that amount. They were able to charge lower rates than they otherwise would because some of the claims bill would be picked up by the government. But this does not mean that the insurers end up having profits that are insensitive to the actual claims incurred by their pool.  Unless all of the higher-than-expected claims are stuffed into the zone in which the reinsurance kicks in ($60,000 to $250,000), the insurers will be hurt when the pool has higher claims than expected.  But such an assumption is incredibly implausible.  If the insurer assumed that only, say, 2% of its insureds would have claims between $20,000 and $25,000 but, as it turns out, 4% of its insureds have such claims, nothing in 42 U.S.C. § 18061 will help such an insurer with that unanticipated loss. Moreover, because the reinsurance even within the relevant zone is incomplete, the insurer will lose money if claims between $60,000 and $250,000 are higher than expected.  The effect of the transitional stop-loss reinsurance on reducing the consequences of adverse selection is thus likely to be small.

In the end, what this transitional reinsurance mostly does is mostly to tax non-Exchange policies $63 per covered life in order to make policies within the Exchange more attractive to policyholders.  And, yes, that fact should make Exchange-based policies cheaper and reduce the problem of adverse selection.  After all, if the insurance were free presumably there would be little adverse selection — everyone would get it. But the reinsurance fails to reduce insurer vulnerability to adverse selection much more than, say, providing more generous tax credits and cost sharing reductions would have done. If the pool ends up being less healthy than the insurer anticipated — an almost certain consequence of lower-than-expected enrollments, 42 U.S.C. § 18061 is hardly going to end up relieving the insurer of most of the unhappy consequences of having written policies in that environment.

Footnote: There is one more wrinkle, but it only means that the transitional reinsurance is a yet weaker rescue vehicle: the government’s obligations under the transitional reinsurance provisions are limited.  There’s “only” $12 billion in 2014 and this ramps down to $4 billion in 2015.  If those amounts aren’t adequate to pay reinsurance claims, each claim gets reduced pro rata.  The reason I relegate this point to a “footnote,” however, is that if the pools are really small then even if claims per person are way higher than expected, the aggregate amount of claims in the reinsured zone of $60,000 to $250,000 aren’t going to be that big. My back-of-the-envelope computation suggests that the $12 billion allocated for transitional reinsurance should not be insufficient unless at least 2 million people enroll on the exchanges; since right now we are almost certainly at less than 100,000, 2 million seems a lot of insureds away.

“Risk Corridors” under 42 U.S.C. § 18062

The biggie in this field is the “Risk Corridors” provisions contained in 42 U.S.C. § 18062. It essentially creates this massive transfer scheme, taking money from insurers who had profitable pools and giving it to those who did not.  In some sense, it converts insurers from entities bearing risk to mere fronts for government funded health insurance.  If I were prone to accuse the Affordable Care Act of creating “socialized medicine,”  my Exhibit A would be the stealth “Risk Corridors” provision of 42 U.S.C. § 18062.

The graphic below shows how the scheme works. The x-axis of the graph shows hypothetical aggregate net premiums (what 18062 calls “the target amount”) an insurer might receive for some plan in some state.  The y-axis shows the profits the insurer receives as a function of those aggregate net premiums assuming that claims (a/k/a “allowable costs”) are $11.4 million. The purple line shows what profits would have been as a function of premiums if 42 U.S.C. sec. 18062 did not exist. The blue line shows what profits will be after the payments required by 42 U.S.C. 18062 are taken into account.  The khaki-shaded zone shows the payments insurers are supposed to receive (and the Secretary of HHS supposed to pay) under the statute. The green zone shows the payments insurers are supposed to make (and the Secretary of HHS supposed to receive) under the statute.

Profit as a function of premiums before and after 42 USC 18062
Profit as a function of premiums before and after 42 USC 18062

We can create a similar graphic in which the role of claims and premiums is reversed. The x-axis of the graph shows hypothetical aggregate claims costs (what 18062 calls “the allowable costs”) an insurer might receive for some plan in some state.  The y-axis shows the profits the insurer receives as a function of those aggregate claims costs assuming that net premiums are $8.6 million. The purple line again shows what profits would have been as a function of premiums if 42 U.S.C. sec. 18062 did not exist. The blue line again shows what profits will be after the payments required by 42 U.S.C. 18062 are taken into account.  The khaki-shaded zone again shows the payments insurers are supposed to receive (and the Secretary of HHS supposed to pay) under the statute. The green zone again shows the payments insurers are supposed to make (and the Secretary of HHS supposed to receive) under the statute.

Insurers profits as a function of claims before and after 42 USC 18062
Insurers profits as a function of claims before and after 42 USC 18062

If one looks at the slope of the blue lines — the ones that show profits after 18062 risk corridors are taken into account — they are much less steep for most of the domain than the purple lines — the one that show profits before 18062 risk corridors are taken into account.  What this means is that, in some sense, it doesn’t matter to insurers all that much whether they price too low or too high, whether claims are lower than they thought or — due to adverse selection or otherwise — higher than they thought.  Either they are going to pay money to the government or they are going to get money from the government.  The risk of writing policies in the Exchange is greatly diminished.

In some sense, then, if section 18062 (1342) is fully implemented — an issue to which I will shortly return — insurers don’t act very much as profit-making enterprises within the Exchange making or losing money on the spread between premiums and claims.  (This is even more true after the corporate income tax is taken into account) Instead, they are almost fronting for the government, providing their license, their claims processing abilities and their credibility to a scheme in which the government really bears the risk associated with the new Exchange-based system of providing insurance.  A cynic might term the Exchanges as having gone 80% of the way towards a single payor system in which there is but minor variation in the benefits offered by insurance policies and claims processing contracted out to various insurance companies with the experience to do so.

The incentives issue

There are several implications of this consideration of 42 U.S.C. 18062. The first is to consider what incentives the system sets up for insurers.  My tentative belief is that it incentivizes insurers to offer a low premium if they want to go into the Exchanges and this statutory provision may explain in substantial part why insurers priced their policies at rates lower than most expected. Let me see if I can sketch out the argument.  If the insurer prices high, they are going to get very little business.  Other insurers will take their business away by going low.  If they price low, they will get a lot of the business.  Sure, they may lose money if they price too low, but, if so, the government will reimburse them for most of their losses.  And if they price right or still too high, they can make some money.

The graphic below illustrates this concept.  The x-axis shows possible premiums the insurer might charge. The y-axis shows the profit of the insurer associated with that profit.  As one can see, before section 18062, the insurer does best to charge about $2,840 in premiums; after 18062, the insurer does best to charge about $2,677 in premiums.  Although the assumptions chosen to produce this graphic were somewhat arbitrary, it is interesting and suggestive to me that the magnitude of the reduction in premiums is roughly similar to that observed in the actual market place in which premiums came in several hundred dollars below that originally projected.

Profit as a function of premiums in a competitive market before and after 42 USC 18062
Profit as a function of premiums in a competitive market before and after 42 USC 18062

The imbalance issue

There’s a second issue suggested by the two graphics above (the ones with the shading) showing the effect of premiums and claims on profitability.  They highlight that there is is no reason to think that the amount the Secretary receives will be equal to the amount the Secretary takes in.  That would be true only if insurers happen, in aggregate, to price the policies just right. If insurers have underpriced the policies because they expected a larger — and correlatively healthier — pool, the graphics may quite accurately reflect what occurs and the Secretary will be obligated to pay out far more than the Secretary takes in.  I have found no one who has written on this problem, no one who can explain where the money will come from to make the needed payments, or what mechanism will be used to reduce payments in the event, as I suspect, there will be an imbalance between the money collected and the money the Secretary is supposed to pay out.

 And one final thing

Extra credit: Can anyone spot the uncorrected typo in 42 U.S.C. 18062? For answer, look here.

Risk Adjustment Under 42 U.S.C. §18063

The transitional reinsurance and risk corridors provisions only last until 2016. After that, assuming the Affordable Care Act survives in something like its present form for that long, insurers are protected from adverse selection only by the  sleeping giant among the trio of protection measures: the “risk adjustment” provisions in ACA section 1343, codified at 42 U.S.C. §18063. The idea here is to equalize the playing field for insurers not based on the amount they actually pay out in claims (stop-loss reinsurance) or their actual profits (risk corridors) but on the risk they took in accepting insureds.  It thus envisions this massive bureaucratic scheme whereby each individual purchasing a policy on an Exchange is scored (based on a complex federal methodology involving “Hierarchical Condition Codes“) and then, the insurers with high scores get paid by the insurers with low scores with the Secretary of HHS figuring out exactly how it works. To do this, the Secretary will need masses of sensitive information, including fairly granular accounts of the medical conditions of each person enrolled on an Exchange.  The idea in the end, though, is to calm insurer fears that because of peculiarities of their plans, bad luck, or other factors, they tend up with a worse than average pool.

This provision will not save the Affordable Care Act from an adverse selection death spiral if enrollment stays low.  This is because Risk Adjustment simply protects insurers from worse-than-average draws from the pool of insureds purchasing Exchange policies.  It does nothing to protect insurers from having an overall pool of insureds purchasing Exchange policies that is higher risk than anticipated. If that larger pool is high risk on average, however, insurers will need to price their policies high, which will lead the lesser risk insureds to drop out, which will result in prices being raised again — the death spiral story.

The Bottom Line

The bottom line here is that two of the provisions (18061 and 18063) that purport to protect insurers from adverse selection really do little to protect insurers from the sort of adverse selection that is now appearing quite likely to develop: lower risk persons staying out of the Exchanges, period. The remaining provision, 18062, “Risk Corridors” in theory could give insurers some confidence that they will not lose their shirts if the pool stays small and high risk.  But this is only true to the extent that insurers believe the Secretary of HHS will find some currently unknown pot of money with which to make payments when the number of insurer losers in the Exchanges far outstrips the number of insurer winners. If insurers doubt that the Secretary will be able to find the money and may simply resort to some pro-rata reduction in payouts under 18062(b)(1), they will have be less pacified in what must be their growing fears that the pool of insureds inside the Exchanges will, on balance, be far higher risk than they anticipated. And, if the Secretary finds money with which to honor the promises in section 18062, look for protests from those who were told that the Affordable Care Act would not have all that large a price tag.

Late Breaking News

As it turns out, the reinsurance and risk adjustment provisions are in the news today in an elliptical remark made at the end of a letter sent by the Center for Consumer Information & Insurance Oversight (CCIIO) that implements President Obama’s transitional “fix” with respect to canceled nongroup policies. He states:

Though this transitional policy was not anticipated by health insurance issuers when setting rates for 2014, the risk corridor program should help ameliorate unanticipated changes in premium revenue. We intend to explore ways to modify the risk corridor program final rules to provide additional assistance.

I believe this passage amounts to recognition by the President that providing a non-Exchange insurance substitute for generally healthy people who otherwise likely would have gone into the Exchanges will end up making adverse selection worse and further increase likely losses by insurers writing in the Exchanges.  This, by the way, is why insurers are apparently furious about the President’s “fix.”  The question, though, is where is the money going to come from to make the insurer’s whole.  The statute appears to envision a zero sum game in which the winners compensate the losers.  It does not appear to contemplate what seems ever more likely to occur: a game in which the only winning move is not to play.

Acknowledgements

If you are interesting in this topic, you should read the articles by Professor Mark Hall. I don’t alway agree with Professor Hall, but I have tremendous respect for his analysis.  He is, in my view, one of the leading scholars with a generally positive view about the Affordable Care Act. You can find the articles here and here.

Share Button