The Chicago Tribune 
(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.
(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
(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."
(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
(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."
(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