O-Care premiums to skyrocket?

[n2doc]

Health industry officials say ObamaCare-related premiums will double in some parts of the country, countering claims recently made by the administration.

The expected rate hikes will be announced in the coming months amid an intense election year, when control of the Senate is up for grabs. The sticker shock would likely bolster the GOP’s prospects in November and hamper ObamaCare insurance enrollment efforts in 2015.

The industry complaints come less than a week after Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius sought to downplay concerns about rising premiums in the healthcare sector. She told lawmakers rates would increase in 2015 but grow more slowly than in the past.

“The increases are far less significant than what they were prior to the Affordable Care Act,” the secretary said in testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee.

Her comment baffled insurance officials, who said it runs counter to the industry’s consensus about next year.

“It’s pretty shortsighted because I think everybody knows that the way the exchange has rolled out … is going to lead to higher costs,” said one senior insurance executive who requested anonymity.

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/201136-obamacare-premiums-are-about-to-skyrocket

[ProSense]

1. Sounds like

"Health industry officials say...countering claims recently made by the administration."

"The sticker shock would likely bolster the GOP’s prospects in November and hamper ObamaCare insurance enrollment efforts in 2015."

...GOP shilling.

[n2doc]

6. Maybe.

Time will tell if this comes true. I hope rate increases are minimal for everyone's sake. You cannot, however, deny that the ACA has been altered in significant ways from the initial law, most specifically in the delaying of deadlines and the grandfathering in of old policies. I don't think anyone really can predict all the consequences of these changes, especially since new ones seem to come monthly.

[treestar]

13. Exactly. If they had not mentioned the election

it would still be suspicious. But claiming an effect on the elections? Republicans are so obvious.

[kelliekat44]

2. Of course, the insurance industry and a huge section of the for-profit-only medical profession

will do everything they can to make this fail. But in no case should Dems or the President be punished for TRYING to help people while the GOP is rewarded for doing everything in their power to HARM people.

[badtoworse]

4. As a pratactical matter, TRYING doesn't mean anything. People will vote based on results

It won't be pretty if sticker shock hits a lot of people with Obama Care.

[kelliekat44]

24. People don't really vote on results...they usually vote on preconceived notions, propaganda and bias

[badtoworse]

30. Many times, that's true, and it works that way for both Democrats and Republicans

Sometimes, however, it becomes personal and your preconceptions are impacted by actual events. Losing your doctor, ACA sticker shock, etc. impact people personally and preconceived notions give way to reality. If ACA premiums do skyrocket, Republican voters will believe that their preconceived notions were vindicated and will continue to pull the Republican lever and Democratic voters may hold their nose and vote Democratic anyway. Independents, however, will probably not react well (from a Democratic perspective) to skyrocketing insurance premiums considering that ACA was passed without a single Republican vote.

For better or for worse, Democrats own the ACA

[Demo_Chris]

17. The insurance industry LOVES Obamacare. Mandated customers, for the first time in US History...

And literally TRILLIONS in Uncle Obama subsidies flowing into their pockets forever. Best of all? Guaranteed profits and essentially no oversight at all. It is the biggest corporate welfare package in American history. Nothing else is even close.

[frazzled]

3. That doesn't even make sense

Doesn't the law contain measures that allow the government to scrutinize (and deny) excessive rate increases? Apparently so:

The Affordable Care Act brings an unprecedented level of scrutiny and transparency to health insurance rate increases. The Act ensures that, in any State, large proposed increases will be evaluated by experts to make sure they are based on reasonable cost assumptions and solid evidence. This analysis is expected to help moderate premium hikes and provide those who buy insurance with greater value for their premium dollar. Additionally, insurance companies must provide easy to understand information to their customers about their reasons for significant rate increases, as well as publicly justify and post on their website any unreasonable rate increases. These steps will allow consumers to know why they are paying the rates that they are.

...

HHS works in partnership with states to ensure that all proposed rate increases of 10 percent or more in the individual and small group market are thoroughly reviewed. The Affordable Care Act sets minimum standards for the review of these proposed increases, called effective rate review standards. If a state lacks the resources or authority to meet these standards and conduct the needed reviews, HHS conducts the rate review while continuing to make resources available to states to strengthen their rate review process.

http://www.cms.gov/CCIIO/Programs-and-Initiatives/Health-Insurance-Market-Reforms/Review-of-Insurance-Rates.html

[n2doc]

5. There is nothing in there that caps the level of increase

All it says is that rate increases over 10% are reviewed. What that means and how stringent HHS will be remain to be seen. I think people on both sides of the argument need to stop reading things into the law that aren't there.

[frazzled]

7. The public scrutiny alone would be a deterrent

to "skyrocketing" premiums. This is political bluster, set within a political framework by Politico. Note the lede:

The expected rate hikes will be announced in the coming months amid an intense election year, when control of the Senate is up for grabs. The sticker shock would likely bolster the GOP’s prospects in November and hamper ObamaCare insurance enrollment efforts in 2015.

[n2doc]

8. You have more faith in public pressure than I do n/t

[frazzled]

10. Nah, just less faith in Politico articles than you do /nt

[SoCalDem]

22. They still have to provide actual care that equals a percentage of the premium

or refund the difference.. don't they?

[LiberalFighter]

27. There is the Medical Loss Ratio.

That requires companies to spend at least 80% to 85% on medical care. If it is less then the customer receives a rebate.

[Epiphany4z]

12. If they charge more

don't they have spend more on the insured up to 80% or refund the excess?

[DebJ]

15. Actually I could see an upward pressure on premiums at first precisely for that reason.

Some people will opt out of getting insurance and pay the fines this year, with more coming on as the fines
go up....healthy people. We will see.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

23. What if the government scrutinizes and then says, "Okay."?

I'm guessing, on the assumption the article is accurate in its reportage, that such a review may well have already occurred.

[kelliekat44]

26. I did receive a check from my secondary insurance in the amount of $113.00

Cited ACA guidelines. The act is not perfect. Neither was the prescription drug law and people did get "sticker shock" when they hit the doughnut hole and I never heard the kind of vitriol I am hearing now. Oh, well...

[Autumn]

9. If that happens I would not be one bit surprised

[DesMoinesDem]

11. Obviously. Why do you think the Obama administration delayed enrollment until after the election?

[fredamae]

14. "Attack Obamacare Part Deux"

Too many "If's, And's, But's, Possible's, Maybe's etc" for me to find credible and I don't believe for one second the Insurance Industry is an honest broker in their evals/assumptions amd predictions....
Remember the "Big Lie" PBO supposedly told "If you like your health care plan-you can keep it"?

The Insurance companies-every year Dump people--every year...before, during and since the ACA rollout...PBO didn't Lie-that was said during a time it was actually true---If anything the Ins Co's set him up---and he can't (tho should cuz it's true) come out and point his finger at them even when it's factually True--the GOP would be all over that...At least this is how I understand it.

[lumberjack_jeff]

16. Think this through.

What about the ACA raises the cost of health care? Not much, except that a larger proportion of that care is now covered by insurance. Are the insurers gouging customers? Yes, but unlike prior to the ACA, that gouging is subject to an 80% medical loss ratio limit.

So if the cost of healthcare and the profits taken by insurers aren't going up, any hike in premiums must be due to reduced out of pocket costs.

This is GOP shilling.

[L0oniX]

19. "This is GOP shilling."? Could be insurance corporation shilling too.

[mac56]

20. ^ THIS ^

[greatlaurel]

21. I think your analysis is spot on.

The GOP is already seeing the handwriting on the wall by the rapid take down of the Koch commercials. People like the ACA and as they see more benefits from it, like preventive care, they are going to like it a whole lot more. The GOP in states run by GOP governors have done their best to ruin it and they have not been able to stop it. ACA is far from perfect, but if we ever get control of Congress back, we can fix it.

[L0oniX]

18. We're subsidizing insurance corporation profits.

[geek tragedy]

25. according to anonymous insurance industry execs,

now there's the gold standard for credibility

[LiberalFighter]

29. Elise Viebeck demonstrates that she does sloppy reporting.

[upaloopa]

28. So how high would they rise without the ACA?

You know as well as I those lucky enough to have insurance before the ACA had yearly premium increases greater than the inflation rate.

[alstephenson]

31. Exactly.

I wonder what the average annual increase in premiums was prior to ACA? We probably won't hear much about that...