Stop-Loss Insurance Regulatory Developments Spill Over
into the Captive World
The regulation of medical stop-loss insurance has long
been on the radar screen of those involved with self-insured group health
plans, but more recent developments should rattle the cages of many captive
insurance industry service providers as well.
This convergence of interest relates to employee benefit
group captives structured for health care risks, which arguably is the fastest
growing segment of the alternative risk transfer marketplace. The reason for this growth, of course, is
that small and mid-sized employers are clamoring for solutions to better
control the cost of providing quality health benefits for the their
workers.
And taking a longer view, the potential premium volume
associated with health care risks could easily eclipse premium volume connected
with P&C-related liability if the captive insurance marketplace figures out
how to effectively respond to market demands.
But unless smaller and mid-sized employers are able to
operate self-insured group health plans, captive insurance solutions are
moot. That’s because individual
self-insured employers are the essential “building blocks” for the viable
variations of group captive structures.
For these structures, individual employers must obtain separate
stop-loss insurance policies, either from a stop-loss carrier or direct from
the captive. If employers cannot access
stop-loss policies with appropriate terms, the employee benefit group captive
model explodes.
That threat is at our doorstep so it is important that
captive insurance industry leaders fully understand what is happening and why.
This blog has been reporting for some time about how
stop-loss insurance with lower attachment points has attracted negative attention
from state and federal regulators. Most
recently, we commented how developments in California (see previous blog post) portend
a new round of attempts to restrict access to stop-loss insurance across the
country by smaller employers…again, the key components for group benefit
captives.
It is important to note that while SB 1431 in California
only applies to stop-loss policies sold to employers with 50 or fewer employers
(small group market definition), the Affordable Care Act provides that states
may apply to redefine the definition of small group market up to 100 employees
in 2014, which California and many other states will most certainly do.
In addition to regulatory encroachments at the state
level, federal regulators are now taking a closer look at stop-loss insurance,
which could result in additional restrictions.
This blog will be commenting on these federal developments in more
detail soon, so be sure to check back to understand what is happening in
Washington, DC.
As an aside, there seems to be confusion about what
health care reform (and its potential repeal) means for the captive insurance in
a general way so we’ll try to quickly cut through the fog. The ACA does not directly create nor
suppress any captive insurance opportunities but there are some indirect
connections.
Health care reform has had the effect of driving up
health insurance premiums, thus prompting more interest in self-insurance and
potentially group captives as we have discussed. There may also be opportunities for captives
to provide financial backstops for Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) as
provided for by the ACA.
The potential for increased stop-loss insurance
regulation is another indirect effect of the ACA, but it is the most important
development to watch. Most everything
else is really just “white noise” with regard to the captive insurance
marketplace.
And by the way, the regulatory focus on stop-loss
insurance is likely to continue even if the U.S. Supreme Court overturns the entire
health care law this June, so this industry concern has shelf life regardless
of the judicial outcome.
So what to do? In short, pay close attention to these
developments and be receptive to opportunities to advocate for the ability of
smaller employers to purchase stop-loss insurance without artificial attachment
point restrictions and/or other inappropriate regulatory hurdles.
Those opportunities are almost certain to come.
Excellent post, I will be checking back regularly to look for updates.
ReplyDeleteRoofing Insurance
For those interested in protecting the captive/stop loss market the government is seeking response to 13 questions. By reading the questions you can see they have a very limited and distorted view of what is actually going on and why. They appear to have been told small group self funding is brand new, never existed prior to 2010, and is being done solely to circumvent PPACA. The more people that correct this perception and make them aware small group self funding has been around since the 80s and is not done solely to circumvent PPACA and State law the better. They also seem to think self funding only cherry picks the best risk which is far from the truth in my experience.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EBSA-2012-0025-0001
I have been looking to build a good professionally opinion on the topic. Your post got me a step further in the right direction. Many thanks.
ReplyDeleteBusiness Liability Insurance Florida
Thank you for this post. It's been so hard to get this information past anyone in HR where I work. Where I work, medical stop-loss insurance is important to my employer due to the nature of it, so for the new healthcare plan to change it is unsettling.
ReplyDelete