Regulating Insurance: States v. Federal Roles

One of the fascinating issues within the health reform debate is how to improve the insurance market by changing government regulations.  While large employers who self-insure are except from state regulations, (and must only conform to limited Federal rules under ERISA), individuals, small groups, and others who actually purchase insurance have their policies regulated by individual states.

Both Democrats and Republicans agree that the current system of insurance regulation creates job lock and other socially undesirable effects, and that insurance companies should be able to sell policies across states lines.  However, their solutions are quite different.

Democrats favor national regulation to create a single playing field, and Republicans prefer permitting insurance companies to sell in multiple or all states if they are licensed and regulated in any state.  The insurance industry’s trade association (AHIP), doesn’t seem to take a firm position on this issue – at least from looking at their website.

However, I was surprised to see a full page ad from an individual company on the back cover of a recent issue of National Journal advocating for national rules to replace state insurance regulation.  This interesting ad included the following phrases:

“Something’s wrong when…. innovation surpasses…. insurance regulation.”

“Here’s something to bristle at: the regulatory system that shapes our…. insurance policies hasn’t changed much in the last century.  Yet everything …. has changed dramatically…… Chrome and steel have given way to thermoplastic and fiberglass.”

And the company’s recommendations for solutions focus on increasing national regulations:

“Today there are 50 different sets of insurance regulations in 50 states.  This makes it difficult to introduce innovative new products.  But with a modern system of national regulation, consumers would get to choose from the best products available nationwide.”

“National regulation would help spread risk more fairly across similar geographic areas.”

“Modern regulation is the kind of protection Americans deserve.”

However, the caveat here is that this ad is talking about regulation of car insurance and not health insurance.  In fact, the specific company doesn’t even sell comprehensive health insurance – so they don’t have a dog, cat or Cadillac plan in that fight.

What is also interesting is the parallel developments and history in the State of Massachusetts with health and auto insurance. Everyone following the debate about health reform has certainly heard what Massachusetts has done with health insurance reform and mandates to achieve near universal coverage.  However, in roughly the same time-frame the state also reformed its auto insurance regulations to enable national insurers to enter the market.  This increased competition resulted in dramatic decreases in premiums – but the insurance plans are still regulated by the state.

How changing the regulation of selling health insurance would change costs and affect consumer protections is open to debate.  Unfortunately as an “issue” it has been overshadowed in the health reform discussions by other aspects such as the so-called public option, abortion coverage, coverage of immigrants, costs to individuals, effects on the Federal deficit, and mandates for having insurance. Thus Federal v. State insurance regulation – which is really a core part of health reform – hasn’t been a big part of the national political debate, even though changing insurance company practices has been a large part of the Democrats’ messaging.  Despite that, there are several interesting points to consider:

  1. Insurance companies operate on a business model very similar to financial institutions, such as banks, in that they seek to manage risk and they make most of their money on the “float” – or interest earned – based upon having large amounts of money for a period of time between collecting premiums and having to pay for covered benefits… and deductibles also adds a delay to these payments, which creates a cushion to the float.  Therefore, because their revenues are tied to their interest earnings, the lower the prevailing interest rates the lower their earnings – and thus the more they need to raise premiums… and vice versa.  (I did an analysis several years ago showing that premium increases were directly correlated with interest rate fluctuations, but delayed a year or two.)  This parallelism with banks raises the question about why it is OK to Federally regulate banks, but not health insurance companies? How much more important is it to protect people’s money than their health insurance coverage?
  2. National insurance regulation would help address both job lock for individuals within companies that purchased insurance directly, and location lock for small businesses and entrepreneurs – particularly those operating service businesses where location may not be as crucial as manufacturing or retail operations.
  3. Permitting the selling of insurance across state lines based upon licensing in one state would probably result in reduced consumer protections since some states have less oversight and requirements than others about marketing, coverage guarantees, etc.
  4. And neither national rules from the Federal government or allowing selling across state lines would significantly affect the growth in health case costs or insurance premiums, i.e. they wouldn’t really bend the cost curve.  Although allowing selling across states lines could reduce premiums in certain higher cost states, but that would be due to people being able to by insurance policies with less coverage or intrinsic protections.  In some ways this would follow the old saying, “you get what you pay for.”
  5. And since the consensus is that bending the cost curve will require changing how health care is actually delivered to patients, (which makes sense since ~80+% of health care spending goes to pay for health care goods and services), this discussion makes me wonder how differential state regulation of doctors and healthcare providers fit into this equation?  While laws and legal procedures may vary among states, presumably the practice of medicine shouldn’t vary dramatically…. Although many studies have shown that it does so in ways that can’t be explained by demographic differences or regional variations in disease states such as Lyme disease. I’m not certain how changing the way clinicians are licensed would improve healthcare delivery or costs, but it is another aspect of State v. Federal regulation that is becoming an increasingly contentious issue – as was pointed out in an article in today’s New York Times.

Healthcare Policy and Healthcare Politics – Summer 2009

As Congressional Committees appear to be steadily walking towards the starting line for considering health care reform legislation next week, I’ve been thinking about various healthcare policy and political events and activities that will influence the substance and process for these efforts over the coming months – and perhaps years.

Because a complete examination of all the important events and documents from the last several months and years would be too long for a single post, summarized below are some of my observations and thoughts about the meaning of 5 touchstones that people will likely reference in the coming months as part of the health reform dialogue:

  1. Massachusetts’ health coverage and reform initiative
  2. The Senate Finance Committee’s 3 Policy Option Papers
  3. Frank Luntz’s health care talking point paper for Republicans
  4. The May 11th letter from 6 national groups to President Obama
  5. The Democratic Party’s development of Organizing for America

As discussed below, each of these activities and documents has dual (or dueling) policy and political goals, (i.e. changing policy to improve the healthcare system, or designed to win political points), that may be aligned or in conflict.

1. Massachusetts Health Coverage and Reform Initiative

  • The original legislation was a political compromise that included:
    • The use of private insurance to expand coverage
    • An individual mandate
    • An employer penalty for not having all their workers insured (a.k.a. play or pay)
  • Single payer is discussed and supported in Massachusetts, but wasn’t part of the state’s health reform initiative
  • The state’s Commonwealth Connector insurance exchange doesn’t include a public plan choice/option
  • Despite not being a single payer system, nor including a public insurance plan option, the state’s initiative expanded insurance coverage to more than 97%
  • With the success of increased insurance coverage has come expanded demand for primary care services and subsequently longer waiting times for those services
  • The state is looking at various processes for controlling costs as a second outcome to be achieved
  • The state’s ability to control health care spending will likely require Federal regulatory and/or legislative cooperation from programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and ERISA

2. Senate Finance Committee’s Policy Option Papers

  • Between April 29 and May 20th the Senate Finance Committee released 3 papers describing options for health delivery system transformation, expanding coverage, and cost savings and revenue raising.  (The Committee also held hearings on these papers.)
  • The overarching theme in these papers is transparency and accountability
  • Several issues are notable for their absence from the papers:
    • Discussion of a single payer option for overall reform
    • Cost savings estimates for a public plan option
    • Changing or repealling Medicare Part D’s “Non-Interference” provisions as a source of revenue
  • The only mention of ERISA is in the savings and revenues paper – It is not discussed in the context of health delivery transformation or expanding coverage
  • Medicare’s physician payment formula problem is discussed, and the cost of a 10 year freeze is cited as $285 billion
  • Accountable care organizations (ACOs) and care coordination are frequently mentioned goals, but the papers generally only propose demonstrations or pilot projects rather than definitive programmatic changes

3. Frank Luntz’s “The Language of Healthcare 2009” Paper

  • This paper advises Republicans how to talk about healthcare in a purely political context.  It doesn’t substantially address policy aspects of health reform issues, and it is all about winning as many Republican and moderate hearts without considering their minds
  • The goal of Luntz’s talking points are to paint Democrats’ health reform plans as leading to government bureaucrats making health care decisions, rationing of care, and denying access to necessary care
  • The paper builds upon the premise that patient-doctor relationships are good and that government bureaucrats are bad.  It specifically states that the Democrat’s “government takeover” of the healthcare system will result in a bureaucrat putting “himself between you and your doctor, denying you what you need”
  • Luntz’s paper leverages people’s fear about loss of control and autonomy, but it doesn’t address people’s immediate and real concerns that high costs are denying people access to the insurance or care they need – in effect rationing based upon the ability to pay for the ~49 million people in the US without health insurance and the millions more who are underinsured because they can’t afford their co-payments or deductibles

4. May 11th Letter to the President from 6 National Groups

  • The 2 page letter from AdvaMed, AHA, AHIP, AMA, PhRMA, and SEIU is mostly political posturing
  • The letter uses all the right phrases:
    • “access to affordable high quality health care”
    • “transform the health care system”
    • “transparency that supports effective markets”
    • “aligning quality and efficiency incentives”
    • “encouraging coordination of care”
    • “adherence to evidence-based best practices”
  • Karen Ignagni deserves big kudos for pulling together the other 5 groups and getting agreement for the letter, but herding their collective seagull-like members into agreement for specific reform proposals – other than an individual mandate to have insurance – will be a much bigger challenge, as Paul Krugman recently discussed in his recent column
  • Getting all these groups to the same side of the same table is a success of process, but not a successful outcome.  A collective meeting of minds of similar groups was necessary for the enactment and implementation of Massachusetts’ coverage expansion law, and it is also being used in the state’s efforts to control the growth of healthcare spending

5. Organizing for America (OFA)

  • The Democratic National Committee (DNC) is working to develop OFA as a program to capture the grassroots energy and organization of the Obama campaign, with the goal of using OFA to support the Administration’s policy initiatives – the first of which is healthcare, to be followed by energy and education
  • On May 16th I attended an OFA-MA organizing meeting – along with about 500 other people from around the state. The open Q&A and my discussions with individuals made it clear that single payer has strong and wide support in this group, despite candidate and President Obama’s consistent message that if we were designing a system from scratch, single payer would be an attractive option, but given our immediate needs and problems, other significant targeted changes are needed to improve people’s lives by increasing coverage and controlling costs quickly and effectively.  (Not too mention that such targeted changes face much lower political hurdles than a single payer reform option.)
  • OFA is gearing up for Congress’ consideration of heatlhcare legislation by organizing house parties across the country on June 6th to gather individual stories and prepare the OFA grassroots rooters to engage their elected representatives, the media, and whoever else they can reach on healthcare reform

Conclusions

  1. How to pay for health reform still hasn’t been determined, and this summer Congress will also have to “fix” Medicare physician fee schedule – which will cost about $20 billion/year
  2. The most difficult aspects of health reform, (outside of paying for it), are how to do risk/severity adjustments for payments and quality analyses, how to measure the success of initiatives using a blend of process and outcome measures, and how to estimate, (or “score”), costs or savings from many of these initiatives – particularly for those that involve behavior change, disease prevention or health promotion, or are expected to act synergistically with other initiatives, such as patient-centered medical homes or other care coordination intensive models
  3. Agreement on principles is easy, but agreeing to specific proposals is difficult because one person’s waste is another person’s income
  4. ERISA is the 500 pound gorilla-issue sleeping in the corner
  5. Massachusetts is different than most other parts of the country – both in terms of policy and politics – but its experience presents valuable lessons about the process for bringing stakeholders to the same table and for creating a health insurance exchange with low-income subsidies
  6. Politics will be required to enact national health reform legislation, but the specific policies put into new laws will be important for determining their success or failure upon implementation, because a disconnect between politics and policy can result in legislation that produces outcomes different from what are intended.  For example, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 changed the Medicare managed care program, (and renamed it Medicare+Choice), with the goal of expanding managed care options for people enrolled in Medicare.  However, following BBA ’97 Medicare+Choice options decreased rather than increased.  In addition, success or failure of one initiative sets the environment for the next, e.g. the failure of BA’97 to expand Medicare+Choice enrollment created the context for the development of the Medicare Part D prescription drug program in 2003.  Similarly, the success of Massachusetts’ expansion coverage law has enabled the state to explore options for controlling overall health spending as a next step – something that would not have been possible if the expansion law had failed or been derailed…… as it had been twice before.

Footsteps


ERISA: The Unbridged Chasm of Health Reform – Challenges for Massachusetts and Federal Action

A recent Boston Globe article about a possible legal challenge to Masschusetts’ health reform initiative indirectly raised one of the most stubborn challenges in health reform:  The Federal ERISA law.  (See below for more about ERISA.)

The contentious issue in Massachusetts is a proposal to require employers to both pay at least 33% of full time employees’ health insurance premiums and ensure that at least 25% of their employees are covered by their health plan. (The current requirement is that they do one or the other.) So why should this difference be the basis for a law suit?  Actually, there isn’t really any legal difference.  In either case, an employer that provides health benefits to their employees by self-insuring, (rather than directly buying coverage from a health insurance company), could sue based upon the Federal ERISA law that regulates employee benefits.

The real difference between the proposal and the current law is political and philosophical rather than legal – employers are willing to live with the current either/or requirement, but don’t want to be pushed down a slippery slope where the coverage requirements and/or the small penalty of $295/employee for failing to meet the requirements are increased.  And their legal backup is ERISA.

So What is ERISA?  (Without going into too much detail.)
ERISA stands for the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, and it is a Federal law that governs how companies provide benefits to their employees.  The law is overseen by the Department of Labor, and was originally designed to ensure that pension benefits were properly managed and funded.  However, it also encompasses health benefits – but only for companies that provide the benefits themselves by self-insuring rather than purchasing health insurance for their employees from insurance companies.  The result is that ERISA mostly applies to larger companies which typically self-insure for several reasons:

  • They don’t have to comply with state health insurance mandates – which is one reason why large companies can reduce their health benefit costs by self-insuring
  • Since many large companies have employees in more than one state, by self-insuring, they can operate a single health benefits plan – under what is called an ERISA exemption – rather offer different health insurance options in each state based upon the states’ insurance laws
  • By accepting the financial risk of self-insuring, they can also receive any financial rewards from controlling health care spending.  This also gives them incentives to keep their employees healthy as well as productive

ERISA is a Linchpin for Federal or State Health Reform
ERISA is a crucial part of health reform that is not very well appreciated and generally not discussed outside of very wonkish circles – which is probably why the Boston Globe article doesn’t even mention it.

At the State level – as in Massachusetts – ERISA theoretically precludes state governments from placing requirements on self-insured company’s health benefits programs.  However, ERISA does regulate how the benefits are provided, has requirements about providing information to employees about their benefits – aspects that are consistent with the law’s original focus on pension benefits – and has four coverage mandates:

  • Non-discrimination against pregnancy as a medical condition
  • Hospital length of stays for women following delivery: 48-hours or 96-hours following a Cesarean
  • Parity between mental health and other benefits
  • Reconstruction following mastectomy

ERISA has also been changed to require that companies continue to offer health coverage for a limited amount of time to employees after they leave the company (COBRA in 1986), and to limit or ban the exclusion of pre-existing conditions or other factors that might predict their need for future health care needs (HIPAA in 1997).

ERISA coverage requirements has rarely been modified because of the lack of any clear consensus for what changes should be made, and the concern that adding coverage mandates to ERISA would increase costs without expanding the number of people with insurance or improving quality. In essence ERISA is a major obstacle for health reform because it regulates one of the largest and most stable parts of the employer-based health insurance system. For example, the Kaiser Family Foundation’s annual survey of employers has shown that 98-99% of companies with more than 200 employees have offered health insurance to their employees every year since 1999.  Similarly, the percentages of employees who are eligible and who chose insurance coverage have remained relatively stable from 1999-2007:

Large Companies (>199 employees) Offering Health Benefits:
Eligibility, Take-Up and Coverage Rates

Large Employer Health Insurance Coverage and Take Up

[It should also be recognized that health insurance costs are a significant factor for large companies to outsource jobs to small companies or independent contractors here in the US, or to send those jobs overseas to companies that have cheaper labor costs.]

The ERISA Chasm
ERISA is a huge uncrossed chasm for health reform because virtually any state law that places requirements on the health benefits provided by self-insured companies could be subject to a Federal lawsuit.  And at the Federal level – as noted above – nobody has come to a consensus as to what should be done, except for some chipping at the edges with worthwhile requirements.  In addition, the Committees with jurisdiction for ERISA generally have not made ERISA health benefit issues a high priority: In the Senate, jurisdiction for ERISA is shared between the Finance and the Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committees.  Each of these committees has significant other responsibilities, including Medicare, Medicaid, biomedical research and the FDA.  And in the House of Representatives, the Education and Labor in the House of Representatives has jurisdiction for ERISA, which is really their only health related area of authority.

ERISA’s Implications for Obama and McCain Health Reform Proposals
The importance of ERISA and its Federal oversight over all self-insured employer provided health benefits raises the question of how the plans of Senators Obama and McCain would be effected by ERISA?

Senator Obama’s plans clearly call for more Federal regulation of health insurance which could significantly change how health benefits are provided to employers.  This avenue for  creating a more stable system for health insurance/benefits changes would have to involve ERISA. However, his proposals explicitly state that individuals could keep the coverage they now have – which would likely mean limited changes to ERISA, and those changes might not raise too many objections from the large business community.

Senator McCain’s plans are based upon shifting the purchase of health benefits from the company to the employee by moving the tax deductibility from the company to the individual.  (It appears that there would also be a dollar limit on this deduction, and in essence also shifting from the general current situation of health benefits being a “defined benefit” to being a “defined contribution” – something that happened with many pension plans in the last ten years as a means for companies to control or limit their future financial liabilities.)  If a McCain plan required everyone buy their own insurance from insurance companies, then changes to ERISA wouldn’t be required, but it might lead to much more state legislative and regulatory action as millions more people become subject to state laws for both insurance company marketing and plan design.  In addition, one selling point used for McCain’s campaign positions, is that it would enable employees to take their health insurance with them as they went from job to job.  For that to be true across state lines, then tremendous changes to ERISA would be necessary – and probably much more than under the proposals that might come from an Obama Administration.

Conclusions
Sorry about the very long post, but as the title states, ERISA is truly an unbridged chasm.  Many health reform proposals have raced up to its brink only to suddenly stop short at the edge of the ERISA cliff – sort of like the comedy Westerns of the 1950s where the rider gets pitched over the head of the horse into the canyon.  In this analogy, perhaps the public and the politician are the horse, (I’ll let you decide which half is which), and the proposal is the rider – which gets lost in the depths of the canyon because the horse can’t find a way across.

For significant health reform to be achieved, all constituencies and stakeholder groups need to reach some consensus to build a bridge across the ERISA chasm.  Otherwise, no action will likely continue to be everyone’s second and fall-back option.