washingtonpost.com
Nonprofit health insurers holding large surpluses, consumer group reports

By N.C. Aizenman
Monday, July 26, 2010; A06

Nonprofit health insurers may be setting aside unnecessarily large surpluses even as some of them continue to raise premiums, according to an analysis by a consumer rights group.

The report released Thursday by the Consumers Union, the nonprofit publisher of Consumer Reports, found that seven of 10 Blue Cross Blue Shield affiliates examined had amassed surpluses that are more than three times the level regulators deemed necessary for them to remain solvent.

At the close of 2009, for instance, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Arizona had a surplus of $717 million, more than seven times the regulatory minimum. That same year, the company raised premiums for its individual market customers between 8.8 and 18.4 percent.

Similarly, Regence Blue Cross Blue Shield of Oregon had about 3.6 times the regulatory minimum surplus, yet it raised rates on some individual policies an average of 25.3 percent in April 2009 and 16 percent in April of this year, the study found.

An insurance plan's surplus is essentially the revenue it raises from premiums and investments minus expenses such as the cost of paying medical claims. Companies must maintain enough surplus to protect them from unexpected expenses and losses. But how much surplus is too much is a matter of some debate.

While most states require plans to maintain a minimum level of surplus, only a handful, including Maryland, also monitor whether a nonprofit plan's surplus is "excessive" and, if so, require the company to refund its customers.

For-profit plans are less likely to accumulate surpluses substantially above the required minimum because they have an incentive to give the money back to shareholders as profit, said Sondra Roberto, a staff attorney at Consumer Reports who co-wrote the report.

She worries that such profits might come at the expense of consumers. But Roberto said the prospect that nonprofit plans may be running unwarranted surpluses was even more troubling, given their mandate as charitable organizations.

"They have a mission to provide the most affordable care they can," she said. "So to the extent that they are hoarding surpluses -- they are undermining their mission."

Nonprofit plans account for a major share of the market. One of three Americans with private coverage is insured by a nonprofit Blue Cross Blue Shield plan. (Blue Cross Blue Shield is an association that licenses nonprofit and for-profit plans that meet certain standards.)

Regena Frieden, a spokeswoman for Blue Cross Blue Shield of Arizona, said that the plan's reserves are equal to six months of expenses and that "using reserves to buy down premium increases would only serve as a temporary fix that would not address the underlying problem of rising health-care costs."

Angela Hult, a spokeswoman for Regence Blue Cross Blue Shield of Oregon, said that because of several years of losses on its individual line of business, subsequent rate increases on those plans were not enough to make up the deficit and that the nonprofit had to draw on its reserves to cover members' claims.

Hult and Frieden also said that their plans, as nonprofits, cannot raise additional funds through capital markets. Therefore, their surpluses are needed to cover other expenses, such as accreditation and new technological improvements required by law, they said.

Roberto agreed that it might be appropriate for a plan to use its surplus for such purposes. But she said states should require nonprofit plans to report separately any share of their surpluses intended for uses other than maintaining solvency. That way, regulators can judge whether the benefits of those additional uses outweigh the reduction in premiums the plans could offer consumers if they kept their surpluses closer to the regulatory minimum.

That approach may get a boost from the recently adopted health law.

Though neither states nor the federal government have veto power over premiums, they will be charged with creating a process to annually review "unreasonable" rate increases. The law also offers grants for states to improve their methods for reviewing rates.

Post a Comment


Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

© 2010 The Washington Post Company