Even as many states gear up for tougher insurance regulations under the federal health law, Maine lawmakers last year bucked the trend, loosening rules they blamed for some of the highest premiums in the nation.

Proponents promised lower rates for all Maine residents, with increased competition among insurers. But six months after the state’s rules took effect, no new insurers have entered the state – and premiums have gone up for the vast majority of small businesses.

The results have been mixed for individuals: Everyone under 40 saw rate cuts, while most people over 55 received increases, some as high as 18 percent, according to an analysis of state data released today by advocacy group Consumers for Affordable Health Care, which opposed the law changes. Overall, a little more than half of individuals saw their rates rise, albeit by a relatively low 1.7 percent average.

Both sides say the early results buttress their arguments amid a national debate over the role of regulation in rising coverage costs.

“The data are pretty clear: (The changes) raised rates on the elderly and did not significantly lower them for the young and healthy,” said Joseph Ditre, executive director of the advocacy group, which opposed the changes.

But Joel Allumbaugh of the conservative Maine Heritage Policy Center called the early results “promising” and predicted rates would come down as more young people purchased insurance.

Outside experts say the one indisputable conclusion from the state’s experiment may be how difficult it is to reduce premiums across the board just by tinkering with insurance rules.

“Insurance reform [whether in Maine or the federal law] is about ways to make what we charge consumers more fair, but it’s not a means to reduce the cost of insurance,” says Robert Laszewski, a former insurance industry executive who now runs an Alexandria, Va.-based consulting firm. “It’s simply shifting the cost of insurance to different populations.”

Is it a market-based approach?

Lauded by the Maine Heritage Policy Center as an example to Congress and other states to “reverse and replace” the federal health law with “market based approaches,” Maine’s legislation was expected to attract new insurers and lower premiums, which cost an average of 36 percent more than in other states. In fact, however, the state’s new rules generally mirror the federal health care law, rather than being less stringent.

The law made three major changes: It gave insurers more power to vary premiums, freed them from seeking state approval for rate increases under 10 percent and created a “reinsurance” fund to protect them from their most costly medical bills.

Insurers can now charge older residents up to three times more than younger ones – twice the spread they were allowed under the state’s old rules, adopted in 1993 to insulate older people from higher costs. Because older people generally have higher medical expenses, however, insurers had charged young policyholders more to make up the difference. Only seven states currently have such “community rating” rules limiting how much they can charge older people. That will change in 2014, when the federal law sets a 3:1 ratio for premium variation based on age, just as Maine’s now does.

For states without such rules now, the changes required by the federal law will likely spell higher premiums for young people, and lower premiums for older ones – the reverse of what happened in Maine.

However, the federal health law includes subsidies to help low and moderate income residents, including young people, buy coverage, which could offset the increases.

The report from the consumer group shows that nearly 54 percent of people buying their own coverage from the state’s dominant insurer, Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield, saw rate increases, mostly older policyholders.

Anthem has about three and a half times more members over age 55 than under age 40, according to Chris Dugan, director of corporate communications.

“It is hoped that as a result [of the new law], more individuals can better afford to purchase insurance, thus creating a larger, healthier risk pool to the mutual benefit of all enrollees,” he said.

Most businesses pay more

A Maine Bureau of Insurance report released earlier this year found that 10 percent of small businesses, which are served by several insurers, saw a rate decrease in the first six months, compared with 3 percent of small firms before the law. Still, the vast majority saw rates continue to rise.

“We were given a $75,000 increase, about 32 percent,” said Jim Miller, manager of WoodenBoat Publications, a business with 40 employees on its health plan in Brooklin. After Miller agreed to higher deductibles, his increase was reduced to 22 percent.

For policies sold to individuals, the law created a “reinsurance” program, which shields insurers from costly medical expenses, funded by a $4 monthly per person tax on most policies sold to individuals and businesses. Policyholders expected to have big claims are put in the pool, which then pays for at least 90 percent of costs exceeding $7,500.

Without the program, insurers would either see reduced profits or pass the costs onto consumers.

A similar reinsurance effort is included in the federal health law.

In state filings, Anthem credited the program with reducing the average increase for individual policies. Without it, the insurer said, the average increase would have topped 21 percent. Another insurer, Harvard Pilgrim, originally sought a 12 percent average increase, but after “we worked with them on the reinsurance, the final number was a little over 3 percent,” said Eric A. Cioppa, the superintendent of the Maine Bureau of Insurance. A third insurer, MegaLife, has a rate increase request of more than 6 percent under review.

“The reinsurance was significant” said Cioppa. “Those are really encouraging numbers.”

National lessons?

Most policy experts caution against drawing broad conclusions from Maine’s experiment. They say it’s hard to argue that the state has deregulated its market, or that its experience reflects what might happen under the federal health law. Even with the changes, Maine’s insurance rules are stricter than what currently exists in most states – and about on par with what will be required under the federal health law.

That isn’t stopping debate.

Ditre and other critics of the new rules say that it’s necessary to address factors that drive medical inflation, such as a payment system that rewards doctors and hospitals to do more, rather than to work efficiently, to bring down the cost of health coverage.

“It will take a lot of things moving together over time to make a difference,” said Katherine Pelletreau, executive director of the Maine Association of Health Plans, a trade group. “At this point, the state needs to pay attention to cost drivers,” such as wide regional variations in health costs.

Supporters predict that as more young people buy coverage, premiums will go down for everyone.

While no new insurers have entered the state, Allumbaugh noted that Anthem did introduce a new type of policy with premiums up to 60 percent lower than the old plans, state data show. However, the policies don’t cover childbirth and individuals could face as much as $15,000 to $33,500 in annual out-of-pocket costs.

Many state residents already had high deductible plans, he said, adding that the new policies include coverage the old ones didn’t, such as mental health services and a separate, $1,000 deductible for prescription drugs.

“They do provide good coverage and, in some cases, better coverage,” than the former policies, he said.

Critics, however, liken the new plans to buying a car that is cheaper, but lacks an engine.

“They leave consumers exposed to significant bills,” said Mila Kofman, the state’s former insurance superintendent who resigned in May 2011 and is now a researcher at Georgetown University. Under the federal health law, policies with such high out- of-pocket limits will be barred after 2014.

Overall, said Kofman, the changes in Maine simply allow insurers to “charge older people and those in rural areas” higher rates than they could before.

Kaiser Health News is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonprofit, nonpartisan health policy research and communications organization not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Join the Conversation

22 Comments

  1. Older people should pay more than younger people for health care. That is kind of the point. Older people (those who actually have a need for health care services) have had their entire lives to build their wealth, while younger people (those who don’t need health care services) have other things like education, starting families and new homes to save for.

    “Community rating” along with the mandates placed on insurers by both Maine and Obamacare are what caused Maine premiums to increase from the size of a telephone bill to the size of a mortgage payment. We need to remove these mandates and go back to the high risk pools for those who need assistance.

    We in Maine have learned firsthand the consequences of the mandates in Obamacare because our “progressive” state started them in 1993.  

    PS – insurers have no reason to come back to Maine until Obamacare is repealed, because (as they state in the report) Obamacare bans high deductible plans and forces people to pay more based on the real tax/mandate in Obamacare: the “qualified premium”. However, giving young people the choice to pay 60% less with a higher deductible is a wonderful start and might keep them from fleeing this state for states who appreciate the young. High deductible premiums remind us that we are paying for “insurance”, not health care. If more people used insurance as it was designed (to cover major expenses) and paid out of pocket for more things, costs would come down for everyone.

    1. Older people “have had their whole lives to build their wealth”? What an outlandish notion. Sounds like you’ve never met anyone who earned less than, say, $60,000 per year. Never met anyone who became seriously ill or got laid off in youth or middle age and couldn’t find decent work after that. Never met anyone whose investments tanked during the Wall Street meltdown.

      Younger people “don’t need healthcare services”? Another outlandish notion. Sounds like you’ve never met a young adult with leukemia, or anyone who got head-injured in a motor vehicle accident. Never met anyone afflicted with a chronic condition such as multiple sclerosis, never met anyone with a disabling genetic disorder.

      You are actually advocating for high insurance premiums? What planet do you live on? Oh, right. Planet Republican.

      One major function of health insurance is preventive care, routine maintenance. When high premiums make insurance impossible to afford, or high deductibles (these are two different things, by the way) make routine checkups too expensive to pay for, little things get missed. Like hypertension (which can lead to stroke). Early-stage diabetes. Cancer. Thyroid disease. Things that ruin lives if they are not nipped in the bud.

      1. You use anecdotes, I am using averages. If you don’t think young people use less health care, then you are not intelligent enough to take seriously. Also, if someone has made $60k per year for 30 years, they are far better off than a kid out of college making $35k. 

        I am advocating for lower insurance premiums for those who require less health care. I know this doesn’t jive with your Marxist values, but some of us believe that taking care of your body should be rewarded, not penalized by having to pay more for those who didn’t.PS – making insurance free for those who do not take care of themselves DOES NOT incentivize them to use routine maintenance/preventative care and take care of their bodies. 

        1. You might try actually reading my previous comment. You set up a straw man in the form of a “Marxist” and responded to that, instead.

          1. Your previous comment was incoherent. Are you not a Marxist? FYI – Republicans support lower premiums. That is why we wanted to be able to purchase insurance from states like Virginia and Ohio where you can still purchase good coverage for $100 a month. Maine Democrats gave us the highest premiums in the country, along with a handful of other liberal states who decided community rating and guaranteed issue was necessary. If you believe otherwise, you are ingoring facts.  Obama and the Dems support higher premiums and higher taxes for taxpayers in order to take care of those who don’t pay taxes, are here illegally, or don’t want to work.  You can’t give 40 million poor people and 10 million illegals free health care without making someone else pay for them.  

          2. Unless you are proposing that emergency rooms should turn away the poor, no matter their condition, then none of what you are saying makes any sense whatsoever.   Is that what  you are proposing?  If not, the your post is just one tired, right-wing canard after another. 

          3. No, actually. I am saying we should cover the high risk folks with high risk pools, like we did for the last century, before the advent of community rating and mandates. (You know, when health insurance was affordable!) If you make health insurance affordable, more people will purchase it and you don’t need the government to raise taxes and force people to buy it.

            By the way, emergency room use has increased in Massachusetts because there is more demand for doctors, so people who actually pay for insurance are forced to go to the emergency room for treatment.

          4. So the highest premiums in the nation just got higher!  Thanks Maine Repubs. Your check from the insurance companies is in the mail.

        2. If you want to use averages, try to figure what you will pay when you get older!  it won’t matter though.  This is just more support for Obamacare.

  2. One of the nice things about living in Maine is that come election time those looking for our votes come knocking on our doors. If an incumbent Republican Legislator comes calling I suggest you ask why they voted for a bill that has increased premiums on a large number of Mainers.

  3. I wonder what health care wold look like in a country where insurance companies were not the ones writing and lobbying for the legislation?  

  4. Wonderful idea, attack the people paying the bills and have for decades.
    H-m-m with the criminial cost of medcine it should be the other way around young people are killing themselves coating their bodies with chemicals called perfumes, they consume chemicals they call food and Lordy lets not forget a generation who can’t get up, go to  bed or anything else until they do some drugs. 
    Lower the cost of medical care. Such as, one should not have to pay $135.00 +/- (+ time missed from work) should be more like $5.00 to get their B.P. checked to get their  B.P.script re-filled.

  5. Should the Affordable Care Act be repealed, that cap on premium ratio currently at 3 to 1 would be allowed to increase to 5 to 1. What this means is that an insurer could charge five times more for one person than another using the same policy, or an person in their 50’s could pay $1750 a month for the same coverage that it costs $350 a month for someone in their 20’s.

  6. GOP discrimination against older Mainers.

    Can you say “class action law suit?

    …and older Mainers are reliable voters.

    I say dump the Tea Party this November.

    Yessah

  7. Its just a  matter of time before we have single payer health care provided in this country. If we continue on this path that we are going, we will  become the bankrupt country that so many
    feel is ok. The republican governors want to beat obamacare to the punch, doing so will break the backs of  older citizens in this country. The only way to protect all, is for all to contribute to this problem that we face and we will eventually suffer for no matter what age we are. We all consume something, a consumption fee on all purchases would go a long way to fund a health care program that would be viable to each and everyone of us. If we are lucky to have wealth then we would pay more because we could and do consume more. If we are lower income then what we consume would be less but would still pay on what we purchase. All would pay some and all would benefit in a health care program that saw all equal and took care of all in the same manner. I know some of you will not agree, but eventually something has to give. Not having health care will make America a weak country. A great country is only as strong as its citizens.

  8. CNN is doing some actual reporting this week, go figure. First they debunked the liberal talking point that Obama has created 4 million jobs. (Actually, we have lost jobs during his term, as any child could tell you.) http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/05/politics/fact-check-obama-jobs/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

    Now, they do a story showing how Obamacare has substantially increased health insurance costs for college kids, as those of us who oppose Obamacare have been trying to explain. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/05/in-north-carolina-student-insurance-costs-rise-under-obamacare/

    1. according to the CNN story one million of the jobs that has been lost is in the public sector. usually you and your fellow travellers would be cheering this sort of thing.

      i would imagine that if Romney wins the election and shrinks the government by a million people he will be using it as a campaigning point.

      but here public sector payrolls go down under Obama and your criticizing him for losing jobs?

    2. How do you replace jobs that were taken from Americans and given to the dog eaters in Asia?  I think I heard there were 17 million or more.  Care to guess how many of those decision makers doing that were Democrats? Those are jobs that are gone forever.

  9. The stories in this and other papers tell us that the young are leaving, and the old are getting older.  So old people are paying more, and young people are paying less.  That would be true if the way “costs” were counted involved a static ((base) year, and a increase or decrease since then.

    Secondly, as an older person (not elderly yet but getting there) I believe older people SHOULD pay more for insurance under the current system.  Because older people have more health issues, their premiums under a private system would be higher, so as a libertarian, I think we should pay our share and not place our burden on younger/healthier folks. They will get their chance to pay more eventually… If they are careful & lucky.

    ALSO it is said on infinitem that health care costs are increasing.  Boy is that a big surprise.  The population of the U.S.A. like all caucasian majority countries, is aging.  we are living longer, and having fewer children.  The cost of health care will increase no matter what govenment or insurance companies do.  The only way to moderate (not decrease) health care costs at this point is to enact single payer health care and cut private insurers out of the loop.  Oh there is another way but that involves euthenasia, and we can’t even get a voluntary doctor assisted suicide bill past this State’s electorate.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *