Pages

Sunday, April 8, 2012

Report Says Health Law Would Have Saved Insured Americans $2B Last Year.


 The Chicago Tribune Share to FacebookShare to Twitter (4/6, Frost) reports, "An Illinois resident with individual health insurance would have received an average rebate of $159 last year if a provision of the new federal health care law had been in effect, according to a new report." The Tribune says that "the health care law's provision, called the medical-loss ratio, took effect in 2011" and required "that insurers spend at least 80 percent of patient premium revenues on medical services or issue customers rebates for the difference." Had the rule "been in place in 2010, 17 Illinois insurers would have owed customers rebates totaling $112.1 million, the fourth-highest amount in the nation," the report found.
        The Hill Share to FacebookShare to Twitter (4/6, Pecquet) "Healthwatch" blog reports, "Americans would have benefited from $2 billion in insurance rebates or lower premiums last year if one of the key consumer protections of the healthcare reform law had kicked in a year earlier, according to a new report from The Commonwealth Fund." The "study, based on insurance data from 2010, offers a rough estimate of the benefits consumers can expect to see when certain insurers have to start paying rebates this summer." The authors noted, "These 'what if' estimates provide a rough prediction of the impact the MLR (medical loss ratio) rules may have on their first year of application -- either by way of requiring rebates or by motivating insurers to reduce rates in order to avoid rebates."
        "The study concluded 23% of privately insured Americans would have received rebates," Modern Healthcare Share to FacebookShare to Twitter (4/6, Daly, Subscription Publication) reports. "The authors of the study said it aims to predict the extent of insurance premium rebates those companies will begin issuing in August for rates they have charged since the beginning of 2011 that fell short of the required ratios." The report "also found that for-profit insurance companies were more likely to exceed the spending ratio limits than not-for-profit insurers."  

No comments:

Post a Comment