Skip to main content

Sharp decline in for-profit health insurance efficiency

For-profit health care insurance in Canada is becoming increasingly inefficient



A new study from the Canadian Medical Association Journal shows sharply increasing inefficiency in the Canadian for-profit health care insurance industry.  

The study indicates that less and less of the  premiums in employer health insurance plans are paid out in benefits by the for-profit insurance industry.  Since 1991, the amount paid out in benefits has declined from 92% to 74% in 2011.  The rest goes for profits, administration, and other items.    

The benefit pay-out is less than required by US law - - which now requires that 80% to 85% of health insurance premiums are paid out in clinical care and quality improvement.  

While this is bad, plans purchased from for-profit insurance corporations by individuals do much worse, with benefits paid declining from 46% to 38% of premiums.  

In contrast, employers that self-insure (where employers pay claims themselves and purchase only processing services from insurance companies) do much better – with benefits equal to 95% of premiums.  In fact this is up slightly from the 94% in 1991, possibly due to increased administrative efficiency associated with information and communication technology.

The authors suggest the decline in benefit pay-out by the for-profit industry is not likely explained by increasing administrative costs, increasing reserves, or innovative methods to reduce service costs. 

They do note however that the reduction in benefit pay-out was more marked when the insurance companies demutualized (after changes to Canadian insurance law in 1997) and became owned by shareholders seeking profits rather than by insurance policy holders.  

The authors consider stronger regulation of the insurance industry and more public insurance as possible solutions.

Better methods of insurance would allow workers much stronger health care protection for the same dollars.  For employers, this inefficient insurance from the for-profit industry means they are paying much more than they need to for the health services provided.  Moreover, they are getting less and less bang for the buck with  almost every passing year.


The more efficient public health care insurance system covers 70% of health care costs. But private payments account for the remainder, tens of billions of dollars.  Private insurance achieved through employment and collective bargaining plays a very major role in these payments. 

Cost increases for employer paid private insurance have created significant challenges for employers -- and for unions in collective bargaining. 

While broader public health insurance for everyone is the best solution, that may take a while for working people to achieve.  In the interim, it is notable that self-insurance by employers leads to a much better return on premiums than insurance through the for-profit insurance industry.  

Indeed, the difference in value for money that has arisen between employer self-insured plans and for-profit insurance is nothing less than shocking.  

Photo: Steve Rhodes: Health care for all protest outside health insurance conference

Comments

  1. Nice information. You can visit health care site.Health Care news and background.Articles are providing about healthcare, affordable health care, health insurance, assurant health etc. For more information about go Health Care

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Health care funding falls, again

Real provincial government health care funding per-person has fallen again this year in Ontario, the third year in a row.  Since 2009 real funding per-person has fallen 2.6% -- $63 per person. 

Across Canada real per person funding is in its fourth consecutive year of increase. Since 2009, real provincial funding across Canada is up $89 -- 3.6%.
In fact the funding gap between Ontario and Canada as a whole has gown consistently for years (as set out below in current dollars).

Ontario funds health care less than any other province -- indeed, the province that funds health care the second least (B.C.) provides $185 more per person per year, 4.7% more.  
Provincial health care spending in the rest of Canada (excluding Ontario) is now  $574 higher per person annually than in Ontario. 

 Ontario has not always provided lower than average health care funding increases-- but that has been the general pattern since 2005.
Private expenditures on health care have exceeded Ontario government increases …

Ontario long-term care staffing falls far short of other provinces

CUPE and others are campaigning for a legislated minimum average of four worked hours of nursing and personal care per resident per day in long-term care (LTC) facilities.  New research indicates that not only is LTC underfunded in Ontario, it is also understaffed compared to the other provinces. 
LTC staffing falls short:  The latest data published by the Canadian Institute for Health Information (and based on a mandatory survey undertaken by Statistics Canada) indicates that staffing at long-term care (LTC) facilities falls far short of other provinces. 
Part of this is driven by a low level of provincial funding for LTC.





Ontario has 0.575 health care full-time equivalent employees (FTEs) per bed staffed and in operation.[1]  The rest of Canada reports 0.665 health care FTEs.[2] The rest of Canada has 15.7% more health care staff per bed staffed and in operation than Ontario.[3] 


No other province reports fewer LTC health care staff per resident (or per bed) than Ontario.[4]

Occupancy r…

Six more problems with Public Private Partnerships (P3s)

The Auditor General (AG) has again identified issues in her annual reportwhich reflect problems with Ontario health care capacity and privatization.   First, here are six key problems with the maintenance of the 16 privatized P3 ("public private partnership") hospitals in Ontario:
There are long-term ongoing disputes with privatized P3 contractors over the P3 agreements, including about what is covered by the P3  (or “AFP” as the government likes to call them) contract.The hospitals are required to pay higher than reasonable rates tothe P3 contractor for  maintenance work the contractor has deemed to be outside of the P3 contract. Hospitals are almost forced to use P3 contractors to do maintenance work the contractors deem outside of the P3 contract or face the prospect of transferring the risk associated with maintaining the related hospital assets from the private-sector company back to the hospitalP3 companies with poor perf…