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

Huge cuts in public sector wages predicted

The Ontario Financial Accountability Office (FAO)   says  that, with inflation, real wages in the public sector will decline 11.3% over the three year period  2021/2 - 2023/4 .  This would radically deepen the trend towards lower wages during the last ten years.   The FAO reports that since 2011, the average annual salary for the Ontario public sector employees (defined here as employees of schools, colleges, provincial government, provincial agencies, and hospitals) has increased by $10,385   -- or 1.6 per cent on average annually.  This is the lowest increase of all the sectors and lower than inflation, which averaged 1.8 per cent per year. Over the ten years that would be about a 2% pay cut.   The FAO reports that wage settlements were the lowest in the provincial public sector over the last decade:   Hospital Wages Especially Challenged: The FAO predicts hospital wages will increase even less than in the public sector  -- just ...

Are health care administrative expenses out of control in Ontario?

The Progressive Conservative government has justified its health restructuring plans with the claim that administrative expenses are much higher in Ontario than in Canada.  When introducing the reforms, health minister Christine Elliott  claimed , “Over the last five years, Ontario has spent 30% more than the Canadian average in administrative expenses on its health care system.”   Elliott did not indicate her source of information. Presumably, however, the Progressive Conservatives are referring to the CIHI simplified and user friendly “ Your Health System ” graphs. Those graphs show “administrative expenses” in Ontario at 5.8% in Ontario while it is 4.5% in Canada.   This CIHI measure is actually fairly narrowly defined. It is the percentage of “the legal entity’s” total expenses associated with the administrative, finance, human resources and communications functional centres. However “the legal entity” used for this estimate is [1] only...

Too many public sector workers in Ontario?

Opponents of public services often try to portray the public sector as having grown disproportionately.  In fact, since 1976, the number of public sector employees has not quite kept pace with the population. In 1976, the number of public sector employees in Ontario  as reported by Statistics Canada averaged 830,800.  By 2012, the number had increased to 1,330,700 -- a 60.2% increase.  That sounds like significant growth -- true. But the population has increased  from 8,413,779 in 1976 to 13,505,900 in 2012, a 60.5% increase.   In other words, population growth has run slightly ahead of the growth in public sector employment.     In 1976, close to 10% of the population worked in the public sector.  It stayed pretty much this way until the Mike Harris government came to power when it dipped below 9%.  It returned close to the historical range in the last six years or so, declining in 2012 to below the 1976 averag...