Columns

Health Care Reform: End of the Independent Health Insurance Agent?

By: Laura Boyd Pearce | Posted: July 18, 2012 3:55 AM
Laura Pearce

Laura Pearce

In the aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision upholding the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), independent insurance agents are more than just a little concerned -- they are in fear of losing their jobs.

As the vice president/general counsel of the Florida Association of Insurance Agents, I hear from agents every day, and most express trepidation regarding the fate of independent health insurance agents.

Adding to their concerns, Gov. Rick Scott recently announced that Florida will not implement a state-based health insurance exchange. Although this may sound good to PPACA opponents in theory, it does little to provide certainty or comfort to the independent insurance agents facing the possibility of losing a significant source of revenue.

To put things in perspective, the first blow to insurance agents came in the form of a medical loss ratio (MLR) imposed on insurers under the PPACA, effective Jan. 1, 2011. It requires that health insurers spend at least 80 percent in the individual and small group markets and 85 percent in the large group markets for every dollar in premiums collected on health care/medical expenses.

That leaves 20 percent and 15 percent, respectively, for administrative costs, which specifically include agent compensation. Needless to say, health insurers have drastically reduced compensation paid to their agents and, as a result, many agents have left the business or laid off staff … at a time when consumers have more questions than ever.

The second blow to health insurance agents will now likely manifest itself in the form of a federal health insurance exchange. Numerous articles have covered Gov. Scott’s refusal to implement several of the PPACA provisions, including the state-based exchange provision. Most don’t explain the consequence of a state not establishing its own exchange.

Under the PPACA, states have the option of creating a state-based exchange or establishing a state partnership exchange in which the federal government operates the exchange but the state retains some regulatory functions. In the absence of a state implementing either of those two options, the federal government will step in and require the state to use the exchange established and managed completely by the federal government, without consideration of the local marketplace and best interests of the state residents.

These exchanges are intended to provide access to health insurance and subsidies for small businesses and low- to moderate-income individuals. They provide a marketplace where these individuals and small businesses can shop for plans, which must include minimum benefits packages that insurers are required to offer under the law. So, where do insurance agents fit into the picture?

Florida law requires that a health insurance policy be purchased through a licensed insurance agent, whether it is an agent who works directly for an insurance company or as an independent. Yet, under the PPACA, the “navigators” who assist and guide businesses and individuals through the exchange and the selection of a health plan are not required to be licensed insurance agents.

This could dramatically decrease the number of health insurance policies sold by licensed agents, even though no one is better qualified than an independent insurance agent to help a business or individual sift through and compare multiple health insurance plans and assist with administrative service and claims.

If the state of Florida were to set up its own exchange, I feel confident that the Legislature and the regulators would attempt to limit the encroachment of navigators and would endeavor to protect the role of licensed insurance agents, consistent with Florida law.

In doing so, the interests of consumers would be protected by affording them expert advice and service regarding health insurance policies.

Florida politicians should be mindful of the consequences of choosing the federal exchange over creating our own state-based exchange and consider what’s best for Floridians, both individuals and businesses. Federal health care reform is here, whether we like it or not, and a state-based exchange will best serve the interests of Florida’s insurance consumers and independent insurance agents, most of whom are small businesses employing many individuals in our local communities.


As vice president and general counsel of Florida Association of Insurance Agents, Laura Boyd Pearce is FAIA's onsite attorney and lobbyist representing FAIA before the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of Florida government. She holds degrees from Stetson University and the University of Florida College of Law.

 

Comments (7)

Lonnie
4:26PM JUL 18TH 2012
America wimped out and established a system that continues to operate through the private insurance instead of a single payer like other advanced nations. Fortunately, it at least limits how much of my premium payments insurance companies can rake off.

If an average family policy costs $15k a year, it is difficult to imagine that insurance middle men add even $3k(20%) in value (including paying claims, risk retention and overhead) each and every year. I'd much prefer that my dollars go to doctors and nurses who actually do something to help my family.The very fact that insurance jargon for the amount of premium they actually pay out to doctors and hospitals is "medical loss" speaks volumes.

Maybe insurance agents could be reemployed as navigators but may have to be on salary and without residuals. Anyway, I can't afford them.
Jeremy Engdahl-Johnson
12:19PM JUL 18TH 2012
Minimum loss ratios pose an ongoing challenge for insurers under PPACA. http: //www. healthcaretownhall. com/?p= 5632
Frank
1:57PM JUL 18TH 2012
And of course, not self-serving - it's not like you publish articles on this site, now is it?

1 - you're not supposed to post links here

2 - if you have a point to make, make it, not refer us to your personal website and make us go looking for it
SB52
11:57AM JUL 18TH 2012
So, you're saying we could cut healthcare costs 15-20% by eliminating health insurance. Sounds like a plan.
Frank
3:46PM JUL 18TH 2012
So you're saying that we should continue to pay more than 2-4 times the administrative costs of health insurance than is paid in any other civilized country, correct?

20% overhead costs are high, above that are outrageous! Medicare operates with about 3% overhead; non-profit insurance has about a 16% overhead. It is only private (for-profit) insurance companies that average higher than a 20% overhead. [Journal of American Medicine, 2007]

Pathetic!
Danger Dan
7:35AM JUL 18TH 2012
"In doing so, the interests of consumers would be protected by affording them expert advice and service regarding health insurance policies."

You haven't recently purchased insurance through an agent, have you? Agents may provide some minimal advice and service to new customers, but continue to receive commissions year after year for doing nothing.
Frank
6:48AM JUL 18TH 2012
Yes, administrative costs of $1 out of every $5 is clearly too low an overhead for medical insurers.

What do you want - 50% going for overhead!

Clearly, this arrogant "we deserve more" medical insurance bloated bureaucracy is part of the medical care insurance problem we have in the U.S. today.

We need to be paying for medical care, not a medical insurance bureaucracy.

Leave a Comment on This Story

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.