Rate Decrease Claim Dispute

[RayNY]

Ever wonder why you don't see the reports that get cited when politicians make claims like "Healthcare in NY is 50% under Obamacare"? They trumpet it all over the news, in major publications. They may even cite where the info comes from, but they never show it.

http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/656121.pdf <Report of Jan 2013 rates, NY is pg 36.

http://www.dfs.ny.gov/about/press2013/pr1307171_health_rates_2014.pdf <2014 exchange rates

Yes, no doubt, the most expensive plan is half the price. People with those plans aren't struggling to pay.

More importantly, the cheapest plan for a 31 year old is 50% MORE expensive. ($3029.60 compared to $1986) Median was $5750, about half of the Silver plans are more expensive.

Cheapest plan for a family went from $4454 to $8633.

THANKS OBAMA!

I'd show the CBO projections for 2014, but their claims on that are right. Rates increased by less than they guessed they would... IMO, comparing data to guesses has no validity besides establishing the validity of the estimates. They were bad estimates according to the data.

(Yes, I'm sure we all realize I'm comparing 2013 rates to 2014 rates. So are they, so at least I'm apples-to-apples when referring to their claims)

 

[leevena]

Keep in mind that PPACA actually made NY less expensive, which is an anomoly and easily explained. About 20 years ago your state changed their market to straight community rating (no adjustments for anything) and guaranteed issue. This, along with a few other things, caused your state to have one of the highest, if not highest, costs in the nation.

PPACA now allows for a 1:3 adjustment, resulting in some people seeing a savings. Hard to believe, but NY was actually more stringent than PPACA.

 

[RayNY]

Individual, on average, is less expensive. Won't debate that. I will debate it might have something to do with the $2,000+ monthly individual plans (that no one had) being eliminated. Small group saw next to no change.

NY is still more stringent. We have no rating bands or tobacco rating. Our MLR rates are 82/87, not 80/85. Our Dept of Financial Services has the ability to dictate premiums/rate increases, and uses it with reckless abandon. More than once, this has resulted in carriers being forced to cut all compensation on a product in order to get the broker community to pull all clients from that block into something commissionable. Their hands were tied otherwise, can't increase premium to cover risk, can't end coverage or roll to new product. (I've heard rumors of carriers being told "yes, that product loses money, just funnel profits from this profitable one to sure up reserves and deal with it." )

We also have a bunch of "mandatory riders", more than any state I know. Things like mammograms, well-child/baby at no cost, autism coverage, chiropractic, pre/post natal coverage, osteoperosis screening, etc. They all have a premium cost, estimate around $500/yr/person. This isn't changing.

Our main cost driver was GI with no mandate. That's a hell of a way to get adverse selection.