The FEDS just don't get it. Additional requirements = more costs. Someone has to pay it. No agents = less enrollment. So, end result, less people covered for higher costs. Nice.......
Full article on AIS at Jury Is Out on Whether Health Insurance Exchanges Will Shift Administrative Costs to Consumers.
Excerpts:
"John Sheils, the vice president of consulting firm The Lewin Group who conducts reform analyses, says it only stands to reason that exchanges, which are required under the reform statute to perform about a dozen functions now handled by insurers and brokers, "can't run for free. If you're going to have exchanges perform functions not performed today, it will increase costs."
Also:
Brokers represent another question mark, Sheils says. "The state can decide not to use brokers [for the exchange], and that can save them 8% [on typical small-employer group commissions] on some of these numbers," he says. "But taking brokers out also will reduce the numbers enrolled." Moreover, employers, who rely on brokers for various kinds of insurance beyond health, may balk at the idea of not using them, according to Sheils. He asserts that by using brokers, "You insert a layer of bureaucracy, and you'll pay more for that bureaucracy."
Some people may think that the exchanges will save money if they somehow regulate the industry a little more, eliminating high-cost health plans, Sheils tells HRW. "But there's nothing more efficient about running the exchange, particularly if you're going to keep brokers….It's hard to see how exchanges will save costs."
Full article on AIS at Jury Is Out on Whether Health Insurance Exchanges Will Shift Administrative Costs to Consumers.
Excerpts:
"John Sheils, the vice president of consulting firm The Lewin Group who conducts reform analyses, says it only stands to reason that exchanges, which are required under the reform statute to perform about a dozen functions now handled by insurers and brokers, "can't run for free. If you're going to have exchanges perform functions not performed today, it will increase costs."
Also:
Brokers represent another question mark, Sheils says. "The state can decide not to use brokers [for the exchange], and that can save them 8% [on typical small-employer group commissions] on some of these numbers," he says. "But taking brokers out also will reduce the numbers enrolled." Moreover, employers, who rely on brokers for various kinds of insurance beyond health, may balk at the idea of not using them, according to Sheils. He asserts that by using brokers, "You insert a layer of bureaucracy, and you'll pay more for that bureaucracy."
Some people may think that the exchanges will save money if they somehow regulate the industry a little more, eliminating high-cost health plans, Sheils tells HRW. "But there's nothing more efficient about running the exchange, particularly if you're going to keep brokers….It's hard to see how exchanges will save costs."
