Selling Against the HRA Approach

[ABC]

As I just sold my first true HRA with Individual plans 1-1-13.

I am wrapping up a small group that was on the HRA and moving to a traditional group plan.

The group wanted to get off of the HRA approach because they wanted a stream line approach to benefits. They did not want their employees to have any confusion about health insurance. It turns out the producer that put them on the HRA was not providing a lot of after the sale service.

HUH, could this be something that becomes common with HRA producers? There is not a lot of comp for producers to spend time with cases like this.(7 lives) Thus the approach becomes murky with new hires. The group plan was an easy sale because the employees were all preferred risk.

 

[Ann H]

I likewise see a churning market coming up. HRA plans changing to group. Group changing to HRA. Group imploding for subsidies in the exchange. Employers keeping group plans to keep valued employees out of the exchange...

For those of us who write group, the HRA + IFP/exchange model requires a lot more work. Yet while we are talking to individuals (and their spouses!), we still need to keep up the service level for the employer because of cross-selling, because we want referrals for the new-hires, because the employer may go back to a group plan, and also because the employer still has a lot of influence in guiding employees.

 

[leevena]

I just saw this post, and I have not fully read through the ACA update from Friday, but isn't this now outlawed? Meaning taking people from fully-insured to an employer funded HRA for individual plans?

 

[Ann H]

I just saw this post, and I have not fully read through the ACA update from Friday, but isn't this now outlawed? Meaning taking people from fully-insured to an employer funded HRA for individual plans?

There's a thread on this subject in the Health Care Reform forum. It means that employers with 50+ FTE's can't get around the play or pay penalties this way, and it means that small group that does an HRA + IFP/exchange model is not establishing a QEHB group plan. However, those of us who have posted to that thread are still a little fuzzy about the details, so please add your comments and help us reach a firm conclusion about what the new HHS guidance means for our groups.

 

[ABC]

I have not heard anything about new guidelines on HRA's form HHS.
Do you have links on this topic?


The HRA approach has merit but I see customer service being a big issue with competition. The large agencies are running away from the under 100 market. They do not want to engage in any of the work required.

Ann, I think your post is spot on. A good broker is going to have 3 or 4 different options which a company can use. Flip Flopping those group from one option to the other could become common. A companies philosophy on benefits could change year to year.

 

[Ann H]

I have not heard anything about new guidelines on HRA's form HHS.
Do you have links on this topic?

YAgents posted some great links on the Health Care Reform forum, and some discussion of the details is going on now on that thread.

HRA's and Indemnity Plans Guidance

 

[leevena]

There's a thread on this subject in the Health Care Reform forum. It means that employers with 50+ FTE's can't get around the play or pay penalties this way, and it means that small group that does an HRA + IFP/exchange model is not establishing a QEHB group plan. However, those of us who have posted to that thread are still a little fuzzy about the details, so please add your comments and help us reach a firm conclusion about what the new HHS guidance means for our groups.

As Sgt. Schultz said, "I know nothing"! Busy weekend and Monday with other things. Will research and come back in a day or two.