As many of you may have heard, the health insurance carriers have begun announcing commission reductions to agents due to MLR (Medical Loss Ratio) requirements under PPACA. Blue Shield CA just left us all a nice voicemail this evening (after business hours BTW) about commission cuts. The average for an agent is approximately 50% pay cut in 2011 (starting in 3 weeks).
No doubt that is going to hurt and it is possible many agents (especially newer agents) will leave the health insurance business. Veteran agents may be able to withstand the slash on new business compensation because of a large client base of older business which will be, at least for now, uneffected by the cuts.
I have observed in the last few days an attempt by agents, insurance carriers and organizations that train, recruit or mentor agents, to justify this going forward. To the extent that reduced earnings on health insurance would allow fewer agents to achieve higher potential production at lower commission (the overall thought process), certainly there could be a place for those fewer agents to continue to succeed in this business. Except.............
What happens on 1/1/2014? Let's say a savvy agent sets up a staffed call center (the chosen model by the carriers, obviously), hires a bunch of service reps, sub-agents and telemarketers and garners a large volume of sales to achieve the highest commission payouts. That could be a lucrative business model right up to the point where the health insurance exchanges open in 2014. Then what?
Imagine an agent selling 300+ health insurance policies in 2011, 2012, and 2013 (over 900 total) and watching the 900+ clients disappear into an insurance exchange offering no compensation or virtually no compensation to the agent. All of that work for a couple of years of income at already-reduced commissions to see it all evaporate in the blink of an eye.
Now there are agents who are whistling past the graveyard saying "that's not going to happen", "repeal is on the way", "NAHU will protect our earning power." Now, they may be right.
I am inclined to believe what I see, not what I think/hope might happen. Sure changes could be made. Sure a panel could be set up to review agent compensation. Since this change has ALREADY happened (compensation and MLR), the pragmatist in me says to anticipate that the 2014 changes will occur basically unchanged and on schedule.
"Well", some might say, "there will still be a place for agents in the system". Don't be so sure. We are not specifically mentioned in PPACA. At best we are included with navigators like Dept of Fish & Game, Trade Unions, Civic Organizations and the like. It's us, community service organizations and someone spawning salmon in the pond.
The California Health Exchange is a fact. It was passed into law and signed by Gov Schwarzenegger a few months ago. It exists and regardless of what happens with PPACA (ObamaCare), the California exchanges would have to be repealed separately.
The architect of the future California Exchange is the same person who set up the Massachusetts Connector Exchange. I won't mention his name here but you can certainly Google it.
Agent compensation in Massachusetts for indivdiual & family health insurance is..........zero, nothing , nada, bupkiss, the big 'goose egg' (insert your favorite phrase here).
So, the same guy who set up 'the big goose egg' in agent compensation in Massachusetts will be very heavily involved in setting up the California Exchange. Sure, it could be different out here, but are you really willing to bank on it.
Health insurance agents in California will have to make some hard decisions going forward. Some will bury their heads in the sand and hope it all goes away. Some will swear on all that is Holy that big brother NAHU (National Assn of Health Underwriters) and Janet Trautwein will ride in on a white horse to save the day. Some will move on to other things like life insurance. And some will stick it out and try to make the best of a lousy situation over which they have no control.
The bottom line is this for agents: "Am I willing to work twice as hard for half as much with the very real risk that it could all go away anyway in three years?" I wish I had the answer, for myself and for other agents. As of today, I just don't know.
MLR and Agent Commission (and the future) California
California Exchange Bills Signed Into Law
The Governor signed both health insurance exchange bills into law yesterday in California.
AB 1602 and SB 900 (companion bills) were signed yesterday, paving the way for the creation of the California Health Insurance Exchange.
I will update as the process moves forward with information on the exchange, how it will work, when it might be operational and so on.
California Health Insurance Legislative News (Lots of it!)
Big day in Sacramento today. And with 8/31 deadlines looming, we will likely see more activity.
California AB 1602 (Perez) and SB 900 (Alquist) has passed and is awaiting the Governor's signature to make it law. AB 1602 sets up the California health insurance exchange. I expect this to be signed as Gov Schwarzenegger indicated earlier this year that he wants the exchange model set up before he leaves office.
SB 900 sets up the exchanges, and AB 1602 which is a companion bill delineates the specific duties of the exchange.
AB 1825 has passed the Senate and now goes back to the Assembly for final action. AB 1825 requires mandatory maternity benefits on all health plans sold in the individual market.
AB 2244 prohibits insurers from refusing coverage to children simply because they have a pre-existing condition. AB 2244 also goes back to Assembly now for final action.
Other Bills to watch:
SB 890 (Alquist) - sets requirement for health plans to offer only 5 plan designs either inside or outside of the exchange. Gold, Silver, Bronze, Platinum and Catastrophic.
AB 2345 (De La Torre) - prevents insurers from charging an additional co-pay for cancer screenings and other types of preventive care
AB 2042 - (Feuer) - prohibits insurers from raising premiums more than once per year.
California Moving Forward With Reform
According to a Mercury News article today, the California Legislature is moving forward with several reform bills in the coming weeks.
The legislation, which may include as many as 20 bills, would, amongst other things, create state health insurance exchanges, do away with denials for pre-existing health conditions, extend coverage to children and uncap benefit limits on health plans.
Governor Schwarzenegger has indicated that he wants many reforms in place in California before January, 2011, including health insurance exchanges.
The two most major bills are SB 900 (Alquist) and AB 1602 (Perez). Both bills would create a California insurance exchange which would operate similar to the Massachusetts Connector program.
It appears that California intends to at least try to get systems and programs in place well ahead of the final dates set by federal reform laws.
Current Version of SB 900
Current Version of AB 1602
Health Exchanges and Independent Agents
I am hearing and reading so much lately from the health insurance agent community about the future of agents under healthcare reform. Specifically as relates to the health insurance exchanges set for 2014. A minority believe that independent agents will have a place in the system while a majority, it seems, are suffering from "Chicken Little Syndrome". Truthfully, no one knows yet what place independent health agents will have in the new system. I do have some thoughts.
For those who know me and my business, I write a lot of HIPAA. HIPAA is guaranteed-issue health insurance, available kind of on an exchange (pick from available carriers and plans) and has no underwriting or medical screening component. Somewhat similar to the future exchanges (if you can get information which is generally only available on web sites like mine).
One would think that with the fairly small choice of guaranteed-issue plans (perhaps 25 at most in California) and fairly similar plan designs (HMO are similar and PPO/POS are similiar in deductible and general benefits) that choosing a HIPAA plan would be easy. Honestly, for every 10 people I help enroll under HIPAA, at least 9 of them need help in determining the most appropriate carrier and plan for their needs. And that is a good thing. Getting a coverage plan is important. Getting the best fit for coverage is more important.
There are a variety of factors that come into play during proper case development. Plan design and usage limitations are one area. Plan benefits and any exclusions or limitations is another. Then there is the network of participating providers and the prescription drug formulary to consider. All of these things before we really even look at the price of the plan. These services are easily and readily provided by independent agents who can compare multiple carriers and plans. The other option would be to call each carrier and then try to put it all together yourself. One of the problems with calling a carrier is...they only know their own plan. For example:
Blue Cross of California originated a plan in California called RightPlan PPO. It was the first no deductible non-maternity individuals-only PPO in California. It was subsequently copied by several other carriers and duplicated in their respective plan portfolios. Health Net has SimpleValue PPO (copy) and Blue Shield has ActiveStart PPO (copy).
Under the current market, you could call Anthem Blue Cross about the RightPlan PPO but they are not equipped to compare it against SimpleValue or ActiveStart. Each carrier only knows their own plans. You'd end up having to call three carriers, get whatever information you think is important, put it all together and try to decide which clone plan would work best. Or you could call an independent agent (for free by the way, there is no cost to have an agent) who can run that scenario for you.
Fast forward to the health insurance exchanges. Like HIPAA, the plans will all be similar but, like HIPAA, there will be differences between each insurance company's plans (network, formulary, benefits, tiers of drug coverage and so on).
Let's assume hypothetically that six companies in California offer plans to the exchange. The plans will be denoted as Gold, Silver, Bronze and Platinum. Benefit levels will be determined by mandates in the healthcare reform law. Seems simple enough, right?
Well, what if you take six medications and one of them is not in any drug formulary for the exchange plans? Which plans have tier 3 drug coverage and which don't. Are there restrictions on tier 3 benefits? How do I search their drug formulary? Are my doctors participating with this carrier's Gold plan? How about hospitals? Do the networks differ between Gold, Silver, Bronze and Platinum? Does this plan cover me locally only or can I use it in-network when I travel? Is this an HMO Gold, PPO Gold or POS Gold? What's the difference?
Needless to say, this list could go on forever.
Another factor that I believe may come into play are deviations from basic design. With Medicare Supplement plans, there are some carriers who offer the Medicare mandated benefits but also create enhanced plans with other options above the Medicare minimum standard. Could we see this in the exchange as well? I believe it is very possible. So instead of six carriers offer six Gold plans, you might see something like this:
Carrier A - Gold
Carrier B - Gold, Gold Preferred, Gold Plus, Gold Enhanced
Carrier C - Gold, Gold Preferred
Carrier D - Gold, Gold Select
Carrier E - Gold, Gold Select
Carrier F - Gold, Gold HMO
Gold = Standard Gold design based on reform rules for plan minimum standard
Gold Select = Gold plan benefits with a select network of providers (smaller)
Gold Preferred = Gold plan health benefits plus a long-term care rider
Gold Plus = Gold plan benefits with a dental HMO plan
Gold Enhanced = Gold Plus plan design (with dental) plus additional vision and chiropractic coverage
Gold HMO = HMO plan adhering to Gold plan design rules
Under this scenario, as many as 13 Gold plans could be available (or more, or less) from the six insurance companies. It could get really confusing really quickly. And what if they do the same with Silver and Bronze? Or Platinum?
The bottom line is that a person should not have to match their medical needs to a health plan. All of my case development for HIPAA plans is directed at matching the plan to meet the medical needs, not the other way around. While no plan is always absolutely perfect, good case development should find the one plan that, given overall medical needs, is the "best" fit for each client.
I would think, given these variables, that the role of the independent agent would be extremely important in matching people's medical needs with the appropriate health plan, whether through the exchange or privately outside of the exchange.
Certainly the states, or insurance companies, or federal government could set up "call centers" staffed by non-agents who would be available to review coverage options and answer questions. Would it be less expensive? Probably not. But more to the point, there comes a time in this business when experienced, veteran independent agents really get a feel for the way certain insurance companies operate with regard to networks, formulary and benefits. I have found that EOC (Evidence of Coverage) booklets are often sorely lacking in certain areas when it comes to benefit utilization or the way a claim is "really" processed. Just because something is written in a booklet or spreadsheet or benefit summary does not mean that is exactly how it works, or in all situations.
We learn from experience. I write mostly HIPAA. Claims for HIPAA tend to be much greater and much more varied than underwritten coverage. That is the nature of guaranteed-issue coverage. I have seen situations which absolutely contradict what was written in the benefit summary, spreadsheet or EOC. I have also learned over the years many of the little nuances of the plans and insurance carriers that can be very critical when a prospective client brings their medical needs to me.
I hope that our leadership understands the value that we independent health agents provide.
On a side note:
I was a bit saddened to read an article recently in an industry publication in which President Obama told a health agent who expressed concern about her career that she was "the one who has to tell her clients about the insurance company's rate increase". While that is part of our job, I'd like to think we do a bit more than just pass on rate increase information. I certainly hope this is not how our leadership sees us and perceives our value to our clients.
I don't always have time to tell people about rate increases since the carrier will tell them anyway. I am often quite busy running drug formularies, trying to find which network doctor X is actually in and trying to help my clients get the plan that will best cover their immediate needs like chemotherapy, heart surgery, infusion therapy, transplant surgery or self-injectible life saving medication.
Large Companies Contemplate Dropping Employee Health Coverage
The Dallas Morning News is reporting that several very large companies "have concluded that they might be financially better off canceling their health care coverage and moving their workers to government-subsidized exchanges that will be available in four years".
At least four companies have investigated to varying degrees the impact of dropping health care coverage and pushing their workers onto the new exchanges, where they will be able to buy their own insurance.
While doing this would subject companies to fines, the size of the fines would be substantially less than the cost of providing health insurance to their workers.
The four companies identified so far are:
*AT&T
*Verizon Communications, Inc.
*Caterpillar, Inc.
*Deere and Co.
If these four are looking at this option, it is a pretty safe bet that other large employers are doing the same.