State regulators back plan to require health insurers to spend ... 80% of premiums on medical care

[bemildred]

Source: LAT

Reporting from Orlando, Fla. —
Over the protests of the insurance industry, state insurance regulators meeting Thursday endorsed a proposed federal regulation that would guarantee that a certain portion of health insurance premiums is spent on medical care.

In a vote at the National Assn. of Insurance Commissioners' fall meeting, state regulators agreed to forward their proposal to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which will either adopt or modify the recommendations.

The proposed regulations would require health insurance companies to spend at least 80% of a customer's premium on providing healthcare and medicine. For customers covered by large-group plans, the insurance company must spend 85% of the premium on healthcare.

Read more: http://www.latimes.com/health/la-fi-healthcare-rules-20101022,0,1261256.story

---

Headline edited to be shorter. As far as the story, I think 5% is more like it.

[jaxx]

1. 5% what?

Can you clarify that please.

[bemildred]

4. 5% maximum administrative cost, as opposed to 20%. nt

[jaxx]

6. Ok, I agree with that since they said Medicare costs 3% to oversee.

But I bet the ins co's have been cleaning up in the 60-70% ranges and this is just gonna kill them. We should be so lucky. ;-)

[bemildred]

8. Yes, it's a boatload of money even at 5%. nt

[wordpix]

2. sounds good to me - so far, the "new" health insurance is looking like the old

:grr:

[jaxx]

7. I think it is looking better than it was.

Really. Less profits for the ins co's, covering preexisting conditions, no cutting benefits when people get sick, no lifetime caps. It's a good start, but perfect it ain't.

[madrchsod]

3. states rights!

[xchrom]

5. Hmmm - the insurance companies will act all persecuted I suppose. Nt

[w4rma]

9. They already are. (nt)

[nradisic]

10. There is no plan to contain costs...

Rates keep going through the roof...until we put some kind of cap on increases, the rest of the changes will be marginal, because more and more Americans are not able to afford coverage any longer...so those that still have insurance are a smaller and smaller minoriy, paying higher and higher rates...good luck!

[awoke_in_2003]

11. wages have been stagnant...

and rolling back the last 20 years. Benefits keep getting reduced while their costs go up, and a good education is becoming harder and harder to obtain. It is all part of a plan. There is a class war going on, and we are losing. I wonder if I will be alive to see the time when the people finally unite again and we have a resurgence of unions.

[bc3000]

12. Sounds too good to be true so I'll believe it when I see it.

[mvd]

13. K&R; no wonder the insurance companies are now..

fighting to get Repukes elected. We let them get away with too much with the health care law, but now the insurance companies want to get rid of anything in the law that's unfavorable to them.

[Turbineguy]

14. Bashing insurance companies

is all well and good. The problem is that they represent a significant piece of the overall economy. They should have never been allowed to get this way, but in the meantime, here we are. In a fragile economy you want to make incremental changes.

[aquart]

16. No, I actually want to destroy them in toto.

And I want all the executives to wear signs in public saying "Greedy Guts."

[Turbineguy]

17. Oh, I agree

it's just that sudden, massive dislocations are never good. Note the Bush administration.

[aquart]

15. Only 80%? That's outrageous.

[harun]

18. Exactly, get rid of insurers and guess what? we can spend 100% of our money on care.

A revolutionary idea? Somehow every other country on Earth with the means to do this has figured it out and made it happen.

[applegrove]

19. That is going to end up being the most important part of HCR.