Joseph Paduda's weblog on managed care for group health, workers compensation & auto insurance, covering health care cost containment, health policy, health research, and medical news for insurers, employers, and healthcare providers.

Main

August 30, 2011

Goodnight Irene

We dodged a bomb.

Here in New England, it always seems the greater the media coverage around weather events, the less dramatic the impact when the actual events hit. Fortunately Irene was no exception. That's not to minimize the impact of Irene and especially the devastation in Vermont and upstate New York; reports indicate the damage far inland far exceeds what those of us on the coast experienced. While we are without power - and likely will be for another week or so - that's a minor inconvenience in comparison.

The silver lining of Irene's dark cloud is the impact on insurance markets. While irene's bill won't be large enough to turn the market harder, it's likely to have more of an additive effect, coming as it did on top of the tornadoes, tsunami, and flooding earlier in the year. The sum of all these events will certainly help to firm up the P&C market and not just in property lines. Insurers are looking for any reason to increase rates and this latest event may well push a few more to tighten underwriting and raise premiums.

We would do well to remember we are nowhere near the end of hurricane season; Irene has relatives that may come calling this fall and they may be nastier still.

June 27, 2011

Tort reform - another perspective

Remember the woman who sued McDonald's and won millions ($2.9 million to be precise) after spilling hot coffee on herself? Like millions of others, you may have been outraged at the award for something so trivial.

There's a film on HBO tonight that you should watch.

Hot Coffee is a documentary about Stella Liebeck, the elderly woman who spilled coffee on herself and sued McDonald's, "while exploring how and why the case garnered so much media attention, who funded the effort and to what end."

Like most, I read the headlines abut the suit back in 1992 and thought "jeez, this is ridiculous".

Maybe not.

This from wikipedia:
"Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman from Albuquerque, New Mexico, ordered a 49 cent cup of coffee from the drive-through window of a local McDonald's restaurant. Liebeck was in the passenger's seat of her Ford Probe, and her nephew Chris parked the car so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. Stella placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap

Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants; they absorbed the [180 degree] coffee and held it against her skin, scalding her thighs, buttocks, and groin. Liebeck was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent. She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. During this period, Liebeck lost 20 pounds (9 kg, nearly 20% of her body weight), reducing her down to 83 pounds (38 kg). Two years of medical treatment followed."

Without being too graphic, think about that. An entire cup of 180 degree coffee dumped in your crotch, causing third degree burns on an extremely sensitive area with millions of nerve endings. An anatomical region involved in rather essential physiological functions.

Disclosure - my wife's family was involved in McDonald's for decades, we still own stock in the company, and know many fine people at McDonald's.

May 24, 2011

UPDATE - Just amazingly dumb.

UPDATE - this story gets ever more bizarrre; Business Insurance had a piece describing how employees at the party were snorting salt.

Right, that was my reaction as well; wha...SALT?? UP THEIR NOSE??

what the heck were they thinking? And is it somehow better that the folks in the pictures were inhaling salt and squeezing limes into their eyes rather than snorting coke?

Jeez, I thought I'd seen sales folks do some dumb things but we Americans can't hold a candle to the Germans!

For those interested in photo documentation, click here. Note - the photos are from a German tabloid, and their standards for what is suitable for publication may be different from what you'd expect...

The latest - and greatest - incident of unbelievably bad judgment came to light only yesterday, four years after the transgression occurred. This time, the miscreants who went so far over the stupid line they had to fly back were employed by a German insurer, since acquired by Ergo Insurance. Reports from several credible sources , including the company itself, indicate >HM Insurance rewarded their top sales personnel (men, I assume) with a night to remember in the Gellert Thermal Baths.

What made this so special was not only the setting; the Gellert Baths are one of the more historic sites in Budapest; or the cost, a reported 83,000 Euros; or the sponsor (an insurance company!!). No, what made this unique was the reward for those reps who consistently performed.

budapest-gellert-pool_chop1n.jpg
(photo credit to adventurouskate.com)

Twenty prostitutes were there to personally congratulate the top sales staff, conveniently positioned in four-poster beds located around the edge of the central pool.

I kid you not.

Here's how one attendee remembered the soiree:

"Anyone could go to one of the beds with one of the ladies and do what he wanted. The ladies were marked with stamps on their forearms after each such meeting. So it was recorded how often each lady frequented."

"The ladies wore red and yellow wrist bands. One group were there as hostesses, and the others were to fulfill any and every desire," he added. "There were also ladies with white wrist bands. They were reserved for the board and the very best salesmen."

So, not only were they idiots, they were misogynistic idiots.

What's almost as amazing as the fact that this occurred at all is the somewhat blase' way the company is addressing this now.

Then again, maybe that's just brilliant PR.

January 2, 2011

What's up for 2011 - predictions for work comp in the Next Year

This always seems like a good idea in January, looks like a not-well-thought-thru idea in July, and by December morphs into a well-it-coulda-been-worse idea.

But I've got a short memory, so here goes - in no particular order, predictions for the comp world in 2011.

1. Business will pick up - a lot. Hiring numbers are up, there's considerable growth in high-frequency areas like logistics, construction, and health care, and frequency itself is trending higher. What's been a looooong, cold winter in the work comp world is getting much brighter.

2. We'll see several new comp writers enter the market - as things pick up, the capital that has been parked, waiting for a better, more promising opportunity, will start coming into comp, providing increased underwriting capacity in selected markets. I don't see this as a flood, but more as selective entrance into specific markets.

3. Sedgwick will continue to snap up TPA operations, supply-chain pieces, and managed care vendors as it expands its leadership position. And there will be plenty from which to select, as a few TPAs are just barely holding on.

4. The exploding growth of opioid usage in narcotics in comp will become even more prominent, with several states seeking ways to attack the issue via regulation - or even legislation. NCCI and CWCI have done excellent work identifying the problem, now it's time for regulators to give payers the tools they need to really impact overuse of opioids.

5. Obesity's impact on work comp costs will gain more attention, as additional research will show significantly higher costs, longer disability durations, and lower RTW rates for the obese and morbidly obese. Employers will get tougher on new hires and existing employees alike, requiring both to meet and maintain body mass standards to get - and stay - hired.

6. Congress will not solve the Medicare physician reimbursement conundrum, choosing instead to kick the ever-growing deficit into 2012. As all comp provider fee schedules save one (California, for now) are based on Medicare's RBRVS, there will be no change forced on states due to political possibilities in Washington.

7. Hospital and facility costs, both inpatient and out, are going to get a lot more attention in payers' C suites. Look for a lot more action on the part of big payers and self-insured employers as they seek to hold the line on cost increases driven by declining discounts and exploding utilization; action that will take the form of network shopping, intensive specialty bill review, and, for the smarter and more data-driven payers, more assertive direction to lower cost facilities.

8. We'll see more litigation around 'silent PPOs' in more states. As providers learn more about the layering/stacking/combining of multiple PPOs, more will decide to litigate, driven in part by the success of other efforts in states such as Illinois and Louisiana. This will be driven - in large part - by the legislative/judicial environment in specific jurisdictions, and in equal measure by outraged providers angry that they are giving discounts to patients who just happened to stumble into their practices.

I've saved the two biggest for last.

9. Social media is going to make its presence felt broadly and deeply in comp, in ways obvious and not, good and bad - The time-to-implementation for new and better ways of doing things, quick vetting of new ideas, and dissemination of best practices and alerts about new dangers/problems in the work comp world are all accelerating/improving as more and more of us use the myriad social networking tools. From the start of 'social media' in comp - which was probably marked by the publication of Workers Comp Insider more than seven years ago (!!) , through the explosive growth of Mark Walls' Work Comp Analysis Group on LinkedIn, to Facebook, Twitter, photosharing sites and user groups, there are now dozens of ways to share, send, find, and uncover information that - back a mere eight years ago - was either never going to be found, or would have taken days if not weeks of digging, or was outright impossible to get without convening a few thousand WC pros in a room and asking them to respond to a question.

This is a powerful force for efficiency, a terrific tool for claims and underwriting and medical management and planning. It is also one fraught with danger - the danger of believing everything you read on the Internet just because it agrees with your mindset; the risk of taking action based on unsubstantiated rumors, the potential for privacy violation, and perhaps most common, the risk of embarrassment that comes from passing on 'information' to others before vetting it yourself (especially MCM's annual April Fool's posts...)

10. The impact of health reform on workers comp will happen in ways mostly subtle. The industry was served notice late last year of just how much reform is going to affect comp when Humana announced it was buying Concentra, the largest provider of primary occ injury care in the nation - for reasons completely unrelated to work comp. We can expect to see:

- consolidation in the health plan industry as size becomes even more important

- more vigorous enforcement of anti-trust regulations that may well block some of these deals

- providers getting increasingly hard-nosed in negotiations with comp networks

- changes to fee schedules as RBRVS changes flow thru the system

- changes in provider practice patterns and utilization as physicians adapt to reform initiatives

And, equally likely, not see other effects early on because they are very subtle and we aren't even able to track them until they become blindingly obvious.

There you have it. What to watch for, where I think things are heading and what the impact will be. As sure as I am that I'm correct on a few/some of these, I'm just as sure there are some big ones I missed completely, and others I predicted that won't happen at all.

But January always brings out the optimist in me!

Here's to your New Year - may your positive predictions come true, and your negative ones not.

December 15, 2010

What happens without a mandate?

That depends on whether the rest of the reform bill survives without that clause. I've heard from a couple of sources that the Accountable Care Act doesn't include a severability clause. If that is true, than the entire bill may be thrown out if the mandate is ruled un-Constitutional.

That's for others steeped in the details of the ACA and law to figure out. As I'm sure they will.

(Lest we get all excited about the Virginia case, note that there have been about twenty suits filed so far re the ACA, 12 have been dismissed and in two other cases both judges ruled the mandate is Constitutional.)

If the rest of the ACA does survive the demise of the mandate, we'll have a very, very interesting situation. Health insurers will be required to take all comers, the rates they can charge will be highly regulated, benefit plans consistent across most insurers and employers, and there will be no upcharging or medical underwriting or discrimination based on age, pre-existing conditions, or sex.

It would be tough to design a better recipe for disaster for insurers.

Nonetheless, that's what we'll be faced with if the mandate is removed; the rest of the Act will become law, and individuals and employers would - at least theoretically - be able to buy insurance when they need health care, and drop it when they don't.

There's already a precedence for this - in the Massachusetts experiment, loss ratios in the individual market for at least one health plan were about 600%.

The White House recognizes the problem - in a response to the latest court challenge to the mandate that is notable for its focus on individual responsibility for the costs of their care:

"However, unless every American is required to have insurance, it would be cost prohibitive to cover people with preexisting conditions. Here's why: If insurance companies can no longer deny coverage to anyone who applies for insurance - especially those who have health problems and are potentially more expensive to cover - then there is nothing stopping someone from waiting until they're sick or injured to apply for coverage since insurance companies can't say no. That would lead to double digit premiums increases - up to 20% - for everyone with insurance, and would significantly increase the cost health care spending nationwide. We don't let people wait until after they've been in a car accident to apply for auto insurance and get reimbursed, and we don't want to do that with healthcare. If we're going to outlaw discrimination based on pre-existing conditions, the only way to keep people from gaming the system and raising costs on everyone else is to ensure that everyone takes responsibility for their own health insurance."

Whether the President and/or Congress would try to overturn the ACA, or remove the underwriting language is to be determined. While the White House's statements to date acknowledge the issue, AHIP et al have few friends left among Democrats, and those friends would be hard pressed to convince the Administration to be nice to an industry that has been anything but to the Democrats.


October 6, 2010

The details on the AIG 'investment'

There's an excellent piece in the NYTimes detailing the results of the taxpayer investment in AIG.

Here are a couple highlights.

"First, the $180 billion headline figure [widely reported as the cost of the bailout] is not the right number to consider. Today, taxpayers have extended loans through the Federal Reserve and Treasury to the tune of about $130 billion, which is still a boatload of money. However, about $30 billion -- and he is rounding numbers here to make this easier -- of that total include assets that are owned in large part by the Federal Reserve through its Maiden Lane funds. Those assets, which were once considered troubled at the height of the panic in September 2008, have since increased in value and are now, as Mr. Millstein contends, "money good.""

A.I.G.'s sale of Alico to MetLife will be finalized in a couple months, for $6.8 billion in cash and $8.7 billion in securities.

The planned IPO of A.I.A. will produce about $12 billion.

Another $4.2 billion comes from the sale of AIG StarLifeInsurance and AIG Edison Life Insurance, to Prudential Financial.

"A.I.G is going to pay down the Fed's remaining $20 billion stake in two special-purpose vehicles, which hold the rest of Alico and A.I.A, he [Jim Millstein, the man in charge of unwinding our investment in AIG] explained.

That reduces the total figure owed taxpayers to just under $50 billion.

And here's the clincher.

"Treasury will own 1.6 billion shares, or 92 percent of the company. At A.I.G.'s share price on Monday, the government's stake would be worth about $62 billion, a $13 billion profit. That's if, of course, shareholders do not send shares tumbling because of the dilution.

Mr. Millstein is betting that investors will be bullish on the stock once they understand the government's plan to exit its investment over time."

There's no certainty here; there's a lot of moving pieces, markets can move, conditions can change, etc. However, the net is we taxpayers are likely to be out far less than $180 billion - far less.

What does this mean for you?

We dodged a bullet - but we better make sure we don't have to do this again, when we may not be as fortunate.

October 4, 2010

Why the AIG bailout was critical

The news has been full of reports about the recovery of insurance giant AIG, the once-mighty largest insurer in the world that crashed and burned when a tiny subsidiary gambled wildly and lost very, very big.

After the crash, the Obama Administration made the controversial, and much-debated, decision to bail out AIG and keep the company afloat. In a sound bite, AIG was judged 'too big to fail'; a view many disagreed with, some vehemently. I opined then, and reiterate now, that AIG was far too big to fail, as failure would have had effects far more devastating than those resulting from a taxpayer bailout that was never repaid.

I just re-read my post of a year and a half ago; here's the heart of the matter.

"AIG is not too big to fail; it is too 'connected' to be allowed to fail. AIG provides the underpinning for many pension funds and retirement plans; its financial instruments guarantee the returns for pensioners. It backs up the investment of many banks. It owns many of the airlines' airplanes, planes that might be repossessed if AIG goes under. AIG insures many Fortune 500 companies, and is among the largest writers of workers comp in the nation. It is a large individual auto insurer as well."

While free-market purists will argue that no business is too big to fail, I have to disagree. The economic impact of AIG's demise would have crushed every sector of the US economy, and slammed the world's as well. Everything from teachers' pensions to airplane manufacturing would have been hit, with some seriously hurt and others facing an uncertain future.

At the time (early 2009), that may well have been enough to turn a severe recession into a depression.

Instead, we now face the very real possibility that we taxpayers will get all of our money back, a fortunate event indeed, but one that should not blind us to the incredibly scary position we were in two years ago.

In retrospect even the most vehement opponents of the bailout should be pleased that taxpayers will be made whole. Undoubtedly the opponents will also argue that no business should ever get to the point where it is so important that it has to be bailed out by the Feds, but therein lies the problem with the purists' faith in the free market.

AIG's near-demise was a direct result of its participation in what was an almost-completely-unregulated business: credit default swaps and other derivative instruments. The significance of AIG's position as the leading firm in the business was such that its failure could have crippled the international banking system, with unknown, but likely far-reaching - and very bad - consequences for the world economy.

In retrospect, some experts believe other options could have, and should have, been considered before a bailout, but we're much smarter now than we were then.

What does this mean for you?

We dodged a bullet. But we'd have been much better served if the bullet had never left the barrel. As difficult, and onerous, and frustrating as regulations can be, the collapse of AIG serves notice that not enough regulation can be just as bad - or even worse - than too much.

October 19, 2009

Anti-trust and the Health Insurance Industry - what's this all about?

Last week the Senate Judiciary Committee held an initial hearing aimed at removing some of the health insurance industry's anti-trust exemptions. The hearing, entitled "Prohibiting Price Fixing and Other Anticompetitive Conduct in the Health Insurance Industry", may be a reaction - at least in part - to the health insurance industry's public (and private) assault on health reform legislation.

And over the weekend, President Obama added his considerable weight to the call for a review of the industry's anti-trust exemptions.

To be sure, AHIP's public slam of the Senate Finance Committee did nothing to strengthen relations with Democrats, and the hearing, (although put on the Committee's schedule on October 2, well before the AHIP report was released), was a fine opportunity for Senators outraged by AHIP's action to up the ante.

Like pretty much everything having to do with health insurance and reform and Washington, this isn't simple, and I certainly don't pretend to understand the details. But as near as I can make it out, here's what is causing heartburn among some.

Here's Julie Barnes' synopsis: "There are three sets of laws involved here; 1) the federal antitrust laws; 2) the state laws that regulate the insurance industry; and 3) the federal law passed in 1945 called the McCarran-Ferguson Act. The antitrust laws promote competition, and states have a long tradition of regulating insurance practices for their citizenry. The McCarran-Ferguson Act doesn't regulate insurance or prohibit certain anticompetitive behavior, but it does allow federal and state governments to regulate insurance and makes clear when antitrust laws do and do not apply to the insurance industry."

The issue is the industry's exemption from the McCarran-Ferguson antitrust laws (which is under the Judiciary Committee's purview). Providers have long contended that it is unfair for the payers to be exempt from these laws when providers are not; this, providers contend, is unfair. I'm not sure I buy that argument, as provider consolidation has been continuing regardless of the regulatory environment, and the negative effects of that consolidation were clearly illustrated in the Boston Mass market.

McCarran-Ferguson exempts insurance industry activities that: (a) constitute the business of insurance; (b) are regulated by State law; and (c) don't constitute an act of boycott, coercion, or intimidation. According to Barnes, the crux is the 'business of insurance' standard - and the Supreme Court has set up a test to determine if an activity is the business of insurance - (1) whether the activity has the effect of transferring or spreading a policyholder's risk; (2) whether the activity is an integral part of the policy relationship between insurer and insured; and (3) whether the activity is limited to entities within the insurance industry.

Over the years, the exemption has been tightened considerably - in particular mergers and acquisitions and provider contracting activities are generally not exempt, so anti-trust laws and regulation apply.

So what happens if Congress repeals the exemption? Way too early to tell, but undoubtedly even the whisper of this possibility is most unwelcome in health plan executive suites.

If you look at market concentration, there's no question the health insurance industry is not exactly competitive; 94% of insurance markets are 'highly concentrated'. Here are a few factoids using 2005 data; if anything there has been more market consolidation, so these percentages are even higher today...

- in 96% of markets, at least one insurer has share higher than 30%

- in almost two-thirds of the markets, one insurer has share greater than 50%

- in a quarter of the markets, one insurer has share at or above 70%

But repealing the industry's exemption is not likely to significantly increase market competition.

Which leads us back to the original question - Why?

My sense is this is a 'OK, you want to mess with us?' statement by the Senate Democrats. It is a very loud, and very close, shot across the bow of the industry intended to let them know in no uncertain terms that intransigence will be very, very costly.

What does this mean for you?

Watch to see how AHIP et al react. If they appear somewhat chastened, don't be surprised.

May 29, 2009

What's coming in MCM

I've been buried under a mountain of my own making, and have ignored/delayed writing on several major topics that demand attention. Now that the survey of bill review in work comp is done (will be emailed to requesters at 1 pm est today; if you have NOT already requested a copy via email you can do so at infoAThealthstrategyassocDOTcom) and a client project is just about wrapped up I'm going to get to the following:

- a discussion of NCCI's perspective on pending changes to the Medicare physician fee schedule, and the impact on workers comp medical costs

- a post on the implications of the economic recovery for group health, and another post on the implications for workers comp

- an update on the impact of the recession on physicians and hospitals

- a follow up piece on the Health Net policy rescission debacle

Promise.

March 26, 2009

The last word on AIG

Congress' political grandstanding and completely misdirected public outrage over the AIG bonuses brought back memories of the Terry Schiavo tragedy, where members of Congress embarrassed themselves and the nation by intervening in a family matter (Schiavo was in a persistent vegetative state and her husband wanted to take her off life support).

Hopefully the last word in this fiasco was published yesterday in the New York Times. You may already have seen the letter circulating from Jake DeSantis, a former AIG Financial Products exec who recently left the company after the public pillorying of everything AIG.

Congress' public outrage was beneath that body, misdirected, and counter-productive - and awful to watch. deSantis and his colleagues at AIGFP were (mostly) working diligently to unwind the bad investments entered into by their predecessors. Few, if any, of the idiots who caused the implosion of AIG are still with the company.

Yet the President and Congress (both Ds and Rs) took it upon themselves to publicly humiliate the very people who were trying to fix the problem. As did the attorneys general from Connecticut and New York as they sought political advantage from public outrage.

I said last week:

"Every minute we spend screaming about AIG's bonus plan is a minute not spent on fixing the company up to sell off assets. Every ounce of energy spent on this is wasted.

I don't know the details of the plan or how execs who left could still be paid or what the restructuring of the plan looks like (other than pushing half the payouts off and subjecting them to performance metrics). I do know the execs primarily responsible for the disaster are long gone and bonuses are being paid to those trying to clean up their mess.

I am quite sure everything possible is being done - within the law - to ensure our dollars are not used unless there is no other option.

Passing punitive legislation, faulting Geithner, citing changes in AIG's condition, all miss the point. That point is we need to fix AIG so we can sell off AIU holdings, Alico, the auto business, and the rest and thereby recoup taxpayer dollars. To expect a Treasury Secretary dealing with the greatest financial crisis in eighty years to know every detail about the bonus plan at one division at one company is ludicrous. Trying to tax these bonuses when most are paid to people that don't even live in the US is political grandstanding of the worst kind. Trying to weasel out of the contracts using tenuous arguments will do nothing but tie up AIG in litigation for years, likely extending the time it takes to wind down this operation and get our tax dollars repaid. "

What does this mean for you?

Our officials have done the nation and the good people of AIG a tremendous disservice.

March 18, 2009

AIG bonuses - get over it

We're all furious. You, me, the Feds, pundits and politicians. And that anger is not helping. In fact it is clouding our vision - and may well cause us even more harm.

Every minute we spend screaming about AIG's bonus plan is a minute not spent on fixing the company up to sell off assets. Every ounce of energy spent on this is wasted.

I don't know the details of the plan or how execs who left could still be paid or what the restructuring of the plan looks like (other than pushing half the payouts off and subjecting them to performance metrics). I do know the execs primarily responsible for the disaster are long gone and bonuses are being paid to those trying to clean up their mess.

I am quite sure everything possible is being done - within the law - to ensure our dollars are not used unless there is no other option.

Passing punitive legislation, faulting Geithner, citing changes in AIG's condition, all miss the point. That point is we need to fix AIG so we can sell off AIU holdings, Alico, the auto business, and the rest and thereby recoup taxpayer dollars. To expect a Treasury Secretary dealing with the greatest financial crisis in eighty years to know every detail about the bonus plan at one division at one company is ludicrous. Trying to tax these bonuses when most are paid to people that don't even live in the US is political grandstanding of the worst kind. Trying to weasel out of the contracts using tenuous arguments will do nothing but tie up AIG in litigation for years, likely extending the time it takes to wind down this operation and get our tax dollars repaid.

As I said Monday night on Nightline, the AIG Financial Products execs should not take the money and their decisions to do so (if in fact they have) are reprehensible. They are being rewarded for a monumental level of incompetence.

I'm disgusted, shocked and dismayed.

I also want my money back and if we have to pay these incompetents to recoup tens of billions of dollars to do that than I'll suck it up.


February 27, 2009

AIG - what happens on Monday.

AIG is set to announce a fourth quarter loss of some $60 billion. That's a huge, immense, devastating number. And one that likely spells the end of what was once the largest commercial insurer.

Most of the attention has focused on the Asian business, auto lines, and other financial operations. Amidst all the speculation about breakup, sale, outright takeover by the Feds, or business termination there is one missing element - a recognition of the value of the core business - AIG's domestic operations.

The domestic commercial insurance operations and underwriting companies (Commercial and American International Underwriters (AIU)) are in generally good shape. Reserves are solid, and share is excellent. While the company suffers from chronic under-investment in claims technology and a managed care strategy that could best be described as old-fashioned, there is a lot of value in the domestic business.

AIG is justifiably renowned for its underwriting skill; distribution is solid, and management is generally strong. It is the largest underwriter of workers comp, a line that has been quite profitable of late. AIG is also a large writer of property and general liability coverages. There's a nice, big business here, one that will undoubtedly be very valuable when the dust settles. But right now, no one wants to buy anything remotely associated with AIG. Intracompany relationships at AIG are tangled, interwoven webs - difficult to understand much less separate out. Any acquirer will have to be very sure they have extricated what they want, and left the rest behind, before closing a deal.

And right now there's just no interest in starting the process. Couple that risk aversion with the sense among many big carriers that it will be cheaper and less risky to just take over customers as they flee AIG, and oyu start to understand why a sale to another insurer is unlikely over the near term.

The Feds sure don't want the business. That leaves one other way to capture value - an IPO. Sure, that's a crazy idea - who would want to do an IPO these days? You'd have to be nuts, or desperate, to do an IPO. That's exactly the position AIG management finds themselves in - desperate.

The problem with an IPO - in addition to the obvious - is there has to be something left to sell - and that something includes management and staff. AIG is due to pay bonuses in a couple weeks, and if it doesn't, the exodus of talent will turn into a flood of Biblical proportions. That will strip AIG of the people it would need to make an IPO work. But, as anyone who's been paying attention will tell you, big financial companies that are getting big taxpayer bailouts better not pay any staff any bonuses.

There may be a pony in here. If deserving employees get shares in the new business, that may help convince them to stick around and recover some of the equity they lost as AIG's stock cratered.

Desperate times call for desperate measures. And the folks at 70 Pine Street are nothing if not desperate...

February 10, 2009

Coventry's earnings call - facility costs are the problem

The Allen Wise II era has begun with today's release of Coventry Health's fourth quarter 2008 earnings. Wise, who occupied the CEO/Chairman's office before the recently-departed Dale Wolf, resumed the position ten days ago after Wolf resigned.

Here's my key takeaway. Wise has figured out that Coventry's non-group lines of business - work comp and Medicare - were in part responsible for higher medical loss ratios for their group business. Recall that Coventry's medical loss ratio (MLR) sent up more than 300 basis points last spring, sending shock waves through the company.

It appears that Coventry's local network negotiators/provider relations staff had to consider medicare and WC when negotiating contracts with providers (especially facilities), and the larger providers said that if Coventry wanted deals on those lines, then their unit prices were going to increase. This led to higher MLRs on their core group business. For Coventry, higher costs are being driven by facility expense.

More to follow as I digest the call and comments.

Here are a couple highlights.

- Medicare Advantage membership increased 34% in 2008. I suppose that's good news, although the pending termination of the MA premium subsidy isn't going to help the profitability of that segment (expect a rapid cut in the Feds' 13% average subsidy this year).

- Commercial group membership declined each quarter in 2008, leading to a decline of ust under 100,000 members for the full year. This isn't necessarily bad news, as the company raised prices a lot after last summer's surprise disclosure that the Medical Loss Ratio unexpectedly jumped.

- The workers comp business is muddling along, with no evidence of growth. It's not possible to tease out the precise WC numbers as they are combined with other businesses in the Specialty Services Revenue line item - but that line was essentially flat quarter over quarter throughout 2008. And although it grew nicely (if my guess-timations are accurate), in the past, it looks like that growth leveled off during the last three quarters of 2008. For more on Coventry's WC top line growth strategy, click here.

Finally, what does the future hold? As I noted a year and a half ago, the company has "a tight focus on managing the medical loss ratio (MLR), although that 'management' appears to emphasize financial rather than medical management - the MLR strategy is driven much more by increasing premiums ahead of medical inflation than by actually 'managing' medical care and costs.

This will serve the company well over the near term, but the 'MLR management approach' has to change over the longer term."

What does this mean?
A change in management personnel may not mean any change in how the company operates. Simply put, Coventry has to change its business model from one that is financially driven (raise prices) to one that emphasizes medical management (actually add value). This is CEO Wise's second stint in the job; we'll see if he changes course.

Note - there's a lot to interpret, these are initial takeaways so more to follow

January 14, 2009

So, what does the UHC Ingenix settlement mean?

Likely quite a bit. But not for a while.

Here's the quick and dirty. NY Attorney General Andrew Cuomo has been after UHC sub Ingenix for over a year, accusing them and other insurers of defrauding consumers by manipulating reimbursement rates. Yesterday the first round came to a conclusion with the announcement of a settlement. According to the NY Times, Cuomo "ordered an overhaul of the databases the industry uses to determine how much of a medical bill is paid when a patient uses an out-of-network doctor".

Ingenix will pay $50 million to help fund development of an independent charge database by a not for profit; until the new vendor is selected Ingenix will continue to provide the UCR data through its MDR and PHCS products. Cuomo is still pursuing negotiations with other payers including Aetna.

Cuomo voiced concern that UHC, a very large payer, owned the company that determined how much it should pay in some circumstances to some providers (out of network physicians primarily) and therefore an inherent conflict of interest existed.

Some background is in order. Years ago, the health insurance industry's lobbying and service arm (HIAA) aggregated and compiled physician charge data as a service to its members. HIAA collected the data and fed it back to members, who then used the data to determine how much they should pay providers in specific areas for specific services (services defined by CPT codes). HIAA was taken over/disappeared about a decade ago, and Ingenix took over the aggregation and distribution of the data, which has become known as "UCR" for "Usual, Customary, and Reasonable".

For about ten years, all was fine, at least as far as most insurers were concerned. Sure, physicians complained at times and consumers railed about the low reimbursement paid by companies citing their UCR, but the complaints didn't really make any difference until Cuomo got involved. The problem arose when a few folks in New York complained about the amount they still owed providers after their insurers had paid their portion - according to Ingenix' UCR. After a lengthy investigation, Cuomo found reason to charge UHC and other insurers, and that action resulted in yesterday's announcement.

It is too early to tell how this will affect insurers, but there's no doubt it will. Here are a couple things to consider.

= providers that are paid by UCR will find it much easier to challenge the reimbursement, and payers will likely be plenty nervous if all they have to stand behind is a largely-discredited Ingenix database. Expect higher payments to providers and claimants.

- attorneys in other states may see this as a big opportunity for class action on behalf of physicians and claimants.

- payers will redouble their efforts to negotiate reimbursement prospectively with out of network providers.

- policy language is going to change, and change fast. Look for significant changes in the SPD (summary plan description) and other plan documents more clearly describing the payer's liability for non-network provider charges. There may even be some movement back to scheduled payments.

- in the work comp world, there's going to be turmoil and drama in states that do not have physician fee schedules (e.g. NJ, MO). Expect employers and insurers to work much harder to get claimants to network providers, where the UCR issue is much less significant.

There's some precedence here for the property casualty industry. Last year in a suit in Massachusetts, a court found that Ingenix could not prove that the underlying data was accurate, that it was a fair representation of provider charges in an area, or that the results were anything more than "dollar amounts resulting from the statistical extrapolations from whatever bills were actually included in its database."

What does this mean for you?

More power to the providers, higher cost for payers, and more business for attorneys.

October 31, 2008

Are insurers like banks?

The Economist has an excellent, if not terribly detailed, explanation [subscription required] of why what happened to banks will not happen to insurers.

Although some insurers do indeed have 'impaired assets' due to significant exposure to credit default swaps and other investment vehicles, unlike banks it's tough to see how there could be a 'run' on an insurance company. Here's how the Economist sees it:

"Unlike banks, which rely heavily on debt funding, insurers’ main liabilities are the claims they will pay their customers—for life firms these stretch over many years. Whereas the depositors and lenders who provide funds to banks can jump ship overnight, insurance customers find it hard and expensive to wriggle out of their contracts.

A run on an insurance company is thus hard to imagine."

Agreed.

September 18, 2008

Credit market collapse - the worst is yet to come

Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, and Merrill Lynch were here one day and gone the next. Their rapid, almost-overnight disappearance from the world wide financial landscape is as stunning as the collapse of the Twin Towers. Solid as concrete and steel, their permanency wasn't even questioned until days before they were forever gone from the skyline.

The next to go may well include Morgan Stanley and Washington Mutual; if the stock prices of other financial institutions continue to drop, more companies may also be putting up 'for sale' signs.

While the Fed's rescue of AIG may well have prevented a global mess of historic proportions, it also sent a very loud, and very clear message that the financial industry is in danger of worldwide collapse. As one South Korean put it, ""The U.S. government's rescue of AIG helped the markets to avoid the worst case scenario, but the fact that only the government was willing to help indicated the gravity of U.S. credit problems."[emphasis added]

Now we learn that rating agencies, all too aware of their failure to accurately assess credit risk in banks, investment houses, and property and casualty insurance, are re-thinking their approach to assessing the financial viability of health insurers. Fitch Ratings will be dumping the traditional debt to capital formula within a month. "Fitch believes operating EBITDA, funds flow from operations (FFO) and subsidiary dividend capacity are the appropriate measures in assessing financial leverage and debt utilization, to augment the debt-to-capital analysis traditionally used for insurance companies."

Clearly the landscape is changing dramatically - mountains may be disappearing here, but they will likely be replaced by new mountains in other parts of the globe. From here, it looks like New York, long the center of the financial universe, may be losing that status to London, or perhaps eventually Dubai. Investors hate uncertainty, and there's all too much of it here in what has become the Wild West of speculative 'investing'.

May 28, 2008

Why employers must be involved in health insurance

Productivity.

Lost in the great debate about the role of the employer, the individual, and the government in health care reform is the critical link between health insurance, care, and productivity.

Years ago when I was responsible for the Travelers' utilization review account management function I met with Bruce Bradley, who was then the head of employee benefits at telecom giant GTE. I was going thru the data, reporting on how well Travelers had done reducing this and cutting that, when he stopped me and asked about the ER and inpatient admissions rate for children with asthma. I didn't have the data, and asked why he wanted to know.

Bradley proceeded to educate me on GTE's workforce and their functions. To summarize, they had a lot of employees who were single parents or one parent in a dual-income family. Many of their employees worked in line maintenance, directory assistance, and other blue- and pink-collar jobs.

And when one of these workers was out of work, caring for a child experiencing an acute asthmatic attack, the lines didn't get fixed and calls didn't get answered. Bradley wanted to know what the Travelers was doing about this. Truth was, we weren't doing anything.

GTE is long gone, swallowed up in the telecom mergers in the nineties. But Bradley's point is as true now as it was then - keeping workers, and their families, healthy and productive is the primary objective of health insurance.

I'll grant that few policy wonks look at it from this perspective. Perhaps that's because they didn't have the pinned-to-the-wall-like-a-butterfly-in-a-display-case experience I went thru. But because they don't consider the impact of health insurance on employer productivity, they miss the reason employers offer health insurance in the first place - to attract, and keep, good workers.

If employers are removed from the process of vetting and selecting health insurance vendors, individuals would be responsible for choosing their carrier. Insurance companies would 'win' based on how cheaply they could provide insurance to individuals and families, and the less care delivered, the lower the premiums. I don't see what would prevent those vendors from suggesting each and every injured or ill worker or dependent tried bed rest and over the counter drugs for two weeks, then an x-ray or basic lab test, and only then would they get to see a diagnostician.

What does this mean for you?
Health care reform based on an individual market would work against employers' desires and needs, and over the long term, against the nation's best interests.

November 12, 2007

Dumber than a box of rocks

Just when you think the health insurance industry just could not do anything more self-destructively stupid, they raise the bar.

From FierceHealthcare comes the news that HealthNet actually paid bonuses to staff based on how many claimant policies they could terminate.

Continue reading "Dumber than a box of rocks" »

June 5, 2007

How many uninsured are there, really?

The Democratic Presidential debate in New Hampshire earlier this week highlighted a bit of confusion about how many people in the US do not have health insurance.

The answer is 44.8 million, including 8 million kids. Read on for the details...

Continue reading "How many uninsured are there, really?" »

June 4, 2007

When chickens come home to roost

Some well-intentioned but really misguided legislators in California are proposing to force insurance companies to get regulatory approval before raising rates, copays, or deductibles.

Now that is one really bad idea, an idea that likely never would have come up if not for some really bad decisions by insurers.

Continue reading "When chickens come home to roost" »

May 24, 2007

Should we just let Darwin decide?

If only it were that easy. I'm talking about the legislation proposed in Michigan to allow motorcyclists to ride without helmets. If they are dumb enough to do that, fine. Except we end up paying their health care bills, which is most definitely not fine.

Continue reading "Should we just let Darwin decide?" »

When is entitlement spending bad?

When it is spending by the other party. Bob Laszewski points out the hypocrisy of Pres. Bush's latest rant about the Democratic budget bill's "excessive" discretionary spending.

Bob notes that Bush's opposition to entitlement spending is a rather new thing, as he was not opposed to passing the Medicare Part D bill, one that saddled taxpayers with an $8 trillion debt.

April 3, 2007

Debunking the med mal monster

More evidence is emerging about the rather minimal impact medical malpractice has on medical costs.

Continue reading "Debunking the med mal monster" »

January 30, 2007

Regulation v insurance

In a move designed to reassert control over the mechanisms of government, Pres. Bush recently signed an executive order requiring all regulatory directives be approved by political appointees. (registration required)

This will have a significant impact on occupational health initiatives, regulations, and enforcement.

Continue reading "Regulation v insurance" »

January 1, 2007

Catching up

Ten days away does wonders.

My real job was rather hectic last year, so I missed out on a few notable events, and finally got a few minutes to warap up some of 2006's more interesting developments.

Continue reading "Catching up" »

December 19, 2006

Cavalcade of Risk is up

Hank Stern of InsureBlog has posted the latest from the world of risk management and related topics. There's interesting and wide-ranging stuff from car insurance to physician credentialing.

December 18, 2006

Community rating

I've been virtually talking with other interested parties and staff from Sen. Ron Wyden's (D OR) office about his Healthy Americans Act and how it deals with pricing. Here's my preliminary take.

There are two core concepts central to HAA's viability. First, universal coverage. If everyone has coverage, than there is no (or at least a lot less) need for providers to charge folks with insurance more to cover their losses incurred when they treat people without insurance. Cost-shifting drives up health insurance costs for those folks fortunate and employed enough to have coverage.

Continue reading "Community rating" »

November 27, 2006

What insurance people are really like

Non-insurance folks, especially those who aren't happy with their insurance for whatever reason, or those seeking to write best-selling books (John Grisham, for one), use some pretty strong adjectives describing the heartless penny-pinching mean-spirited folk who are "the insurance company".

While I don't doubt that a few individuals and insurance companies really are cold-hearted emotionless drones, I've met very few that fit that description.

This was brought to mind recently while listening in on a meeting at an insurance company.

Continue reading "What insurance people are really like" »

October 2, 2006

Florida's State CFO race

Florida is one of, or perhaps the only, state to have as an official elected position a state CFO. The incumbent is supposed to oversee state spending, review state contracts and investigate insurance fraud among other functions. Florida's CFO is also part of the four person cabinet along with the governor, attorney general, and Commission of Agriculture and Consumer Affairs.

Obviously, the CFO would have a broad and deep impact on the state's insurance industry, the provision of same, and purchase of insurance by the state. That makes it interesting for we insurance types.

Continue reading "Florida's State CFO race" »

September 6, 2006

McClellan's legacy

Mark McClellan is leaving his post as head of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services. He served long and loyally, sticking to the Administration's line even when facts indicated otherwise, remaining a calming force when Part D enrollment was going nowhere. McClellan is also known for listening hard to suggestions and criticism from all sides, and working diligently to address problems.

Here's what's happened during his tenure.

Part D was passed, implemented, and operational. This was a monumental task, and one McClellan was instrumental in accomplishing. It's not his fault it is a fatally flawed program; well, maybe it is, in some small part, as he was probably involved in writing/editing/opining on the legislation. Nevertheless, under McClellan the program became reality, with the initial enrollment problems addressed (in large part).

Continue reading "McClellan's legacy" »

July 10, 2006

Insurers are starting to "get" the web...sort of

A rather interesting report from Vox Inc. reviews the websites of a dozen major insurers, revealing the good, the bad, and some pretty ugly as well. As more and more consumers are getting their quotes over the internet, the usability of web sites is getting more and more important. If you've been near a TV any time over the last few months, you've probably seen the ubiquitous Progressive guy talking about their site. Well, he and his fellow pitchpeople have been very effective in driving traffic; 68% of consumers are now getting quotes over the web; 55% over the phone.
That's a remarkable statistic.

One really interesting takeaway (mine, not their's) is that compared to user-specific needs such as finding an agent and accessing a policy, way too much space is devoted to institutional image.

There is some very useful information in the report, info that all marketing, sales, PR, and exec staff would be well-advised to spend some quality time reviewing.

And don't complain you don't have time - this is how people are buying your stuff, so it is the most important thing you could be doing.

June 16, 2006

The smart money is buying TPAs

Sedgwick CMS, one of the nation's larger property and casualty TPAs, is getting even bigger. The company will be acquiring Comp Management Inc. (CMI) for just under $200 million.

This marks the first expansion of Sedgwick since its sale to Fidelity National earlier in the year. Sedgwick acquired California-based disability management and administration firm VPA in May. Prior to that deal, Sedgwick had primarily grown organically; the new owners look to be very interested in gaining size and competencies as quickly as possible.

CMI had been on an expansion trajectory of its own, branching out into medical malpractice administration with the acquisition of Octagon in 2003, a deal that also significantly expanded CMI's west coast presence. CMI was owned by investment firm Security Capital Corp. of Greenwich Ct.

Broadspire is another TPA acquired by an investment firm. This deal, which transferred the somewhat-damaged Kemper National Services TPA to Platinum Equity, was the first of a series of acquisitions that have propelled the combined entity into the top tier of TPAs in terms of market size. RSKCO and Cunningham Lindsey were added to the portfolio in 2004. Since that deal, Broadspire has been selling off assets that appear to be tangential to its core claims adjudication business; the disability management operation went to Aetna and Bureau Veritas picked up the loss control/safety division earlier this year.

These deals are not the only sign of interest on the part of the investment community in the P&C world. The level and amount of interest in TPAs has grown exponentially over the past year; my sense is the industry is perceived to be ripe for consolidation; backward in terms of technology, business process streamlining, and operational excellence; and significantly less profitable than it could be.

I agree.

May 12, 2006

AIG's troubles continue

AIG's stock price took a major hit yesterday due to a combination of missed earnings at a subsidiary company, payment of a $1.64 billon fine, and a drop in income from derivatives.

One of the factors driving the fine was AIG's failure to pay workers compensation premium taxes in a number of jurisdictions in past years. This malfeasance, coupled with contingent commissions, fabricated insurance quotes and other anti-competitive behavior, is a growing stain on a once-proud company, a stain that doesn't appear to be fading.

May 11, 2006

Those brainy Dutch

In one of the more creative approaches to managing employee disability expense, an insurance company in Holland is issuing policies to employers who may suffer from significant increases in employee disability during the upcoming Soccer (sorry, Football) World Cup.

Dutch companies are required by law to pay employees out of work due to illness, and when tens of thousands of workers called in sick during the European Championships in 2004, a business opportunity was created. Insurance policies only pick up the payments after two weeks of absence, but the new policy, underwritted by SEZ, will cover absences the day of and the day after Dutch soccer matches.

Now if they could only set up a policy to cover Wisconsin employers for the first day of deer season...

May 3, 2006

Insurers are waking up to bird flu's potential

At last the insurance industry is starting to take notice of the potential financial impact of avian flu. And it's not pretty.

"Pandemic influenza could potentially deal insurers a triple whammy, simultaneously causing unprecedented life and health claims losses, investment portfolio downturns at a time when insurers most need liquidity, and reduced staff and management productivity through the spreading of sickness among company personnel," stated Dr. Andrew Coburn, RMS project lead on influenza pandemic risk modeling."

In contrast to the intellectual financial modeling of RMS, Risk and Insurance magazine published a timeline of a human-to-human transmissable flu scenario that is scarier than Freddie Krueger.

(I posted on the potential impact of avian flu on health and life insurers some weeks ago.)

For those readers really interested in the whole bird flu thing, there are two blogs that are really really good. Roy Poses et al at Health Care Renewal do an excellent job of sorting through the chaff to find the wheat. And the anonymous public health officials at Effect Measure are way in front of politicians on all aspects of this.

March 13, 2006

Medical malpractice costs

Medical malpractice tort cost factoid - total expenses in 2004 were just under $29 billion; 2003 costs were $26.5 billion.

O perhaps I should characterize this as a "possibly fact-oid", as the source's definition of what constitutes "tort costs" appears a little shaky.

And is not verifiable.

And includes "administrative expenses".

And this is from a company that prides itself on actuarial research?

In any event, a small fraction of total medical costs - about a half a percent.

March 12, 2006

Those awful insurance companies

Those awful insurance companies are at it again, screwing up payments to doctors, causing lawsuits, strife, accusations and counter-accusations. While it looks like the same old case of an insurer short-changing physicians, it isn't.

Horizon Blue Cross of NJ paid 600 cardiologists too much. Over a two year period, Horizon paid these lucky docs $15 million more than they should have. The case is now settled, the docs paid some of the dollars back, and things look to be calming down.

As one who spent years working for managed care firms, insurance companies, workers comp managed care firms and workers comp insurers, I am not terribly surprised that Horizon overpaid docs. Im sure this happens every day, and that most payers are guilty of the same type of mistakes.

Point being, whenever an insurance company is accused of short-paying docs or policyholders, they are accused of fraud, denial of care, interfering in the physician - patient relationship, and just being awful people in general. While this level of opprobrium may occasionally be justified, my educated suspicion is in the majority of these cases the insurer either screwed up or there is an honest disagreement.

Most of the folks at insurance companies are people who are trying to do the right thing, working pretty hard, and concerned about how their customers perceive them. Sure, a few have horns and a tail, but that is true in all businesses.

Even in cardiology practices.

March 4, 2006

Medical malpractice - fixed or broken?

The medical malpractice insurance business is either back under control and meeting the needs of the market without the benefit of major and widespread tort reform, or is in crisis, near death, and likely to expire without major tort reform.

Where you sit determines what you see.

From consumer watchdog group Americans for Insurance Reform comes the following excerpt from their press release:

"Americans for Insurance Reform (AIR) released a new study today confirming the wholesale decline of medical malpractice insurance rates nationwide. The AIR study also shows that this phenomenon is occurring whether or not states enacted restrictions on patients' legal rights, such as "caps" on compensation. The medical malpractice insurance "crisis" is over, according to the study.
AIR's study is based on the most recent Council of Insurance Agents and Brokers survey of market conditions, showing that the average rate hike for doctors over the past six months has been 0 percent. This is following similar results for the last quarter of 2004, which saw rates rising only 3 percent at the end of that year. By comparison, rates jumped 63 percent during the same quarter of 2002. "

In contrast, the Council of Insurance Agents and Brokers released their own interpretation of the numbers, noting:

"� to interpret that data to mean that the 'crisis' is over is a gross misrepresentation of the situation," Crerar said. "First of all, having rates stabilize for one or two quarters doesn't mean those rates have gone down. It only means that they have not gone up any farther. It is like saying that just because gasoline costs $2.50 a gallon today, down from $3 a gallon last year, we don't have an energy crisis, and gas is cheap."

CIAB also finds fault with AIR's math, and reading CIAB's interpretation it does appear the Americans for Insurance Reform could do with a little more practice with the calculator.

So, what's the real deal?

Well, the malpractice "crisis" is partially related to insurance cycles (we're in a transition from a hard market to a confused one right now), and as I've noted before, has a relatively small impact on overall health care costs. While the med mal debate is interesting, it is a sideshow - med mal is not a major force in US health care.

That said, the interesting point is that the drop in rates is occuring in states that implemented tort reform and those that did not. Makes one wonder what influence tort reform has on costs...

February 20, 2006

Iraq's impact on insurers

The continuing strife in Iraq and Afghanistan and its effect on the insurance and employer communities is the subject of an excellent monograph by Robert Hartwig of the Insurance Information Institute. Hartwig notes as the returning veterans are reintegrated into the working community, employers will face challenges addressing the needs of vets with physical and/or mental health problems resulting from the conflict.

The Americans with Disabilities Act requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for employees with disabilities. And, with over 15,000 servicemen and women injured to date, and about 30% of all troops serving in these areas citizen soldiers - either from the National Guard or Reserves - many will come back to employers who will need to address their unique circumstances.

The impact may well have a significant impact on workers compensation. According to Dr. Hartwig, workplace claims arising from injuries suffered during these conflicts will be covered by workers compensation insurance. Many of the states have shut down their Second Injury Funds, financial pools designed to cover injuries arising from previous claims. Now, with these funds disappearing, the financial liability for claims related to wartime injuries will be the responsibility of workers comp insurers and self-insured employers.

Taking into account the Pentagon's plans through 2009, present troop levels and injury rates, Hartwig predicts more than 60,000 wounded troops will be returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.

What does this mean for you?

A "hidden tax" on insurers, adding to the total cost of these conflicts.

February 6, 2006

Medical Malpractice - crisis, what crisis?

An excellent review of the realities and myth behind medical malpractice is on Kate Steadman's Health Policy blog. The series of posts are a sort of book report on Tom Baker's The Medical Malpractice Myth.

I've posted on med mal before, as has Ezra Klein - both using the article published in Health Affairs last year as the basis for the posts. But Kate's is the best rebuttal of the myth I've come across.

What does this mean for you?

Medical malpractice insurance is NOT a meaningful contributor to health cost inflation. Medical errors certainly are - remember to distinguish between the two.

February 2, 2006

AIG, General Re face Federal charges

A potential legal blockbuster involving top executives at General Re and AIG was disclosed in today's New York Times. According to the Times' report, three former top executives at Berkshire Hathaway's General Re subsidiary and the former head of AIG's reinsurance operation are to be charged today with civil and criminal complaints stemming from AIG's alleged use of improper financial transactions to boost reserves.

The charges have been brewing for months, and are among the most serious offenses that emerged from NY Attorney General Eliot Spitzer's investigations into AIG. Of note, unlike previous charges which were filed at the state level by Spitzer and other state attorneys general, the complaints will be filed at the Federal level by the US Justice Department and the SEC. The reason is these charges are related to stock manipulation, a Federal issue.

At the risk of way over-simplifying the situation, it appears that AIG and General Re are charged with entering into a financial transaction designed to artificially add $500 million to AIG's reserves in 2000 and 2001. However, the transaction did not meet the legal test necessary to qualify as an insurance policy, and was actually a loan. Why is that important? Unlike a straight insurance claim that transfers cash based on a legal claim from the insurer to the policyholder (your house burns down, the insurance company sends you a check for $400,000), a loan counts as a liability on the balance sheet (you take out a mortgage on your house for $400,000) (and the cash proceeds count as an asset).

This is not just a one-and-done thing, as it appears AIG and its chairman engaged in an ongoing effort to pump up the balance sheet, smoothing out earnings to keep the stock price heading ever upward.

This particular part of the mess arises out of the allegedly fraudulent accounting for the policy/loan. The deal served to make AIG's financial statements appear stronger than they actually were. It appears this was an attempt to manipulate AIG's stock price, a charge that has been levied against Hank Greenberg, the ousted chairman of AIG.

General Re is owned by Berkshire Hathaway, whose chairman Warren Buffett was not aware of the nature of the transaction. There are back and forth claims about what he knew and when he knew it, but the Times article is pretty clear that Buffett's participation was likely after the fact and did not cross the line into illegal activity.

What does this mean for you?

The insurance scandals just will not go away, and this announcement means they'll be with us for a while.

January 29, 2006

HSAs - what's the point?

There are several missing points in the ongoing debates about HSAs.

1. Much of the adoption of HSAs has been due to employers eliminating their other plans in favor of CDHP-HSA plans. So, the argument that individuals are jumping on the bandwagon is a little disingenuous.

2. Employers are dumping their regular plans (well, a few are, most are not) because they can't afford to buy health insurance for their workers any more. And a big part of the reason they can't is because of cost-shifting from the uninsured to the insured. The uninsured get care, they just don't pay for it. see http://www.joepaduda.com/archives/000395.html for more on this.

3. The larger employers who are offering HSAs are seeing very low adoption rates. IBM has been offering them for over two years, and less than 3% of eligibles have signed up.

The real issue is how much drag on the US economy is a result of our present funding mechanism for health care. Clearly health care costs play a role in the industrial competitiveness of US companies; the HSA-CDHP debate merely clouds the overall issue - if we don't get our act together we will get our economic butt kicked.

January 25, 2006

Immigrant workers issues

Friend and colleague Peter Rousmaniere has started a new blog dealing with immigrant worker issues. Peter is a well-known author on all things workers comp, occupational health and safety, and an insightful critic at large.

One of Peter's more troubling findings is the tendency of alien workers to not report occupational injuries or illnesses. With the large number of immigrants working in the US today, and the well-publicized decline in the occupational injury rate, I'm wondering if there is a relationship between the two.

Are migrant workers replacing citizens, then getting injured and not reporting it, thereby artificially reducing the reported injury rate?

Anyone?

January 9, 2006

TRIA extension provisions' impact

The extension of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act was met with lukewarm enthusiasm by the insurance industry, for good reason. However, it was likely the best that could be obtained given the strong political desire on the part of Congress and the Administration to mitigate the Feds' risk.

There have been significant changes to TRIA, which will be in place through the end of 2007. Here are a couple of the key provisions and the impact of same.

1. In 2007 the insurance industry's "deductible" will increase to 20% of direct earned premium from 17.5%. The result - more risk at the insurer level.
2. The share of the risk that the government will take will also decrease from 90% to 85%.

Modeling done by Risk Management Solutions indicates that the World Trade Center attacks, which produced a loss of $32.5 billion, would result in minimal funding through TRIA if they occurred under the 2007 provisions.

The "good news" is RMS predicts there is less than 10% likelihood that any one attack would produce a loss of this size.

What does this mean for you?

There are two components to claims costs - frequency and severity. While all of us fervently hope that no attacks occur, the realists among us are more…realistic. Therefore, while the "new" TRIA does reduce the impact of severity, it does nothing to address frequency.

Several attacks that do not meet the "deductible" would destroy the insurance industry.


December 24, 2005

Farewell 2005

I'm on holiday tomorrow thru the end of the year and will be taking a break from blogging till 2006.

Thanks to all who have made this a great year for Managed Care Matters. We're up to 6000 unique visitors per month and growing 15% each month. We've generated a lot of comments, a good bit of controversy, and some enlightened discussion.

Managed Care Matters appears to be one of the few, if not the only, occupant of the blogosphere dedicated to managed care. That's strange, if not downright wierd. The managed care industry is one of the largest in the US, is growing rapidly internationally, and has tremendous implications for the economic and health status future of the country.

So why aren't there more blogs on managed care? Lots of possible reasons, but there is clearly a need for more dialogue, discussion, and intelligent perspective.

I would encourage anyone with a bit of time (it doesn't take much), a knack for writing, and valuable insights to start a blog on managed care. Once you are up and running, let me know and we'll look at linking to you.

If you are looking for help, advice, and assistance, talk to Julie Ferguson (julie@julieferguson.com) She is the brains behind the tech stuff here; besides being a great writer she is expert in the blog business.

Enjoy the holidays and see you in 2006.

December 21, 2005

Case's strategy for Revolution Health

There is an excellent interview with Revolution Health's Steve Case in Fortune that sheds light on Case's ideas, plans, goals, and thinking about health care. His motivations are classically entrepreneurial - personal experience with a sibling wrestling with cancer, a desire to get back into a meaningful work after several years of volunteer work and "shuttling five kids to soccer practice in his Lincoln Navigator", and the perception that the health care system is broken and he can fix it, and make money doing so.

Loyal readers know I have been less than impressed with Case's strategy, team, and acquisitions to date. While I admire the audacity, I question the judgment. Take the business plan. According to Fortune;

"John Pleasants, whom Case installed as chief executive of the health group in September, says selling subscriptions to consumers and ad space to companies will be two big revenue streams. But Revolution also hopes to make money by doing everything from reselling health insurance policies offered by other companies to charging consumers for online doctor visits."

Hmmm. WebMD, MedScape, Aetna, Anthem, and about a hundred other companies are already providing lots of medical and health-related content, mostly for free. And selling ad space too.

There are lots of companies selling insurance policies (we in the industry don't call it "reselling", it is actually acting as a "broker") from your neighborhood agent to Allstate to AARP to UnitedHealthGroup to Blues Plans. Tough competitors too.

On-line doctor visits could theoretically be a revenue stream, if the doctor is a member of a network contracted with the payer, and if there is some mechanism to bill, pay, transfer funds, and adjudicate the "claim" quickly efficiently and accurately. Certainly this can be done, but a very large, Kong-size hurdle will be to convince physicians that they should participate in such a scheme with a tiny player like Revolution. This is theoretically possible, but when Anthem, Pacificare, and other large payers struggle to get docs to use their electronic systems, it makes it difficult to see how Revolution will succeed.

Again, I admire his vision, but the naivete can be breathtaking. For example, Case is quoted as saying "The healthcare system will be fundamentally different. It has to be. It's not working."

Steve, it has not been working for decades, and just because it is so obviously broken does not mean it will get fixed any time soon. See Africa's economies, the Middle East, the World Health Organizations' efforts on AIDS, polio, and river blindness, drug addiction - all very big problems that are very difficult to solve that have blunted the lances of all who have attempted to date.

Thousands of very smart people with lots of cash have tried to change the health care system (see Bill Clinton), and some are actually starting to have some verifiable success (see Kaiser for their work on electronic medical records, Aetna for educating insureds on procedure costs and premium expenses specific to their conditions). The difference is these change agents enter the fray with a deep and broad understanding of health care, providers, cost drivers and outcomes. They know health care financing and the root causes of health care inflation and patient satisfaction. They have large footprints and strong brands. And resources that make Case's $250 million look like chump change (Kaiser has already invested several billion dollars in its electronic medical record initiative alone…).

I'll close with another quote from Fortune talking about Case's core concept, consumer-directed health care.

"Princeton health economist Uwe Reinhardt likens the "consumer-driven guys" to architects touting a huge, new skyscraper before they've had engineers figure out whether it's feasible to build. "They haven't even finished the blueprint," he says.

Case doesn't disagree. "We've only been at this for a few months and still have a lot to learn," he says. But he isn't discouraged by the industry's limited success. "People say, 'Well, some of these consumer-driven ideas, they've been tried and they haven't been successful.' But that doesn't mean they're not good ideas." As Case sees it, consumer-driven health care is about much more than how high you set the deductible in an insurance plan. "For us, it's about how you move the patient back to the centre of the system," he says.

It's a great line. But what does it mean? Case won't get into details, including financials. But Revolution Health's plan reveals that Case is pursuing the same strategy as his old company: He's going to launch a web portal next year, just as AOL did this year."

What does this mean for you?

With apologies, here's the old joke -" how do you make a million in health care? Start a consumer-directed/web portal plan with $250 million".

December 6, 2005

Employer-based health insurance

There continues to be an ongoing discussion in this country regarding who or what entity should be responsible for providing health insurance. The ends of the spectrum are the strong conservatives/libertarians who are in favor of total individual responsibility for paying health care costs; at the other end are the strong liberals who favor single payer, universal coverage funded and mandated by the government.

In reality we have a "hybrid" system, or perhaps more accurately a mish-mash of individual coverage, employer-based insurance, governmental programs and tax-payer and employer-subsidized care for the uninsured (although this takes the form of a hidden tax).

The reality is we have universal coverage funded by individuals, employers, tax-payers, and providers. Everyone has access to care, although some do not have access to the same level of care or the same providers.

For working age Americans, most insurance coverage is provided through their employers. Although there has been a trend towards fewer employers offering coverage (60% in 2005, down from 69% in 2000), in general larger employers and those with average annual employee earnings above $21,000 tend to offer health insurance.

And the latest information is that this is not likely to change anytime soon. While national health insurance provided by the government would certainly help manufacturing companies such as GM and Ford, there does not appear to by any traction for other funding mechanisms.

An article in the New York Times on employer-based health insurance focused on this issue, and is well worth reading. One passage reads:

"What is also clear, though, is that there are no clear alternatives. Corporate executives and many others are leery of a government solution, but no one has come up with a private-sector option that has gained significant support. Because individuals who buy private insurance on their own pay much higher prices than the group rates employers get, many people could probably not afford health insurance if their employers were not buying it for them."

The present political climate makes it unlikely that any nationalized system will emerge in the near term. Until and unless large employers, and the middle class, feels pain, there will be no change. That said, my sense is we are approaching that point. With the percentage of employers offering health insurance declining by nine points in five years, more and more soccer moms will soon be directly impacted by this trend. This is a powerful and vocal demographic that will make its presence felt.

What does this mean for you?

Change is coming; the next Congressional election will indicate how soon and provide some hints as to the direction of the health care debate.

November 13, 2005

Terrorism Act (TRIA) extension in the works

It looks like Congress may actually do something about terrorism insurance. The government insurance program, set to expire at the end of this year, provides reinsurance for property and casualty lines (property, workers comp, auto) when claims are incurred as a result of foreign terrorists. After a high deductible, the government kicks in to pay most of the remainder.

The coverage, known as TRIA for Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, came into being shortly after 9/11 on a temporary basis. The reasoning behind TRIA is simple - no single insurer, nor the industry as a whole, has the financial resources to pay claims for a catastrophic terror event - think nuclear bomb in New York City, or exploding natural gas tanker in Boston.

This is a big deal. Insurance companies specifically exclude terror coverage whenever they can; property insurance is one that is particularly vulnerable to concerns about attacks. A group of 28 governors has joined together to pressure their Congressional delegations as well as the Bush administration for extension of TRIA.

For over a year, insurers had hard to get coverage extended, to no avail. The Bush administration wanted the industry to pay very high deductibles, so high that many industry experts viewed the "insurance" as little more than picking up the pieces after the industry was bankrupt. Now, news has come out that a compromise is under serious discussion in the House Financial Services Committee.

According to Insurance Journal;

"The extension proposal creates so-called "silos" for major coverage areas of workers compensation, property, casualty and NBCR (coverage for nuclear, biological, chemical and radiological attacks), with each silo being assigned its own deductible. The measure excludes commercial auto, which is now covered under TRIA, while proposing to add group life. Insurers would be required to offer NBCR coverage.

Federal intervention would be triggered only if losses exceed $50 million in 2006 and $100 million in 2007.

In the new plan, the distinction between foreign and purely domestic acts of terrorism would be removed so that domestic terrorism would be covered.
The co-share paid by insurers, which is now at 10% for all triggered events, would increase for smaller events and decrease for so-called mega events, with a 20% co-share for the first $10 billion down to 5% for events more than $40 billion.
Insurers would pay back any federal monies through policyholder premium surcharges that would be capped at 3%."

Sounds workable, but there is one major problem; the term of the new TRIA is two years, so we could very well find ourselves back at this in a year, worried about the potential implications of a soon-to-expire law.

The good news is Congress may actually get something done; the bad news is they seem to have forgotten the old saw "if you don't have time to do something right the first time, what makes you think you'll have time to fix it"…

What does this mean for you?

TRIA's extension would be good news for everyone in the industry, and buyers as well.

November 11, 2005

What Ryan did say about Aon and other topics

More on Pat Ryan, CEO of Aon Corp., and his comments at the IRMI conference earlier this week.

Ryan spent a fair amount of time commenting on the Spitzer investigations and impact thereof. He noted that the sheer time and resources required to respond to the Attorney General's inquiries, along with the potential for ongoing negative press, played a large part in Aon's decision to settle the case.

Ryan also noted that Aon has embraced the concept and reality of transparency, wherein all clients would know exactly what Aon was being paid and by whom for what work. Aon has abandoned the contingent commission revenue model, which has led the company to increase fees to some customers.

His comments on transparency and Aon's commitment to same were direct, comprehensive, and revealing. Ryan clearly understands that the landscape has changed, that the old ways of doing business are no longer acceptable, and that Aon must operate within the new reality created by Spitzer and other outside forces.

Ryan noted that while the risk managers who are his firm's main contacts were not concerned about the contingent commissions, their bosses were. Evidently Ryan heard directly from the CEOs and CFOs that they did not like the practice.

He predicted that there will be more, not less, regulation in the future, noting that "we are in the fourth inning". Here's hoping we aren't tied at the end of nine...

What does this mean for you?

While I am frustrated at Ryan's failure to mention health care costs and medical trend, his comments indicate a keen awareness of the importance of transparency and direct dealing. That is to his and his company's credit.

November 9, 2005

What Aon's Pat Ryan didn't say

I have just returned from IRMI's excellent Construction Risk Conference in Las Vegas. Interesting location for a bunch of risk averse people...

One of the keynoters was Pat Ryan, founder and chair of Aon Corp, the big broker. He gave a talk covering a wide range of topics, including Spitzer, contingent commissions, and transparency. What was notable to me was what he did not discuss, or even mention - health care costs.

I find this intriguing for a couple of reasons. First, what is more important today than health care costs? Health care costs are contributing to his clients' risks in employee benefits, workers comp, auto, general liability etc. And, medical expenses in the property and casualty lines are increasing at a rate substantially faster than in group health (10-12% v. 8.2%). What could be more important, more significant, than health expense inflation?

Second, Aon is making a big push to become the expert in data mining, analytics, and assessment to better predict and manage "risk"; broadly defined. In this context, risk could include flood, wind, politics, etc. Since our focus here is on health care, we'll stick to that. Unfortunately, Aon's attempts to date to assess and evaluate medical expense in the workers comp world, at least the public reporting of same, reflect a dangerously superficial understanding of medical expense, providers, practice pattern variation, etc. (note - sources indicate Aon's understanding is not any better when presented in private meetings..).

If this initiative is so important to Aon, why would it not be part of a speech to 1500 eager listeners, and why would it not incorporate even a mention of what Aon is doing to help customers deal with this to-date-unmanageable problem - health care cost inflation.

If Aon is all about managing risk, it better learn something about medical expenses soon. And the company sure can do a better job in presenting itself as an expert in same.

What does this mean for you?

Watch out for consultants that don't understand what is really driving your claims costs.

October 10, 2005

Katrina's insured costs at $34 billion

Katrina is now officially the most expensive insured event in US history. The latest figures put insured claims to date at $34.4 billion, significantly higher than the costs associated with other hurricanes or the 9/11 attacks. Adding Rita's projected expense brings the total for the season to date to about $70 billion.

And this is just the insured losses on claims filed to date. Estimates of future claims from Katrina push the total amount to between $40 and $55 billion.

This was shaping up to be a nicely profitable year for the industry; those profits have disappeared under the waters of these disasters. Pessimists will note that the hurricane season still has some months to run; insurance executives are keeping fingers crossed in hopes that another storm does not make landfall this year.

What does this mean for you?

Costs for all lines of insurance will increase for all renewals in coming months, with the sharpest increases in property and homeowners, especially in hurricane-prone areas and coastal regions.

Reinsurers will get mighty picky about the underwriting underlying their primary insurers; expect to see more limitations and exclusions.

October 4, 2005

GHI-HIP merger in NY

The mergers among health plans continued yesterday, with New York's GHI and HIP announcing their intention to join forces to create the state's largest single health plan. With four million members and $7 billion in revenues, the not-for-profits would dominate the New York metropolitan area, with especially strong market share in the municipal, blue- and pink-collar demographics.

HIP, the smaller of the two plans with 1.4 million members, also owns Vytra Health and Connecticare. The Connecticare acquisition was one of the more intriguing deals in recent years, as it combined two different models with distinct membership demographics, while adding broader geographic coverage to HIP. The company recently announced plans to acquire a high-deductible health insurance provider, PerfectHealth Insurance Co.

GHI covers 2.6 million members in the NYC, upstate, and northern New Jersey area, covering over 2/3 of City employees. GHI has extensive experience in administering governmental programs including state contract work on mental health, coordination of benefits, and Medicare + Choice.

We have been following this trend for quite a while, and with the two largest not for profit health plans in the nation's most concentrated market merging, it is even more clear that consolidation will continue and likely accelerate. The merger sets up an interesting battle between the merged entity, the Oxford-United combination, and Wellpoint - Wellchoice for share in this key market.

What does this mean for you?

If you run a health plan or TPA in the NYC area, batten down the hatches; there will be a lot of collateral damage to smaller insurance and health coverage providers as these three giants go at each other.

September 29, 2005

Spitzer subpeonas St Paul/Travelers

Eliot Spitzer, New York Attorney General and terror of the insurance industry, has just subpeona'd insurer St Paul Travelers for documents and information related to workers compensation. No further details were immediately available either from the AG or St Paul Travelers.

The company is one of the largest WC insurers and administrators in the nation, ranked #4 or 5, depending on criteria used.

September 26, 2005

Marsh hammered again

The investigations into broker/insurer malfeasance continued to make their presence felt last week, as Conn. Attorney General Richard Blumenthal announced the expansion of the state's charges against Marsh. Blumenthal, never one to avoid the limelight, said

"We have uncovered powerful evidence of a systematic scheme to raise insurance prices," Blumenthal said. "We also have strong evidence of bid rigging, victimizing specific Connecticut consumers and companies. In essence, Marsh established a toll both between insurers and consumers, and the toll exacted was heavy. Creating the illusion of free and open competition, insurers agreed to provide Marsh with rigged or fictitious quotes in exchange for the prospect of submitting winning bids on future placements. Marsh threatened retaliation against non-players."

According to Insurance Journal;

"One insurer wrote about a Marsh "broking plan": "This is another protection job... Our rating has risk at $890,000 and I advised (Marsh) that we could get to $850,000 if needed. (A Marsh broker) gave me song & dance that game plan is for AIG at $850,000 and not to commit our ability in writing!"

The amended complaint identifies several major Connecticut businesses that were harmed by Marsh's bid-rigging and price-fixing plan, including Hubbell Inc., Kaman Corp., Hexcel Corp., and Bridgeport Hospital.

Marsh has about 2,800 policyholder clients in Connecticut - 300 of them large businesses or government entities. Its corporate clients in the state also include Bic Corporation, United Technologies Corporation, Carvel Corporation, Ethan Allen Furniture, Timex Corporation, Xerox Corporation and General Electric Company.

The company's state and municipal clients include the Connecticut Department of Administrative Services (DAS), and the cities and towns of Hartford, New Haven, Stamford, Manchester, West Hartford, and West Haven. Marsh was also the insurance broker for several large, publicly supported state construction projects, including Adriaen's Landing. Marsh's nonprofit clients include Yale University, Mystic Seaport and the Save the Children Federation.

The announcement of the expanded charges against Marsh came the same day Blumenthal announced that insurer ACE Financial Solutions Inc. had agreed to pay $40,000 to the state to settle allegations for a scheme in which ACE paid Marsh a secret $50,000 commission to steer an $80 million state contract to the company."

The scandal that will not go away lives on.

What does this mean for you?

Yet more evidence that crime doesn't pay, and practices that were once accepted with a wink and a nod can get you in serious trouble.

September 16, 2005

Eight more indicted by Spitzer in insurance probe

For those who thought New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer's investigation into the insurance industry was fading away, the news that eight former Marsh executives have been indicted on various charges served notice that if anything, Spitzer et al are just now hitting their stride.

According to Insurance Journal;

"The former executives are accused of colluding with executives at leading insurance companies to arrange noncompetitive bids and conveying these bids to Marsh clients under false pretenses…The indictment charges that from November 1998 to September 2004, the defendants colluded with executives at American International Group, Zurich American Insurance Company, ACE USA, Liberty International Insurance Company and other companies to rig the market for excess casualty insurance.

According to the indictment, defendants and other Marsh employees told their excess casualty clients that they obtained bids for their business from insurance companies in an open and competitive bidding process. In fact, the indictment maintains, defendants had rigged the process in the following ways: First, before any bids were submitted, the defendants determined which insurance company would win the business. Second, they set a "target" for the winner to submit as its bid. Third, they obtained losing bids, which they called "B quotes," from other participating insurance companies.

By misleading customers into believing that the customers' interests came first, the conspirators fraudulently obtained millions of dollars in commissions and fees for Marsh and millions of dollars in premiums for the insurance companies, according to Spitzer's charges. The victim companies ranged from high technology firms to a fruit cannery to a cosmetics manufacturer."

Notably, Marsh itself, who has already settled w Spitzer et al, was not indicted in this latest round.

Aon and Willis, two other top brokers, have also agreed to pay restitution totaling over $300 million. Among the insurers accused of improper/illegal activity, ACE, AIG, Zurich and Liberty have not yet reached resolution with Spitzer.

Given their status, it is highly likely these carriers will find themselves in the news in the near future. And, given Spitzer's proven ability to obtain testimony from one party against other subjects, the new indictments may enable the AG to gather more precise information on the activities, transgressions, and participants in same in the insurance industry.

What does this mean for you?

A lesson in bad crisis management - the longer this continues, the more damage is done. Get it all out, get it out fast, and don't dissemble.

September 11, 2005

Katrina's insured losses

Katrina's impact on the insurance industry will be greater than first anticipated. With insured losses now estimated to be in the $30 billion to $60 billion range, this hurricane is the most expensive event in insurance history.

Losses are from wind, flood, and fire, and will certainly include property, business interruption, fire, flood, environmental liability and impairment, crime, life, and health. The latest estimates from Risk Management Solutions are for losses of $15 - $25 billion for the New Orleans flood alone, with the rest of the costs for other losses due to other causes.

The impact of Katrina will be felt in all lines of insurance around the globe. Because a substantial portion of the losses will be borne by reinsurers, excess premium rates will increase to help cover costs while availability will decrease. In turn, primary insurers will have to raise rates to cover their losses and the increased reinsurance premiums.

Fortunately, Katrina came at a time when overall property and casualty insurance rates have been decreasing. According to MarketScout, property insurance rates dropped 7% over the last year, while workers' comp rates decreased 7%, inland marine 5%, and umbrella/excess 11%. Overall, P&C rates were down 6% over the prior year.

Predictions in the industry are for rates to stay level if not increase slightly. The good news for insurance buyers is the industry is quite healthy with solid profits and substantial increases in reserves over the last two years.

While the insurance industry is much maligned, events like Katrina clearly demonstrate the industry's value to society. By spreading risk across a very wide customer base, the industry will be able to cover losses while continuing to provide coverage for those who desire insurance.

What does this mean for you?

As devastating as Katrina has been and will continue to be, the insurance industry has weathered this most devastating of storms, and will come through in fine shape. That is good news.

September 2, 2005

Katrina's costs by individual insurer

Insurance Journal has posted a quick summary of the potential impact of Katrina on insurance. Here are excerpts.

Note that some of the insurers below are reinsurers, who provide insurance to primary insurers who want to protect themselves from excessive claims resulting from disasters like Katrina.

Insurance Journal -

* Vesta Insurance Group Inc. (VTA.N:) said on Sept. 1 it expects the preliminary gross loss from the first landfall of Hurricane Katrina to be in the range of $500,000 to $1.2 million.

* Alfa Corp. (ALFA.O:) said on Sept. 1 preliminary estimates indicate storm losses will be less than $125 million, with no impact on its third quarter earnings. EUROPE

* World's largest reinsurer, Munich Re (MUVGn.DE:), said on Aug. 30 it may have claims of up to 400 million euros ($488 million), before taxes and before the amount the company can pass on to other reinsurers. It expects the overall insured loss to be $15 billion to $20 billion.

* The Lloyd's of London insurance market said on Aug. 30 it expects to receive "significant insurance claims," largely from offshore oil and gas platforms in the Gulf of Mexico, property damage and claims from businesses forced to close. It has asked all the insurers to supply claims estimates by Sept. 12.

* Hannover Re (HNRGn.DE:), the world's fourth largest reinsurer, said on Aug. 31 it was "extremely unlikely" to hit its 430 million to 470 million euros profit target for 2005 as a result of claims from Katrina. It expects Katrina to be the most costly U.S. storm, topping Hurricane Andrew's bill of about $21 billion.

* Swiss Re (RUKN.VX:), the world's second largest reinsurer, said on Aug. 31 it expects claims of about $500 million. It forecast total insured losses of around $20 billion.

* Paris-based reinsurer Scor (SCOR.PA:) said on Sept. 1 Katrina may cost it 25 million to 35 million euros.

* Converium (CHRN.S:), the Zurich-based reinsurance company, said on Sept. 1 it saw claims from the hurricane of between $10 million and $20 million. It put the total bill to the industry as a whole at around $25 billion.

($1=.8197 Euro)

Note that these statements were from yesterday and the days before - the latest news out of New Orleans, Mississippi, Alabama, and other areas indicates that losses from looting, flooding, fires, and other causes may significantly increase total claims. In addition, follow on problems such as hospitals losing electricity, generators failing, and emergency services problems may add to the loss of life and thereby increase claims.

Note - I'm trying to keep this objective and dispassionate. That is incredibly difficult. This is not merely a financial disaster, it is a human tragedy on so many levels. Do not misinterpret the tone of these posts as one that implies lack of concern or awareness of the human impact of Katrina. Thanks.

Another bad broker caught

The latest insurance broker to plead guilty (without actually pleading guilty) is HRH, aka Hilb Rogal &Hobbs, who agreed to pay $30 million into a compensation fund plus a $250,000 fine to settle charges related to rebating, account steering, and broker compensation activities at it's Connecticut subsidiary.

According to Insurance Journal;

"The state complaint against HRH centered on its dealings with a hospital management company. The state claimed that HRH shared commissions with Women's Health USA Connecticut and steered clients to preferred brokers to win bigger commissions. State law forbids rebating by brokers to clients. Women's Health Connecticut has denied it received rebates or shared commissions. The settlement indicates that HRH's Hartford office disguised the deals…The (Connecticut State Attorney General Blumenthal) AG had alleged that HRH unlawfully steered clients to favored insurance carriers to qualify for larger bonuses and contingent commissions; moved blocks of clients to favored insurers to qualify for larger bonuses and contingent commissions; implemented a "carrier consolidation" program expressly designed to steer clients to a select group of insurers in order to qualify for larger bonuses and override commissions; placed clients in "producer captive" insurance carriers of which HRH owned all or part without disclosing that ownership interest to its clients; entered into undisclosed fee arrangements whereby insurers paid undisclosed compensation to HRH for the placement of insurance; paid improper premium rebates to clients in return for that client retaining HRH as its broker; and provided preferred insurers with first looks on books of business that HRH wished to move to preferred carriers in order to increase HRH's bonus and contingent compensation."

Leaving aside Blumenthal's penchant for the limelight and well-documented ability to gain publicity, what is particularly notable about this case is it represents a very significant financial penalty hitting one mid-tier broker for activities related to one client in one very small state.

It begs the question, how many more shoes are likely to fall, and what size will they be?


September 1, 2005

More on Katrina's impact on insurance costs

New information indicates the impact of Katrina on the insurance industry will likely be greater than originally forecast. Post-storm flooding throughout the area, and related damage to commercial businesses and private property appears likely to drive insured claims for Katrina over $17 billion to perhaps $25 billion.

In addition, the Federally run flood insurance program will take a big hit. The program, which is already underfunded (it had to borrow $300 million last year from the Treasury to cover claims from Ivan et al), provides flood insurance totaling $600 billion to 4.5 million properties, primarily in coastal areas. Expect flood rates to increase significantly and soon.
The higher claims costs and the growing recognition in the insurance community of the potential for another devastating natural or man-caused disaster will drive up insurance costs for all lines of property and casualty coverage. While some uninformed pundits contend that the only cost increases will be borne by those in areas directly affected by the storm, they fail to realize that reinsurance rates industry-wide will increase, and insurers seeking to recoup losses will have to increase prices in other, non-related lines.

What does this mean for you?

The result - the softening in the property and casualty market will likely taper off, prices will stabilize somewhat, and all of us will end up paying for Katrina.

But that's why they call it insurance.

August 9, 2005

Spitzer's Marsh probe yields another guilty plea

NY Attorney General Eliot Spitzer's ongoing investigation has produced another guilty plea, this time from an underwriter at Liberty International, a subsidiary of Liberty Mutual. The charge stems from bid-rigging; the underwriter, Kevin Bott, would submit unattractive bids at the direction of broker Marsh McLennan so Marsh would be able to show their client that another insurer's proposal was more attractive.

By steering their customers to specific insurers, Marsh gained additional commissions.

Bott pled guilty to a misdemeanor charge, agreed to testify, and is subject to a maximum of one year in jail.

This is the investigation that won't go away - the death by a thousand cuts, the Chinese water torture. And it shouldn't go away, as these are clearly unethical and immoral activities that are also illegal. What is most troubling is the lack of attention from some in the industry who appear to be waiting for this to end so they can go on about their business.

Those folks are sorely mistaken. The world has changed, and business as usual will not be tolerated in the future.


August 5, 2005

Spitzer's prosecution of insurance execs

NY Attorney General Eliot Spitzer's ongoing investigation into the insurance industry has produced guilty pleas from 14 insurance execs so far. And more prosecutions and pleas are likely in the near future. Leading the list of the guilty are Marsh with six, followed by AIG with four and Zurich with three.

Most recently, four executives pled guilty to fraud and restraint of trade charges.

Insurance Journal notes that: "according to complaints filed by Spitzer this week, all four executives (three from Marsh and one from Zurich) were part of a scheme to control the excess casualty insurance market. More guilty pleas could be forthcoming, a spokesman for Spitzer said, but he declined to comment further, citing the ongoing investigation."

What does this mean for you?

Probably more paperwork, as compliance staffs seek to prevent any future collusion or appearance of same from tainting their business transactions.

July 18, 2005

Insurer profitability

US property and casualty insurers have had their most profitable year in almost three decades, turning an underwriting net profit of $5 billion. The bad news is one of the key drivers, strong pricing, has already started to deteriorate.

The great result followed several years of declines that ended with a disastrous 2001, and marked the third consecutive year of improving profits. The improvement, driven by higher prices, a favorable regulatory environment, and more restrictive underwriting, has produced a net profit after taxes of $39 billion. While that sounds like a great pile of cash, the 9.4% return on net worth doesn't look quite as attractive when compared to other industries or historical results. One of the key reasons - the low rates of return on investment income.

By comparison, the industry had a 17.3% rate of return in 1987 with a combined ratio of 104.6, whereas the 2004 rate was 98.1. For those of us old enough to remember, interest rates and stock market returns were significantly higher in those days, allowing insurers to lose money on an underwriting basis and more than make up for it with investment income. It looks like those wonderful days of double digit returns aren't coming back any time soon.

So, despite strong underwriting , a mostly favorable regulatory environment, and few very large catastrophic events, the industry can't even come close to delivering the kinds of returns enjoyed by other sectors. Couple that with the recent evidence of softening prices and continued inability to even focus on, much less begin to control health care expenses, and one cannot be sanguine about the industry's future results.

The net - if prices continue to soften, those insurers without discipline and a focus on medical expense management (for the lines impacted by medical costs) are in for a rough ride.

What does this mean for you?

Success if you stick to the fundamentals and finally do something about medical.

AIG-Spitzer close to settlement

Reuters reports that Eliot Spitzer, NY Attorney General, is close to a settlement with AIG in the civil lawsuit filed by his office. This would be good news for both AIG and the insurance industry, which has been waiting for the proverbial "other shoe" to drop since the suit was filed earlier this year.

The most visible impact of the issue has been the departure of long-time CEO Hank Greenberg as well as the decline in stock price, with AIG's stock down 17% (compared to the S&P's 2 point drop) since the Valentine's Day announcement. An equally significant, but perhaps less visible result is the loss of management attention on key business issues affecting the company. These include -

--continued major problems with AIG's new medical bill document management program, exemplified by long delays in payment, lost bills, frustrated health care providers, and regulatory actions

-- uncertain strategic direction at recent acquisition American General. AG's target market definition seems to wander like the needle on a compass in an iron mine. This lack of focus is NOT typical to AIG.

That said, AIG is a very strong company with competent management. If their leaders can once again begin to focus on their business, and correct a decades-long underinvestment in information technology, then it will continue to succeed.

What does this mean for you?

Get crises resolved as fast as possible, and do NOT lose your focus on the franchise. Trite, but true.

July 11, 2005

Medical malpractice - what crisis?

While medical malpractice premiums were climbing dramatically from 2000 to 2004, claims did not increase at all. The finding from a study by the Center for Justice and Democracy reported in the New York Times, examined the premium and claim histories of the 15 largest med mal carriers and found that while premiums escalated 120%, claims were flat while the insurers' incurred loss ratios (ratio of claims to premiums collected) improved by almost 25% to 51.4%.

What gives? Does this mean the "med mal crisis" of a few months ago was a myth? Depends on who you listen to. The Times article notes:

"According to Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal (D), the results of the study "have the potential to alter the debate fundamentally from seeming to cast the rapacious personal injury lawyers as the complete culprits and the insurers as innocent bystanders with doctors as victims to the insurers as equally responsible, if not more so." He does like to turn a phrase...

A ‘diabolically opposite" (one of my bride's best malaprops) view.

Lawrence Smarr -- president of the Physicians Insurers Association of America, which represents insurers owned by physicians -- said, "It's a meaningless comparison that no respectable actuary would consider." He added that malpractice insurance premiums have increased because juries have issued higher awards in lawsuits and insurers have used those awards as justification for the settlement of more claims. Smarr said, "The real problem is claim severity. It means that juries are awarding higher amounts and jury verdicts drive the potential cost of the claim so that makes settlements rise."

My take - Smarr's riposte does nothing to dispute the central result of the study - although Smarr states that claims costs are rising, the data does not support his statement. Either he has not been quoted correctly, does not have a meaningful response, or he is claiming that severity is much more important than frequency. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, I assume he is claiming the latter is true. Smarr is off base, as frequency (the number of claims) is definitely critical to an analysis of any insurance block. If severity has increased, and the total cost of claims has remained flat, than frequency must have decreased. If that is the case, then the "med mal crisis" may have been a severity-driven way to boost premiums.

What does this mean to you?

Always question your assumptions - when someone claims a study indicates a problem or clear finding, delve into the detail to determine yourself if the claim is supported by the data and analysis. To quote Ayn Rand, "always question your assumptions."

July 5, 2005

Hard markets and Soft markets

Hard market, soft market, transitional market - all are terms that insurance industry veterans have used to characterize the various stages of the "insurance industry underwriting cycle". Simply put, a hard market is when insurers are backing out of the market, insurance is expensive and getting more so, difficult to find, and likely limited when it can be obtained. Soft markets typically are marked by new entrants into the business, dropping prices, generous underwriting provisions, and aggressive discounting.

We are now in a soft market, especially in California. The next question is how did we get here and how long will it last.

Well, we got here because insurers raised rates for three years in a row beginning in 2001, thereby driving margins, and profits, up substantially. This newly profitable industry caught the attention of outside capital, which wanted to jump in on the action. Remember, those with lots of money to invest can put it into bonds (at very low interest rates) equities (with their only slightly better returns with much more risk), real estate (prices are high and speculation of a bubble rampant), or under a very large mattress.

So, among other insurance lines, workers comp looked especially good. And lots of capital jumped in, causing prices to drop. They are still declining.

The second part of the question is much harder to answer - but there are some indicators that predict it will not last nearly as long as the soft market of the late nineties. Most significant is the continued rapid increase in medical expenses. In workers comp, most medical expenses are paid out more than 12 months after the date of injury, and fully 1/3 of dollars are paid more than 36 months post injury. It is incredibly hard to accurately predict what medical inflation will do to a claim's medical costs. And, all indications are that medical expenses in WC are rising faster than in the overall economy.

You can find an excellent review of past markets, market drivers, and other useful info at the American Association of State Compensation Insurance Funds. While the report is somewhat dated, the logic is not.

What does this mean for you?

Enjoy the soft market if you are a buyer, hope it ends soon if you are a seller, and whoever you are, remember that medical expense will drive the next hard market.

July 1, 2005

TRIA - the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act's future

It appears increasingly unlikely that the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act will be renewed in its present form. A report filed by Treasury Sec. John Snow claims the robust economy is justification for its' position that the Act is no longer needed, any renewal will stifle innovation and economic growth, and any renewal should factor in significant changes.

Referring to the potential for renewal of the Act, the report makes several recommendations, noting:

"Any extension of the program should recognize several key principles, including the temporary nature of the program, the rapid expansion of private market development (particularly for insurers and reinsurers to grow capacity), and the need to significantly reduce taxpayer exposure."

Snow is recommending several specific changes, including:

"an extension only if it includes a significant increase to $500 million of the event size that triggers coverage, increases the dollar deductibles and percentage co-payments, and eliminates from the program certain lines of insurance, such as Commercial Auto, General Liability, and other smaller lines, that are far less subject to aggregation risks and should be left to the private market.

While Snow is correct that the Act was intended to be temporary, that was more because it was the first of its kind, we had no experience in this area, and far better to sunset a law than to let an inappropriate, ineffective, or bad law stay on the books automatically.

That said, there are benefits to the insurance industry if the Act dies. These include:
-- No more onerous TRIA paperwork. Insurers/brokers are required to offer TRIA coverage to all policyholders (for most property/casualty and some accident/health lines) and prove that by getting signatures on documents from insureds. Most insureds opt out of coverage, meaning brokers are required to obtain, file, and maintain records without compensation.

-- Outside major municipal areas, the vast majority of policyholders are rejecting terrorism coverage anyway due to higher costs.

Among the problems with any decision to non-renew TRIA are the regulatory requirements of certain states, the lack of a market for terrorism coverage, and the expense of private insurance.

New York state requires terrorism coverage, and is generally seen as the most likely target of an attack. Rock and a hard place, indeed.

Property and workers compensation insurers are particularly vulnerable, due to their high exposure, potential long-tail claims due to environmental fallout from any terror act, and in the case of WC, unlimited financial liability. Make no mistake, another significant terror attack could have a huge financial impact, one that the present insurance markets would not be able to withstand. Scenarios indicate an exposure into the tens of billions under certain situations for property and WC insurers if a dirty bomb event occurs in a major metro area.

What does this mean for you?

Depends on where you work and what your "exposure" is. If you are in a major metro area or near a "high value" target, rates could climb drastically. If not, rates may still increase as insurers seek to mitigate risk by increasing their reserves ahead of a catastrophic event.

I'll look into the potential impact on workers comp in a future posting.

June 15, 2005

Part D Prescription - budget buster?

Well, our officials in Washington have lost their minds. How else to explain the requirement by Medicare officials that the new Medicare Part D programs ""offer a surprisingly generous array of prescription drug choices"?

Pharmaceutical firms are likely ecstatic about the news, as the "open formulary" combined with the prohibition against the Federal government negotiating drug prices means that there is likely to be many drugs offered at what the pharmas will deem to be appropriate prices.

CMS Administrator Mark McClellan,and Babette Edgar, a pharmacist at CMS both claim that the diverse population covered under the Medicare and Medicaid programs necessitates a diverse formulary. According to a New York Times article cited in California HealthLine, the original cost assumptions for the Part D program may have to be reworked, as they assumed a narrower formulary. The result - costs will be higher than previous projections. Here's the quote:

"In 2003, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the Medicare prescription drug benefit would cost $395 billion over 10 years, but earlier this year, CBO raised the estimated costs of Part D drugs to $849 billion between 2006 and 2015 (California Healthline, 3/11). According to the Times, CBO cited the federal formulary requirements as one factor in its higher estimate.

CBO Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin said the agency's estimates so far have assumed that Medicare drug plans would use "restrictive formularies" to help control spending. He added, however, that with the broader drug lists being required by the government, CBO "now expects that prescription drug plans will be slightly less effective at controlling drug spending than we had previously assumed."

CMS denies costs will be driven up, citing the plans for the Part D vendors to use cost control mechanisms similar to those used by commercial plans. The problem with that statement is that Part D vendors are specifically prohibited from using many of these techniques, such as prior authorization.

The last estimate indicated the program, originally forecast to cost $395 billion over ten years, will actually cost just under $900 billion over the same period. With these "unforeseen changes" costs may get close to the trillion dollar mark.

What does this mean for you?

I'm not sure; but if the Chinese decide to stop providing loans to the Federal government, it is either higher taxes, drastic cuts in other governmental programs (it is tough to get $100 billion by cutting HeadStart or NASA budgets), or cancellation of the program.

June 13, 2005

AIG's Greenberg is gone

Hank Greenberg has resigned from AIG's Board of Directors (last Wednesday), but the disarray within AIG continues. This marks the final separation of Greenberg from the company he led for decades and built from a small international insurer to a global force.

It appears that he was "estranged" well before the final resignation, as AIG was evidently withholding financial information from Greenberg. The resignation comes on the heels of the May 31 restatement of earnings by AIG, lowering net income over the last ten years by $3.9 billion (ten percent of total earnings).

Internal sources indicate there is a lack of decisiveness prevalent in AIG and the AIG companies that was previously unheard of. American General has switched target markets and market emphasis several times over the last year, leadership changes that appeared to be in process are now in limbo, and some underwriters at the AIG companies are unsure what they should be writing at what price.

Some confusion is always present in even the best-run companies, as communication through multiple layers and multiple individuals with disparate agendas is unclear at best. However, the extent of the issues at AIG indicates a larger problem. Perhaps the autocratic style that was so successful for the company for four decades is to blame, and/or politics is taking the lead over productivity as individuals scramble to position themselves while the sands shift under them.

What does this mean for you?

If you work at AIG, keep the faith. There are lots of very talented, highly motivated people at AIG, and barring unforeseen criminal indictments of the enterprise itself, the company will survive and prosper. It would be easy to say keep forging ahead and ignore the tumult around you, but probably more intelligent to suggest you keep reading the tea leaves. Unfortunately, so much of success in big companies is based on politics not productivity.

June 9, 2005

The impact of the uninsured on health insurance premiums

There is now evidence that the health care costs of the uninsured are borne in part by those who do have health insurance. A study by Families USA reported in Bloomberg News indicates that the annual "surcharge" is $922 for the average American family with employer-sponsored health care coverage. Why? Because providers who treat the uninsured only receive about 1/3 the cost of their care from the uninsureds, leaving others to pick up the tab for the rest.

According to the report, about 8% of insurance premiums goes to cover costs associated with caring for the uninsured. And, the cost will rise to over $1500 within five years.

The report notes:
"Insured families in six states - New Mexico, West Virginia, Oklahoma, Montana, Texas and Arkansas - will pay more than $1,500 in additional premiums this year to cover the costs of patients who lack medical insurance, the report found. By 2010, the list will include five more states: Florida, Alaska, Idaho, Washington and Arizona."

Here's the impact in real world terms. On an individual basis, your family premiums would be $900 less if the uninsured had coverage. On an employer-specific basis, General Motors is paying about $480 million a year in "excess costs" to cover the uninsured. And nationally, considering the Federal and state governments' expenditures on health care, our taxes are paying more than $50 billion a year to "insure the uninsured".

I have been saying for several years that the "uninsured" are actually "insured" through a mix of taxation, cost-shifting, and self-insurance. This is the first study that quantifies the cost of that "insurance".

What does this mean for you?

Until and unless we address the funding of coverage for the uninsured, these hidden and overt taxes will continue. It adds to everyone's costs of doing business, reduces industrial competitiveness, and damages balance sheets. Yours too.

Thanks to Peter Rousmaniere for the heads-up.

June 7, 2005

Growth in limited health plans

Limited health plans, covering only routine, non-hospital care, appear to be growing in popularity. The plans, with little to no underwriting and guaranteed level premiums, limit coverage by capping expenses at levels from $1000 to $20,000.

Companies such as Intel, Sears, and IBM, in addition to a number of other large employers, are slated to begin offering these plans next year.

I can't figure out why anyone would buy one of these plans. The big fear that drives health insurance coverage is catastrophic care; as people buy insurance based on fear, the limited plans do little to meet the market's need.

One potential impact if these plans grow in popularity is the reduction in the number of those uninsured. However, that would be a highly misleading finding, as the low coverage limit will undoubtedly lead to uncompensated care. One could also argue that insureds will be more likely to pursue more expensive care, as they are not disincented from routine office visits, diagnostic lab and x-ray, and other medical services that may find potentially expensive medical conditions.

May 20, 2005

It gets worse for AIG

The mess at AIG may be getting worse. According to Reuters, on Wednesday, the state of Florida ordered American International Group Inc.:

"to turn over information about the company's previously disclosed accounting misrepresentations or possibly be suspended from doing business in the state. The Office of Insurance Regulation order also requires AIG and its 43 units operating in the state to name and remove any culpable parties responsible for misrepresentations made on the insurer's financial statements."

Among other lines, AIG is one of the largest writers of workers comp in the state, with an estimated $200 million in premiums (plus claims administrative responsibilities for large self-insured risks). AIG also administers managed care programs throughout the state through its HealthDirect subsidiary. It is unclear from the report if there would be any impact on either the TPA or managed care programs.

According to Reuters;
"The Florida order also requires AIG to file by July 1 "true and correct" financial statements for the years of 2000 through 2005 for all AIG entities licensed in Florida. The company has said it expects to file its 10-K annual report with securities regulators by the end of May. If AIG does not comply with Florida's order, the state said it will suspend the insurer, among other potential actions."

What does this mean for you?

This is serious. It indicates a lack of faith in the veracity of AIG's financial statements, and possibly concern about its finances. No one is suggesting, even remotely, that AIG is in financial difficulty. However, given how fast Kemper sank, and the very few indicators before their demise, one would be well-served to watch this developing situation closely.

April 29, 2005

AIG's problems continue

AIG is still in trouble. The latest announcement indicates the firm is still unable to unravel the complex financial transactions that are causing distress in Mr. Spitzer's offices, and thus will be unable to report their audited results (as previously promised) on Monday.

Instead, AIG will report unaudited results and indicate where they have found potential problems. So far, those problems "only" amount to $2.7 billion in overstated reserves, a figure that is a mere fraction of the company's total assets. I do wonder why they would run the risk of publishing unaudited results, as they may well be wrong, and perhaps significantly so. If the unaudited results are in fact significantly different from the final, audited results, this premature disclosure will cast further doubt on management's grasp on the fundamentals. A pretty scary thought.

On another, seemingly-unrelated topic, the burgeoning issue of AIG's apparent willful decision to mis-report WC premium as liability premium in several states has led to possible investigations in NY and California. Simply put, AIG knew they were mis-representing some portion of their WC premiums as liability as far back as 1992, yet by 1997 they had not completely resolved the issue.

This is not just a meaningless accounting error. In many states, WC insurers pay a percentage of their earned premium into a guarantee fund that sets aside reserves to cover potential losses from insurers that go bankrupt. Thus, mis-representing WC premiums as liability saved AIG a lot of money.

I find it hard to believe that a company like AIG that is so numbers-oriented, that constantly measures and monitors its' financial results, and that is so creative and innovative in all things financial, could take five years to resolve what is really nothing more than an accounting problem. Yes, it is possible, it just strains credibility.

As noted before, AIG is a very well run company with a lot of innovative, hard-working, extremely intelligent people. There is nothing more damaging to their productivity than constantly waiting for the next bad news.

Property and Casualty 2004 results

The property and casualty industry had a banner year in 2004, making money on an underwriting basis for the first time since 1978. The combined ratio of 97.9, combined with investment profits produced a return on equity of 10.4%, a significant improvement over historical results.

Explanation for non-insurance folks. The combined ratio is the sum of claims and administrative expenses, and represents all of the claims, underwriting, sales, and other expenses. Typically the P&C industry loses money on an underwriting basis (producing combined ratios of over 100%) and makes money on investing the premiums customers have paid. As many P&C insurance lines have long "tails", claims may not come in for several years, and may not be paid in full for decades, allowing the insurer to reap the investment returns.

While all looks rosy, the underlying picture is somewhat troubling. The returns were driven by both increased prices for insurance and decreases in claims expenses. However, the growth in premiums is rapidly tailing off, with AM Best predicting growth in 2005 to be well below 2004's 4.7%.

To quote Best,
"As a sign of things to come, net premium growth was only a little better than half the percentage increase for 2003. A.M. Best data show that increases in net premiums written have been reduced for the second straight year, from a peak increase of 14.7% in 2002 to 9.5% in 2003 and 4.7% in 2004. With the deceleration of rate increases giving way to price decrements in the latter half of 2004 in most major commercial and reinsurance lines, and with the expectation that this will be the norm in 2005, A.M. Best expects written premium growth will slow to 1.2% in 2005."

This is happening because more insurers are seeking to cash in on the profitability boom, equity markets are poor alternatives for capital investment, the bond market returns are marginal at best, and real estate appears to be in or headed for a bubble. Why does this matter? For the simple reason that large investors are always looking for places to invest their money, and with other alternatives appearing strikingly unattractive, many are considering "parking" their funds in what is today a profitable vehicle, insurance capital.

The more that happens, the more price competition occurs. Thus the cycle begins anew, with price pressure leading to price cuts, leading to declining margins.

What does this mean for you?

P&C rates are likely to decline in the near future, especially for short-tail lines such as property and fire. Workers' comp will not be far behind, with liability following soon after.

April 27, 2005

Why the uninsured are important to you

There has been some publicity recently regarding the possibility that there are fewer uninsured people in the US than the usual estimate of 45 million uninsureds. While this may be true, like many other arguments about statistics, if you get caught up in the statistical debate, you can easily forget that the real issue is there are tens of millions of uninsureds.

The argument partially stems from a definitional issue - one survey asks if you were uninsured during the previous twelve months, another asks if individuals were uninsured for the entire previous year. Obviously, there are meaningful differences in the question which will elicit different responses. The problem occurs when we focus on the academic issues rather than the overall problem. To quote Uwe Reinhardt of Princeton University (source LA TIMES); "Instead of addressing the problem, we say we must count the uninsured. It is literally, in my view, like making sure we know how many deck chairs we have on the Titanic".

Experts questioned about the reasons for the discrepancy alluded to the possibility of undercounting Medicaid recipients, a reluctance on the part of respondents to respond to detailed questions if they answered "yes" to the "did you have insurance…" question, and statistical sampling issues.

What does this mean for you?

The more uninsureds there are, the more taxpayers and other users of the health care system have to pay to subsidize them. The arguments over whether we can afford to cover the uninsureds are uninformed, academic, and to be blunt, stupid. The fact is, we are covering their care, via hidden taxation. The sooner we address this, the sooner we can fairly and publicly allocate their health care expenses.

April 21, 2005

Why HSAs don't decrease uninsurance

In perhaps one of the least surprising stories to come out this week, Califronia HealthLine reported that "Most uninsured U.S. residents likely will not enroll in high-deductible health plans with tax-free health savings accounts… fewer than one million of the 45 million uninsured residents will enroll in such plans…"

The report, funded by the Commonwealth Fund, noted that "more than half of uninsured residents do not pay taxes because of their low incomes and would not benefit from HSAs. Sherry Glied, a professor in the Department of Health Policy and Management at the Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, added that HSAs would save middle-income uninsured residents no more than 3% to 6% on the $2,000 annual premium of most high-deductible health plans.

"There's no money here. You're giving people peanuts," she said (Strahinich, Boston Herald, 4/20). "Very few people will gain insurance coverage because of tax preferences" for HSAs, and "in fact some people may lose coverage," Glied said, adding, "Lower-wage workers in small firms are likely to be most at risk for dropping coverage if they are only offered a plan that provides little protection for out-of-pocket costs" (Commonwealth Fund release, 4/20).

Commonwealth Fund President Karen Davis said that individuals enrolled in high-deductible health plans with HSAs "would have bought this coverage no matter what the law did," adding, "They're not being induced to buy it by the tax incentives."

So much for the vaunted benefits of tax incentives. Simply put, if people don't pay taxes because they make little money, they certainly can't afford health insurance, and very likely are not getting it from their employers either because they do not offer it or because the premium contribution is too steep.

Actually, my perspective on this is somewhat…tilted. The study helps to demolish the argument that tax breaks and the like will encourage the purchase of health insurance, removing yet another red herring in the debate over what we should do about health coverage in the US.

What does this mean for you?

More insight into why people buy, and don't buy, health insurance may provide needed insights that will help you sell more insurance, increase enrollment, or at least understand why your membership is not increasing.

April 12, 2005

Disabling disability

Jon Coppelman has written a great posting about the disability-enhancing powers of disability payments in "Workers Comp Insider".

To quote Mr. Coppleman:

"In an article by E. J. Mundel at drkoop.com, a "meta-analysis" of 211 research studies from across the globe reveals that indemnity (lost wage) payments have a strong influence on medical outcomes. In all but one of the studies, workers receiving financial compensation for work-related injuries were almost four times more likely to have poorer long-term medical outcomes than uncompensated workers."

If you are in the workers' comp or disability businesses, read the posting. It provides a scientific foundation for the gut feeling that many of us industry long-timers have sensed for years. If people get paid to be out of work, it is harder to get (some of) them back on the job.

It's just common sense.

What does this mean for you?

Probably makes you feel better that what you thought was going on really is.

March 31, 2005

Notes on Mr. Greenberg's departure

Hank Greenberg is gone from AIG; or at least, gone from part of AIG. It is not yet clear what his role will be at CV Starr and other entities that have significant influence over AIG's operations, executive compensation, and other key matters. My bet is the association will not be long-lived.

His resignation letter is public; it does not say anything surprising (it was, after all, crafted by his attorney). What will be much more interesting is what the Board does after Mr. Greenberg's departure, and if they adopt the oft-used strategy of blaming everything on the departed.

Not that Mr. Greenberg isn't primarily responsible for any wrongdoing on his watch; especially in today's post-Sarbanes-Oxley world he is certainly legally, as well as ethically liable. However, the other Board members also bear responsibility. I would not be in the least surprised if there are additional changes to AIG's Board in the near future.

Clearly, Greenberg dominated the company through his force of will, intense, brutal management style, brilliance and overwhelming ambition; my few brief meetings with the man did not leave me with any desire to make them a regular event. That said, he built the most successful insurance company on the planet. Those two factors make it both unfair and inappropriate to fault the Board, or anyone else, for their apparent inability or unwillingness to prevent Greenberg from crossing the line into (apparently) unethical or inappropriate stock manipulation.

What does this mean for you?

If you are stockholder, who knows. (I used to be, until last week.) It is all too easy to look back and say should have, would have, but in today's Spitzer-Sarbanes/Oxley world, all managers may want to re-examine their business practices to ensure they are not even close to, much less over, the ethical/legal line.

March 14, 2005

Greenberg leaving AIG

Several sources reported the imminent departure of Hank Greenberg, long-time Chairman and CEO of AIG, from the company effective tonight.

According to MarketWatch, "Greenberg, 79, the long-time chief executive of insurance giant American International Group, is expected to officially step down after an AIG (AIG: news, chart, profile) board meeting Monday night, paving the way for Martin Sullivan to ascend to the $166 billion global insurance conglomerate."

There are some indications that the Board at AIG is working to move as quickly as possible to address issues related to alleged stock price manipulation (prior to the purchase of American General); fallout from the Spitzer investigation of alleged bid-rigging and sham-bidding, and inappropriate usage of "insurance products" to smooth earnings for certain AIG customers.

Mr. Greenberg's age, 79, may be cited by some as contributing to the decision, but I wouldn't buy it. He has remained one of the more engaged and energetic CEOs of late.

March 9, 2005

Kaiser profits increase

Kaiser Permanente, one of the oldest and largest HMOs, reported net income for last year increased by 59% to $1.6 billion on revenues of $28 billion. The HMO's membership (registration required - free) was up slightly to 8.23 million as well.

According to California HealthLine,

"Kaiser officials said the gain in net income was boosted by rate increases, improved operating efficiencies and lower pharmaceutical costs. Unexpected adjustments to pension and post-retirement costs, workers' compensation and liability expenses also contributed to Kaiser's financial performance, company officials said.

Tom Meier, vice president and treasurer for Kaiser, said member rates increased by 10% to 11% in 2004, less than the 13% reported in recent years. "

The message here is we may be approaching, if not already at, the top of the cycle. Stock prices for publicly traded health plans are way up over last year (see Coventry and United HealthGroup), PEs are up as well, and managed care stocks are once again "strong buys."

A couple of other "take-aways".

1. Kaiser's (KP's) rates were up 10-11% last year, well above overall medical trend rates. This is likely a key to the improved profits, especially when one considers their increased spending on capital expenditures (up 30% as KP tries once again to implement an electronic medical records system).

2. KP operates the tightest form of managed care; the large group model (all docs are members of the Permanente medical group). If their rates are up 10-11%, what does that mean for less-tightly managed models?

March 4, 2005

Medicaid round up

News in brief.
The Congressional Budget Office projects potential savings from Pres. Bush's Medicaid cuts will be some $11 billion less (over the next five years) than the White House's claims.

The National Governors' meeting ended without an agreement from the governors on Medicaid program cuts, changes, or alterations. Here's the news from California HealthLine on where the effort stands...

"We'll now work to build on [common ground] and hopefully come up with a proposal that will be bipartisan and that we can take to Congress for the purpose of being able to substantially improve Medicaid and have it reach its promise," Leavitt said (Smith, Salt Lake Tribune, 3/2).

Governors' Concerns
Interviews with "numerous governors" indicate that the "consensus described by Leavitt does not exist," according to the Times (New York Times, 3/2). "We are still far apart," New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson (D) said.

Ohio Gov. Bob Taft (R) said, "With the respect to the budget itself, we've made clear we oppose [the administration's cuts], and we'll see how that issue works out here in the next few weeks."

Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle (D) said the administration's proposed changes are "not acceptable," adding, "What they are saying to states is, 'We're going to cut you and give you more flexibility,' and the flexibility is you can cut people off."

Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels (R), Bush's former budget director, said, "There's a lot of substantive agreement but honest tactical disagreement" (Washington Post, 3/2).

Don't expect this to happen any time soon...


February 26, 2005

Spitzer now investigating AIG CEO

According to Reuters, AIG Chairman and CEO Maurice "Hank" Greenberg is under investigation by NY Attorney General Eliot Spitzer. The story, to be published in the March 7 issue of Fortune, identifies the problem as Greenberg's possible promotion of the "income smoothing" products that were the cause of a previously-assessed $126 million fine paid by AIG.

The Reuters article states:

"Insurers have offered products akin to business loans to a broad swath of corporations, catching the eye of regulators who worry that these products smooth earnings and mask the true value of the borrowers. Rather than turning to a bank for a traditional loan or selling securities to raise cash, a company borrows money from its insurer. The loan is repaid in the form of increased premiums for traditional insurance."

There are a variety of other products that also provide the same type of benefit to public companies. If there is any investigation (neither AIG nor the AG's office would comment) my sense is the investigation is looking into not just the "inflated premium" products but other financial chicanery as well.

Until now, no public company had survived an indictment. It appeared that AIG had weathered the storm, but once the investigators start digging, there is no telling what they can come up with.

February 23, 2005

Positions on Medicaid stiffen

The Bush Administration's efforts to address the rising costs of Medicaid came under attack again by state governors from both parties.

The Bush budget proposal includes cuts of $40 billion in the program, at a time when program costs have been increasing at an annual rate of 9% for each of the last four years. Governors are concerned not only with the proposed cuts, but also want to have more freedom to broaden coverage to other uninsured populations. At present, this requires a waiver, which can only be obtained after a somewhat cumbersome and time-consuming process involving the Centers for Medicare Services (CMS).

According to the Associated Press, there is an uncommon amount of bipartisanship evident in the governors' pronouncements...

"One thing governors feel, Democrats and Republicans alike, is that we have a health care system that, if you're on Medicaid, you have unlimited access to health care, at unlimited levels, at no cost," said Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, a Republican. "No wonder it's running away."


Republicans have been the most sweeping in their push toward market reforms, aiming to encourage patients to spend Medicaid dollars more wisely. Democrats, however, also are turning to concepts that require people on Medicaid to bear part of the costs, through copays or deductibles. Most try to spare additional costs, or cuts, from children and the poorest of the poor."

Medicaid funds come from state and federal coffers, with the feds' contribution tied to the state's average income level (New York gets less, Mississippi gets more). Thus, any cuts in federal dollars either have to be made up with state funds, or programs cut. My bet is providers will see their reimbursement rates affected.

As Medicaid takes a hit, providers will likely seek alternative revenue sources.

February 10, 2005

AIG hammers execs

While this is somewhat off-topic, it is nonetheless quite important...

(NYTimes, free registration required) AIG revealed that it paid most of the $126 million penalty assessed by the Feds for wrongdoing out of a bonus pool for AIG Financial Products executives. The decision affected some 50-60 executives, most of whom usually received the majority of their compensation from the annual bonus. Many found their checks were missing a few zeros, and a few received no bonus at all.

This does AIG credit. The penalty was assessed by federal investigators for AIG's sale of financial instruments whose only purpose was to smooth out earnings for public companies, thereby hiding the true nature of their results. By focusing his anger, and retribution on the individuals responsible for the malfeasance, Hank Greenberg (79), , AIG's long-serving and highly successful CEO is sending an unmistakable message.

However, remember that the same execs who are paying the fine likely received bonuses in the past based on their financial successes, which undoubtedly included the sale of the financial instruments that led to the investigation. Here's hoping that the execs affected were the only ones involved, and the wrongdoing did not go any further.

Kudos to AIG and Mr. Greenberg for this move.

February 4, 2005

Property and Casualty - Soft Market continues...

RIMS will release it's annual review of the P&C market in March, and early indications are the soft market persisted throughout 2004, with two notable exceptions.

Across the board, prices declined in all lines of coverage except Employment Practices Liability and Workers' Comp.

This has been good news for buyers and sellers alike; prices have come down, albeit modestly and without the cutthroat activity of the late nineties. This bodes well for insurers, as their overall returns on equity still are well below the S&P 500 and surplus levels are not excessive.

Interestingly, WC rates have not dropped, or if they have, not consistently or by very much in any jurisdiction. This despite improving loss ratios in many states and at many insurers.

This last note is encouraging. Medical costs in WC are still increasing at 12% annually, most insurers have not figured out how to address medical costs, and they are wisely (giving them the benefit of the doubt) choosing to not cut premiums. Here's hoping this sanity is not temporary.

February 1, 2005

Bush plans for health insurance

Pres. Bush's plans regarding health care are receiving quite a bit of attention as of late. Perhaps the most comprehensive overview is in the 1/31 edition of the LA Times.

The "net" is a fundamental shift from an employer-based health care payment system to an individually-based system.


The rationale behind the move appears to be based in the so-called ownership society concept. To quote the article:

"Supporters of the new approach, who see it as part of Bush's "ownership society," say workers and their families would become more careful users of healthcare if they had to pay the bills. Also, they say, the lower premiums on high-deductible plans would make coverage affordable for the uninsured and for small businesses."

Not enough time to write up a full report; for those interested, the Times article is well worth the read.

January 31, 2005

Private insurer profits

Bob Laszewski of Health Policy and Strategy Associates (no affiliation with HSA) notes that CMS' latest health care cost report includes the following:

"in 2002, the percentage of health insurance premiums spent on profit and admin expense was 12.8%; in 2003, the expense and profit ratio had rised to 13.6%. Undoubtedly, this gain is not in expenses but in health insurance company profits."

This occured at a time when overall health care costs were still increasing by almost 9% a year.

At the risk of stating the obvious, profits and admin expenses have increased at a rate greater than that of total medical expenses. Not only does this not say much for the "efficiency" of the private market, it also may add fuel to the argument againts private insurance.

We'll have more details on the CMS report's notable findings in a future post.

January 18, 2005

NY's Medicaid troubles

the recent publicity about the Bush administration's plans to change the way the federal government pays for Medicad got me wondering what the states think of the program.

We know that Florida is struggling with a $1 billion increase in Medicaid costs this year.

Another big state has problems that make FL's situation look positively sunny be comparison. (free subscription required) Medicaid in NY is now consuming 44% of the state budget. That's $44 billion, and has resulted in calls for significant cuts in the program, accompanied by increased taxes on health care providers including hospitals.

The New York Times reports:
"The cuts, if they go through, will cause a ripple effect. Since the state's contribution to Medicaid generates matching contributions from the federal government and New York localities, a $1 billion cut in state financing could mean a decrease of at least $3 billion in overall Medicaid spending across the state, according to health care analysts. Hospital trade groups predicted that cuts on that scale would stun the health care industry, a major sector in the state's economy, and perhaps lead to cuts in service or even hospital closings."

NY is somewhat unique in that it requires local governments to partially fund their portion of Medicaid. This complicates Gov. Pataki's (R) mission, as he has also promised to cap Medicaid funding increases for local government at the general rate of inflation.

Couple that promise with the Bush Administration's pending changes and the political power of health care employee unions and you have the makings of a very unpleasant budget battle.

We'll look at other states in future posts - here's hoping there's some good news amongst the bad.

January 17, 2005

Spitzer's "final" offer

NY Atty Gen Eliot Spitzer has evidently rejected Marsh's offer of $600 million to end his case against the broker for bid-rigging and other sins. Instead, he is seeking $750 million and a public apology from the company as the cost of settling the case.

Given that Mr. Spitzer's former colleague is now head of Marsh, don't be surprised to see this get worked out in gentlemanly fashion.

January 10, 2005

The cost of insuring the uninsured

Lost in the character assassination, sophomoric use of labels, political name-calling and sound-bites that passed for an election campaign was any realistic debate about the cost of insuring the uninsured. Bush's effort was deemed to be too modest, while Kerry accused of bankrupting the system to cover the uninsured.

Now that the dust has settled, it's likely that there will be little progress in this critical area - health care is not a key issue for most voters (who, after all, have health insurance either from private payers or thru Medicare).

With the politicians absent from the field, now is a good time to return to the issue.

The first question is cost - simply put, how much would it cost?

Fortunately "Health Affairs" published an interesting assessment in late 2003 by two of their editors...

"Using data from surveys of individuals, providers, and government programs, Jack Hadley and John Holahan estimate that uninsured Americans received $35 billion worth of uncompensated health care in 2001. Governments picked up $30.6 billion of the cost, while physicians' and hospitals' forgone time, profits, and philanthropy were responsible for between $7.5-$9.8 billion's worth of care for uninsured Americans.

In a second article, Hadley and Holahan project that it would cost between $33.9 billion and $68.7 billion to cover the uninsured. The lower cost would be under a government program, which would likely pay providers less, while the higher cost assumes the uninsured are enrolled in private-sector insurance plans that pay providers more."

There you have it. By way of comparison, consider we are spending significantly more than that in Iraq.

January 8, 2005

P&C reserves and asbestos

ACE Insurance's recent announcement that it is increasing asbestos reserves by almost $300 million may be a case of too little, but perhaps not too late.

Rating agencies have been closely monitoring reserving practices, paying particular attention to the actual amounts set aside as compared to actuarial estimates of future liability. For the layman, this means the companies that determine the financial viability of insurers want to make sure they have set aside enough money to pay for future claims.

This is important stuff - insurance is predicated on the policyholder's confidence in the insurer's ability to pay claims. Any concern on the part of present or potential policyholders about this ability is going to hurt the insurance company's ability to attract new customers.

While one would think the close monitoring of insurance company financials will provide ample warning of impending problems, history shows that when troubles hit insurers, they can collapse seemingly overnight.

In this case, AM Best, one of the leading rating agencies, believes ACE has not set aside enough cash to pay for future asbestos liabilities. Best goes on to say:

"A.M. Best expects that additional charges will need to be taken in the next several years. However, given ACE's current capital levels and its substantial earnings projections, potential charges taken in subsequent years should be readily absorbed."


Best did not reduce ACE's rating. Fitch Ratings (my personal favorite) did cut its rating of an ACE's subsidiary's ratings from a B+ to a B- on concerns over future claims and the impact of the charge on overall financials.

Fitch has been very cognizant of the asbestos reserving issue, noting in their latest review of the industry a potential shortfall of $43-$60 billion in reserves for asbestos-related claims at the end of 2003.

While this may seem arcane, esoteric, and generally pretty uninteresting, asbestos reserving practices and results thereof are a key to the viability of many an insurer.

Those who buy insurance should take notice.

January 4, 2005

Governors fight Medicaid cuts

The National Governors' Assn is mounting a surprisingly united front in the battle with the federal government over Medicaid funding . Governors are complaining that the sum of currently proposed and possible federal changes to Medicaid may leave states unable to make up any funding deficit.

Medicaid accounts for 22% of the average state budget, pays for 50% of all long term care and 70% of nursing home costs. Total expenditures for 2004 are estimated at $360 billion, split equally between states and the federal givernment.

Some of the proposed changes look remarkably like the ones implemented in Utah under then-Gov. Mike Leavitt, recently nominated to head HHS. These include (thanks to California HealthLine):

--Allow states to make changes to Medicaid and SCHIP (child health), such as increasing copayments and limiting eligibility, without first obtaining federal waivers;


--Allow local officials to provide different benefits in different parts of a state; and


--Allow states to charge higher fees to higher-income recipients.

Why should the average insurance exec care? Well, this "stuff" usually flows downhill, which likely means cuts in Medicaid reimbursement to providers. Providers will seek to recoup this lost revenue from other sources, particularly those that are soft targets.

Smaller health plans, TPAs, and P&C carriers, take note.

January 2, 2005

Top Trends in the health insurance markets

Here are the top trends in health care as I see them, using the actuarial method of looking back over my shoulder to see what happened, and thereby predicting the future with confidence.

1. More consolidation amongst health insurers.
Many years ago (say, 8 or so) industry pundits were predicting that the health insurance industry would consolidate to a handful of large players, an oligopoly if you will. 2004 has added a lot of credibility to that argument, with Anthem-Wellpoint, Coventry-First Health, and United Healthcare-Oxford three of the more significant. The rationale behind these mergers is classic business school stuff - it is a mature industry, with limited growth opportunities, thereby favoring those companies with market power, economies of scale, and lots of capital/ready access to capital to grow by acquisition.

Expect more of the same in 2005.

2. The return of the hospital
Hospital expenses are the single most powerful driver of overall health care inflation, and they are showing renewed power. Weak hospitals, marginal managers, and bad business concepts have been driven out by the brutal forces of competition and reimbursement, leaving leaner, smarter, more aggressive institutions hardened by years of bargaining with managed care companies.

For now, hospitals hold the upper hand, and managed care firms are having a much tougher time at the negotiating table.

Expect this to remain the case throughout 2005.

3. Cuts in Medicaid and Medicare
Mr. Bush's desire to reduce federal expenditures over the long term will result in significant changes in these behemoth programs. Health care costs are a huge portion of the federal budget, and present an attractive target to those focused on cutting deficits. Some of this is already apparent in the (latest) strident campaign to cut out "waste and abuse".

There will very likely be tough cuts in hospital and physician reimbursement over the next two years, and perhaps a drastic overhaul of Medicaid in the form of block grants to states rather than the present "defined benefits" program model. When CMS shudders, the rest of the health care community quakes. These providers will look to recoup their lost revenue from somewhere...

Expect a very heated battle, with Bush et al eventually pushing through a drastic overhaul of these two "Great Society" programs.

December 30, 2004

Property and Casualty Results

Fitch Ratings has released its' "final" analysis of the P&C industry's results for 2003. The report focuses on reserve deficiencies, and while the results look better than those from a year ago, the overall message is troubling.

Here are the highlights and my comments in italics...

--total reserve deficiency at the end of 2003 was between $43 and $61 billion...the industry continues to be unable to predict future costs with any accuracy; this will give investors pause as they consider whether to provide funds to the P&C industry, leading (over the longer term) to capital constraints and therefore a tighter market
--most of this is due to under-reserving in the accident years 1994-2003, with the bulk between 1997 and 2002. historically poor reserving in this period has been due to a failure to predict the rise in health care costs. Many reserves for claims occuring in the late nineties assumed a health care inflation rate of 7-8%, an assumption that continues to drag down financial results, and has even contributed to the demise of several P&C carriers, including Atlantic Mutual.
--asbestos is responsible for between $15 and $25 billion of the total, reflecting the industry's continued head-in-the-sand approach.


How do we put this in context?

1. The P&C market appears to be softening, with rates for short-tail lines (those where claims are usually reported within a few months of the end of the policy term) falling while longer term lines (liability, Workers' Comp) leveling off or declining somewhat. This softening cannot continue if carriers are going to add to reserves - without higher premiums to make up the deficit, the reserve deficiency will continue to hang over the market.

2. Health care costs receive barely a mention in the Fitch report. Health care costs are the primary driver of most claims, and this lack of attention on the part of a premier rating agency and industry expert does not bode well for the industry as a whole - if they do not know what is causing the problem, they will not be able to address it. And the industry has not demonstrated ANY awareness of or commitment to addressing rising medical costs, even as trend rates in P&C exceed 12%.

3. Asbestos, asbestos, asbestos - the word that brings chills to the executive suite at many an insurer. Some carriers have "bitten the bullet", while others seem to be adopting a "hope and pray" approach to dealing with their reserving problem. That approach, especially when viewed in the context of the softening market, will likely mean additional financial struggles for some P&C carriers and reinsurers.

December 29, 2004

PC Industry Profits in 2004

Best's has released their latest report on the profitability of the Property and Casualty insurance industry. The net is 2004 has been a very good year, despite the large number of catastrophic events most notable of which were the four hurricanes that devastated the southeastern US.

The industry appears to have been profitable on an underwriting basis to the tune of over $4 billion for the nine months ended 9/30/04. This is a very strong performance, as the industry typically loses money on an underwriting basis, relying on investment income (from investing premiums in debt and equity instruments) to deliver profits.

If not for the estimated $20.5 billion in covered losses from the hurricanes (most of which was incurred by US insurers), 2004 would have been a stupendously profitable year. But, as one wag put it, that's why they call it insurance.

This silver cloud has a grey lining. Historically, senior management in the P&C industry has a pathologic aversion to profits, which they demonstrate by cutting premiums and writing lots of bad business whenever they start to make lots of money. Expect this condition to perpetuate itself in the new year. In fact, Best points out that it may already have started...

"(the) industry's operating performance measured by return on revenue improved to a healthy 10.3 percent as of nine-month 2004 results, up from 8 percent in the comparable 2003 period. However, operating results moderated from the 13.8 percent return on revenue reported for the first six months of 2004 due to reduced underwriting income..."

December 21, 2004

Coventry - First Health deal passes key test

Coventry's pending acquisition of First Health passed a key milestone with the Feds' approval of the merger. This is now a "done deal", not that there was much doubt it was going to happen.

News from sources familiar with First Health indicate that Pat Dills, Lee Dickerson, and Ed Wristen (FH senior leadership) will be departing the organization in the (very) near future. Art Lynch, present head of sales for FH, will remain on board, and will likely assume additional responsibilities.

One interesting tidbit related to this is the pending issues resulting from Coventry's ability to access HealthNet contracts. Huh? Read on...

FH acquired the WC assets of HealthNet earlier this year. As part of the deal, FH received access to HealthNet's WC contracts with their providers - this was perhaps the most attractive piece of the deal to FH, which had long been under pressure to improve California network results. Well, sources indicate that the FH-HealthNet contract does NOT include any change in control language, leaving HealthNet contracts (at least in theory) accessible by Coventry.

If these sources are correct, one has to wonder what HealthNet was thinking...rumors had abounded earlier this year about FH's shaky future.

December 19, 2004

Employer health premium increases

As goes California, so goes the nation. Particularly bad news if the trend one is watching is health care. California's health care premiums have just passed the $10,000 per family threshold, a level some experts think will finally lead to calls for significant change.

Don't bet on it.

The frightening thing about this increase is it reflects a lower than expected trend rate of 11.4%...2003 costs were up a whopping 15.8%. When 11.4% is good news, you know we're in trouble.

The study, sponsored by the California HealthCare Foundation and Kaiser Family Foundation, also covers national health care premium trends. And those numbers aren't a beam of sunshine either.

The national health care trend rate is 11.2%. Since 2000, health care premiums are up 61%.

Sixty-one percent.

For those who are interested, a summary of the report presents the highlights, including employer contribution rates and trends, specific plan trend rates, and future cost projections. Make sure you are sitting down when you read this.

December 18, 2004

Marsh's future - post Spitzer

Risk and Insurance magazine, an industry publication focussed primarily on the property and casualty industry, has an interesting interview with Marsh CEO Michael Cherkasky. Cherkasky, a relative newcomer to Marsh who joined the organization when they acquired Kroll (investigations and security firm), was perhaps the best stroke of luck Marsh could have had.

Cherkasky worked with NY Attorney General Spitzer at the state level, and they know each other well. His appointment to CEO will go far to deflect Spitzer's attacks, as their relationship appears to be positive.

The interview details Marsh's plans for the future, and is required reading for any risk manager, broker, or regulator wondering what the impact of the contingency commission-sham bidding scandal will be on brokers.

One excerpt is particularly telling...

(Risk and Insurance editor Jack Roberts) "Do you think that if other competitors don't accept that model-that all sides of the transaction ought to be transparent-that that will give Marsh a competitive edge?

(Cherkasky) - "We absolutely do. The attitude of caveat emptor-let the buyer beware-that's not going to be our attitude. We think that will be a competitive edge and that we will be very tough to compete with if you don't do it that way. But that's up to the marketplace. We're going to adopt that because that's what we believe is going to be effective in the 21st century under this regulatory environment and we're confident it's going to make a fair return for our shareholders."

That competitive return will likely be considerably less than it was pre-Spitzer, but better lower returns than none at all.

December 9, 2004

Insurance Industry Profit Margins

Weiss Ratings has recently released their report on insurance industry profitability, and the news is both good and bad. Good if you compare it to past year's reports, bad if you are expecting robust returns.

The report notes: "Of the 544 insurers studied by Weiss for the year ending 2003, 69 percent experienced either negative margins or profit margins of less than five percent."

Makes the grocery business look like a great investment.

Breaking down the numbers further by category, here are the individual industry sector results:

HMO - 3.8%
Life Insurance - 8.2 percent
Health Insurance - 5.5 percent

and the overall winner for most profitable insurance sector is...

P&C at 8.3 percent

Not surprisingly for those who have been reading our blog, the culprit appears to be the industry's inability to contain rising health care costs.

Melissa Gannon, Weiss VP, notes: ""Although the industry has enjoyed an increase in revenues by raising premiums, insurers have also had to deal with the rising cost of medical care as a result of more open networks, an aging population, expensive medical advances, and an inefficient healthcare system."

While some in the media believe we are all wintering in St Bart's except for those brief holidays in the Alps, the truth is we continue to work very hard to combat health care costs, and do not appear to be making much progress.

Note - For those unfamiliar with Weiss, they are perhaps one of the more critical rating agencies, but their tough standards have been validated time and again as the more recognized entities have missed such debacles as Kemper Insurance's sudden demise.

December 2, 2004

Sham bids and contingent commissions aren't the only questionable practices

The ongoing investigations into broker and insurer malfeasance continue to send shockwaves throughout the insurance industry. And, these investigations are causing those doing business outside the "broker-insurer-underwriter" world to revisit what have been long-established "ways of doing business."

While Mr. Spitzer and colleagues have started their investigations at the sales end of things, they may well find themselves uncovering many other instances of inappropriate or unethical payments.

For example, managed care vendors often pay TPAs an "administrative fee" that is a percentage of the revenues they receive from the TPA's clients. Typically these fees amount to 10-15% of total revenues, but fees in the 25% range are not unheard of. There is speculation in the WC industry that one large managed care firm pays one large TPA upwards of $10 million in "fees" annually.

These fees are rarely fully disclosed to the TPA's clients, and when there is disclosure, it is obscured by legalese, buried in the depths of a lengthy contract, and often mistaken for innocuous boilerplate.

One very large WC TPA claims it has provided full disclosure by including language similar to the following.

"The TPA does not receive any payment from the managed care vendor, except it reserves the right to charge the vendor for administrative expenses related to implementing managed care programs."

Clearly it is incumbent upon risk managers, TPAs, underwriters, and brokers to fully and completely disclose these arrangements. It is just as clear that until and unless the light of day is shone on a few of these deals, they will continue unabated.

November 16, 2004

More questions about Coventry-First Health deal

The analysts continue to question the acquisition of First Health by Coventry Healthcare.

Wachovia analysts are among those who appear to be reserving judgement in their latest pronouncements (as noted in Maryland's "Business Gazette"):

"The deal "marks a turning point in Coventry's evolution," the Wachovia report said. Coventry has historically been a regional managed care company operating locally concentrated health plans in several markets, and its customers have largely been small employers with some municipalities and local divisions of larger employers.

"With the acquisition of First Health, Coventry will change the profile of the company dramatically," the report said. "For investors, the combined company will look like another multimarket managed care company trying to compete."

First Health has a national preferred provider organization and a workers' compensation business and does some pharmacy benefit manager services, areas that require different management skills than Coventry is accustomed to, according to Wachovia. In addition, First Health has had difficulty competing with the largest managed care companies such as UnitedHealth, Aetna and BlueCross BlueShield plans. "

The challenge of integration will be met by one of the stronger management teams in the industry. The Gazette's article goes on to note:

"We have always been impressed by Coventry's management and are confident that the company's internal candidates will be strong," according to the Wachovia report. The analysts cited McDonough's previous stint as CEO of a division of UnitedHealth, which has similar products to First Health.

Thomas A. Carroll, an analyst with Legg Mason in Baltimore, called Coventry's leadership "one of the best management teams in the business."

So what are the issues facing Coventry?

-- Coventry is a regional HMO firm, with particular strength in small group fully insured business; FH is a national firm with a very large customer (MailHandler's program as well as other large self-insured customers, and is also a major player ($194 million in 2003) in a business (Workers Compensation) that is foriegn to Coventry.

--Further, FH deals primarily with large-self insured group health customers, a market segment that Coventry has not pursued aggressively.

--Weak management at FH. Statements in the analyst's reports as well as by Coventry management during the investor telecon on the day the acquisition was announced lead me to believe Coventry does not view FH management as up to the task. This, coupled with the large payday for 16 FH executives (splitting over $20 million between them) leads me to speculate the senior level at FH will not be around much longer.

--There were also rumblings in the market that FH was looking for an acquirer for some time; the Gazette goes on to quote Wachovia's report; "Even without the acquisition, we have doubts about First Health's ability to grow or even maintain recent results," the analysts wrote. While Coventry "has bought 'fixer-upper' plans in the past, the repair of [First Health] will require a different set of tools."

Coventry's management takes a markedly different view from these reports, a view that is best summarized as "the acquisition of First Health by Coventry = the whole is greater than the sum of the parts." After the hit the stock has taken, Coventry responded with a detailed explanation/defense of the deal at an analysts' meeting in early November. Again, the main point appears to be that the new markets and national scope will enhance Coventry's future earnings potential.

November 10, 2004

Spitzer Update...

The investigations begun by Eliot Spitzer of broker-insurer business practices have not only spread from property and casualty insurance to other lines, but to other states, and now it appears there may be international repercussions as well.

The investigations and subpeonae appear to be increasing on a daily basis, with each morning beginning with an annoucement of additional targets. Employee benefits insurers and brokers are now coming under scrutiny, while the number of P&C carriers facing subpoenae has increased again today with St. Paul/Travelers the latest subject. Chubb is also under investigation, while also facing allegations concerning their relationship with their auditors, Ernst and Young.

Expect this to continue, as Attorneys General throughout the country seek to ensure their consituents are protected, simultaneously demonstrating their diligence. This last comment may be viewed as cynical, but undoubtedly any regulator worthy of the post will want to be sure they are viewed as aggressively pursuing this hot issue.

Undoubtedly the ramifications will continue to be felt - latest rumors have the Mercer Consulting entity splitting off from parent Marsh...

Notably, the highly publicized nature of the charges has drawn the attention of federal regulators, with the recent release of a GAO report on federal regulation of financial services. Included in the report is a discussion of the potential for changes in the role of the feds in insurance regulation.

This issue will not go away anytime soon.

November 2, 2004

More on contingent commissions

I recently had a conversation with an attorney at a major insurer regarding the "Spitzer investigations." When asked his opinion of the emerging scandal, he all but brushed it off, saying "these risk managers knew what was going on all along."

My reaction was one of disbelief mixed with alarm. Disbelief at the cavalier brush off of what is becoming a rapidly growing scandal, and alarm that this attorney thought it was OK as long as the victims knew they were being victimized. I also felt somewhat naïve and unworldly; ignorant of the rough-and-tumble rules of business. Perhaps my reaction mirrors that of the risk manager at Fortune Brands, who was allegedly an aggrieved victim of a sham bidding scheme orchestrated by Marsh. If Fortune Brands' risk manager knew about these back-room deals, that knowledge certainly was not communicated to the company's attorneys, who appear to be quite concerned.

Since my brief and disturbing conversation, the attorney's employer has received at least one subpoena. One can only hope that the attorney is now taking this a bit more seriously.

November 1, 2004

Fallout from the Spitzer investigations

In the last two days I have been interviewed by two separate publications (Kiplinger's and Risk and Insurance) regarding the potential impact of the Spitzer investigations into contingent commissions, bid-rigging, and other unethical and inappropriate activities in the insurance industry. Both publications were seeking information about the potential fallout, impact on policyholders and insurers, and prognostication about on whom the next shoe would drop.

Here's the summary in brief.
This investigation has just gotten started. Garamendi in California and Blumenthal in Connecticut are but two of the other State Attorneys General who are beginning their own investigations.

Although Spitzer started with P&C insurance, the insurance investigations have expanded significantly. Expect to see more subpoenas of life and health insurers, especially those with significant blocks of AD&D, STD, LTD, and life business.

While the life and health industry will be a target, it is unlikely that the practices that have so enraged Mr. Spitzer et al are as prevalent on this side of the business as they evidently are in the P&C world.

Those who pooh-pooh the contingent commission and sham bidding practices by claiming that risk managers and their colleagues knew what was going on are whistling past the graveyard. These are precisely the kind of back-room, clubby relationships that have led to the drastic reforms in the mutual fund and investment banking industries.

There are many other relationships in the insurance world that share similar traits with these alleged offences. TPAs that receive payments from managed care firms, providers that steer patients to their own imaging clinics, and the "percentage of savings" fee system are but a few that come to mind.

Finally, AIG was recently indicted by Spitzer. This was the first indictment directed against a corporate entity rather than an individual. As the Wall Street Journal recently noted, no financial services company has survived an indictment. While it would be wildly inappropriate to suggest that the very existence of AIG is at risk, it would also be foolhardy to think that the company will emerge unscathed.

Joseph Paduda is the principal of Health Strategy Associates.

Get notified by e-mail about site updates:

August 2011

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31
Powered by
Movable Type 4.261