New Marketplace

Why UnitedHealthcare’s Withdrawal Is Not the Main Concern for Exchanges

Article · July 5, 2016

United Healthcare’s announcement on April 19, 2016, that it would be withdrawing from most of the health insurance exchanges in which it had been participating has triggered another round of hand-wringing about the future of the exchanges, which were created under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Detractors took it as further proof of the exchanges’ flawed design, an enrollment pool that is sicker than can be supported, and a politicized rate-setting process that deters insurers. The exit of the health insurance giant is hardly the death knell for the ACA, but it will meaningfully reduce insurance competition in some markets, and it points to the challenges and limitations of maintaining insurer competition as a policy priority in small, fragmented lines of business.

United has not been a major player in the ACA exchanges. It was a cautious entrant at the start, and only in the past year did it expand to 34 states. It’s estimated that United had less than 6% of the 10.2 million “effectuated” enrollees (those who had applied for and paid for coverage) in exchanges at the end of last year’s open enrollment in March.1

Competition produces losers as well as winners. Other national insurers are making money and expressing confidence in the market.2 Nationally, exchange enrollment continues to increase. Federal subsidies and a slowly strengthening individual mandate continue to attract healthy people and to compel them to join the risk pool for insurers. As long as insurers in exchanges are granted rate increases sufficient to cover average costs, exchange health plans are not a failing line of business.

Locally, however, some markets will be hit hard by United’s withdrawal. According to an analysis by the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF),3 in 17% of the counties in the United States, its departure will leave two or fewer insurers, affecting 1.8 million enrollees. This diminished choice will create political problems for ACA supporters, and more conservative cost assumptions for the remaining insurers as they price their products.

How likely are these markets to see new entrants? As a clinician might say, “It depends.” Insurers crave stability. On the cost side, that means predictable populations with predictable medical expenses. The uncertainty associated with enrollment in the first few years of the exchanges made them a tough sell for some insurers.

The ACA’s new rules for premium rating for small-group and individual insurance and for federally mandated risk-adjustment payments create substantial uncertainty regarding revenue. Insurers can vary premiums only on the basis of age and family size, and insurers who end up having better financial performance only because of healthier-than-expected enrolled populations must share their gains with their less-lucky competitors. These risk-adjustment payments and receipts can be sizable — for the 2014 benefit year, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services reports that they amounted to as much as 17% of premiums for some carriers.4 A tested and profitable strategy for insurers is to avoid risky populations if possible, and to price their products cautiously to account for them if not. The new rules of the road are less appealing for some carriers.

Even more than certainty, insurers need volume: the prospective number of enrollees in the exchange must be big enough to generate returns and to negotiate a provider network. The most logical entrants into an exchange are the insurers already doing business in the geographic market — and not necessarily commercial insurance. More than 40% of insurers participating in exchanges offer a Medicaid product in the same state.5

Deciding to enter an insurance market is a function of persuasion and politics as well as finances. State insurance commissioners generally guard those gates, and they can be friendly or foreboding to prospective applicants depending on their interpretations of regulatory standards for network adequacy, subscriber-contract compliance, and rate filings. Political leaders in the states that the KFF analysis indicates are at greatest risk for diminished competition in the event of a United pullout — Alabama, Florida, Kansas, North Carolina, and Oklahoma — are all noted foes of the ACA and its insurance exchanges. None of them have expanded Medicaid — which would create a larger insured market in the state to attract insurers.

Lines of Business for Financing and Administering Health Benefits

Lines of Business for Financing and Administering Health Benefits. Click To Enlarge.

United’s departure from most exchange markets also underscores two larger points about health insurance in the United States. The first is that multiple lines of business exist for financing and administering health benefits in this country (see table). In addition to being a source of provider frustration, administrative overhead, and variable public oversight, these lines of business represent distinct opportunities for national insurers, many of which specialize in particular areas — Humana, for example, specializes in Medicare, as Centene does in Medicaid.

With subsidies available only through them, exchanges may crowd out the rest of the individual insurance market and evolve in a fashion similar to the managed-care lines of business of Medicaid and Medicare. This may attract insurers that are comfortable with greater market constraints and government oversight.

Second, in the long run, competitive health insurance markets may deliver more political benefits than affordable health care benefits. A competitive exchange market will prevent carriers from shifting the costs of other, more competitive, lines of business to exchange plans. But health insurance is expensive because health care is expensive. Exchange markets need to be profitable for insurers to stay in them — as the 2017 rate requests for exchange products make clear — and profitability in health care (for insurers and providers) will continue to collide with affordability. Even large exchanges with robust insurer competition — based on service and innovation, not risk selection — will fail to deliver relief to enrollees facing increasing premiums and deductibles or to governments that are underfunding other services to pay their health care obligations.

In theory, price- and quality-based competition among providers could help, but addressing the duplication, waste, poor quality, and high prices that plague U.S. health care requires aligning efforts at measurement and provider-payment reform across payers and lines of business. The payment reforms being tested and implemented by Medicare must be joined by commercial payers and the growing self-insured sector in aligned, transparent, and publicly accountable ways at the state and federal levels. This process can be accelerated with public-sector requirements and standards in areas such as purchasing of benefits for public-sector employees, managed-care contracting in Medicaid and Medicare, and insurance rate review. The policy priority of competitive insurance markets is at best a necessary precondition to — and perhaps merely a distraction from — this much harder work.


SOURCE INFORMATION

From the Milbank Memorial Fund, New York.

1. ACASignups.net: tracking enrollments for the Affordable Care Act (http://acasignups.net/node?page=1).
2. Levitt L. JAMA forum: reports of Obamacare’s demise are greatly exaggerated. April 26, 2016 (https://newsatjama.jama.com/2016/04/26/jama-forum-reports-of-obamacares-demise-are-greatly-exaggerated/).
3. Cox C, Semanskee A. Analysis of UnitedHealth Group’s premiums and participation in ACA marketplaces. New York: Kaiser Family Foundation. April 18, 2016.
4. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight. March 31, 2016, HHS-operated risk adjustment methodology meeting: discussion paper. March 24, 2016 (https://www.cms.gov/CCIIO/Resources/Forms-Reports-and-Other-Resources/Downloads/RA-March-31-White-Paper-032416.pdf).
5. Association for Community Affiliated Plans. Overlap between Medicaid health plans and QHPs in the marketplaces: an examination. April 2016 (http://communityplans.net/Portals/0/Exchanges/2016%20ACAP%20QHP%20Analysis%20Brief.pdf).

This Perspective article originally appeared in The New England Journal of Medicine as “United’s Withdrawal from Exchanges — Much Ado about the Wrong Things?”

New Call for Submissions ­to NEJM Catalyst

Connect

A weekly email newsletter featuring the latest actionable ideas and practical innovations from NEJM Catalyst.

Learn More »

More From New Marketplace
Robert Gavin head shot

Amazon and CVS: Short-Lived Unicorns in Health Care, or Healers of the “Tapeworm”?

Will Amazon–Berkshire Hathaway–JP Morgan and CVS-Aetna change the health care game? To one health care employer purchaser, these announcements feel a lot like Groundhog Day.

Fiona Scott Morton head shot

We Can’t Spend All Our Money on Health Care

We have to think about how much we want to spend on health according to how much it’s worth to us at the margin.

Simplified Chain of Production for Primary Care Services Generating Retail Prescriptions. Solid arrows indicate contractual relationships or ownership, and the dashed arrow indicates referral for prescription.

Does CVS–Aetna Spell the End of Business as Usual?

What might one of the largest mergers in history mean for the health care delivery system?

Lack of Incentive Is Top Barrier to Implementing Value-Based Payment

Survey Snapshot: Payer-Provider Alignment Is Difficult Even for Integrated Organizations

NEJM Catalyst Insights Council members say stronger incentives and better use of analytics could improve alignment.

Kaplan04_pullquote Time to Sink Two Canoe Payment Models Argument

Time to Sink the Two-Canoe Argument

Although the transition from fee-for-service to quality-based payment can leave physicians feeling trapped “with a foot in two canoes” while straddling the two payment methods, there are compelling ethical, professional, and business reasons against rationalizing continued support of fee-for-service medicine.

Mostashari01_pullquote - Medicare Advantage Holds the Key to Reforming the ACO Program

Medicare Advantage Holds the Key to Reforming the ACO Program

Value-based care continues to be the emphasis of federal policymakers, as well as many providers. Aligning Medicare Advantage with ACOs would boost both programs.

Physician Group Practices BPCI Classic Success and Looking Ahead to BPCI Advanced Bundled Payments

Physician Group Practices: Succeeding in Bundled Payments

Physician groups are demonstrating their ability to deliver care in new and innovative ways as part of the nationwide effort to transform health care delivery through value-based payment models. The physician experience and perspective is invaluable and should remain an important component of any shift to value-based care.

How Aligned Are Payers and Providers in Working Together to Achieve Value-Based Care

New Marketplace Survey: Payers and Providers Remain Far Apart

Health care stakeholders are not aligned in important goals and in large part are not working together to achieve value-based care, according to the NEJM Catalyst Insights Council. They are waiting on government regulators to change the payment model — including, possibly, single-payer health care.

Comparison of Select Characteristics of the Sample and Shared Savings Program - MMSP ACO - Physician-Led ACOs

Do Independent Physician-Led ACOs Have a Future?

While some of these smaller organizations are succeeding, they do face numerous challenges, and there is a need for both regulatory change as well as greater sharing of peer-based resources and best practices.

Disruption of Innovative Mergers in Health Care Industry - BDO graphic

Innovative Mergers Will Disrupt Health Care

The NEJM Catalyst Insights Council expects outside players to have a major impact on the industry over the next three years.

Connect

A weekly email newsletter featuring the latest actionable ideas and practical innovations from NEJM Catalyst.

Learn More »

Topics

We Can’t Spend All Our Money…

We have to think about how much we want to spend on health according to…

Change the Model → Change the…

If we’re going to change the health care payment model, do we need to change…

Change the Model → Change the…

If we’re going to change the health care payment model, do we need to change…

Insights Council

Have a voice. Join other health care leaders effecting change, shaping tomorrow.

Apply Now