Well, once again, we the people have lost.

[HiPointDem]

223. i seem to recall reading that the 80-85% mandate was actually lower than current practice. if

i remembered the technical name for this ratio i could find the reference.

on edit: medical loss ratio. here's a reference:

Wendell Potter - The Medical Loss Ratio was 95% in early Clinton years ...

now it will be between 80-85% under the new HC law.

Not sure why we are applauding this profit as we're not even back to where we were 20 years ago, guess it is something. Maybe the trend has reversed a little, still the HC companies Now have customers who are Mandated to buy their product at a higher profit margin than they had less than 20 years ago.

If I were a business owner I would be very Happy!!!


http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07102009/transcript2....

WENDELL POTTER: Well, there's a measure of profitability that investors look to, and it's called a medical loss ratio. And it's unique to the health insurance industry. And by medical loss ratio, I mean that it's a measure that tells investors or anyone else how much of a premium dollar is used by the insurance company to actually pay medical claims. And that has been shrinking, over the years, since the industry's been dominated by, or become dominated by for-profit insurance companies. Back in the early '90s, or back during the time that the Clinton plan was being debated, 95 cents out of every dollar was sent, you know, on average was used by the insurance companies to pay claims. Last year, it was down to just slightly above 80 percent.

So, investors want that to keep shrinking. And if they see that an insurance company has not done what they think meets their expectations with the medical loss ratio, they'll punish them. Investors will start leaving in droves..."


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wendell-potter/the-insura...

"There was a time, in the early 1990s, when health insurance companies devoted more than 95 cents out of every premium dollar to paying doctors and hospitals for taking care of their members. No more. Since President Bill Clinton's health reform plan died 15 years ago, the health insurance industry has come to be dominated by a handful of insurance companies that answer to Wall Street investors, and they have changed that basic math. Today, insurers only pay about 81 cents of each premium dollar on actual medical care. The rest is consumed by rising profits, grotesque executive salaries, huge administrative expenses, the cost of weeding out people with pre-existing conditions and claims review designed to wear out patients with denials and disapprovals of the care they need the most.

This equation is known as the medical loss ratio (MLR), an aptly named figure that is widely seen by investors as the most important gauge of an insurance company's current and future profitability. In a private health insurance industry that collected $817 billion this year, a 14 percentage point difference in the MLR represents $112 billion a year! Over 10 years, that would be more than enough to pay for health reform..."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2419859


and this says by the insurance corps claims current MLR = 87%.

http://www.newamerica.net/blog/new-health-dialogue/2009/health-reform-medical-loss-ratio-or-just-medical-loss-15773

so what's the big win here? i'm not seeing it.