California HIPAA Dance (Redux)

Another change for HIPAA in California.

Blue Shield of California, in response to Anthem's proposed premium payment arrangement (which is apparently not going to be fully implemented), has taken the following action with regard to HIPAA plan enrollments in California.

Effective 3/2/10, PPO enrollments from HIPAA plans will no longer offer any date of the month not before application receipt date. Now, 1st or 15th of the month following approval of the application.

From Wall Street Journal The Wellpoint Mugging

A very interesting article from the Wall Street Journal.

The Wellpoint Mugging

Some parts of the article are quite telling.

He ought to subpoena California's political class because Wellpoint's rate hikes are the direct result of the Golden State's insurance regulations—the kind that Democrats want to impose on all 50 states. Under federal Cobra rules, the unemployed are allowed to keep their job-related health benefits for 18 to 36 months. California then goes further and bars Anthem from dropping these customers even after they have exhausted Cobra. California also caps what Anthem can charge these post-Cobra customers.

This next one hits home for me as one of the leading Anthem HIPAA producers in California. While I know that Anthem is taking losses on the guaranteed-issue side, I also am confident that my book of Anthem HIPAA business (which apparently is #2 in the state of CA right behind e-healthinsurance)is not creating losses. Yes, the whole pool is losing money and Anthem has been covering almost 80% of it for several years (same with MRMIP). However, I always strive to do proper case development before I pick the appropriate HIPAA plan for a client and find I have a fairly even spread between my three California major medical carriers. And no, Anthem has not invited me to lunch for my high HIPAA production LOL!

This explains why Anthem lost $58 million in California on its post-Cobra customers in 2009. If WellPoint didn't raise premiums amid these losses, it would soon be under assault from its shareholders, if not out of business.

The company presented its findings to California insurance commissioner Steve Poizner last November, who had a month to review the proposed increases and never objected. But recently amid the White House campaign, Mr. Poizner has joined the chorus claiming to be "skeptical" of the increases and demanding that Anthem postpone them while he conducts a review. Anthem has done so.

Part Deux: Is The California Individual Family Health Insurance Market In Critical Condition?

Having recently watched the "bi-partisan" meeting in Washington and many videos on youtube, I wonder if the problem is "un"-fixable.

Speaker Pelosi, in a recent youtube video answering questions on the meeting, pointed out two things which are absolutely of concern. 1, our health insurance system is employer-based in design and function. 2, there are many more people not covered under the employer-based system who choose to remain on the sideline than those who participate in the non-employer health insurance market.

I won't go through the numbers again since they are covered under part one of this topic below. Suffice to say, nearly two-thirds of those who should participate in the health insurance market in California for individual & family coverage do not. No employer-sponsored health plan, whether fully insured or self-funded, could operate at a participation level of 33% or less. Employer plans require 75% of all eligible employees to participate. I have worked in the past for employers who made it mandatory to buy a health plan through their fsa/cafeteria plan unless one had a valid waiver (so as not to mess up participation).

With rare exception, most every vlog I have seen, including the grilling of Anthem/Wellpoint CEO Braly in Washington, have had a nasty, negative tone. While it is without doubt that people are upset by the rate changes and popular press, there are implications to this notwithstanding the fact that my study below shows that even with the "massive" rate increase, Anthem prices below most of the other California carriers for like coverage (including 2 not-for-profits).

Now here's your "inside scoop" for the day, dear readers. I have it on good authority that a very large health insurance company in California (which shall remain anonymous), in the last six months, approached the state regulatory agency/ies to review the option of cancelling the individual & family market product and bailing out. To be clear as to what is at stake....

IN THE LAST SIX MONTHS, ONE OF THE LARGEST HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANIES IN CALIFORNIA ADDRESSED TO A STATE REGULATORY DEPARTMENT THE POSSIBILITY OF NO LONGER SELLING HEALTH INSURANCE TO INDIVIDUALS & FAMILIES IN CALIFORNIA.

The writing is on the wall across the spectrum of carriers. Sales of new plans are flat. HIPAA plans have been reformated to high deductibles and expensive HMO plans to stem the bleeding in that pool. Programs like Tonik for individuals and BeneFits for small group have experienced less-than-stellar sales.

The only two PPO programs (non-HIPAA) that are selling at all right now are SmartSense by Anthem and VitalShield by Blue Shield. Even in those cases, the sales of new plans is not keeping up with the cancellation of existing subscribers.

Anthem has launched three new product portfolios for IFP in the last six months--Core Guard, Clear Protection, and coming April 1, Premier. I will be curious to see whether or not new enrollments in these plans (lower cost) will overtake defections off of coverage as is the current trend.

Until and unless this trend shifts, the IFP market is going to be chaotic at best. Continuous premium increases will become the norm, and this in turn will drive more people off of coverage which will create a repetitive cycle.

So, Dave, you ask, what is your solution to the problem?

Well, I see two choices.

One, like Speaker Pelosi mentioned, mandate coverage and penalize those who do not participate. Increase participation to as close to 100% as possible, guarantee-issue health insurance coverage with no pre-existing conditions problems and create an incentive (tax or othewise) for people to participate in addition to a penalty.

Two, and this is one I may favor over the first one, kill off all non-employer coverage plans and go to a single payer exchange for coverage (with a mandate or incentive). The exchange could offer compliant private plans from carriers that wish to offer them and/or public plans like Medicare/FEHB or other plans designed under federal mandates. Allow carriers to sell private plans outside of the exchange to those who can qualify and wish to purchase outside of the exchange.

Make the exchange available to those who cannot obtain employer-sponsored coverage and do not wish to or cannot purchase a private plan outside of the exchange. Also, provide that any employer under 20 employees (2-19) who chooses the exchange over the group plan must pay a penalty per employee to the exchange, and any company over 20 employees must either provider group coverage or pay a payroll tax penalty per employee to the exchange.

More HIPAA Dancing

I have learned that Anthem Blue Cross California has again changed its position with regard to HIPAA enrollments.

Apparently they have backed off of the "no premium" with application design (which virtually guaranteed a 60-day minimum gap in coverage) and will allow premium submission with the application in the near future.

The current no premium program was only in effect on the HMO HIPAA plans, not the PPO HIPAA plans. Anthem had indicated a desire to have a unified HIPAA application with no premium pre-payment possible. Apparently this has been scrapped and HIPAA applicants will soon be able to pre-pay premiums for both HMO and PPO HIPAA plans with Anthem Blue Cross CA.

Is The California Individual Family Health Insurance Market In Critical Condition?

With the recent LA Times article and notifications to approximately 800,000 CA residents by Anthem Blue Cross of California, the future of individual & family health insurance coverage is looking bleak. Anthem announced a rate increase for March 1, 2010 ranging between 30-39% on many private health plans.

I received information just yesterday that Aetna has now laid off the IFP staff support for northern California (and I supposed SoCal as well). The last time Aetna laid off people in these positions, they exited the market in California.

First a look at some "interesting" numbers and how they relate to this issue.

California population (2009) - 36,900,000 (probably 37,000,000 by now)

# California residents covered by private health plans - 2,100,000
# California residents on average uninsured - 6,000,000
# California residents covered under Group/Medicaid/Medicare - 28,800,000

Those numbers tell us a lot about what is going on. IFP (Individual & Family Plan) represents an average enrollment of 6% of the total population, and 7% of the total insured population of California. 76% of the total population is covered under an employer-sponsored health plan, Medicaid or Medicare and 93% of the total insured population is covered under an employer-sponsored health plan, Medicaid or Medicare.

Sadly, the uninsured population is nearly three times as large as those who have private health insurance.

Group plans (employer-sponsored) flourish in California. The plans are heavily mandated by benefit and also represent a true actuarial "pool" of risk. Carriers require 75% of all eligible employees to participate, thereby spreading the risk across a large and balanced company population. I have heard over the years that actuarily, group plans tend to run 20% using major benefits, 30% using some benefits and 50% using no benefits in any plan year.

While group plans will certainly experience rate increases due to health care costs, they are often minimized by mandated participation. So long as the actuaries do their job, group tends to be more stable.*

Individual plans have few if any mandates and there is no participation requirement. As such, plans react to utilization of benefits and increases in health care costs on a more radical scale than employer-sponsored group plans.

Also, plan benefit levels are continuously being adjusted to keep the utilization in check. Lower deductibles give way to higher deductibles, first-dollar benefits give way to services under deductibles first, co-insurance splits continue downward (Health Net has plans 50/50),and so on.

When I first started in health insurance in California, then Blue Cross of California (now Anthem) had a very impressive set of PPO plans. $10, $20, $30 and $40 co-pay plans with no deductible, low out-of-pockets and 80%-90% coinsurance levels. They also covered all normal benefits including maternity. The $40 co-pay plan was so inexpensive that it became a loss-leader. The plans were retired around 2000 to make room for plans with lower co-insurance levels, deductibles and higher out-of-pockets. This trend has continued since.

The bottom line is that slowly but surely IFP will become undesireable to consumers and carriers. Carriers will bleed money on accelerating health care costs and consumers will hate the plan designs. Every year the IFP carriers introduce "new" plans, all of which are stripped-down from the preceeding plan designs. Carriers will continue to retire plans that are no longer profitable (see Anthem Share PPO plans and Blue Shield Spectrum PPO plans). At the rate things are going, IFP plans in a few years will be completely catastrophic coverage with little or no preventive care, generic only drug benefits and deductibles in the 10-20,000 range. Oh, and you can pretty much forget about maternity on PPO plans in a few years, too.

HMOs will continue to offer richer and stronger benefits (with access restrictions), however, they will eventually price so high as to be unaffordable for many consumers.

* the exception was the major rate increase in the Lumenos HSA plans a couple of years ago for group. This was due to an actuarial error in terms of anticipated benefit utilization. Lumenos group HSA plans offer free no-cost preventive medicine. The utilization by the traditional 50% who normally don't use benefits in a plan year as almost 100% which totally blew the curve. Rates were increase between 25-39% at the first Lumenos plan anniversary to compensate.