News & Info Related To 2017 Open Enrollment

[bluediamond]

I refuse to write an app til the "Welcome to Medicare" letter (which has the claim number in the upper right hand corner) is in hand. Its the pesky 1% that have a Medicare number that isn't their SSN that cause 99% of the issues.

I also refuse to write one until they have received the letter or card. It takes an act of God to get things changed after the fact. About 15 years ago I wrote a turning 65 and he had a Medicare card, at that time I don't believe I had written any with any letter except a A or B after the number, well he had a D and said he'd been sent that because he was recently widowed. This didn't sound right and I kept grilling him and he insisted it was correct. I went a head against better judgement and wrote him. Well with in two months he received another Medicare card with different number and letter. It took 6 months to get that changed.

I have lost a couple over the years because I won't write without that letter, but it's better to be safe than a whole bunch of red tape.

 

[AllenChicago]

Sure. If the current premium is $800 and the premium goes up 50%, that's a $1200 premium now. If last year's commission was 4% of $800 ($32 a month), it is now 2% of $1200 $24 a month. Still doable. Barely.

The more the premium increases, the more it counterbalances the decrease in commission percentage. Unless the commission turns to the magic 0%, that is, LOL. The number zero is always a killer.

Funny thing about ACA. The framers must not have read it before they passed it. The 20% MLR is better for the insurance company as the premium spikes. 20% of $100 million is $20 million. If the premium goes up to $200 million, the MLR allows $40 million. However, the workload for staff didn't increase, the rent didn't go up. It doesn't suddenly become more expensive to process the claims, or invoice for the premium. But the insurance company gets to keep double.

If they are not hemorrhaging massive losses, that is!

OK Ann.. Maybe I'll do automated enrollments for 2%, but the in-home visits will become very rare.

Great point about the MLR and how huge that 20% can be. Insurers should WANT big premiums and big claims that take 80% of the premiums. As a matter of fact, I don't think they're complaining about the claim costs are they? Just that the premiums are too low.

 

[Ann H]

OK Ann.. Maybe I'll do automated enrollments for 2%, but the in-home visits will become very rare.

Great point about the MLR and how huge that 20% can be. Insurers should WANT big premiums and big claims that take 80% of the premiums. As a matter of fact, I don't think they're complaining about the claim costs are they? Just that the premiums are too low.

In a perverse twist of ACA, a golden scenario for any carrier would be enough claims losses to use up 80% of premium income, huge premiums funded by taxpayers, 20% MLR allowance on those huge premiums, and no competition in the state. That would be good enough, but add reinsurance and the golden scenario becomes platinum. A 20% allowance in the MLR, based on huge premiums can be a lot of money.

 

[somarco]

If the carriers are asking for 40% rate increases it is not because they want 20% of much higher premiums, it is because the existing rate level is not supporting the risk.

 

[russelltw]

If the carriers are asking for 40% rate increases it is not because they want 20% of much higher premiums, it is because the existing rate level is not supporting the risk.

Agreed, our local blue asked for a 25% rate increase based on the claims through the first few months of 2015. They later came back and adjusted to 34% because the claims over the next few months did not level out (as the administration said they would), but continued to increase month over month.

Insurance companies cannot operate this way. No company can...

 

[Yagents]

Looks like BX GA needs mo' money

Blue Cross may bump up rates on Georgia insurance exchange - Rome News-Tribune: Local

 

[Ann H]

If the carriers are asking for 40% rate increases it is not because they want 20% of much higher premiums, it is because the existing rate level is not supporting the risk.

Yes, I agree. I should have said that. My point was that they went into this ACA idea thinking it could be a bonus! It was misguided, and neither you nor I are surprised that it backfired on them.

 

[somarco]

Upper management at carriers have never harbored the sharpest knives in the drawer. They are so far removed from the street, and real world (if they indeed ever did work at the street level) they have no clue what they are doing. Those freaking idiots actually believed Obama was going to make them rich and shield the carriers from losses.

And now look what they have done.

They crapped in their mess kit and moved on to another high paying job, leaving behind a mess for the next person to clean up.

 

[tonyisme]

O hated insurance companies... back in 09 and 2010 he only talked negative about them and about how he had to tangle with them regarding his mother's illness. There's no way he likes insurance companies but he likes that he has the best plan available.

 

[AllenChicago]

In a perverse twist of ACA, a golden scenario for any carrier would be enough claims losses to use up 80% of premium income, huge premiums funded by taxpayers, 20% MLR allowance on those huge premiums, and no competition in the state. That would be good enough, but add reinsurance and the golden scenario becomes platinum. A 20% allowance in the MLR, based on huge premiums can be a lot of money.

No competition, eh? That's exactly what's happening, Ann.

Check out this updated U.S. Map: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/20/u...ountry-only-one-insurer-will-remain.html?_r=0

It's staggering how many citizens in this country will only have 1 or 2 health insurers to choose from! The only good news (overall) is that only 8% of Americans buy individual ACA plans.