How has the Affordable Care Act's medical loss ratio regulation affected insurer behavior?

BACKGROUND: Starting in 2011, the Affordable Care Act stipulates that insurers meet the minimum medical loss ratio (MLR) standards or issue rebates. An MLR is the proportion of premium revenues spent on clinical benefits, and must be at least 80% in the individual and small-group markets. Although some insurers have issued rebates, it is unclear whether they also adjusted MLRs and their components in ways to move toward compliance. OBJECTIVE: To investigate early responses of individual and small-group insurers' MLR-related outcomes to the Affordable Care Act provisions. RESEARCH DESIGN: Descriptive and multivariate analyses using 2010-2011 data from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners and other sources. MEASURES: Outcomes include MLRs, MLR components (claims incurred, premiums earned, quality improvement expenses, and fraud detection/recovery expenses), and administrative expenses. RESULTS: In 2010, only 44.3% of individual market insurers reported MLRs of at least the stipulated level; by 2011, this percentage was 63.2%. Among small-group insurers, 74.9% had 2010 MLRs at or above the stipulated level, with little change in 2011. Individual insurers with 2010 MLRs >10 percentage points below the minimum exhibited the largest increases in MLRs, with changes occurring through increases in claims and indirectly through decreases in administrative expenses. CONCLUSIONS: Early responses to MLR regulation seem more pronounced in the individual versus small-group market, with insurers using both direct and indirect strategies for compliance. Because insurers learned of final MLR regulations only in late 2010, early responses may be limited and skewed more toward greater use of rebates than other adjustments.

[Health insurance companies and medical genetics, what do they want to know? Expert opinions concerning medical genetic services]. / Was wollen Versicherungen wissen? Auskunftsersuchen privater Krankenversicherungen zu humangenetischen Leistungen.

Based on the compilation of medical opinions delivered by a medical genetic expert between 2002 and 2010, solicited by private health insurance companies in Germany, an analysis of the main issues raised was made to identify the information needs of company employees with respect to human and medical genetics. The findings are discussed and recommendations for improvement and further training are suggested.

Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer Screening: Patterns Among Women With Medicaid and Commercial Insurance.

INTRODUCTION: Despite healthcare reforms mandating expanded insurance coverage and reduced out-of-pocket costs for preventive care, cancer screening rates remain relatively static. No study has measured cancer screening rates for multiple tests among non-Medicare patients. METHODS: This retrospective, population-based claims analysis, conducted in 2016-2017, of commercially insured and Medicaid-insured women aged 30-59 years enrolled in IBM MarketScan Commercial and Medicaid Databases (containing approximately 90 and 17 million enrollees, respectively) during 2010-2015 describes screening rates for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer. Key outcomes were (1) proportion screened for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer among the age-eligible population compared with accepted age-based recommendations and (2) proportion with longer-than-recommended intervals between tests. RESULTS: One half (54.7%) of commercially insured women aged 40-59 years (n=1,538,444) were screened three or more times during the 6-year study period for breast cancer; for Medicaid-insured women (n=78,897), the rates were lower (23.7%). One third (43.4%) of commercially insured and two thirds (68.9%) of Medicaid-insured women had a >2.5-year gap between mammograms. Among women aged 30-59 years, 59.3% of commercially insured women and 31.4% of Medicaid-insured women received two or more Pap tests. The proportion of patients with a >3.5-year gap between Pap tests was 33.9% (commercially insured) and 57.1% (Medicaid-insured). Among women aged 50-59 years, 63.3% of commercially insured women and 47.2% of Medicaid-insured women were screened at least one time for colorectal cancer. Almost all women aged 30-59 years (commercially insured, 99.1%; Medicaid-insured, 98.9%) had at least one healthcare encounter. CONCLUSIONS: Breast and cervical cancer screenings remain underutilized among both commercially insured and Medicaid-insured populations, with lower rates among the Medicaid-insured population. However, almost all women had at least one healthcare encounter, suggesting opportunities for better coordinated care.

Out-of-Pocket and Health Care Spending Changes for Patients Using Orally Administered Anticancer Therapy After Adoption of State Parity Laws.

Importance: Oral anticancer medications are increasingly important but costly treatment options for patients with cancer. By early 2017, 43 states and Washington, DC, had passed laws to ensure patients with private insurance enrolled in fully insured health plans pay no more for anticancer medications administered by mouth than anticancer medications administered by infusion. Federal legislation regarding this issue is currently pending. Despite their rapid acceptance, the changes associated with state adoption of oral chemotherapy parity laws have not been described. Objective: To estimate changes in oral anticancer medication use, out-of-pocket spending, and health plan spending associated with oral chemotherapy parity law adoption. Design, Setting, and Participants: Analysis of administrative health plan claims data from 2008-2012 for 3 large nationwide insurers aggregated by the Health Care Cost Institute. Data analysis was first completed in 2015 and updated in 2017. The study population included 63 780 adults living in 1 of 16 states that passed parity laws during the study period and who received anticancer drug treatment for which orally administered treatment options were available. Study analysis used a difference-in-differences approach. Exposures: Time period before and after adoption of state parity laws, controlling for whether the patient was enrolled in a plan subject to parity (fully insured) or not (self-funded, exempt via the Employee Retirement Income Security Act). Main Outcomes and Measures: Oral anticancer medication use, out-of-pocket spending, and total health care spending. Results: Of the 63 780 adults aged 18 through 64 years, 51.4% participated in fully insured plans and 48.6% in self-funded plans (57.2% were women; 76.8% were aged 45 to 64 years). The use of oral anticancer medication treatment as a proportion of all anticancer treatment increased from 18% to 22% (adjusted difference-in-differences risk ratio [aDDRR], 1.04; 95% CI, 0.96-1.13; P = .34) comparing months before vs after parity. In plans subject to parity laws, the proportion of prescription fills for orally administered therapy without copayment increased from 15.0% to 53.0%, more than double the increase (12.3%-18.0%) in plans not subject to parity (P < .001). The proportion of patients with out-of-pocket spending of more than $100 per month increased from 8.4% to 11.1% compared with a slight decline from 12.0% to 11.7% in plans not subject to parity (P = .004). In plans subject to parity laws, estimated monthly out-of-pocket spending decreased by $19.44 at the 25th percentile, by $32.13 at the 50th percentile, and by $10.83 at the 75th percentile but increased at the 90th ($37.19) and 95th ($143.25) percentiles after parity (all P < .001, controlling for changes in plans not subject to parity). Parity laws did not increase 6-month total spending for users of any anticancer therapy or for users of oral anticancer therapy alone. Conclusions and Relevance: While oral chemotherapy parity laws modestly improved financial protection for many patients without increasing total health care spending, these laws alone may be insufficient to ensure that patients are protected from high out-of-pocket medication costs.

Impact of medical loss regulation on the financial performance of health insurers.

The Affordable Care Act's regulation of medical loss ratios requires health insurers to use at least 80-85 percent of the premiums they collect for direct medical expenses (care delivery) or for efforts to improve the quality of care. To gauge this rule's effect on insurers' financial performance, we measured changes between 2010 and 2011 in key financial ratios reflecting insurers' operating profits, administrative costs, and medical claims. We found that the largest changes occurred in the individual market, where for-profit insurers reduced their median administrative cost ratio and operating margin by more than two percentage points each, resulting in a seven-percentage-point increase in their median medical loss ratio. Financial ratios changed much less for insurers in the small- and large-group markets.