Year: 2011
Resolution Number: 81
Action Taken: Referred to the Board
Status:
Author(s): Patrick J. Droste, MD
Sponsor: Domenic R. Federico, MD
On behalf of: Kent County Delegation
Committee: B (Legislation)
Resolved Section(s):
RESOLVED: That MSMS work for legislation, or work with Michigan’s Insurance Commissioner, to do all of the following:1) Initiate limits on insurance carrier rate increases based on objective criteria.2) Provide that ‘For Profit’ and ‘Non-Profit’ insurance carriers identify the costs per dollar for direct health care per premium dollar.3) Require that insurance carriers must allocated greater than 70% of each premium dollar toward direct health care costs.RATIONALE: On the surface, this resolution appears to require accountability among insurers by mandating that a minimal amount of money go toward the Medical Loss Ratio, and that rate increases receive greater scrutiny by regulators. However, the result of some of the specific elements of this resolution could disproportionately help certain insurers in Michigan while at the same time limiting competition among other insurers. The Committee did not want to simply dismiss this resolution because these questions should be asked and answered. However, the technical nature of these questions did not lend themselves to being resolved by the Committee. Further study on this matter is required.
RESOLVED: That MSMS work for legislation, or work with Michigan’s Insurance Commissioner, to do all of the following:1) Initiate limits on insurance carrier rate increases based on objective criteria.2) Provide that ‘For Profit’ and ‘Non-Profit’ insurance carriers identify the costs per dollar for direct health care per premium dollar.3) Require that insurance carriers must allocated greater than 70% of each premium dollar toward direct health care costs.RATIONALE: On the surface, this resolution appears to require accountability among insurers by mandating that a minimal amount of money go toward the Medical Loss Ratio, and that rate increases receive greater scrutiny by regulators. However, the result of some of the specific elements of this resolution could disproportionately help certain insurers in Michigan while at the same time limiting competition among other insurers. The Committee did not want to simply dismiss this resolution because these questions should be asked and answered. However, the technical nature of these questions did not lend themselves to being resolved by the Committee. Further study on this matter is required.
Fiscal Note: NULL