October 14, 2019

Study Shows Insurance Companies Planning Rate Increases Based on Deer Collision “Modeling”

The actual title of a report published in the Maine Environmental News, reads: “Study shows Maine drivers 20% more likely to collide with a deer this year over last year.” Being that this conclusion appears to be based on computer generated projections, I see this study as nothing more than a means to justify what consumers can expect: rate increases.

The study says Maine people are 20% more likely to run into a deer this year compared to last year. The problem is, the only explanation State Farm gives for this might be buried in the next to last paragraph:

“Using its claims data and state licensed driver counts from the Federal Highway Administration, State Farm, the nation’s leading auto insurer, calculates the chances of any single American motorist striking a deer during the time frame of July 1, 2013 to June 30, 2014 in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The data has been projected for the insurance industry as a whole, based on the State Farm personal vehicle market penetration within each state. The State Farm data is based on comprehensive and collision claims only. Claims involving policyholders with liability insurance coverage only are not included.”

This kind of tactic runs rampant throughout American society. Scare the hell out of people and then you can do whatever you want with them; in this case increase insurance rates due to “computer modeling projections” based on nothing more than bull*%&#

Share

New Study Confirms Health Plans on Individual Market in 2013 Were Higher Quality than Plans on Exchanges

Study Shows Single 27-Year-Olds and 57-Year-Old Couples had Access to Plans with Better Cost-Sharing and Larger Provider Networks Prior to ObamaCare Exchanges

Claims by President Obama, Ed Schultz and Others that Plans in the Individual Market Were ‘Substandard’ or ‘Crappy’ Do Not Hold Up

Today is Two Months to the Day to Start of ObamaCare’s Next Open Enrollment Period

Washington, DC – The ObamaCare exchanges have reduced the quality of insurance polices when compared to what existed in 2013 on the individual market, says a just-released study from the National Center for Public Policy Research entitled, “Despite ObamaCare Supporters’ Claims, Health Insurance Plans Prior to ObamaCare Exchanges Were Neither ‘Crappy’ Nor ‘Substandard.'”

“When millions of people were losing their health insurance plans in late 2013, ObamaCare supporters claimed those plans were of poor quality, calling them substandard and even ‘crappy’,” said study author Dr. David Hogberg, health care policy analyst at the National Center. “But they never provided any evidence to support those claims. Quite to the contrary, this study shows that in important ways, the plans on the individual market it 2013 were of better quality than those on the ObamaCare exchanges.”

Today is two months to the day before the ObamaCare open enrollment period re-opens on November 15.

The study compared the cost-sharing — i.e., the deductibles and the out-of-pocket maximums — of plans on the individual market in 2013 and on the ObamaCare exchanges in ten major metropolitan areas for a 27-year-old single person and a 57-year-old couple. It also examined the provider networks, comparing the number of health maintenance organization (HMO) plans to preferred provider organizations (PPO) plans in the individual markets and ObamaCare exchanges.

It found:

• There was an average of 33 plans in each area for a 27-year-old on the individual market that had lower premiums and lower or equal deductibles and out-of-pocket maximums than the cheapest plans on the ObamaCare exchanges. Milwaukee, Wisconsin had the most such plans with an average of 68.

• For a 57-year-old couple there was an average of 10 policies in each area that had lower premiums and lower or equal cost-sharing in the 2013 individual market than the cheapest plans on the ObamaCare exchanges. Louisville, Kentucky had the most with an average of 26.

• The ObamaCare exchanges had many more of the restrictive HMO networks in their plans relative to the individual market, an average of 16 more HMO plans for both 27-year-olds and 57-year-olds.

• The less restrictive PPOs were more common in the individual markets, with an average of 32 more plans with PPOs for 27-year-olds and 25 more for 57-year-olds.

“Overall, the ObamaCare exchanges have resulted in a decline in health-plan quality,” said Dr. Hogberg. “Almost no one would consider it an improvement in quality to pay a higher premium and get less out-of-pocket coverage as was the case with policies on the exchange, and few would consider more restrictive networks to be better quality.”

“We can expect quality to continue to decline as long as ObamaCare is in place,” he said.

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than four percent from foundations, and less than two percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors.

Contributions to the National Center are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.

Share

Taxpayers Should Plan for Insurance Company Bailouts

Humana Chief Broussard Says Humana Will Not Reject Taxpayer Funds if it Incurs Losses on ObamaCare Exchange

Humana May Take up to $450 Million in Taxpayer Money from ObamaCare Risk Adjustment Provisions, Including the Risk Corridor

Taxpayers Should Not Be Forced to Shield Humana From Risky Business Decisions, Health Policy Expert Says

Tampa, FL /Washington DC – Responding to a question about ObamaCare’s risk corridors at Humana’s shareholder meeting today, Humana President and CEO Bruce Broussard declined to promise that the health insurance industry giant will reject taxpayer bailouts. Broussard was responding to a question from David Hogberg, Ph.D. of the National Center for Public Policy Research, who asked, in part:

In February, Forbes reported that Humana planned to take up between $250 million and $450 million from the “risk adjustment mechanisms in ObamaCare” including the risk corridor. Then in March, the Obama Administration proposed changes to the ACA that may increase this potential bailout for insurers in 2015 by ballooning the amount that taxpayers may have to pay insurers for company losses.

The taxpayers are already on the hook for so much of this law. So, my question to you is, if the situation arises where Humana qualifies for taxpayer money through the risk corridor, can we get your promise that you will reject it?

Broussard replied:

No, we will not make that promise.

I think, as a supporter of our members and continuing to strive to ensure that our members have an affordable plan, that’s one of the opportunities that is presented in being able to fulfill that.

One side comment to that, I think that’s an important aspect of that as a result of the Affordable Care Act, that there is a significant industry fee that is helping support the… ah… particular reinsurance that you are referring to — and risk corridors, and so on. The reinsurance fee for Humana this year is close to $700 million. That is not a tax-deductible expense — so, in some ways, that particular reinsurance in all the corridors that you are referring to are… is actually financed by the industry overall.

Thank you for your question.

“I ‘m disappointed but not surprised by Broussard’s response,” Hogberg said. “Getting involved in the ObamaCare exchanges is risky, and insurers would be much less likely to take that risk unless a government bailout was in place. Nevertheless, taxpayers shouldn’t be forced to shield Humana or any other insurance company from risky business decisions.”

An audio recording of the exchange is available online here, and David Hogberg’s full question, as prepared for delivery, is available here.

David Hogberg is one of the nation’s leading health care policy analysts, and a frequent media commentator on health care issues. So far in 2014, he has been a TV or radio guest 85 times, and been cited by newspapers over 100 times.

Various publications by Dr. Hogberg are available here, and his March 11 testimony at the U.S. Senate on the problems with government-run health care systems can be viewed here.

David Hogberg appeared at the Humana meeting representing National Center Chairman Amy Ridenour, a Humana shareholder.

The National Center’s Free Enterprise Project is a leading free-market corporate activist group. In 2013, Free Enterprise Project representatives attended 33 shareholder meetings advancing free-market ideals in the areas of health care, energy, taxes, subsidies, regulations, religious freedom, media bias, gun rights and many other important public policy issues. Today’s Humana meeting was the National Center’s 13th attendance at a shareholder meeting so far in 2014.

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, three percent from foundations, and three percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors.Contributions are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.

Share

Mandatory Liability Insurance for Gun Owners?

Rapid-fire weapons capable of mass casualties would require higher premiums than less-lethal firearms.<<<Read More from the Wall Street Journal>>>

Share