NAIC to Hold Public Hearing in Austin On Commissions

[STIBROKER]

I can give the report right now before it even takes place and I'll be dead on. So will you.

My contact at NAHU told me that they punted every single issue that the agents had.

It was mind numbing......I was not badly presented but would have been nice to have a agent that wrote an application in the last month get up and tell the truth from the trench's.....but Beth was as close as we had...so here is NAHU punt .......

 

[Yagents]

That was longest 7.5 min joke I've heard. How did the NAIFA guy do? Did he communicate anything more compelling?

 

[STIBROKER]

loading that one now........

That was longest 7.5 min joke I've heard. How did the NAIFA guy do? Did he communicate anything more compelling?

 

[HomeService]

I guess I'm glad I did not go... I had tennis in the AM and had to run down to san marcos for something in the afternoon, looks like I did not miss a whole lot.

 

[STIBROKER]

you would have not got in....this was a national convention with people all over the country in attendance..and this meeting was one of many that was being held at this convention....you had to have a badge to get in.......they were haveing closed meeting from this ....to licensing as well as many others.....good thing I did not show up in shorts and a skateboard shirt and wearing vans....even in dockers and a conseco polo shrit I still stuck out like a turd in a punch bowl........you could tell I was the only independent agent in the crowd......

I guess I'm glad I did not go... I had tennis in the AM and had to run down to san marcos for something in the afternoon, looks like I did not miss a whole lot.

 

[ins.dave]

So who was voicing their opinions on this?
I'm sure everyone was very aware of what we do and also for our well being ...?

 

[taterpeeler]

bowl........you could tell I was the only independent agent in the crowd......

Why... do we look different... special smell...tell me ??

 

[ins.dave]

O.K., so i just watched it.
He did good.

 

[arnguy]

Why... do we look different... special smell...tell me ??

In one word, Peeler: YES!

 

[STIBROKER]

just in.......

NAIC Panel Seeks More Info Before Backing Agent MLR Exemption | PropertyCasualty360

NAIC Panel Seeks More Info Before Backing Agent MLR Exemption


NAIC Panel Seeks More Info Before Backing Agent MLR Exemption

Share |

March 28, 2011 By Arthur D. Postal, PropertyCasualty360.com NU Online News Service, March 28, 1:22 p.m. EDT
State insurance regulators delayed for at least four weeks action on a resolution that would support the demand by insurance agents for an exemption from the medical loss ratio (MLR) provision of the health care reform law.
The National Association of Insurance Commissioners' Professional Health Insurance Advisors Task Force took the action late Sunday. The meeting was held as a prelude to the NAIC Spring Meeting, being held in Austin, Texas this week.
The panel decided to ask the NAIC staff to provide substantial data that it will use to decide whether to support the request by insurance agents, brokers and health insurance companies for a resolution backing House legislation that would exempt agent commissions from the MLR.
The agents and brokers want the NAIC to endorse H.R. 1206, the "Access to Professional Health Insurance Advisors Act of 2011." The legislation is sponsored by Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., and Rep. John Barrow, D-Ga.
Sandy Praeger, Kansas insurance commissioner and chair of the Health Insurance Advisors Task Force, said after the meeting, "This was the right thing to do. We need to base our decisions on appropriate data."
Beth Mantz Steindecker, a health care analyst at Washington Analysis, says the decision "is not fatal" to the intensive efforts by agents and brokers to be exempted from the MLR.
The agents, led by the National Association of Health Underwriters, the Independent Agents and Brokers of America, the National Association of Professional Insurance Agents, and the National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors, say that insurance companies have used the authority provided under the MLR provision to cut their commissions as much as 50 percent this year.
Steindecker acknowledges that NAIC support is a "key factor" in building momentum for House action. But a greater hurdle will be the Senate, she says.
"House support will be important, but the Senate is a key obstacle because Senate liberals, led by Sen. John Rockefeller, D-W. Va., and Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, are key opponents of any change to the law," she says.
In fact, Rockefeller and Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., wrote letters to the panel asking the NAIC not to pass the resolution.
In his letter, Sen. Rockefeller calls the MLR a key "pro-consumer" provision of the health care law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
"Agents and brokers play a role in helping American consumers and businesses purchase health insurance," Rockefeller says in the letter.
"But I won't support a proposal that allows those same agents, brokers and health insurance companies to pocket $1 billion in benefits that should instead be going to the benefit of American consumers as part of the health care reform law we approved last year."
Praeger acted after commissioners from such states as California, Illinois, Oregon, Washington and Connecticut voiced opposition.
Support for the provision is being led by Florida Insurance Commissioner Kevin McCarty, who is also seeking to exempt insurers in Florida from all cost-control provisions of the PPACA.
David Eppstein, PIA assistant vice president for regulatory affairs, says: "There is already ample evidence that agent and broker compensation has been negatively affected as a direct result of the Department of Health and Human Services's failure to exclude it from MLR calculations. We are hopeful that the Health and Managed Care Committee, chaired by Commissioner Praeger, will act quickly to allay any concerns and that the NAIC will just as quickly endorse legislation to remove producer compensation from medical loss ratio calculations."
But officials of Consumer Watchdog, a California-based consumer advocacy group, laud the panel's decision.
"Without the united backing of the state insurance commissioners, the legislation's special-interest authorship is laid bare and its aim--to protect large percentage commissions on health insurance sales--is easier to detect," says Judy Dugan, Consumer Watchdog research director.
"We applaud the consumer-focused state commissioners who made their doubts known. They put the brakes on an industry pay bonus from the pockets of consumers and taxpayers."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Insurance Commissioners Back Away from Bill To Pay Brokers More By Raising Health Premiums - Health News - redOrbit

Insurance Commissioners Back Away from Bill To Pay Brokers More By Raising Health Premiums

Posted on: Monday, 28 March 2011, 10:29 CDT
Consumer Watchdog Cheers Decision to Probe Broker Pay Structure, Acknowledgement that Consumer Protection Needed
AUSTIN, Texas, March 28, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- State insurance commissioners made an unexpected turnabout late Sunday, ending a drive toward support for a special-interest bill that would raise health insurance premiums for consumers. A key committee voted instead to examine in depth the bill sought by insurance brokers and health insurance companies.
Consumer Watchdog, which had sharply criticized the National Association of Insurance Commissioners for its apparent embrace of legislation written by the insurance brokers' lobby, cheered the turnabout. Though virtually identical legislation was recently introduced by Reps. Mike Rogers of Michigan and John Barrow of Alabama, it faces a tougher fight without the NAIC endorsement.
"Without the united backing of the state insurance commissioners, the legislation's special-interest authorship is laid bare and its aim--to protect large percentage commissions on health insurance sales--is easier to detect," said Judy Dugan, research director for the nonprofit, nonpartisan Consumer Watchdog. "We applaud the consumer-focused state commissioners who made their doubts known. They put the brakes on an industry pay bonus from the pockets of consumers and taxpayers."
The brokers' measure, misleadingly named the "Access to Professional Insurance Advisors Act of 2011," would change the federal health reform law to let insurance companies exclude broker commissions from their administrative costs when calculating how much they spend on actual health care.


Key points:
Current law requires insurance companies to pay consumer rebates if they spend less than 80% to 85% of premium dollars on health care.
The legislation, by excluding a chief administrative cost from the administration vs. health care calculation, would effectively take rebate money owed to consumers and pay it to brokers and the insurance companies.
Investment analysts calculate that under the current law, health insurers would pay up to $1.5 billion in rebates or reduce premiums to avoid rebates. That incentive would disappear under the broker legislation.
Costs to taxpayers would also rise, as rising premiums caused more people to lose private insurance. Costs would be higher in the state insurance Exchanges that will offer subsidized coverage as of 2014.
Florida Insurance Commissioner Kevin McCarty, the chief champion of the brokers' legislation, acknowledged growing opposition Sunday and quit urging a vote of all 50 state commissioners. McCarty is separately trying to get his state's insurance companies exempted from existing federal cost-control regulation.
A substitute measure asks an existing and experienced NAIC task force on health reform to probe brokers' pay in recent years, the incentives that insurance companies use to gain only the healthiest applicants, possible alternatives to the bill and "any other matter" that comes to its attention. While the brokers are still saying they hope the NAIC will swiftly study the issue and unanimously support their legislation, Consumer Watchdog said the study will show why brokers can't be satisfied without raising premiums, harming consumers and demolishing the medical care spending rules meant to force the industry to cut costs and operate more efficiently.
"The NAIC task forces did a thorough, open and expert job of developing regulations for the 'medical loss ratio' rule," said Dugan. "We expect the same public access and open debate as they examine broker compensation."
Key opposition to the special interest legislation included commissioners from populous California and Illinois, as well as commissioners from Oregon, Washington and Connecticut.
Sens. David Rockefeller and Al Franken sent letters of opposition to the NAIC that foreshadowed a tough Senate fight if the bill passes the House.
Consumer representatives from NAIC itself, as well as Consumer Watchdog, testified against the legislation at the meeting. They provided information about the pay incentives that insurance companies use to influence brokers' advice to clients.
See Consumer Watchdog testimony at http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/resources/cwnaicstatement.pdf
See Consumer Watchdog's formal comments in opposition to the legislation at http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/resources/naiccomment3-21-11.pdf
A recent Consumer Watchdog analysis found that a majority of state insurance commissioners either came from the broker or insurance industries, or were elected with substantial industry contributions. Six recent past presidents of the NAIC took jobs in the industry, including two chief lobbyist positions in Washington.
See the analysis at Majority of State Insurance Regulators, Charged with Implementing Federal Health Reform, Have Ties to the Insurance Industry | Consumer Watchdog
Consumer Watchdog is a nonprofit, nonpartisan consumer advocacy organization with offices in Washington, DC and Santa Monica, CA. Find us on the web at Consumer Watchdog | Home