Note: This was published in December 2012 but never on this blog.
It seems like there is not a day that goes by where one does not see a press release about some broker, technology company, or carrier, launching their version of a Private Health Insurance Exchange. As someone who regularly speaks with staff from these companies any discussion inevitably turns to Private Exchanges. What I have learned from these conversations is that there really is no clear definition of what a Private Exchange is. The term Private Exchange is so loosely used in the market that it seems anyone can put out some press release about a Private Exchange with no need to define what it really is or even more so, why it is something that is good for the customer. These press releases have created such a buzz in the market that many brokers feel a need to respond quickly with their version of a Private Exchange regardless of what it is or if it has any value. This article will give another perspective and ask some very pointed questions that I think the reader should contemplate. In the end I will suggest new ideas that may give you a marketable alternative position on Private Exchanges. Lastly, this article is my perspective on Private Exchanges. This does not represent the position of my company, HR Technology Advisors, at this time.
Over the past 14 months I have attended two conferences where there have been panel discussions about Private Exchanges. On these panels were representatives of a carrier Private Exchange company, technology vendors, actuaries, brokers, and consultants. The audience consisted of close to 100 insurance brokers. The purpose of the panel was to discuss and conclude where we think the Private Exchange market was going. On both occasions one of the first questions asked was:
“Do you consider a single medical carrier with multiple options and Exchange?”
The universal answer was No. One medical carrier with multiple options sold in conjunction with other coverages each with multiple options is what we called a cafeteria or flex plan in 1988. Such a plan would have a defined contribution from the employer in which the employee can spend as they wish to purchase various benefits. The difference between now and then is that technology is available today to help guide the employees through their decision process and enroll employees online.
From an underwriting standpoint giving people options to choose plans that fit them just invites the same problem it did in 1988, adverse selection. I remember back then we sometimes would worry about adverse selection when there were hired enrollers who could help the individual choose the best plans for them. Today, the online decision support tools provide the same assistance. The problem with both is that if everyone chose what was best for them there would be adverse selection which generally worked against the goal of the employer which was to reduce costs or keep them from growing too quickly. This is all assuming the client is experience rated.
Some Private Changes may be underwritten as multiple employer groups. If this is the case then it is the insurer that needs to worry more about adverse selection. Such pools would need to include large populations in order to spread the risk of adverse selection. In these types of insurance pools employers would not be able to self-insure. Ultimately the price of such plans will reflect the experience of the group preventing people from “gaming” the system for too long. In states like my home state of Massachusetts laws already exist that require insurers to pool their risks for the less than 100 employee marketplace. In these states Exchanges can be more easily created because the insurance products are already underwritten in bigger pools.
Other Private Exchnages are created for larger employers (2000+ employees). These Exchanges may have multiple medical carriers with multiple options each. In these situations employers are often self-insuring and therefore need to once again pay attention to the spread of the risk.
Regardless of how the risk pool is created there doesn’t appear to be any real cost savings from Private Exchanges other than cost shifting back to the employee. The idea being sold in this model is that the employer could pass on future insurance rate increases to the employee. From a pure insurance perspective the game of trying to find a better risk pool continues with Private Exchanges. In today’s market most Private Exchanges have only one medical carrier and most are underwritten on the single employer level or large pools for small group in existing small group reform markets.
Exchange Technology
Another conclusion from our two panel discussions was that for employer sponsored plans the technology used to purchase products from an insurance exchange should be viewed separately from the actual insurance products. Most of today’s Private Exchanges package the technology with the insurance products in advance. In my opinion this is not a good solution for the employer or the employee for several reasons. They are as follows:
- Current Private Exchanges appear to be charging excessive fees for the technology. While the average benefits enrollment system costs $2.00 – $4.00 PEPM Exchange technologies have been seen to charge $6 – $10 PEPM. In the short term these higher prices may be sustainable but I believe within the next 12 months these prices will come down substantially. Wouldn’t it be better if the employer could shop the insurance plans separate from the technology to keep them both competitive?
- This practice of packaging technology with the insurance products is also not “employer friendly” from an administrative standpoint. If I am an employer and I am already using some enrollment system or maybe even a more robust system that integrates HR, Benefits, and Payroll would I have to stop using my existing system to buy into one of these Exchanges? How would I now automate payroll deductions? As an employee would I now have to log into one system to see my payroll and request a vacation day and now another to enroll in benefits? From my perspective this would be moving employers in the exact opposite direction of where they are trying to go with their internal HR- Benefits – Payroll technologies.
- What happens if I want to switch my carriers? Do I lose my technology and therefore have to go through the whole process of setting up a new system. Employers change insurance more frequently than they change technology. Changing technology is a much more difficult process. To put the two together only creates more problems for the employer. Employers are already understaffed in their HR Departments. To add more of a burden administratively at this time is not a good idea.
One question I would ask any carrier that is offering products in a Private Exchange is whether they would offer the same products on some other technology platform. Are insurance companies going to limit their distribution to a single technology vendor? This may make sense for the less than 50 employee market but does not make sense for the 50+ market. Think of this for a moment. Two companies, ADP and Paychex, control close to 75% of the benefits enrollment technology market that integrates with their payroll. Are medical carriers going to ignore these companies when they have such a presence in the market? If I am ADP and you start replacing my benefits enrollment business I am going to take action.
As a broker do you think selling a Private Exchange to an employer and requiring they use the Exchanges technology is good advice? A unique position in the market would be to help employers use either existing technology or offer a more robust technology (with HR and maybe Payroll) rather than force them into either a new or limited capability system. This does not mean an employer will never purchase a Private Exchange with proprietary technology. If they want one, call then vendor up and see what they have. Employers simply should be aware of all the options and any implications resulting from their purchase.
One final thought about this concept of a Private Exchange really has to do more with where the market is going. I would imagine every insurance company is in the process of developing their plans on how to participate in a Public Exchange. We are just months away from every company having to have some solution if they are going to participate in insuring this large number of new customers that President Obama has promised. Health Care Systems are also making plans for this new health care world. Would it be wise for a small to mid-sized employer to move into a Private Exchange at this time when within the next 6-12 months there may be a wide range of new products available? It will be interesting to see who is encouraging a move now versus waiting to see what the insurance world will bring.
In summary, while many in the business are running around creating Private Exchanges I suggest there may be a better alternative position. First, separate the technology from the products. Ask insurance companies if you can use their products on other technologies. Second, advise clients about what is really going on in the market. Do you advise an employer to make a change now? Do you understand the technology they are using to manage benefits today? Would a change be disruptive? Third, understand the technologies that have the capabilities to manage these exchange offerings. Can they manage a defined contribution plan? Do they have Decision Support tools? Do you know the capabilities of firms like ADP and Paychex? What other solutions are in the market and what do they cost? In the end a more educated approach to the market should make any broker a more valuable resource to their clients.
Like this:
Like Loading...
JOE MARKLAND 