- 3,384
It appears NAHU (via Janet Trautwein) is attempting to justify the exemption of agent commissions from MLR because the commission is a "pass-through" expense that the carrier simply collects and distributes as a cost of aquisition/servicing. I believe this the be a very slippery slope which could cause damage to agent compensation long-term. I have a blog intended to be published early next week regarding this issue.
If commissions are considered "pass-through" and thus a part of the subscriber's cost of aquisition/servicing, then that leaves room for the subscriber to want to negotiate on the 'pass-through' commission expense (see: rebating) and ALSO would allow carriers to reduce the cost of insurance purchased direct from the carrier by the amount of the pass-through or some amount lower than the cost of aquisition/servicing under the current model (see PacifiCare).
This strategy is may be a bad one and could cost agents in the long run a lot more than the current MLR cuts to commission. We could end up competing with carrier direct sales units for sales in the field on an uneven pricing schedule.
Your thoughts?
If commissions are considered "pass-through" and thus a part of the subscriber's cost of aquisition/servicing, then that leaves room for the subscriber to want to negotiate on the 'pass-through' commission expense (see: rebating) and ALSO would allow carriers to reduce the cost of insurance purchased direct from the carrier by the amount of the pass-through or some amount lower than the cost of aquisition/servicing under the current model (see PacifiCare).
This strategy is may be a bad one and could cost agents in the long run a lot more than the current MLR cuts to commission. We could end up competing with carrier direct sales units for sales in the field on an uneven pricing schedule.
Your thoughts?
Last edited: