Actuarial Outpost
 
Go Back   Actuarial Outpost > Actuarial Discussion Forum > Health - Disability
FlashChat Actuarial Discussion Preliminary Exams CAS/SOA Exams Cyberchat Around the World Suggestions

Bengaluru - Chennai - Hyderabad - Pune
Actuarial Jobs in India
New Delhi - Mumbai - Gurgaon


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-21-2009, 06:39 PM
ChecksTheMath ChecksTheMath is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 17
Default Public Option

If the Public Option becomes a reality and the Industry has a new competitor to deal with i.e. The Federal Health Insurance Company Inc (FCI). then I am assuming that FCI will not have to worry about the following:

1. Commissions and Brokerage Fees
2. State Premium Tax
3. Profit
4. Having to file and deal with 50 separate Insurance Departments
5. Compliance with all the Regulations, Guidelines
6. Compliance with SOX
7. IRS & State Audits
8. Hiring Actuaries

These constitute a large chunk of change that they would not have to factor into their pricing.

So my question is. How will the Health Insurance Industry be able to compete unless the following happens:

1. NAIC finally gets its act together and centralizes (4) and (5)
2. Elimination of State Premium Taxes
3. Reduction in Commission rates
4. Smaller profits
5. Drastic reductions in administration and other costs

Even then the Industry would be dealing with a very large (Monopolistic?) competitor who will be big enough to make all sorts of deals with Providers, Drug Companies etc.

Is this the death knell of the Health Insurance Industry?

Would like to know your thoughts.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-21-2009, 07:58 PM
Sub_Zero Sub_Zero is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 257
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChecksTheMath View Post
If the Public Option becomes a reality and the Industry has a new competitor to deal with i.e. The Federal Health Insurance Company Inc (FCI). then I am assuming that FCI will not have to worry about the following:

1. Commissions and Brokerage Fees
2. State Premium Tax
3. Profit
4. Having to file and deal with 50 separate Insurance Departments
5. Compliance with all the Regulations, Guidelines
6. Compliance with SOX
7. IRS & State Audits
8. Hiring Actuaries
9. Solvency

ifyp
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-21-2009, 08:32 PM
Dr T Non-Fan Dr T Non-Fan is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Just outside of Nowhere
Posts: 38,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChecksTheMath View Post
If the Public Option becomes a reality and the Industry has a new competitor to deal with i.e. The Federal Health Insurance Company Inc (FCI). then I am assuming that FCI will not have to worry about the following:
...
Is this the death knell of the Health Insurance Industry?

Would like to know your thoughts.
Yes, it would be.
Public Option is more complicated than simply reducing the Medicare Age Eligibility to 0.
If the latter happens, then there will be a large Med-Supplemental/-Advantage market. Insurers can still provide supplemental or replacement-for-fee insurance.
__________________
DTNF's Basic Philosophy Regarding Posting: There's no emoticon for what I'm feeling! -- Jeff Albertson (CBG)
DTNF's Standard Career Advice: "pass some exams and get back to us."
DTNF's Law of Job Offers: You not only have to qualify for the position, but you also have to be the best candidate available for the offer.
DTNF's Work Philosophy: I am actuary. Please insert data. -- Actuary Actuarying Rodriguez.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-22-2009, 11:06 AM
Drewby's Avatar
Drewby Drewby is offline
Member
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: There is an arch downtown...
Studying for my middle-age physical
College: Drake '87
Favorite beer: Bud Light Golden Wheat
Posts: 2,439
Default

I concur that the "public option" will eventually lead to the death of the health insurance industry. The public plan will NOT be able to compete fairly in the marketplace.
__________________
Thanks - I'll be here all week - don't forget to tip your waitress and bartender!!
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-22-2009, 11:23 AM
FormLetter's Avatar
FormLetter FormLetter is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 7,751
Default

If the public option was not given any of the artificial advantages listed above, then it would be exactly the same as a private plan, subject to all the same forces. In that case, it would be the same as another private plan entering the market.

So that leaves the public option as either being just another private plan, which is the exact thing that is supposed to be "kept honest", or it is given artificial advantages.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-22-2009, 12:54 PM
Drewby's Avatar
Drewby Drewby is offline
Member
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: There is an arch downtown...
Studying for my middle-age physical
College: Drake '87
Favorite beer: Bud Light Golden Wheat
Posts: 2,439
Default

My post came from the position that the "public option" CAN NOT/WILL NOT be "just another private plan", which I truly believe to be its ultimate character. It will have too many advantages, some of them inherent (lack of taxes for one).
__________________
Thanks - I'll be here all week - don't forget to tip your waitress and bartender!!
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-26-2009, 08:58 PM
EasternSierra's Avatar
EasternSierra EasternSierra is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Studying for FAP Modules
Favorite beer: Pliny the Elder
Posts: 24
Default

The idea of a public option is to compete with insurers is a bad idea, unless you're trying to put health insurers out of business (which is maybe perhaps the goal.)

One of the major problems with healthcare in this country is the underlying cost. Medical inflation drives people's premiums up and then less people can afford health insurance. The idea behind the public option is that it will create more competition to help lower the cost of care. This is baloney. Normallly, having more competition in a free market lowers the price. However, the opposite is true with health insurers, when there are lots of competing health insurers in a market, none of them can get very good discounts with providers so they all end up negotiating higher rates and hence have to set higher premiums. If you want to reduce costs then you want monopolistic pressure. (Of course, providers don't like this.)
__________________
"Let's explore. If we do not find anything pleasant, we will at least find something new." - Voltaire
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10-27-2009, 03:50 AM
2pac Fan 2pac Fan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 49
Default

My knowledge is little on this and it was nice to see that yahoo ran a story today on how little profits health insurance companies make compared to other industries. Also how the profits for health insurance companies are around 2% where pharm companies profits can be around 10%. Hopefully more articles can shift the focus around.

Any chance the public option could lower salaries of doctors, and hospital employees by paying less aka medicare reimbursements?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10-27-2009, 03:54 AM
2pac Fan 2pac Fan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 49
Default

Also why is no one pushing a system similar to work comp more. Where everyone has to get coverage, and public options cover the people that can't get coverage subsidized by the rest?

Don't some states have public option already? New York or Mass? Maybe I am just missing a lot, I would like to reiterate I don't have much knowledge on the subject.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 10-27-2009, 03:58 AM
2pac Fan 2pac Fan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 49
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EasternSierra View Post
The idea of a public option is to compete with insurers is a bad idea, unless you're trying to put health insurers out of business (which is maybe perhaps the goal.)

One of the major problems with healthcare in this country is the underlying cost. Medical inflation drives people's premiums up and then less people can afford health insurance. The idea behind the public option is that it will create more competition to help lower the cost of care. This is baloney. Normallly, having more competition in a free market lowers the price. However, the opposite is true with health insurers, when there are lots of competing health insurers in a market, none of them can get very good discounts with providers so they all end up negotiating higher rates and hence have to set higher premiums. If you want to reduce costs then you want monopolistic pressure. (Of course, providers don't like this.)
Would the government option just be a way to push down lower reimbursements to pharm, and healthcare staff. As a private insurer you compete, as the government you can mandate that they accept the patients?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:10 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 0.44517 seconds with 6 queries