Study: Health law to raise claims cost 32 percent

[OU68]

WASHINGTON (AP) — A new study finds that insurance companies will have to pay out an average of 32 percent more for medical claims under President Barack Obama's health care overhaul.
What does that mean for you?
It could increase premiums for at least some Americans.


Ya think?

[olevetonahill]

I dont believe a word of it.

[Midtowner]

Who did the study?

[pphilfran]

Who did the study?

http://www.soa.org/

[Midtowner]

Okay, they're hardly an honest broker though.

It'd be as if the Bar Association published a news release touting the economic damages of tort reform. I do agree though with many who criticize healthcare reform in that there are not nearly enough cost control measures, and that's what we need more than anything else. My sort of cynical belief all along was that this bill was designed to create the expectation that we will receive healthcare an then to fail requiring us to take up new cost control measures we couldn't pass through the first time.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

THA is correct again... What is that I am batting against the lies of the Progressives??? 100% I think...

The Socialist lies exposed and agreed to by the uber-Progressive Sebelius... (http://www.humanevents.com/2013/03/27/hhs-secretary-finally-admits-obamacare-is-raising-insurance-costs/)

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Mid, you would think the sun is blue and would believe it if the Progressives told you so... and you saw for yourself it was yellow...

[badger]

It would be interesting to see how many people are going the take-your-chances route after the rise in premiums, rather than hold health insurance (or in a few years, pay the penalty for not having health insurance). It would also be interesting to see how many are opting for higher deductibles to keep their monthly (or whatever their schedule is) rate down.

[KantoSooner]

I strongly urge everyone to read Steven Brill's article in the 2/26 Time. The whole 29 pages. Incredibly well researched, and even handed. He blames the pharma comopanies, bent doctors, the evil effect of defensive medicine in the absence of tort reform, hospital admins and, in some cases, Medicare.
But here was one little factoid I walked away with: Medicare costs $0.84 to process a claim. 84 cents, folks. Versus over $9 for Aetna or other 'efficient' private insurers. In fact, Medicare comes off looking pretty good compared with the cost of medical care as administered by 'private sector' actors.
Read the article. It might make you mad, but you'll be glad you did.

[cleller]

Anyone experiencing lower costs in the medical area? Ours medical costs went up $1600 on our 1040 form from 2011 to 2012. Mostly insurance, my wife did have some higher expenses with some new contacts and stuff.

[BermudaSooner]

Okay, they're hardly an honest broker though.

It'd be as if the Bar Association published a news release touting the economic damages of tort reform. I do agree though with many who criticize healthcare reform in that there are not nearly enough cost control measures, and that's what we need more than anything else. My sort of cynical belief all along was that this bill was designed to create the expectation that we will receive healthcare an then to fail requiring us to take up new cost control measures we couldn't pass through the first time.

I'm not sure you understand who the Society of Actuaries are. They don't have a dog in this fight. They are mathematicians that use their best judgement to predict numbers in the future--whether it be number of deaths or uses of healthcare in the case of the SOA, or car crashes, hurricanes and fires in the case of the CAS (Casualty Actuarial Society).

Saying Obamacare costs more or less doesn't benefit them....and it sure isn't anything like the Bar association discussing tort reform.

In fact, the CAS (brother organization to the SOA) regularly publishes studies on tort reform to study the impact on different state laws. In virtually all cases they show savings from tort reforms. Actuaries in general work for insurers...it certainly isn't in insurers' long term interest to have tort reform..the higher the costs of a system, the higher the insurance premiums.

If you are going to find an objective source on Health reform/tort reform or any insurance and mathematics driven scheme, the SOA/CAS are as objective as you can get.

[BermudaSooner]

Medicare costs $0.84 to process a claim. 84 cents, folks. Versus over $9 for Aetna or other 'efficient' private insurers. In fact, Medicare comes off looking pretty good compared with the cost of medical care as administered by 'private sector' actors.


I'll take $9 a claim and drastically reduce fraud rather than the rampant Medicare fraud we have today.

[LakeRat]

I'll take $9 a claim and drastically reduce fraud rather than the rampant Medicare fraud we have today.

Good point! So if done properly to avoid $90 in fraud, they spend $9. Medicare spends .86 and has rampant fraud. Which is more efficient?

[Midtowner]

I'm not sure you understand who the Society of Actuaries are. They don't have a dog in this fight. They are mathematicians that use their best judgement to predict numbers in the future--whether it be number of deaths or uses of healthcare in the case of the SOA, or car crashes, hurricanes and fires in the case of the CAS (Casualty Actuarial Society).

Saying Obamacare costs more or less doesn't benefit them....and it sure isn't anything like the Bar association discussing tort reform.

In fact, the CAS (brother organization to the SOA) regularly publishes studies on tort reform to study the impact on different state laws. In virtually all cases they show savings from tort reforms. Actuaries in general work for insurers...it certainly isn't in insurers' long term interest to have tort reform..the higher the costs of a system, the higher the insurance premiums.

If you are going to find an objective source on Health reform/tort reform or any insurance and mathematics driven scheme, the SOA/CAS are as objective as you can get.

Yes, actuaries work for insurers. Ergo, any study commissioned by actuaries is going to be slanted towards insurers. There are many provisions of this law that insurers don't like, so of course, they'll through their surrogates publish "studies" predicting the sky to fall.

[FirstandGoal]

I strongly urge everyone to read Steven Brill's article in the 2/26 Time. The whole 29 pages. Incredibly well researched, and even handed. He blames the pharma comopanies, bent doctors, the evil effect of defensive medicine in the absence of tort reform, hospital admins and, in some cases, Medicare.
But here was one little factoid I walked away with: Medicare costs $0.84 to process a claim. 84 cents, folks. Versus over $9 for Aetna or other 'efficient' private insurers. In fact, Medicare comes off looking pretty good compared with the cost of medical care as administered by 'private sector' actors.
Read the article. It might make you mad, but you'll be glad you did.

Ah yes, I remember now that I was going to try to read this article this week. I would love a link if you have it.
The only thing that makes me hesitate is I'm afraid I might become a bit angry after reading it so maybe this week isn't the best time. Especially since I'm about to jump back on my bi-annual health care merry-go-round-from hell next month.

[jkjsooner]

it certainly isn't in insurers' long term interest to have tort reform..the higher the costs of a system, the higher the insurance premiums.

I get what you're saying, but it seems very backwards. It's like saying they want more natural disasters so they can charge higher premiums.

Pretty much every article I could find implied the exact opposite of what you said here.

[REDREX]

Anyone that thinks Obamacare will reduce costs is a fool

[BermudaSooner]

I get what you're saying, but it seems very backwards. It's like saying they want more natural disasters so they can charge higher premiums.

Pretty much every article I could find implied the exact opposite of what you said here.

I work for a very large insurer...trust me...I want natural disasters every once in a while.

Check out the stock prices of reinsurance companies after a major catastrophe---they generally go through the roof.

[BermudaSooner]

I get what you're saying, but it seems very backwards. It's like saying they want more natural disasters so they can charge higher premiums.

Pretty much every article I could find implied the exact opposite of what you said here.

Let me say it another way---lets assume Oklahoma has a $20 billion workers compensation market, and changes to the Oklahoma WC law would save 25%. Do you really think the workers compensation insurers in Oklahoma want to see their market shrink from $20 billion to $15 billion? Insurers, in general, make money as a percent of the premium they charge. If the premium in the market decreases, insurers have less to make.

I have used a broad brush here...there are some reforms an insurer would support, but in general reforms that shrink the market are not in an insurer's favor.

[KantoSooner]

Ah yes, I remember now that I was going to try to read this article this week. I would love a link if you have it.
The only thing that makes me hesitate is I'm afraid I might become a bit angry after reading it so maybe this week isn't the best time. Especially since I'm about to jump back on my bi-annual health care merry-go-round-from hell next month.
Peem me, I'll send you a copy, my linkie is dead, but maybe at Time.com?

[KantoSooner]

I'll take $9 a claim and drastically reduce fraud rather than the rampant Medicare fraud we have today.
Read the article. You, in particular, would enjoy it. Medicare apparently can negotiate on services...and does so effectively, resulting in their paying far less for items in that category. Now, on meds and on medical appliances? (wheelchairs, pacemakers, aspirins, Avastin, etc) They are barred BY CONGRESS from negotiating at all. Blew my mind. On those items, even Medicare folks have to pay the 'Chargemaster rates'.
So, in short, Medicare kind of does okay on those items where it is allowed to do its job. And Bermuda, I am NOT a friend of big government.
One example given was a 'sub dermal muscle stimulator' (to relieve chronic muscle spasms). Apparently (and these are round numbers) the thing costs something like $3,000 to make. It's sold overseas in the $6K range and the company's own books show that such sales are profitable, so it we can assume that at worst the cost of production, all in, is less than that. It was sold to the hospital here in the US at around $18K and billed to the patient (not including surgery fees, etc) at $48K. Medicare was only allowed to challenge the surgery fees and hospital fees, not the cost of the medical appliance.

I am sure there is fraud, but that does not eliminate the issues raised in Brill's article. Read it.

[sappstuf]

Yes, actuaries work for insurers. Ergo, any study commissioned by actuaries is going to be slanted towards insurers. There are many provisions of this law that insurers don't like, so of course, they'll through their surrogates publish "studies" predicting the sky to fall.

What about the state of California? They approve of Obamacare, but their study has almost the same findings...


A study commissioned by the State of California says that the new federal health care law will drive up individual insurance premiums, but that subsidies will offset most of the increase for low-income people.

The study, issued Thursday in the midst of a growing national debate over the impact of the law, is significant because California is far ahead of most states in setting up a competitive marketplace, or exchange, where people can buy insurance this fall.

Premiums could increase by an average of 30 percent for higher-income people in California who are now insured and do not qualify for federal insurance subsidies, the study said.

It sure seems like that 30% comes up fairly often... And of course these costs will be passed on to the consumers.

http://www.healthexchange.ca.gov/Documents/Factors%20Affecting%20Individual%20Premiums%20FINA L%203-28-2013.pdf