Monday, November 25, 2013

More Private Exchange Market Consolidation

On Friday, Towers Watson announced that it is acquiring Liazon Corporation in order to further strengthen its position in the defined contribution private exchange market.

In addition to Liazon's technology platform, this gives Towers access to the over 400 brokers that Liazon had cultivated in its network. Perhaps most importantly, Towers now has a footprint in the mid-size employer market, which is where Liazon has played, in addition to its OneExchange solution, which has been focused more on Fortune 1000 customers.

From the big picture perspective, it's a sign of the further consolidation in the once new and fragmented market, and a sign that in the future there will probably be a handful of players in any one insurance market when it comes to private exchanges: health insurance carriers with their single-carrier exchanges and a handful of larger consultants/brokerages with their multi-carrier exchange offerings.

Tuesday, October 22, 2013

Uh, Oh. Here Comes the Cavalry

By now, every one from the press to Obamacare's critics to the Obama Administration themselves have come to the same conclusion: that the issues with healthcare.gov are not just a few glitches that can be resolved in a few weeks but rather large-scale, fundamental system design problems that are going to take an awful lot of work to fix.

Today comes an announcement from Kathleen Sebelius that they are sending in the cavalry: a "technology surge" that includes a management expert to provide executive-level guidance for the massive project and "additional experts and specialists" that include "veterans of top Silicon Valley companies" to diagnose the issues and help fix them.

Rather than filling me with confidence and making me think "Great, now things are finally going to get done," this announcement left me saying, "uh oh." For, boy, have I ever been there.

It's a natural response to a technology crisis: throw everything you've got at it, bring in strong leadership, and get in as many experts as you can to iron things out. The problem is, they're not, metaphorically speaking, taking a defective car back to the shop to inspect, overhaul, and fix it; instead, they're trying to diagnose what's wrong with the car as it careens down a freeway and repair it without taking the foot off the gas.

When you bring in the proverbial army of experts, the first thing they need to do is get up to speed on the whole project and the whole complex system. They don't have the context, the history, the background into why whatever decisions were made ended up being made the way they were. At best, trying to bring the new experts up to speed just distracts the efforts of the team that's already in the weeds and trying their best to fix the issue. At worst, it throws a whole bunch more cooks--and pushy, confident ones at that--into a kitchen that's already way too crowded.

Any bright software engineer can take a look at the work of another engineer--especially one who is perhaps not as talented--and identify a zillion problems in the technical design and in the code and a zillion things that could be changed to "make it better." (The classic "not invented here" bias.) But, how many of those changes would actually improve the overall system performance versus making just slight improvements that are insignificant in the grand scheme of things?

It takes a very rare engineer indeed to be able to look past all the warts and knots and be able to find the small handful of changes that can bring stability and improved performance to a very troubled system. And, if you quickly determine--as I'm sure many of the experts will--that the whole system was architected wronged, well, how do you fix that, without going back to the starting line and rebuilding the whole thing?

My hope is that all these specialists and experts are truly cream of the crop and that they have the exceptionally rare capability to bring perspective and balance to the fire-fighting operation. My hope is that they can support, mentor, and guide the many teams of engineers as they frantically try to right the ship instead of just second-guessing and distracting them and sending everyone running off in all sorts of new, chaotic directions.

My experience, unfortunately, suggests its far more likely to be the latter and, if so, healthcare.gov is in for a very long, bumpy ride.

Friday, October 04, 2013

IPOs Let Companies Raise Capital: Myth?

"Tweet, tweet. I need capital!"
Over at Slate, Matthew Ygelsias calls out four interesting points from Twitter's S1 filing, and all of them are good ones. His fourth point, though, did make me pause: "IPO's aren't about raising capital."

In a sense, he's absolutely right. Almost all tech IPOs--and Twitter is certainly no exception--are not undertaken because the companies need to raise capital to fund the business. Indeed, they are exit vehicles for the original investors--generally venture capitalists--to get their money out of the business (along with, in most cases, a handsome profit.)

IPOs like Twitter, Yglesias argues, puts the lie to the old myth that the purpose of the stock market is to let firms raise capital. But, I don't quite buy that. The stock market is doing exactly that for tech firms, only in an indirect way.

No one could create a start up in his or her garage, hire a few people and make a splashy demo, and then file an S1 and go public. No one would buy the stock. Instead, early investors are willing to take a risk and invest multiple millions of dollars in the company because there stock market is out there as one potential "exit strategy" so they can have a "liquidity event", as the jargon goes.

An IPO is not the only way for investors to cash in--they could always sell to another larger company, for instance, which frequently happens. But, without the prospect of a potential IPO out in the future, it would be far, far harder for tech entrepreneurs to raise the money they needed to get their big idea off the ground. So, to my mind, at least, it seem the stock market is doing exactly what it has long been rumored to do: letting firms raise capital.


Friday, September 20, 2013

Private Exchange Momentum Increasing . . . But Let's Not Panic

As might have been expected as we approach the open enrollment season, there's been a flurry of news over the past week about the latest big-name companies to shift away from traditional company-sponsored health benefits and send their employees out to an Exchange.

Last Friday, the Trader Joe's grocery chain announced that it was ending health benefits for part-time workers and instead sending them to the public exchanges with a $500 stipend. On Wednesday, Walgreens announced that it was moving 120,000 employees to Aon Hewitt's private exchange. In doing so, it joins IBM and Sears in exploring the private exchange approach, and we can reasonably expect similar announcements to follow from other firms in upcoming weeks.

In a curious side-effect to the news, the stock for both Catamaran, who provides PBM services to Walgreens, and Express Scripts, a peer PBM competitor, plunged 8% and almost 5%, respectively. Investors are worried, apparently, that the move to a defined contribution and exchange-purchase model (whether via public or private exchanges) will be harmful to PBM revenue.

I personally can't see how this makes a difference. Regardless of how members acquire their insurance, they will still need a PBM to manage all the pharmacy benefits.

But, the larger issue is this: the immediate reaction is to see a change in the benefits-funding and sales model to be disruptive to the entire spectrum of insurance operations. This goes hand in glove with what I typically see among payers and other healthcare-related companies when they contemplate the notion of "private exchanges." They tend to blow it up to be a much larger and more mysterious beast than it needs to be.

"Private exchanges" are really nothing new. They're just a different type of sales channel, and payers should look at them that way. From a sales and marketing perspective, they will create huge new challenges for how to reach new prospects and, in particular, ensure that payers can win the loyalty of consumers shopping side-by-side with the their competitors.

But, from an operational perspective, once that member has decided to get coverage from that payer, everything else--the enrollment, new member fulfillment, invoicing and payment, member service--should just flow through the existing operational processes.

The more we are able to see that public and private exchanges are just new sales and marketing channels and not entirely different insurance markets the more effective--and less panicked--we can incorporate them into existing technology and operational processes.

Tuesday, September 17, 2013

And Suddenly There Were Three . . .

This article from Michael Endler at Information Week on Apple's move to make iWork free on iOS devices got me thinking, and my conclusion is that, suddenly and out of the blue, we might have a new office productivity application battle on our hands.

Years ago Microsoft Office crushed alternatives like Lotus and WordPerfect as the ubiquitous office application suite. Now, suddenly, we've got Google with its Drive (nee Docs) and Apple with iWorks stepping up to potentially give the old gray mare a run for it's money.

My data points are more anecdotal and observational than empirical at this point. Here are just two:

  • I'm seeing more and more small businesses--design firms, publications, even health insurance co-ops--using Google Docs to share and collaborate.
  • Every time I visit a corporate setting, more an more people are showing up in meetings with iPads, many complete with keyboards to serve as a full mobile computer. In fact, one client I am currently working with recently did away with laptops and issued company-owned iPads (with aftermarket keyboards and cases) to anyone needing mobile computing. And, everyone said that it took a few days of a learning curve but they have no desire to go back to their old slow, clunky (Windows OS) laptops.
I've not done much personally with the iWorks apart from using the Keynote presentation suite (which is pretty slick), but I've consistently been impressed with the progress that Google Docs/Drive has made with each passing year. And the sticker price (free) is a pretty compelling proposition.

So, I wouldn't be surprised if we see a new war for enterprise market share crank up over the course of the next year or two as desktop PCs go the way of the buffalo and we all start shaking out what the productivity devices and productivity software suites look like.

Thursday, August 29, 2013

Buying an Exchange Health Plan: No Need to Rush

A lot of emphasis has been put on the October 1st date as the day the federally-mandated health insurance exchanges go live, and there's starting to be a lot of noise made about whether the exchanges will be ready. The recent decision by the Feds to delay their final agreements with insurers is just one indication of the technical glitches that we are likely to see once the exchanges are open for business.

But, the real key date is January, the date exchange-purchased insurance will go into effect. For any consumer planing to shop through an exchange to take advantage of Federal premium subsidies, there's no more need to rush out to your state's exchange on October 1st than there is to rush out and buy your Halloween costume the first day that pop-up Halloween shop opens down the block (which, in my town, was sometime in July).

When I used to manage web systems overseeing open enrollment for large employers, we would see the two biggest spikes in traffic when open enrollment first began and right before it ended--usually for the first 3 to 5 days, as all the early birds piled in to select their benefits for the next year, and then for the last 3 or so days as all the procrastinators finally responded to the repeated reminders from the HR department and logged in to select their plans.

Based on what we know so far, consumers would be well advised to wait a few weeks after the exchanges open in October to check them out. Sometime around Thanksgiving might even be ideal. But, don't wait until after Christmas. The end of the year laggards may well bog the systems and make the experience downright painful.


Wednesday, August 28, 2013

Exchange Pre-Go-Live: A Few Technical Glitches, But We Shouldn't Be Surprised

Reuters is reporting that the Department of Health & Human Services will not sign its final agreements with health insurance carriers selling on the federal exchange next week as was planned but are instead delaying until mid-September.

Reuters' sources attributed the delay to "it to technology problems involving the display of insurance products within the federal information technology system." This echoes what I've heard from some of the insurers I work with, who have reported that the plan displays are, to use one client's words, "a total mess."

Have built and deployed numerous health insurance shopping and enrollment systems in the past, I can pretty much guess precisely what they are dealing with. When you're building a system and working with test data, you try to plan in advance for everything you are going to see. But, when the full set of real data comes in all sorts of glitches--some minor, some dreadful--can crop up.

For example, carriers put longer pieces of text than you expected in a product description and suddenly the text starts wrapping bizarrely or gets cut off. The job that loads the data from the files submitted by the carriers mangles some data or puts it in the wrong place. Non-alphanumeric characters play havoc with your HTML.

All of these things are normal and to be expected. It's something you have to deal with when launching any new system into production. The only problem here is that the systems are going live with one big bang with a lot of public scrutiny and media attention trained upon them.

Expect a lot of this over the upcoming months as the exchanges work through all the normal kinks. The joys of v.1.0 software . . .  

Sunday, August 25, 2013

Misunderstanding Microsoft

I've been a little surprised by news stories like this one from the New York Times that have used the occasion of Steve Ballmer's announcing his retirement to crack on Microsoft's track record as an innovative software company.

In particular, there seems to be a commonly accepted notion that Microsoft has been a one-trick pony, unable to adapt to the changing tech landscape over the decades. Prime example: this quote from the above NY Times piece:
The rare tech company manages to thrive from one generation of technology to the next. Only a few of the big ones — I.B.M., Intel and Apple — have done it. And it is not yet clear if Microsoft has a clear path to joining that list of multigeneration kingpins.
Huh? I'm not sure what the author, Quentin Hardy, is thinking. Microsoft was founded a year earlier than Apple, and you can say what you want about Microsoft's struggle to adapt to and stay relevant in today's tech market--smart phones, mobile devices, the Web, cloud computing. But, the notion that Microsoft has been a single generation company is laughable.

Generation 1 and 2: the operating system for personal computers (DOS, then evolving to the second generation, Windows).

Generation 3: the Office suite, which squashed earlier competing products (remember WordStar, WordPerfect, and Lotus Notes?) and made Microsoft an almost monopolistic fixture on desktops in the corporate IT environment.

Generation 4: foundational enterprise technology--Windows NT Server, Exchange, Active Directory, SQL Server, SharePoint, etc.--which made Microsoft one of the leading vendors of enterprise software.

Microsoft's may be struggling to get out in the market with mobile and cloud technology and figure out what it's going to be in the future, but how can you make the case that they aren't a "multigenerational kingpin"?

One common thread in the Microsoft history is this: year in and year out people have tended to underestimate them. SQL Server was a joke of a database compared to Oracle until, suddenly, with version 7.0 it wasn't--especially at the price. Exchange was far inferior to Lotus Notes until suddenly every company in the United States was running their email through it.

This doesn't mean that Microsoft will figure out mobile or smart phones or cloud computing. But, it would be foolish to dismiss them out of hand. And, considering the number of businesses in the United States that still have Microsoft Office on their desktops (which is to say, almost all of them), perhaps the fact that they aren't winning all the B2C battles these days may not really mean that much.


Friday, August 23, 2013

Managing Public Exchange Operations: Learning from Medicare Advantage

October 1st is fast approaching. And, it's probably safe to say that most health insurance payers are simply cobbling it together the best they can to do business with the new public health insurance exchanges this fall. The sheer volume of operational changes and the ever-shifting, late-arriving rules and guidelines from the states and the Feds have left them little choice.

And that means it's not too soon to start thinking about 2014. If the mission for 2013 was simply to get ready to sell on the Exchanges, the mission for 2014 will be to operationalize the public exchange business so payers can manage it efficiently and effectively.

Lessons from Medicare Advantage

Perhaps the best way to predict how payer/Exchange operations will evolve over time is to look at the experience of Medicaid Advantage. The rules and operational requirements have evolved since the first Part C program was instituted in 1997, but there's a visible trend in how payers have implemented the operational and technology capabilities necessary to management Medicare Advantage plans, with a particular focus on the complex data exchange, reconciliation, and reporting interactions with CMS:
  1. Payers cobbled things together the best they could, performing many tasks manually with spreadsheets, Access database, and homegrown IT solutions.
  2. Point vendors emerged who began to offer commercial solutions for various parts of the operational processes. such as submitting encounter data to CMS's Risk Adjustment Processing Systems (RAPS) and executing the Batch Eligibility Query (BEQ) to look up a member's eligibility status with CMS.
  3. The market began to consolidate, with a few players emerging that offered a full suite of software to manage the full Medicare Advantage lifecycle. Trizetto, with its Trizetto Medicare Solutions, and ikaSystems with its ikaMedicareGateway are notable examples.

Emerging Exchange Solutions

Already, technology firms are bringing commercial solutions to market to assist payers in their interactions with the Exchanges. Connecture, for example, recently announced that their direct enrollment and synchronization solutions have just passed the first phase of CMS testing for integrating with the Federally Facilitated Marketplace (FFM). This direct enrollment solution will become a foundational component of Connecture's private exchange solution for payers.

We can expect to see similar announcements from Connecture's competitors in the near future along with the launch of new products to manage other aspects of the payer-Exchange interaction, such as Qualified Health Plan (QHP) submissions and Advance Premium Tax Credit (APTC) and Cost Sharing Reduction (CSR) payment reconciliation.

What's different this time around is that payers have gotten a lot smarter about embracing commercial off-the-shelf software rather than trying to build everything themselves. Exchange management solutions are prime candidates for buy instead of build, since everyone has to integrate with the same FFM API and submit their product and rate data in the exact same CMS-defined formats.

It seems likely that such commercial solutions will take hold pretty quickly in the market and will evolve and improve rapidly as the public Exchange--and the carrier operations that support them--mature. Payers may by necessity be forced to wing it for the 2014 open enrollment, but once that's behind them they should start looking outside their four walls to find effective, scalable solutions for the long term.

Thursday, August 01, 2013

Direct Enrollment & the Federally-Facilitated Exchange: Marketing Strategy Questions

We looked at the options facing payers when it comes to Direct Enrollment with the FFM in a previous post as well as the risks involved in the most technically complex of the options, the Fully-Integrated Model. Is that full model worth the risk for your organization?

On the one hand, there is a lot of technical heavy lifting and a lot of risks inherent in the direct enrollment implementation. What is gained from that work is your ability to control the shopping experience and guarantee that your potential customers won't be tempted into selecting a plan from another issuer. 

To determine whether it is worth the cost, effort, and risk depends very much upon your go-to market strategy and anticipated sales volumes. Here are a few questions that can help determine the answer:

1. On-Exchange vs. Off-Exchange Volumes: How many new customers do you forecast will purchase your plans through the FFM's site and how many will come directly to your site to shop

2. Subsidy Volume: How many customers do you anticipate will qualify for APTCs/CSRs, and how do you think they will find out their eligibility? It would be some very expensive development if only a few dozen customers who start at your site qualify for a subsidy but a different picture if thousands of customers do. 

3. Lead Generation Strategy: What is the marketing strategy for driving potential customers to the your website, such as traditional media advertising, online advertising, email leads, broker referrals, referrals from other organizations and associations?

4. Brand Affinity: Is it reasonable to assume that shoppers who begin on your website rather than the FFM's will already have an affinity for your brand and therefore be unlikely to choose another issuer's plan if offered them side by side

5. Competitive Differentiators: How do you plan to compete against the other issuers in the market? Are you targeting cost-conscious consumers likely to select whatever plan is lowest in price, or are you competing on other factors like brand, service, and benefits'

6. Broker Channel Strategy: How important are brokers in your go-to-market strategy: do you anticipate they will be guiding consumers as they purchase (and therefore may help guide consumers away from your competitors' products) or will consumers be shopping on their own?

These are just a few factors to take into consideration when deciding how best to interact with the FFM in your markets.

Monday, July 29, 2013

Direct Enrollment & the Federally Facilitated Marketplace: the Risks


At first blush, the Fully-Integrated model may seem like the best option because of the control it gives payers over their customers' shopping experience and their brand. But, it is technically complex to implement and poses quite a number of implementation risks. Here are just a few of the immediate risks that I can see to the approach, which leverages an evolving Direct Enrollment Application Programmatic Interface (API) that is still under development by the FFM. 

Seven Risks

1. Complexity of Integration: The integration pattern the FFM has defined is complex, requiring two web session transfers (first from the issuer site out to the FFM's and then from the FFM's back to the issuer) and two web services calls from the issuer to the FFM/Data Hub, the first to retrieve household and subsidy information for the applicant and the second to submit the enrollment once complete.

2. A New, Untested API: Real-time integration between two systems can be challenging in their own right, but in this case we are dealing with a brand new system being developed against an aggressive timeline and an integration pattern that has not been attempted before. The newness alone raises a considerable risk of bugs and errors in the web services and redirect.

3. The Test Pool Is Crowded: The biggest  challenge in system integration is generally the coordination, testing, and triaging of issues between the two supporting parties—that is, when an exception occur, tracking down which system is responsible and determining the root cause. In this instance, it's not two organizations alone attempting to implement an integration but potential a large number of parties attempting to integrate with the FFM all at the same time, which only raises the risk of delays in testing and working through issues

4. Multiple Browser Windows: The FFM's integration pattern calls for the FFM's web pages to open in a new browser window from the one used to navigate the issuer's site, which from a user experience perspective is less than ideal.

5. Impact on Issuer's Shopping Portal Flow: To implement the full direct enrollment pattern, an issuer would need to update their own shopping experience to take into account the APTC's and CSR's from the subsidies in the experience (for example, when displaying premiums to users) as well as handle the more complex enrollment scenarios of dual-taxpayer households. In other words, the development effort is not just in the bouncing out and bouncing back from the FFM site but in fact changes the overall shopping experience.

6. Brand & Customer Satisfaction: When a user's shopping experience begins on the payer's site but bounces out to the FFM, the user is quite likely to associate any problems or issues incurred on the FFM's site with the issuer itself, putting at risk the issuer's brand and customer satisfaction if there are problems on the FFM's end

7. Can I Come Back Later? The complexity of the integration is compounded by the functionality needed to handle a shopper who doesn't complete the process in a single web session. Because of the complexity of the information required for the APTC/CSR application process, it is quite likely that users will "save and come back later." The issuer's web site will need to be able to handle those situations and all the various user paths: e.g. What happens if they come back to the issuer's website when they are ready to continue? What if they return to the FFM's site?

Considerations

These are some significant risks, and each payer will have to decide for themselves if the rewards are worth the risk and expense of the fully-integrated model. Because Exchanges and QHPs are brand new, there is not solid track record or set of best practices to draw upon to understand consumer behavior when it comes to shopping for insurance with government subsidies.

In my view, brokers with automated sales systems have much more to gain from the integration than payers do, and it would be perfectly understandable for payers to decide that they'll let other organizations be the crash test dummies and work out all the kinks and implement their own integrations later if they prove valuable.

But, it may well be worth the risk for your organization to get out ahead of the pack. We'll look at some of those considerations next.

Thursday, July 25, 2013

Direct Enrollment Integration with Federally Facilitated Marketplace: An Overview

One of the questions many payers are wrestling with as they prepare to participate in the Federally Facilitated Marketplace (FFM) is whether they should undertake to integrate their own online shopping experiences with the FFM's site and, if they do, whether they should use the simpler "Lead Generation API" model or the more complex full integration model. When you break it down there are really four options:

Option 1: No Integration 

In this model, the payer assumes that subsidy-eligible consumers will find their own way to the FFM site if they want to take advantage of a subsidy. The payer's site is assumed to be used only by those who are not eligible or not interested in a subsidy and provides no features to help shopper understand subsidy options.

Pros: 
  • The simplest and cheapest to implement (in fact, no action required) and avoids confusing shoppers and introducing the risk of their considering competitors products. 
Cons: 
  • Subsidy-eligible consumers who might otherwise purchase one of your plans may go to the FFM to get their subsidy and in the process pick a competitor's product.
  • Risk of consumer dissatisfaction if they later discover they are eligible for a subsidy or don't understand their options

Option 2: Offramp to FFM For Subsidy Eligible Shoppers

In this model, the payer provides information to consumers about the subsidies they might be eligible for and redirects, if they want to determine whether they are eligible, redirects them to the FFM through a simple link. 
Pros: 
  • Very simple and inexpensive to implement (just some text and a link)
  • Helping consumers discover subsidies they are eligible may increase the likelihood they will purchase a product from you
Cons: 
  • Redirects potential subsidy-eligible consumers to the FFM, where they may select competitors products regardless of whether they qualify for a subsidy or not 

Option 3: Fully-Integrated Shopping Experience

In this model, consumers who come to  your site can shop for and enroll in your Qualified Health Plans without ever being exposed to competitor products. The shopper is redirected to the FFM web site to apply for a subsidies and determine whether they are eligible for one, but then they are returned to your website to complete the plan selection and enrollment process.

Pros: 
  • Subsidy-eligible consumers are never exposed to your competitors' products
  • Apart from the subsidy application, you control the entire shopping experience
  • Supports marketing efforts to drive subsidy-eligible consumers to your site to purchase plans and to follow up through offline channels to complete abandoned sales
Cons
  • Most expensive and technologically complex approach
  • Requires a rather clunky back-and-forth bouncing between your website and the FFM's
  • High implementation risk due to the complex integration and newness of the FFM's API technology
The Fully-Integrated Shopping Flow for a New Individual (from CMS Web Broker API Overview)


Option 4: Lead Generation API
This option is a bit of a compromise, allowing issuers to control the plans their potential customers see but still redirect them to the FFM so that they can get their subsidies and enroll in the plan. This is a handoff of a potential customer from your site to the FFMs, where they will complete the entire rest of the shopping and enrollment process. But, you are able to specify up to 10 of your products to be displayed to the shopper when they are selecting plans on the FFM. The shopper would have the ability to clear the filter and see other plans if they like, but in their initial view they will see only yours.

Pros
  • Drastically reduced cost of development, integration, and testing compared to the Fully-Integrated Shopping Experience
  • Removes the complexity of abandoned shopping sessions and returning shoppers, exception handling, etc.

Cons:
  • Shoppers will have the ability to unfiltered their plan listing and view competitors' products once they are on the FFM site, so there is a chance they may shop for competitors products
  • You lose control of the rest of the shopping and enrollment experience, which may make it difficult to conduct typical sales activities such as following up via telesales with consumers who began the enrollment process but abandoned it.
  • Because the transaction is completed through the FFM, there's a risk of losing brand loyalty

Which of these approaches is right for your organization? It depends greatly upon your go-to-market strategy for your Qualified Health Plans and your on-Exchange/off-Exchange marketing approach. We'll look at those considerations in an upcoming post.

Tuesday, June 04, 2013

Private Exchanges: A Good Time to Try the Waters?

As we sit just a few months out from the launching of the first public health insurance exchanges (if all goes well, of course), the interest among employers and insurers in private exchanges has continued unabated. (For a good overview of defined-contribution private exchanges, see this whitepaper from Booz & Co.) Plenty of vendors have stepped up to offer software and services help insurers and brokers set up their own private exchanges, but as of yet it is a very immature, fragmented market.

We recently conducted a market scan of 44 of the leading American health insurers (including the national carriers and the larger regional players, namely the Blue Cross & Blue Shields) to get a sense of the current state of defined-contribution private exchanges and compare it to other varieties of online insurance tools. The charts below show the percentage of insurers who are either live on or in the process of implementing the following types of platforms:
  • Online Consumer Shopping: Allows consumers to shop for and purchase individual and family plans online directly from the insurer.
  • Online Group Enrollment: Allows employers and their brokers who have purchased group coverage from an insurer to manage the enrollment of their employees through an online portal, including managing open enrollment and making mid-year changes for new hires, terminations, and life changes. 
  • Defined Contribution Private Exchange: Allows employers to specify a pre-defined amount to contribute for their employees premiums and then lets the employees shop for and enroll in the insurance plan of their choice through an online portal.


The end results? What our survey reveals is that, despite all the buzz around private exchanges, few insurers have actually gotten very far down the path, especially when you compare it to other online insurance sales and enrollment tools. We are still very much at the "toe-in-the-water" stage, though more and more insurers are starting to take the plunge.

A couple of key takeaways for insurers considering jumping in themselves:
  • While private exchanges are new, they are no longer bleeding-edge new. A small but growing number of insurers have already taken them live and worked through shaking out the inevitable first-mover kinks.
  • More and more insurers are starting to get onboard, so to stay competitive insurers need to be actively working on their defined contribution strategy.
  • It's not too late. With more than half of the largest health insurers not yet underway with an actual implementation, it's a prime time to get out ahead of the competition without having to be the initial guinea pig for unproven solutions.
We'll be keeping an eye on these numbers and update them periodically as more insurers bring their initial offerings to the market.


Friday, May 10, 2013

Solving the Right Problem

Some recent project work reminded me of an old theory of mine about software development: sometimes the hardest thing in designing a system is to understand what problem you are really trying to solve. In particular, the difference between a good system and a bad system is often the way the problem to be solved was framed and articulated to the team.

It's all too easy to race directly to the immediate issue or goal that a project is trying to accomplish; it's much harder to take a step back and get a more abstracted view of the overall problem.

In this case, we were designing a system to manage the process of filing insurance product information with state Exchanges. As we talked through the objectives, everyone was very focused on what we had to do in a few months: file a bunch of specific templates full of data with three different state Exchanges. We had a list of the 12 documents that were going to be required by one of the Exchanges, and while we hadn't received any definite information yet from the other two Exchanges we assumed their filings would be very similar.

The high-level business requirements were simple: rather than having the people doing the filings store their documents on their local PC file systems and email them around to each other, create a simple document management and workflow solution (using COTS packages, fortunately, not coding stuff from scratch.) It needed to allow users to upload the filings documents to a secure, version-controlled, and auditable location, track the state of the documents from initial draft to final submission, and route them to other users for steps in the process like data validation and approval.

When the first screen prototypes came back from the team, they showed a user interface with one tab for each of the documents to be submitted--prescription drug template, service area template, etc. On each tab were specific controls  to let you upload the associated document and drop downs to change its state. You could create additional "certification filings", but each one would have the same hardwired set of tabs.

"Let's back up a minute," I said. The design would have worked fine for the first filing for that one particular Exchange, but it wouldn't work for the other Exchanges unless they had the exact same documents required to be submitted. And, if next year one of the Exchanges decided they needed to remove one type of document and instead have insurance companies submit, say, a new report on drug utilization statistics, well, we'd have to spin up a new project and have developers go in and revise the system.

What we really needed to create was not a system to manage product filings for three specific Exchanges but rather a submission management system that allows users to manage a definable and changing set of documents to any sort of external agency. We talked through it and got everyone in agreement and off the team went.

The end design was for a very flexible system that allow end users to define "submission packages" and create within them any number of documents. An Exchange could change their submission requirements all they want  in the future and the same system can be used to manage the filings without needing a single modification, and it could be used to manage any number of other regulatory filings, too.

In the end, it all came down to the way the problem was framed. Once we stopped talking about the immediate need--filing those 12 documents with this particular state Exchange--and instead discussed the solution in terms of the bigger picture need--a system to manage a wide range of document filings with regulators--we got the proper results.

If you have good design and development teams, they can generally figure out how to solve any problem you throw there way. You just have to make sure you turn their talents loose on the right problem.

Tuesday, May 07, 2013

The Affordable Care Act? Is That Still a Thing?

Two weeks ago, the Kaiser Family Foundation published poll results that provide bracing lessons for anyone currently working to roll out Health Insurance Exchange and other Affordable Care Act (ACA) related business changes. That theme is simple: don't assume any of your constituents understand the changes that are coming down the pike.

The most telling statistic for me: 42% of respondents were not even aware of the current status of the ACA law, which means they probably don't even know that there are significant changes in the health insurance world coming up this fall when open enrollment begins.

It immediately suggests a couple of key principles for how insurance companies, brokers, and employers move forward into their post-ACA business.

1. Education. Education. Education. View every constituent contact as an opportunity to engage and educate as to what's coming down the road.

2. Explain everything. When you've been in the trenches of implementing healthcare reform changes, the alphabet soup of acronyms becomes an insiders shorthand: EHB, APTC, CSR, even ACA itself. In any external communications, spell it out and explain what it is in the simple language possible. The changes themselves are hard enough to make sense of: don't let language make it harder.

3. Keep it simple. When trying to decide between different possible approaches or designs, always start with this question: what will make this easiest on our brokers, our employers, and our members? 

4. Provide continuity: There is a temptation when contemplating changes as broad as the ones that ACA-features like Exchanges and member-level rating to take that opportunity to overhaul the whole way you do business. But, there's a danger in changing too much too fast. If you can keep your interactions, your communications, and processes as similar as possible to the way they currently function, that will help ease your constituents into the new post-ACA way of doing things. 

And, don't forget the network effect. The largest single source that Kaiser's poll respondents cited as to where they get their information about health care reform law is from conversations with friends and family. If you can effectively reach those people you do make contact with, they'll help spread the word to everyone else.


Wednesday, April 03, 2013

Member Level Rating, Challenge #3: Rating New Employees

The last time we looked at the challenges of member-level rating, we considered the possible impact it might have on a group's premium invoice--the bill. This time, we take a look at another challenge: bringing new employees onboard mid-year.

This is, in fact, similar to the issue we discussed last time of an employee adding a new baby to their family coverage and the employer's overall bill going up. Member-level rating, in this case, means that, even after a group has purchased their plan or plans for a benefit year, the amount each employee pays for coverage is not fixed--it depends upon the make-up of their family.

How It Works Today
Today, an employer typically shops for insurance before the benefit year begins and then locks in rates for either all his or her employees or, in a large company, for all employees in a certain category of employment, such as full-time, non-union employees.

Say, for instance, that an employer buys a PPO plan with a $750 monthly premium for family coverage and an HMO with a $625 monthly premium. He or she decides to contribute $300 a month for the premium. Any employee who is hired mid-year and wants to enroll in one of the plans will have the difference ($450 for the PPO and $325 for the HMO), deducted from his or her paycheck.

The conversation is pretty simple for employer explaining the benefits options to the employee: "Joe, you can get the PPO for $450 or the HMO for $325". He or she probably has that printed up on a little one- or two-page sheet in the benefits handbook and shares that sheet with job candidates, too.

How It Will Work in the Future
That conversation won't be so easy in the future, at least not in small companies with fewer than 50 employees (to which member-level rating applies). Imagine the HR administrator at a 30-employee company explaining the benefit options to a job candidate, Joe, who is considering an offer with the firm.

Joe: "What about health insurance?"

HR Rep: "We have a very generous package. We have an HMO and a PPO, both very good plans."

Joe: "How much do they cost?"

HR Rep: "Well, that depends . . ."

And here the HR Rep is in a bit of a pickle. You aren't supposed to ask a candidate about marital status, whether they have children, etc. during the interview process. But, to be able to tell Joe how much coverage is going to cost, the HR Rep needs to know if he is going to cover a spouse and children or other dependents, and not only that but the age and tobacco-use status of each of those dependents.

Even if the HR Rep happens to know these things (say, when explaining the plan to Joe after he has already started work and can freely chat about his family situation), how would he or she be able to explain to Joe what he is going to have to pay? Does the insurer or broker provide them (like life insurance companies do) with a look-up table so the HR Rep can look up the cost for each family member, add them up, and tell Joe the rate?

It's already complicated enough just understanding the difference between HMOs and PPOs, much less High-Deductible Health Plans and Health Savings Accounts. The HR Rep's job has just gotten a lot harder.

Now, there's an alternate wrinkle where an employer could reverse the patten. Instead of covering $300 for each employee and letting the employee pick up the rest, make all employees pay a fixed amount (say, $450) for the PPO out their weekly checks and, as the employer, pick up whatever the difference is. But, that not only means uncertainty of benefits cost for the employer but create an undesired incentive for age discrimination, since it would cost much less to insure a younger employee than an older one.

Fortunately, member-level rating applies only to the small group market, so companies with more than 50 employees don't have to worry about this wrinkle, but it makes things even more challenging in an already challenging small group market.

Implications for Insurance Carriers
This is a lot to think about for a health insurance company, but here are a few implications and considerations.

1. Effective constituent communications to the sales and broker channels and the existing employer customer base is key to explain the changes that are coming and to provide tools and materials to help brokers and employers be ready to communicate with their employees.

2. Follow the patterns established by life and disability insurance companies, for whom this sort of age-banded coverage is common.

3. Provide easy tools (like an online employee rate quote calculator) that makes it easy for a broker, employer, or HR rep to quickly look up the cost for an employee and run a report that can become part of that new employee welcome kit or job offer documentation.

Thursday, March 14, 2013

The Big Glaring Problem with the HHS Exchange Application

Last time,  I took issue with the Associated Press's characterization of HHS's proposed application for Exchange insurance eligibility, making the case that, considering all the information they have to gather in order to assess income and other eligibility factors, they actually didn't do all that bad of a job.

But, there is one glaring problem that, so far at least, I've not seen anyone point out. It surfaces in the text that appears right beneath the signature lines:

Congratulations, you’re done! What happens next? 
We’ll contact you in 1–2 weeks and let you know how to take the next steps, like joining a health plan 
This is one the big, fat problem in the whole mix: with this form (and this is the form for someone not applying for any government subsidies) you are not applying to be covered by a particular health insurance plan but rather applying to be allowed to shop for health insurance.

Can you imagine going to the mall and not being allowed to enter and browse until you fill out a form and get approved?

Perhaps not surprisingly, since this process has been designed by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, that this application process works just like Medicaid: first you apply to determine whether you are eligible for Medicaid coverage and then, once you've been approved, you select the plan you want. It makes total sense in the Medicaid world, since you are apply for a public assistance program, and the eligibility determination is the biggest and hardest part.

But, to those coming from the commercial insurance world it turns things on their head. In that world, you shop and select your plan first, and you fill out an application only when you've decided what plan you want to buy. The only real thing that determines if you're "eligible" to shop is whether you live in that carrier's service area, and all it takes is a ZIP code to figure that out.

It's long been a best practice in commercial insurance sales that you require users to enter as little personal information as possible until you absolutely have to have it. You need to know people's age and ZIP code to provide a premium rate quote, so a user does have to enter that in, but no online brokerage or carrier sales site requires you to enter your address and phone number just to shop. It's been well established that the greatest "session abandonment" (i.e. people leaving the site) occurs at the point where they have to enter their full name and contact information. Why? Because they are just shopping around and aren't ready to apply yet.

Watch CMS's YouTube demo video of the online application, and you'll see that their flow breaks these best practices in several ways:

  1. You have to set up a user account before you shop
  2. You have to read and agree to a pretty hefty disclaimer allowing the government to query data sources and use personal information before you even know if you need to bother applying for financial assistance
  3. You have to enter your full contact information before you can shop

Only after these three steps can you specify whether you even want to apply to get help paying for health insurance.

Who knows--maybe this will work out okay for the Exchanges. Costco, for instance, does a bang up business, and you have to apply for membership before being allowed to browse. But, the trade off is that once you get in the door you can buy a zillion rolls of toilet paper for a couple of bucks.

But, in the insurance world, consumers will pay the exact same premium for plans purchased on the Exchange as they will for plans purchased through a private brokerage or directly from a carrier, unless their income qualifies them for a subsidy. (Subsidized plans can be purchased only through the public Exchange.) There are plenty of companies already offering exchange-like multicarrier private marketplaces and more rushing to launch new ones.

The danger for Exchanges is that having a high bar to get in the door will mean that the only people who will shop on the Exchanges will be those that have below 400% of the Federal Poverty Level and are thus eligible for a premium tax credit. And that's exactly the sort of two-tiered approach that policy makers have been trying so hard to avoid. Let's hope they figure it out and scramble the order of operations in the shopping and enrollment process.

Wednesday, March 13, 2013

A Hatchet Job from the AP on the Exchange Application

Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar of the Associated Press took a swing at the draft Exchange eligibility application, which was released for review and comment by CMS back in January. The story seems to be getting picked up pretty widely but, unfortunately, its commentary seems, to my eye at least, to be way over the top and sensational. Here's the first line:

Applying for benefits under PresidentBarack Obama's health care overhaul could be as daunting as doing your taxes.
This is bound to get a lot of people worked up and scared, but it really is a long way from the truth.

First of all, it starts off by saying that the draft application runs 15 pages and doesn't mention until the very end of the article that there's a shorter application for those who don't want or know they aren't eligible government subsidies for purchasing insurance. 

If you look at the shorter six-page application for those who know they don't qualify for a subsidy, you'll see that it's really not all that onerous. It's actually an eight-page package, but two of the eight pages are instructions, and they're in large and accessible type. Page 2 is the standard information about the applicant: name, address, phone, email, preferred language, SSN, birthdate, and checkboxes for citizenship status and ethnicity and race (both optional).  Pages 3 and 4 ask for the same information about each person you're going to include in insurance coverage. Page 5 is about American Indian status, and requires a single checkbox if no one in your family is a Native American. Pages 6 is a signature page. The optional Page 7 lets you specify an "authorized representative" who can discuss your application on your behalf.

Frankly, this is the same information you complete on just about any form you fill out for any reason today, and it's hard to imagine how CMS could get away with asking you for less information. I've scratched my head again and again, and there's only one problem that I can see with the whole application--and I'll get to that later.

But what about the 15-pager that Alonso-Zaldivar plays up so much in his article, the one that he claims runs "counter to the vision of simplicity promoted by administration officials" and are raising fears that "a lot of uninsured people will be overwhelmed and simply give up?"

For starters, of the 15 pages, the same two pages repeat six times, since you fill out the same information about up to six people. And, yes, the questions do get a little complicated. They ask about the federal income tax filing status of each person and details about a person's current job and income. If you know the details behind the Affordable Care Act and its subsidy provisions, each of the things being asked makes sense. All this is trying to get to household income, since families with a household income up to 400% of the Federal Poverty Level are eligible for subsidies.

It would be nice, I suppose, if there was just a single line you could fill out that says: enter your household income: ___________ But, to figure out what should go in that box, you would have to know all the rules of what counts and doesn't count and work up to that . . . in other words, fill out all the information that's in those two pages per person.

As for the other pages, most of them can be skipped by answering a single question: Is anyone offered health coverage from a job? Does anyone have another health insurance now? Is anyone in your family American Indian or Alaska native? Do you want to name someone as your authorized representative? Answer no to these and you knock out four more pages from the fifteen. When you fill out an application online, you'll never even be presented with many of the questions.

The real problem is that figuring out household income and prior or other health insurance information is complicated and requires a lot of information. In his article Alonso-Zaldivar quotes Sam Karp of the California HealthCare Foundation, which on its own designed a separate model application and, one can only assume, knows the pain of trying to capture all the information needed to determine subsidy eligibility. Karp, the article notes, "gives the administration high marks for distilling it all into a workable form." And I love Karp's quote: "We are not just signing up for a dating service here."

But, I suppose "Government does a pretty good job asking complicated questions on health insurance application" just isn't quite as dramatic a story.

Oh, and one other small detail not mentioned by the AP: this same application will determine individuals' eligibility for Medicaid or CHIP programs, too. 

And that brings us to the one big problem with the whole application process that no one else seems to be picking up on. I'll touch on that in a later post.





Tuesday, March 05, 2013

Member Level Rating Challenge #2: The Monthly Invoice

This is the second in an ongoing series looking at some of the thorny operational challenges created by the shift to member-level rating as required by the Affordable Care Act. See here for background on the series.

Here's an interesting area that you might not think of as being affected by the shift in rating methodology required by the ACA: the invoice that small business owners receive from their insurance carrier each month. We're not talking about the new consolidated invoices that will be created by the SHOP Exchanges (that's a different animal altogether). We're talking about the insurance bills received by small businesses that buy their coverage through their old familiar channels, which means, in most cases, through their neighborhood insurance broker.

"Why would rating changes affect the bill?" you might ask. "The rates were calculated during the sales process. Now the customer is just paying what he or she owes each month." Yes, but, a small business health insurance bill is a little different from the power bill or the landscaping bill.

Two key factors:
  1. A health insurance bill is a snapshot in time 
  2. A health insurance bill often triggers an enrollment transaction
This all a shorthand way of saying that the monthly insurance bill represents a snapshot of what employees (and their dependents) are enrolled in health insurance coverage at a particular point in time--that is, the point at which the bill was generated. And, that snapshot of coverage very often is what reminds a small business owner that he or she needs to submit some sort of enrollment change.

Every health insurance carrier does things a little differently (a common theme that constantly plays into Exchange and healthcare reform issues), but two common features of the group medical insurance bill is the coverage summary and detailed roster.

The coverage summary provides counts of the number of employees enrolled into each coverage level of each plan offered by the company. For example, a company that offers its employees the choice of a PPO and a High-Deductible Health Plan (HDHP) might see the following summary:

PlanEmployee OnlyEmployee + SpouseEmployee + ChildrenFamilySubtotal
PPO21205
HMO13419
Total346114

The detailed roster would show employee by employee what each person is enrolled in, offering the detail behind, for instance, which 4 employees chose the Employee + Children level of the HMO.

It might look something like this:

Last NameFirst NamePlanCoverage LevelPremium
Adams
John
PPO
Employee Only
$198.23
Anderson
Margaret
PPO
Employee Only
$198.23
Carter
Ann
HMO
Employee + Spouse
$318.29
Hendrick-Smith
Nancy
PPO
Employee + Family
$498.73
etc.

Now, in the old world of rating, this is pretty much all you need to know to figure out where the total amount that's printed on the "Please Pay" line comes from.  Once you bought the plans for the year, you pay the same for each employee enrolled in the Employee-Only coverage level of the PPO, which is why John Adams and Margaret Anderson share the same premium on the detailed roster. Take the total number of employees enrolled into each coverage level of each plan, multiply it by the premium for that particular plan and coverage level, then sum it all up and that's your bill.

Flash forward to the new world of member-level rating. Now, the summary may still have some use in getting a quick tally of the number of employees enrolled in plans ("Wait, 14? We only have 13 now, since we canned Jakey last week.") But, it no longer tells you everything you need to know in order to figure out where the total bill came from, and for a simple reason: the rate charged for each employee's policy is now based upon the age, tobacco use, and location of each dependent being covered. 

The detailed roster, in its current form, at least, isn't going to be much use, either. Nancy Hendrick-Smith may have enrolled her full family in the PPO, but that isn't enough to determine the rate. Instead, we need to know Nancy's spouse's age and tobacco use and the age and tobacco use for each of her children, too.

Now, suppose next month Nancy has a baby and adds him to her policy. In theory, she still has "family coverage", and in the old world her employer would be charged the same rate for both months.  Not in the new world. Assuming she still has fewer than three children, then the premium charged for Nancy will go up for month 2, since it's calculated on a per-member rate, and she just added a new member to her coverage. Under the old summary and detailed roster format, the employer would have no way of seeing why the premium charge for Nancy's family went up this month over the previous one. He or she needs to see the full detail not just for each employee but also for each depended being covered under the employees' policies. 

So, to wrap it up, here are some basic implications for billing:

1. Carriers will need to rethink the summary section of invoices to determine whether there is a more relevant set of summary information that will let small business owners quickly review and evaluate whether their bill is correct. Perhaps, instead of count of number of employees enrolled in coverage levels, it will show the total number of employees and dependents enrolled in each plan. 

2. The detailed roster will need to be expanded to present not an employee-by-employee roster but rather a full roster of employees and dependents, with each line itemed out and explaining the premium being charged for each.

3. Carriers can expect an increase of calls to their customer service centers in the first months of 2014, since their small group customers are suddenly going to see something different than what they are used to and will be bound to have questions.

Just one of many examples of the potentially unforeseen downstream ripples of what seems like, in theory, a relative simple change in the way premiums are calculated.

Monday, February 25, 2013

Member Level Rating, Challenge #1: Quoting New Group Business

Last week, I drilled a little into the workings of the ACA-mandated member-level rating methodology to set the stage for discussing the rather large downstream impacts this change will likely have on an insurance carrier's internal operations. Since I wrote that post, HHS published the final rule on Health Insurance Market Rules, and there are not substantive changes in the rating methodology put forth in the original proposal rule. So, it looks like this new rating method is going to stand. And, it's going to create quite a number of big challenges for carriers to implement.

We'll dig into each one step by step, and today we'll look at . . .

Challenge #1: Quoting New Group Business

One of the first and most obvious impacts of the rating change is that the systems carriers use to sell new business (that is, to quote rates to prospective insurance buyers) will have to be modified to calculate rates following the new rating rules.

This sounds simple on the surface, since there are really just four pieces of information you need to know to calculate the rate for each member: the product(s) they want to see quotes for, their age, their tobacco-use status, and their family's zip code. Add them up, and you have the family's rates. If you're quoting business for a small group, add up the family rates for all the employees being covered, and you have the total cost for the business to cover its employees.

Ah, but the challenges are actually quite complex, and there aren't good answers for all of them.


Challenge #1A: Hardwired Sales & Quoting Systems

It would be nice if all carriers were using sophisticated, cutting-edge quoting technology where the information to be gathered from prospective groups and their employees and the calculations used to generate quotes could be updated through a simple, intuitive graphical-user interface.

Unfortunately, most carriers' quoting systems were built years ago, and many (if not most) of them are hardwired specifically to that carrier's particular quoting methods and market practices. Tobacco-use has not typically been captured except in the health questionnaire, which now has to go away since rating based upon pre-existing conditions is no longer allowed. The logic to generate rates has typically been at the subscriber/family level, not at the member level--and that logic tends to be encapsulated in a lot of complex procedural computer code that has to be totally rewritten, and hardwired into reports that have to be written, and stored in rigidly-structure database tables that have to be rewritten. In the small group market, most of the systems were designed to support insurance agents requesting quotes for their small business customers, not the small business owners themselves, so they vary greatly depending upon each carrier's relationship with their broker network.

Here it is almost the end of February, and all this custom code has to be analyze, redesigned, rewritten, tested, and put into production by October 1st. Not an easy task.


Challenge #1B: What Do You Do With the Street Quote?

For most carriers, the small group sales process has two distinct steps, with two different types of information being gathered and quotes being produced. In both cases, these steps were being driven by insurance agents/brokers quoting business of behalf of their small business clients:

  1. The "Street Quote": This is a quick and dirty quote intended to give the agent a quick look at the different rates his or her client might be able to get for various types of small group plans and to compare rates across multiple carriers. They are simply ballpark numbers, based upon some very limited information about the company such as number of employees and their average ages. It's a way for the agent to "run the numbers" and lay out some options to pursue without knowing all the specific details about each employee. 
  2. The Final Quote: Because a group's final rates have (up until 2014, at least) depended upon the health status of the group's employees, a detailed group application has typically been required before an insurer could create a final quote and formally offer coverage to a prospective group. That means submitting detailed information--birthdate, SSNs, and answers to lots of health questions--about each employee. Agents would use the street quote to narrow down the options to just one or two plans, and only then go through the work of applying for a final quote, and usually then with just a single carrier that the prospect had decided to go with.
The new rating methodology actually has a good bit more precision than the old, allowing differences in age and tobacco use be reflect more directly in the premium each member is charges than in the past, when they were sort of lumped together and the differences averaged away in the rating algorithms. The downside to this precision, though, is that the rates are going to vary much more sharply from one group of employees to the next, increasing the likelihood that any sort of street quote isn't going to be terribly accurate compared to the final quote.

But, the sales process isn't likely to change just because the rating rules have changed. Small business owners will still want to compare their options across multiple carriers without having to gather tons of information from their employees , and agents will still want to be able to run quick quotes, too, without having to fill out a lot of forms (be they paper or online). Will the street quote remain? If so, how will it need to change in order to be more accurate, since the member-by-member rating might greatly skew the actual rates available from one business to another?




Challenge #1C: Integrating Vendors, Brokers, and Partners

As if the first two challenges we're pressing enough, many carriers rely up vendors for delivering their sales systems, and they have networks of large brokers and other partners who may have their own quoting and sales systems that let agents run quotes on their own and submit the final applications to the carrier electronically. It's one thing for carriers to get their own house in order; to keep business going in the future, they will also have to work with vendors, brokers, and other partners to make sure those external systems are updated properly, too. And all by October.



The Silver Lining

Some carriers have been aggressively looking ahead and have already thought through all these challenges, and a few have already begun implementing the changes that the regulations require. The majority, however, are really just getting started, and for good reason: the rating rules themselves weren't finalized until last Friday. It's hard to blame anyone for not having already ripped out and started rewriting a bunch of complex but well-tested and functioning system code.

But, one silver lining to the cloud is that these changes are affecting insurance carriers all across the country, so no one company is on its own in figuring out what needs to happen. The short timelines make best practices and information sharing all the more important, and we'll look at some of the best practices for solving these challenges in upcoming posts.

In the long run, the outlook is not as bleak as it appears. These changes are all pushing carriers to standardize their operations so that each does business more like their peers in the industry. While this might at first seem like a bad thing--those peers are competitors, after all--the long term effect is likely to be increased efficiency and overall smoother sales and quoting operations. It's just going to take some elbow grease to get there.

Friday, February 22, 2013

The Exchange Landscape by State and Type

It's now looking clear how each state plans to tackle their Exchanges in 2014--either as a standalone State-Based Exchange (SBE), as an Exchange run in partnership with the Federal government, or as a full Federally-Facilitated Exchange (FFE), whether by choice or by default because they took no action to establish an exchange on their own.

I put together a map to give a visual snapshotof the landscape.




Thursday, February 21, 2013

Per-Member Rating: The Long Cascade



From the perspective of an insurance carrier’s operations, one of the most significant provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is the new individual and small group rating methodology defined by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under their proposed Health Insurance Market Rules. The change may seem simple—rating individual families and small group plans on the member- rather than subscriber-level—but it creates huge downstream ripples within a carrier’s operations.

We’ll take a look at a lot of those ripples in the future, but let’s start by reviewing the proposed change in rating methodology.

How It (Often) Works Today

Let’s start with rating for individual direct-to-consumer plans. Rating methodologies vary from carrier to carrier, and some states prescribe specific methods, but here’s a typical one.
Rate = (Base Rate * Age Factor * Tier Factor * Health Risk Factor)
In this model, you start with the base rate defined for the product (say, $238 per month) and then adjust it based upon the age of the subscriber, the type of coverage being purchased (e.g. individual coverage or family coverage) and then by a factor based upon the health history of the family—that painful list of dozens of questions beginning “Has anyone applying for coverage been treated for [insert long list of dreadful diseases and conditions here].”

So, suppose you have the following family of four:
            Bill (age 36)
            Sandra (35)
            Mark (10)
            Sarah (8)
           
Bill selects a PPO plan with a base rate of $238.25 per month and fills out an application, including completing the health questionnaire. Because he is 36, Bill is assigned a subscriber age factor of .79, and because he chooses family coverage his contract has a tier factor of 2.68. Based upon some health conditions Sandra and her son Mark have, the carrier’s underwriters assign a health risk factor of 1.1. 

So, Bill’s final rate for family coverage is:
$238.25 * .79 * 2.68 * 1.1
Which equals $554.87 per month.

Note that in this case Sandra's age and the fact that she and Bill have two children do not figure into the equation. The rate is based off the oldest adult (Bill) as well as the fact that they selected family coverage, and the rate would be the same whether they have one child or four. The rate also doesn’t change if they have another child and add coverage for the baby.

How It Will Work in 2014

Under the proposed HHS rule, the rates for Bill’s family will be calculated a little differently starting in 2014. One of the big ACA changes is that rates can no longer be based upon members’ health history, so that health risk factor will go away. Now, only age, tobacco use, and “geolocation” (basically, the county in which the family lives) can be taken into account.

Here’s the kicker. The family rate must now be determined by adding up the rate for each individual family member. The rule also stipulates that no more than three children under the age of 21 can be taken into account. (Any children after the first three can be added for no additional cost.)

So, let’s rate Bill’s family under the new methodology. Bill’s monthly premium will be the sum of the rates for each of the members in his family. Each member’s rate will be calculated as follows:
member rate = (base rate) * (age factor) * (tobacco factor) * (geo factor)
Instead of filling out a lengthy health questionnaire, Bill simply has to indicate whether each person he is covering uses tobacco. In his family’s case, only Bill does. So here’s the calculation:
Bill’s rate = $152.62 * 1.22 * 1.35 = $250.34
Sandra’s rate = $152.62 * 1.18 * 1 = $179.36
Mark’s rate = $152.62 * .635 * 1 = $96.52
Sarah’s rate = $152.62 * .635 * 1 = $96.52
Total Family Rate = $620.62
Now, suppose Bill and Sandra have a third child, Nellie. Under the original rating method, they just add Nellie to their family coverage and their premium stays the same. Under the new rating methodology, Nellie gets rated separately and Bill’s coverage goes up by $96.52.

If they have a fourth child, under the new method, the premium would not increase since only the first 3 family members under 21 are counted.


Small Group Rating

The impact on small group rating is very similar, for the proposed rule does away with former “composite rating” approaches commonly used with groups.

Under composite rating, every employee in the company who purchases a plan pays the same as his or her fellow employees, varying only by the coverage tier selected (e.g. employee only, employee + spouse, employee + children, or employee + family). The rates themselves are determined by the characteristics of the group as a whole, such as average employee age, average employee health risk, geography, and size of the group. The rates for the year are determined during the sales process at the start of the benefit year. If a new employee is hired mid-year, he or she can buy coverage for the same price that his or her new co-workers pay.

That is all going to change under the new proposed rules. Starting in 2014, a group’s total rate is going to be the sum of the rates determined for each employee, and the rate for each employee will be the sum of the rates for family members being covered, just as we saw for Bill in the individual example above. A small business, in other words, will be just a collection of individual families, with each member in the group rated separately.

In other words, if you have a small business with 12 employees, go through the same pricing exercise for each employee like we did for Bill’s family above. Sum those 12 employees together, and you have your total group rate. Hire a new employee mid-year, and that new employee will be rated separately and the total group price will go by whatever that new employee is priced to pay.

I’ll let others debate the merits of the “family unit” approach versus the “build up” approach in terms of fairness, accuracy, and efficiency. From an operational perspective, though, it greatly changes things. We'll take a look next at a few of the challenges it poses to various operational areas within an insurance carrier.