Tuesday, November 1, 2016
Open Enrollment v4.0: A Preview
No, I don't really think it takes a crystal ball to predict an abysmal showing for this year's Open Enrollment. For one thing, there are a lot fewer plans available, but they're up to 116% higher, which is nice.
For another, it's likely that fewer agents will be helping folks sign up for on-Exchange (ie subsidized) plans. As FoIB Allison B reports:
"Managers of HealthCare.gov continue to put barriers in front of consumers who want help from agents or brokers with buying, and using, public exchange plan coverage"
These include providing more agent information up-front, as well as requiring consumers to "call the HealthCare.gov call center at the beginning of the open enrollment period." And good luck with that: based on previous experience, those hold times become epic.
But that's not all.
Noted ACA proponent (and yet FoIB) Charles Gaba rues that "there were about 10.5 million people still enrolled in effectuated QHPs via the ACA exchanges. As I noted at the time, this was about 300,000 fewer people than I had assumed would be enrolled at that point."
And it just gets better (for certain values of "better") from there:
"Third-quarter earnings reports from Aetna and UnitedHealth showed that their combined exchange enrollment totals fell by 113,000 to 1.6 million from the end of June through September, a decline of 6.6%."
And why is this significant? Well, because these two carriers "account for nearly one in six exchange enrollees" (that's about 16% of the total market). So if enrollment fell off so dramatically last year, imagine what a bloodbath this year has in store.
#ObamaCareWinning!
For another, it's likely that fewer agents will be helping folks sign up for on-Exchange (ie subsidized) plans. As FoIB Allison B reports:
"Managers of HealthCare.gov continue to put barriers in front of consumers who want help from agents or brokers with buying, and using, public exchange plan coverage"
These include providing more agent information up-front, as well as requiring consumers to "call the HealthCare.gov call center at the beginning of the open enrollment period." And good luck with that: based on previous experience, those hold times become epic.
But that's not all.
Noted ACA proponent (and yet FoIB) Charles Gaba rues that "there were about 10.5 million people still enrolled in effectuated QHPs via the ACA exchanges. As I noted at the time, this was about 300,000 fewer people than I had assumed would be enrolled at that point."
And it just gets better (for certain values of "better") from there:
"Third-quarter earnings reports from Aetna and UnitedHealth showed that their combined exchange enrollment totals fell by 113,000 to 1.6 million from the end of June through September, a decline of 6.6%."
And why is this significant? Well, because these two carriers "account for nearly one in six exchange enrollees" (that's about 16% of the total market). So if enrollment fell off so dramatically last year, imagine what a bloodbath this year has in store.
#ObamaCareWinning!
[Hat Tip: FoIB Rich W]
Speak Softly and Carry a Big Stick
Elimination. This is what government is about when it comes to dealing with competition. The latest example comes via a new rule for Obamacare. If government speaks quietly enough you won't notice when they try and slip a fast one by you. If you do notice, they have that big stick ready to go so when competition doesn't fall in line they can smack the crap out of the competition with it.That is what HHS did today when they issued a proposed new rule on short term medical insurance plans. The rule revises the definition of a short-term plan and will limit these plans to only three months and not be renewable.
On the surface this isn't a big deal to consumers. Primarily because short-term medical plans were never actually renewable. They are medically underwritten and don't meet the criteria of being Obamacare compliant. So when the policy ends it must be medically underwritten again before being issued. And, because they aren't Obamacare compliant people who purchase these plans are also subject to the individual mandate tax.
Therein lies the government's problem. Because these plans aren't compliant and include medical underwriting they are much less expensive than the Obamacare plans one is being coerced to buy through the marketplace. In some cases they are so much cheaper that a healthy person can pay the premiums plus the tax and it's still financially better for them than buying an Obamacare plan.
This leads us to the real reason government wants these plans gone. They see the death spiral of the individual market accelerating. Costs of insurance are exploding - including those cheap high deductible Bronze plans. Logically the only way government knows how to try and reverse this course is to force the healthy into the pool. By eliminating short-term plans and forcing consumers to the marketplace they believe they will strengthen the Obamacare risk pool.
Obamacare is a crap sandwich. Right now there are other sandwiches out there. Among them are limited benefit plan sandwiches, Christian Ministry sandwiches, and short-term medical sandwiches. One by one the government will eliminate your choices of sandwiches. Pretty soon all you will have left is the crap sandwich - and once you take a bite you'll find that it will leave a bad taste in your mouth.
Monday, October 31, 2016
Monday Afternews
■ The Revenooer's have published the 2017 guidelines for deducting LTCi premiums. What, you didn't know that you could deduct some of your Long Term Care insurance premiums on your taxes?
Yup, and the "Internal Revenue Service is increasing the maximum long-term care insurance premium deduction for 2017 faster than the 2016 inflation rate."
Sweet!
At the same time, they're also increasing how much one can set (temporarily) aside in a Flexible Spending Account (for certain health and child care expenses).
■ With the World Series now officially a nail-biter, it may be interesting to note how much the life insurance industry has changed in the 100+ years since the Cubs last won one. For example:
Yup, and the "Internal Revenue Service is increasing the maximum long-term care insurance premium deduction for 2017 faster than the 2016 inflation rate."
Sweet!
At the same time, they're also increasing how much one can set (temporarily) aside in a Flexible Spending Account (for certain health and child care expenses).
■ With the World Series now officially a nail-biter, it may be interesting to note how much the life insurance industry has changed in the 100+ years since the Cubs last won one. For example:
- Group life insurance came into being in 1911
- In 1914, just over a decade since Dayton's Wright Brothers made the first powered flight (no TSA, either), Northwestern Mutual paid "its first death claim caused by an airplane accident" when some unfortunate passenger exited before the actual landing. Hundreds of feet in the air before
- One I first heard many years ago when I entered this business is that during the Depression, James C Penney (yes, that JC Penney) used his life insurance cash values to help keep his company afloat and employees paid.
Lots more at the link.
More ObamaTax Rate Decreases
#Winning!Largest premium hikes for benchmark #Obamacare plans:— Fox News Research (@FoxNewsResearch) October 29, 2016
AZ: 116%
OK: 69%
TN: 63%
MN: 59%
AL: 58%
PA: 53%
NE: 51%
MT: 44%
IL: 43%
KS: 42%
[Hat Tip: FoIB Holly R]
Self-Awareness: How does it work‽
I just don't get "journalists." It seems to me that, if one is going to write about something, then one should exhibit more intellectual curiosity than, say, the average broccoli floret (no offense to Cruciferous-Americans). Reason I ask is this blaring headline:
"Millions buying insurance outside exchanges amid ObamaCare woes"
Underneath this attention grabber, we find this gem:
"While premiums are set to rise by double digits on the ObamaCare exchanges, millions of Americans already have made the decision to abandon the markets altogether and shop for health care on their own"
Um, Jennifer?
This is nothing new: people have been buying "direct" (off-Exchange) all along, and trust me, their premiums haven't been decreasing 3000%, either (see here, for example).
So why buy off-Exchange?
Well, as Jenny notes, the "big downside to shopping off the exchanges is that customers would not receive insurance subsidies." And this is true. But most people don't actually qualify for subsidies (and really, what does it say about the "roaring" economy when so many folks do?). And if you're not subsidy-eligible, then the dangerously unsecure Exchange is the very last place you want to be.
Yes, insurance carriers are also vulnerable, but as private sector entities they can be held accountable. Good look trying that with a government agency.
Ms Jenny is also under the mistaken impression that there are more plan choices off-Exchange. As we're seeing, this is not necessarily true.
In all, Ms Jenny spoke with: "a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute ... Karen Pollitz of the Kaiser Family Foundation ... [and] Katherine Hempstead, a senior adviser at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation"
Notice anyone missing?
Here's a hint.
"Millions buying insurance outside exchanges amid ObamaCare woes"
Underneath this attention grabber, we find this gem:
"While premiums are set to rise by double digits on the ObamaCare exchanges, millions of Americans already have made the decision to abandon the markets altogether and shop for health care on their own"
Um, Jennifer?
This is nothing new: people have been buying "direct" (off-Exchange) all along, and trust me, their premiums haven't been decreasing 3000%, either (see here, for example).
So why buy off-Exchange?
Well, as Jenny notes, the "big downside to shopping off the exchanges is that customers would not receive insurance subsidies." And this is true. But most people don't actually qualify for subsidies (and really, what does it say about the "roaring" economy when so many folks do?). And if you're not subsidy-eligible, then the dangerously unsecure Exchange is the very last place you want to be.
Yes, insurance carriers are also vulnerable, but as private sector entities they can be held accountable. Good look trying that with a government agency.
Ms Jenny is also under the mistaken impression that there are more plan choices off-Exchange. As we're seeing, this is not necessarily true.
In all, Ms Jenny spoke with: "a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute ... Karen Pollitz of the Kaiser Family Foundation ... [and] Katherine Hempstead, a senior adviser at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation"
Notice anyone missing?
Here's a hint.
Next time, how 'bout reaching out to someone who actually works in the marketplace?
Friday, October 28, 2016
We Have Ways: An Update
Back in March of Aught 10 (just after the ObamaTax was enacted), Bob pointed out that "[a]n adult who does not have health insurance by 2014 would be penalized $95 or 1 percent of income," and went on to ridicule it.
His point then was that, compared to projected premiums, this didn't even get to "paltry" levels.
And of course he was right, and of course we still have over 27 million folks uninsured, despite [ed: because of?] the joke that is the ObamaTax.
And, evidently, other folks have finally gotten around to noticing what most have us have known for years:
"In my experience, the penalty has not been large enough to motivate people to sign up for insurance,” said Christine Speidel, a tax lawyer"
Well, she'd know, right?
And then there'srocket surgeon director of tax history Joseph J. Thorndike, who brilliantly deduces that the "penalty for violating the individual mandate has not been very effective ... If it were effective, we would have higher enrollment, and the population buying policies in the insurance exchange would be healthier and younger.”
Perhaps.
But it would be interesting to know what these folks mean when they say "more effective;" after all, if they raise it too much, then folks might start to notice that it's completely unenforceable as written.
Oh.
I think I see the problem there.
[Hat Tip: Co-Blogger Bob V]
His point then was that, compared to projected premiums, this didn't even get to "paltry" levels.
And of course he was right, and of course we still have over 27 million folks uninsured, despite [ed: because of?] the joke that is the ObamaTax.
And, evidently, other folks have finally gotten around to noticing what most have us have known for years:
"In my experience, the penalty has not been large enough to motivate people to sign up for insurance,” said Christine Speidel, a tax lawyer"
Well, she'd know, right?
And then there's
Perhaps.
But it would be interesting to know what these folks mean when they say "more effective;" after all, if they raise it too much, then folks might start to notice that it's completely unenforceable as written.
Oh.
I think I see the problem there.
[Hat Tip: Co-Blogger Bob V]
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)