NAIC Commissioner’s Fall Back on Medical Loss Ratio

You know that expression, “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me”? Well, it came to mind this past week at the National Association of Insurance Commissioner’s (NAIC) fall meeting in Washington, DC. Just as in March, during the NAIC’s spring meeting in Austin, the NAIC consumer representatives were lulled into a false sense of complacency. “This will be a quiet meeting,” everyone said. “No votes on health care issues.” And that Task Force that had taken up the cause of insurance agents and brokers last summer to push for removing agent compensation from the medical loss ratio (MLR)? “They’re not even meeting,” we were told. “NAIC is done with that issue,” they said.

Imagine our disappointment and surprise when rumors started to swirl Thursday afternoon—the first day of the conference—that the commissioner from Florida planned to introduce a resolution at the NAIC’s final plenary meeting, urging Congress to consider and adopt legislation to “preserve consumer access to agents and brokers.”

When we finally saw a draft, the resolution was alarming. It ignored the considerable data collected by the NAIC’s actuarial task force over the summer, as well as the thoughtful recommendations they had developed. If it passed, it could have given momentum to H.R. 1206, which renders the medical loss ratio (MLR) requirements in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) effectively useless as a tool to help consumers get greater value for their health care dollar.

Once again, the consumer representatives swung into action, alerting the media and networks of advocates in the states. Alerts went out, urging consumer groups to contact their state insurance commissioners and let them know they opposed the resolution. The good news: the advocacy worked. NAIC’s membership agreed to delay a vote on the resolution. The bad news? The issue could come back up on a call scheduled for November 22, which consumer representatives will closely monitor. However, a number of commissioners raised sufficient concerns about the lack of notice that NAIC is likely to revisit their rules for bringing up last-minute resolutions.

MLR wasn’t the only thing on the Commissioners’ minds last week. The subgroup on Exchanges, chaired by Commissioner Sandy Praeger (of Kansas), also met. They heard testimony from one of our own consumer representatives, Sarah Lueck from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. She did a great job outlining the importance of a seamless experience for consumers as they seek eligibility determinations and make decisions about enrolling in health plans. The subgroup appears poised to take up model regulations for Exchanges, based on the rulemaking coming out of the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

In another important development, the regulatory framework task force has begun work on a model state law to implement some of the Affordable Care Act’s 2014 insurance reforms (i.e., guaranteed issue, modified community rating, and elimination of pre-existing condition exclusions). The draft currently applies only to the group insurance market, but members discussed adding individual market reforms as well. Getting this right is really important, because this model law is likely to be the framework many states use to adopt the central reforms of the ACA. The NAIC is taking comments on the first draft, and we would encourage consumer groups to submit comments, particularly those of you from states with protections that are stronger than the minimum standards set by the ACA.

In addition, the NAIC’s health actuarial task force is taking up some challenging topics that will have direct bearing on the success of the ACA:

• -- They will be working with HHS to develop “state-specific” thresholds for reasonable health insurance rate increases. Under the rate review rule, HHS is currently using a national standard of 10 percent (if a rate increase is 10 percent or greater, it triggers an automatic review). Starting in 2012 they will transition to state-based thresholds to better reflect local market conditions.
• -- They will work on recommendations to HHS and states for the ACA’s “3 Rs”—risk adjustment, reinsurance, and risk corridors. Their most immediate task is to finalize comments on a white paper HHS released in September.
• -- They will review data on the use of self-insurance by employers, particularly smaller employers and assess whether it is increasing as a result of the ACA’s insurance reforms. This will be an important study. A number of insurance companies are becoming more aggressive in marketing self-insurance to small businesses, because it allows them to escape key insurance reforms (such as the essential health benefits package and the modified community rating).

Last but not least, I was surprised to hear a couple of broker groups take time out of their Industry Liaison meeting agenda to complain about the NAIC’s consumer representative program. They argued that the consumer reps weren’t “diverse” enough in terms of our perspective on the ACA, complained the media mistakenly report that we speak on behalf of the NAIC, and even suggested many of us have a conflict of interest because some day we might – gasp – take grants to serve as Navigators. For myself, I take their whining as a badge of honor. The fact that they would take the time to complain about our small band of consumer reps suggests that we’re actually having an impact at NAIC.

—Sabrina Corlette, Research Professor Georgetown Health Policy Institute