Self-Defeating Health Care Reform

Gary Coronado/Zuma

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

It seemed like a good idea at the time: a key piece of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), known as the medical loss ratio (MLR), would require insurance companies to spend 80-85 percent of their customers’ premium payments on medical costs.

If insurance companies spent more on quality care and less on administrative and overhead costs, the thinking went, patients would stand to benefit. Insurers that didn’t meet the MLR would have to pay out rebates to customers.

But insurance agents argued that the MLR will put a crimp on business. And a recent analysis by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) seems to bear that out. The report finds that some insurers are lowering premiums or leaving rates unchanged to help them comply with the MLR rules. Most directly affected are insurance agents and brokers, The Hill explains:

Commissions to agents and brokers fall into the 15 or 20 percent of revenues that insurance companies can use for administrative expenses and profit. Brokers are worried that insurance companies will cut commissions and redirect that money toward their own bottom lines.

The GAO said “almost all” of the insurers it interviewed are cutting commissions. Those cuts enabled the plans to change their premiums.

While the MLR may push down premiums for customers, it could also limit their coverage choices, according to the GAO report:

One insurer said that they have considered exiting the individual market in some states in which they did not expect to meet the PPACA MLR requirements, while several other insurers said that the PPACA MLR requirements will not affect where they do business.

So even as health care becomes more affordable, consumers could potentially find a less diverse marketplace.

Some health policy analysts anticipate more conflicts like this as implementation of the ACA moves along (or doesn’t). Micah Weinberg, a senior policy advisor at the Bay Are Council and a proponent of the ACA, points out that the law was crafted to help change the financial incentives of the health care industry—to, in essence, make it more profitable to cover sicker people. In theory, insurers that comply with the ACA’s provisions and keep their customers healthy stand to reap major profits.

But if those same insurers exceed the MLR’s 15% limit on administrative costs—a not-altogether-implausible result of expanding coverage—the ratio penalizes them. By fixing insurers to the MLR, in other words, the ACA penalizes insurers for following the law, according to Weinberg.

Health care reform represented “1,000 of the best ideas that people have had about health care policy over the past thirty years, all rolled into one big burrito,” he says. “Though any of them would be fine in isolation, some of those are pretty directly contradictory…the medical loss ratio negates a lot of what we’re trying to do through the bill.”


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend