Tag Archives: health insurance exchange

The State of the Nation’s Private Employer Exchanges: Crazy!

I’m not talking Patsy Cline’s “Crazy” or even Gnarls Barkley’s “Crazy”—I’m talking Peter-Frampton-re-release-the-same-song-and-get-totally-different-results kind of crazy!  In 1975, Frampton released “Show Me the Way” on his album Frampton, and no one cared.  The song was re-released in 1976 on the album Frampton Comes Alive—and topped the charts in both the U.S. and U.K. In Wayne’s World, the song was described as “required listening for all suburbia.”  It’s all marketing, baby!

What does this have to do with private exchanges? Most are just a re-release of technology that has been part of benefits administration enrollment for years.

The following is a short list of “new” capabilities and requirements that are typical for a private exchange:

  • Defined employer contribution, instead of defined benefit.
  • The ability to connect electronically to insurance carriers.
  • Decision support tools, to help determine employees’ best options.
  • Support for core insurance products such as medical, dental and vision.
  • Support for voluntary insurance products such as life, disability and accident.
  • Support for multiple insurance carriers (although some exchanges are single-carrier).
  • HRA and Section 125 pre-tax support.
  • Premium processing and billing support.
  • Support for insurance plan comparison and other employee shopping tools.

Nearly every function defined as “new” for a private exchange is not new—these functions have been part of group benefits administration systems for over a decade.  As I’ve said, the “new” private exchanges are 95% marketing hype and 5% enhanced decision support.

I have attended dozens of conference breakout sessions, read articles, talked to “private exchange” vendors and seen countless demos. The only word I can use to describe the whole group private exchange world is “crazy” — wonderful, “Show Me the Way” kind of crazy.

Given that we’ve been there and done that with the technology in the private exchanges, I can offer some informed observations about how they will play out as employees use them to select coverage under the rules established as part of Obamacare.

–It would be very difficult to move to an Expedia-type shopping model for employees’ insurance. Insurance carrier requirements for participation and underwriting through private exchanges make the disintermediation of the health insurance broker less likely than the disintermediation of the travel agent.  Few exchanges are even talking about vendor participation. It takes years to develop benefits administration systems simply because of the inherent complexity of insurance. A good technologically and customer service driven health insurance adviser is worth her weight in gold, and will continue to be.

–While Health Sherpa has been described as a somewhat functional equivalent to healthcare.gov, that claim is, well, crazy. Health Sherpa—although a great idea—has no ability to process eligibility, enrollment, carrier connectivity or anything required in a true benefits enrollment or exchange platform.  Health Sherpa is a clean front end for displaying plan options and rates but has no back end to support the followthrough required by the carriers or the federal or state governments.

–Recently, the president invited executives from a few of the nation’s top tech companies to the White House for a highly publicized meeting.  Why?  What do Yahoo and Amazon know about health insurance exchanges, enrollment, eligibility and carrier connectivity?  Exactly nothing!

If the president wanted more than a photo op, why didn’t he call Rich Gallun or Don Garlitz from bSwift or ask my company, benefitsCONNECT, to join the discussion? Between us, we accurately and electronically process many millions of enrollments—completely eliminating the need for paper. Either company could have saved this country hundreds of millions of dollars and produced a public exchange for Obamacare that actually works.

There’s actually one thing that’s new about private exchanges: While benefits administrations systems have become somewhat standardized, if you’ve seen one private exchange—you’ve seen exactly one private exchange. They are all different, from their front-end requirements to their back-end requirements.

As I said, it’s a craaaazy world we live in.

Health Insurance Exchange Scam Alert: Beware of Fake Websites

The Identity Theft Resource Center (ITRC) has growing concerns regarding the potential for new scams concerning the implementation of the Health Insurance Exchange (HIE) websites as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (also known as Obamacare). These exchanges are currently online with enrollment due to start on October 1st.

According to the Act, each state must implement insurance exchanges. These exchanges are to serve as online marketplaces (websites) for consumers to compare rates and make choices about which health insurance coverage is best for them. Each state has the ability to determine the best way to manage these exchanges in order to meet the needs of their uninsured residents.

The open enrollment period for these exchanges begins on October 1, 2013. There have already been some predictions that there will be “bugs and glitches,” to quote President Obama, during this process. IT professionals are already voicing concerns regarding the ability to handle the amount of traffic anticipated on the first day of the rollout. However, no one is talking about ensuring that consumers actually know and understand where to go in the first place.

There is huge potential for misinformation and misunderstanding with this new insurance exchange program. Consumers will now be mandated (or face a penalty come tax time) to purchase health insurance if they don’t have existing coverage. The official website, www.healthcare.gov will be used by the majority of the states. But 17 states have opted to manage their own unique exchange with a different URL. This has the potential to cause much confusion for consumers. While it may appear that this information would easily be located via an internet search, our experience was that the official website was not easy to locate. In fact, when we searched for “health insurance exchange official websites” (rather than “website”) the websites for the 17 states that have their own unique URLs appeared, but www.healthcare.gov did not appear on the first page.

From our experience with scams and fake websites, we believe it would be extremely easy for scammers to create multiple websites that will trick consumers into thinking that it is either the federal health exchange website or one of the alternative state websites. Without known and reliable sources, there exists a great opportunity for gaming of the Internet search engines to attract consumers to websites intent on harming them by eliciting the fraudulent collection of personal identifying information (PII). There is a need to present factual information about which websites represent the accredited websites for the new insurance exchanges.

While there is a comprehensive list of insurance exchange websites on www.healthcare.gov, we are concerned that consumers may not find their way there in the first place. Already our searches indicate that there are organizations using keywords such as “Obamacare” and “Health insurance exchange” in the paid advertising section that are not the official insurance exchange websites. While these websites may not be scams, our concern is that it will only be a matter of time before imposter websites intent on real consumer harm surface.

This concern has a historical basis. The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) requires each of the Credit Reporting Agencies (CRAs: Experian, Transunion, and Equifax) to provide consumers with one free credit report annually. Confusion still exists between www.annualcreditreport.com, which is the court-mandated website hosted by the credit reporting agencies that actually provides annual free credit reports to consumers, and other websites that offer free credit reports or free credit scores such as www.freecreditreport.com, hosted by one of the credit reporting agencies. Soon after the creation of the original mandated website, dozens of look-alike websites were created. Consumer protection organizations, including the Federal Trade Commission, continue to educate consumers about this to this day (Consumer Information: Free Credit Reports) even though the mandated free website was launched in December 2004.

With the operational launch of these new insurance exchanges just a few short months away, consumers will be scrambling to comply before the January 1st, 2014 deadline. We already stated that we expect consumers to use search engines to locate the particular website they are supposed to use, and that the searches are inconsistent. With that knowledge, will regulators put provisions in place to identify, deter, monitor and address imposter websites? Or do they presume that the existing regulatory or enforcement provisions will deter those who create malicious fake websites intended to capture the personally identifiable information of consumers? Information provided to a fake insurance exchange website could be used to commit identity theft and other frauds.

There will be two types of imposter websites that will require redress. Not all imposter websites are created equal. There are differing levels of harm depending upon the type of imposter website consumers discover. There are legitimate businesses cutting corners and engaging in misleading tactics to secure new business and there are outright scam websites, whose intention is to secure personally identifiable information for malicious use.

Phishing and smishing could eventually come into play.

In 2012 “Imposter Scams” ranked 6th (out of 30) in the list of most complained about fraud events according to the FTC Consumer Sentinel Report. The 82,896 complaints represented 4% of the total complaints received by the FTC.

This category is defined by the FTC as “complaints about scammers claiming to be family, friends, a romantic interest, companies, or government agencies to induce people to send money or divulge personal information.” Complaints included the following: Scammers posing as friends or relatives stranded in foreign countries without money, scammers claiming to be working for or affiliated with government agencies, and scammers claiming to be affiliated with a private entity (a charity or company).

By far, the largest subtype of scam was regarding government agency imposters, with over 43,000 of the total in that category. Previous years’ statistics indicate that year over year, government imposters were the most complained about subtype: 47,454 in 2011 and 49,321 in 2010.

This demonstrates that the scammers continue to find impersonating the government to be a lucrative enterprise. Since this is a new program, even those consumers who normally know not to click on strange links in emails or respond to unknown senders of text messages, may feel compelled to respond and potentially share their personally identifiable information via these means. Why should we believe that the health care exchanges will be immune to this kind of impersonation?

If past behavior is an indicator, we can be sure that there will be financial harm to at least some of these victims.

The Internet Crimes Complaint Center (IC3) 2011 report states that it received approximately 39 complaints per day regarding FBI impersonation email scams. IC3 presented a total loss for this type of impersonation scam (via phishing emails) as over $3 million dollars. This number is just for the complaints that the IC3 received and does not take into account all the unreported losses.

A fundamental part of the Identity Theft Resource Center’s mission is to serve as a relevant national resource on topics such as this. In an effort to provide consumers with the important information they need about potential insurance exchange scams, the Identity Theft Resource Center has developed a scam alert and posted additional information on its website to help educate consumers.

The Identity Theft Resource Center is hopeful that there will be strong and coordinated efforts to educate consumers as to the authentic websites for these exchanges. As they differ from state to state, universal messaging will be difficult to coordinate. Of course, there will be glitches, and as with any new process, we will only discover what these are when the actual user experience is reviewed. However, these efforts need to take place now.

Built For Reform: Third Party Administrators And The Affordable Care Act

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) is considered the most significant, albeit poorly written, law that Congress has passed in the last 50 years. As regulators devise the details needed for the law to be fully implemented, unprecedented new administrative and compliance burdens are looming for employers. Independent Third Party Administrators (TPAs) have decades of experience guiding employers through the pitfalls of government rules and requirements. This expertise makes independent Third Party Administrators invaluable to employers trying to mitigate the impact of health care reform.

A Brief History Of The Third Party Administrator Industry
Most employee benefit plans are highly technical and difficult to administer. Those complexities gave birth to the Third Party Administrator industry.

While there are reports of a Third Party Administrator operating as early as 1933, the modern Third Party Administrator concept is rooted in servicing mostly pension plans codified in the 1946 Federal Taft-Hartley Act. Such plans are typically comprised of several employers whose employees belong to a single union.

By the late 1950s, there were also a few Third Party Administrators specializing in servicing medical plans sponsored by single employers. The industry boomed after the enactment of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as employers began exploring the option of self-funding when traditional insurance coverage failed to meet their cost expectations. Today, the administration of self-funded medical plans is the primary line of business for many independent Third Party Administrators.

Employers that self-fund assume the financial risk of paying claims for expenses incurred under the plan. Medical, dental, vision, and short-term disability plans, as well as Health Reimbursement Arrangements (HRAs), can all be part of a self-funded program.

Most employers sponsoring self-funded medical plans purchase stop loss coverage to limit their risk. An insurance carrier becomes liable for the claims that exceed certain pre-determined dollar limits.

The Value Of A Third Party Administrator-Administered Self-Funded Program
Employers can choose to administer their self-funded plans in-house. However, few have the experience to do it well. Considering the heavy penalties for regulatory non-compliance, self-administration is generally ill-advised.

Some insurance carriers offer Administrative Services Only (ASO) contracts to employers that wish to self-fund but rely on the carrier to do the paperwork. Unfortunately, most insurance carriers have benefit administration systems that are too inflexible to accommodate the unique plan designs that are the hallmark of self-funding. In addition, they are more attuned to the legal requirements applicable to fully insured products, which differ dramatically from those for self-funded plans.

Insurance carriers may assume financial risk under an Administrative Services Only contract by providing the stop loss coverage. Conversely, Third Party Administrators are not risk-taking entities so they are clearly in a position to act in the best interest of the plan and its members.

The independent Third Party Administrator industry was built on change. Never having settled for the “one-size-fits-all” approach of the fully insured model, independent Third Party Administrators maintain sophisticated information technologies that adapt easily to new demands, as well as professional staff accustomed to responding to regulations that continually reshape employee benefits in profound ways.

Independent Third Party Administrators usually provide a broad range of à la carte services to self-funded employers: plan design, claims processing, placement of stop loss coverage, case management, access to networks and disease management, wellness, and utilization review vendors, eligibility management and enrollment, subrogation, coordination of benefits, plan document and summary plan description preparation, billing, customer service, compliance assistance, ancillary benefits and add-ons such as Section 125 plans, consulting, and COBRA and HIPPA administration. Independent Third Party Administrators are best at customizing their services and plans to suit a client’s specific needs including benefit philosophies, demographics, risk tolerance, and compliance requirements.

A fully insured arrangement cannot compete with a thoughtfully designed, Third Party Administrator-administered self-funded program. Employers that self-fund enjoy increased financial control, lower operating costs, flexibility with plan design, a choice of networks, detailed reporting of plan usage and claims data, and effective cost management.

The Challenges Of The Affordable Care Act
When small employers (those with fewer than 50 full-time equivalent employees) offer health benefits, the coverage is usually fully insured. However, self-funding has gained momentum among small employers.

In 2014, large employers (those with 50 or more full-time equivalent employees) will be subject to the Affordable Care Act’s “pay or play” requirements. A large employer must offer its full-time employees (working at least 30 hours per week or 130 hours total in any given month) and their children minimum essential coverage that is affordable and provides minimum value. Otherwise, the employer will be subject to a penalty if any of its full-time employees obtains health coverage through a Health Insurance Exchange (now called a Health Insurance Marketplace) and is certified as eligible for a premium tax credit.

The premiums for fully insured coverage are expected to rise significantly due to the Affordable Care Act imposing an annual fee on most insurers, modified community rating in the individual and small group markets, and expensive mandates for essential health benefits. Self-funded plans are exempt from these requirements. In addition, while Affordable Care Act requirements will likely inflate insured premiums, stop loss premiums remain competitive (even for small employers).

Self-Funding As A Strategy For Overcoming The Affordable Care Act’s Challenges
Depending on size, employers must make important decisions about managing the costs associated with health care reform. They can provide coverage or not provide coverage (and possibly pay a penalty), reduce hours, eliminate jobs, or find a way to offer a cost-effective and compliant plan.

Independent Third Party Administrators are the experts at self-funding. A Third Party Administrator can custom design a high quality, Affordable Care Act-compliant, self-funded program that a small or large employer can offer at a controlled cost. For employers looking for flexible solutions to manage costs while continuing to recruit and retain talented employees, a Third Party Administrator-administered self-funded program with medical stop loss coverage is a viable solution.