Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Insurance companies - a mathematical look

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Health Donate to DU
 
truhavoc Donating Member (820 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-28-09 03:16 PM
Original message
Insurance companies - a mathematical look
Excerpt from my recent blog posting at: http://amoreperfectunion-dc.blogspot.com/

We all know that the insurance lobby is a major force behind the resistance of the blue dog democrats and republicans joining the call for true health care reform. I ask myself more and more why do we even have insurance companies, and if we didn't have them what would be the effect on the American people. First here is a list of the top 14 insurance companies as ranked in terms of revenue by Forbes:

Continued on blog, chart doesn't import well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
TreasonousBastard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-28-09 03:30 PM
Response to Original message
1. OK, so what did they pay out in claims? What was...
their L/E ratio, and how did they handle catastrophic claims and reinsurance? How did they do across geographic and demographic classes of business?

How much of their revenue was from Social Security, and how was their claims experience there? Experience indifferent units, like medicare Advantage plans, HMOs, union plans, major corporate plans, small busniees and association plans, brokerage and agency developed plans...

How much of their profit was from non-insurance related transactions, like real estate, asset sales, paper profits from tax adjustments...

Ya see, revenue is only part of the story.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truhavoc Donating Member (820 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-28-09 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Indeed
All things to look into, this is potentially enough for another post. The problem is the time to research!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truhavoc Donating Member (820 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-29-09 08:32 PM
Response to Reply #1
7. You definitely have a point
Granted my look was fairly superficial, and really the main reason that revenue was brought up was mainly because I was using fortune for my information - and revenue is the sole number used in calculating a company's rank on the fortune 500. Plus I was trying to show the pure amount of money Americans are paying these companies in the form of premiums, this is something I am still digging into and will put into a clearer light eventually. Thanks for the suggestions though on the other portions of their business to research, definitely a good starting point for my next analysis on the industry!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stumpchunkman Donating Member (3 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-28-09 05:49 PM
Response to Original message
3. Rudimentary Economics 101
Edited on Tue Jul-28-09 05:57 PM by stumpchunkman
Using gross revenue numbers to make this point is either purposefully misleading or woefully ignorant of the most basic of economics. If you do not understand the difference between gross revenue, profit and profit margin, then there's not a whole lot of hope here.

Numbers taken from blog posted above:
TOP 14 INSURANCE COMPANIES COMBINED GROSS REVENUE = $275.6 Billion
TOP 14 INSURANCE COMPANIES COMBINED NET PROFIT = $8.6 Billion

PROFIT MARGIN FOR COMBINED 14 TOP INSURANCE COMPANIES = 8.6B / 275.6B = 3.12%




3.12% is the rate these evil companies are taking our money.

Compared w/ other industries?

Software applications - 36%
Magazine Publishers - 18.6
Beverages / Brewers - 16.9
Major Pharmaceuticals - 16.4
Industrial Metals and Minerals - 13.1
Medical Equip/Drug Delivery - 13.1
Wireless Communications/LD Providers - 11.4
Steel / Iron - 9.8
Sporting Activities - 9.4
Processed/Packaged Goods - 8.2
General Entertainment - 8.1
Personal Computers - 7.5
Cleaning Products - 7.3
Book Publishing - 6.8
Waste Management/Electric Utilities - 6.0
Aerospace/defense products & services - 5.5
Biotechnology - 5.4
Shipping - 5.0
ISP's - 4.3
Confectioners - 4.3
Electronics Stores - 3.5

Okay so health insurance providers, you know the guys who pay for life and death procedures, aren't important enough that they can make 3% profit, but publishers of magazines can make roughly 6 times that bringing in 18.6% profit?

Also if you think you want the insurance plan providers operating as non-profits, just remember that non-profits are tax-exempt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AdHocSolver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-29-09 12:14 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. Your numbers are irrelevant. It is the billions they spend on marketing, executive pay and lobbying
The problem with for-profit health insurance is the money that is spent on everything BUT paying health care bills of their customers.

In other words, the issue is NOT how little the profit margins are (and your figures are misleading), it is how little of the premiums paid by the insureds actually goes to pay for health care. It is about the denial of service by the for-profit insurance companies, the cancellation of policies on flimsy pretexts, the exorbitant deductibles and co-pays, and the fact that countries like Canada cover all Canadians, while the per capita cost to Canadians is one-half of the per-capita cost to Americans.

In other words, the for-profit health insurance companies force Americans to pay huge amounts of money for the lousiest service imaginable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truhavoc Donating Member (820 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-29-09 08:28 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. Think about
What they actually do, insurance companies pay for services and they don't even do a very good job at that! I know a chiropractor who has begun offering a "no-insurance" plan that is $50/month for unlimited treatments, and his billable rate to insurance companies is $35 per visit. Basically he is saying that it is more worthwhile to him (as a small business owner) to accept less revenue in return for less hassle and hoops to jump through.

Also I am perfectly capable of writing a check to the hospital, the problem is if something big came up how would I pay for it. These companies are making profits by merely being middlemen in a screwed up system. As far as your example about magazine publishers, that is an art form - definitely more deserving of profit. I am not against profit, I am against pointless profit...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-28-09 06:26 PM
Response to Original message
4. an important factor to look at

Administrative costs.

http://www.kff.org/insurance/7031/ti2004-6-11.cfm

Exhibit 6.11: Private Health Insurance Administrative Costs per Person Covered, 1986-2003

The cost per enrollee for private health insurance expenses not related to direct care services (such as administrative costs and profits) continued to rise, from $85 in 1986 to $421 in 2003. The most rapid growth occurred in the 4-year period from 1987 to 1990, when these administrative costs rose 125%. For the six-year period from 1998 to 2003, administrative costs per enrollee nearly doubled (+95%).

Notes: These data show the net cost of private health insurance per private enrollee (including Blue Cross/Blue Shield, commercial insurance, HMOs, and self-insured plans), as calculated by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Net cost of insurance is the difference between premiums earned and benefits incurred, and includes insurers’ costs of paying bills, advertising, sales commissions, and other administrative costs; net additions/subtractions from reserves; rate credits and dividends; premium taxes; and profits or losses. Private enrollment is estimated by CMS using the National Health Insurance Survey and the Current Population Survey.


In terms of what the insurance industry costs health care providers in administrative expenses:

http://www.pnhp.org/publications/nejmadmin.pdf

background

A decade ago, the administrative costs of health care in the United States greatly exceeded those in Canada. We investigated whether the ascendancy of computerization, managed care, and the adoption of more businesslike approaches to health care have decreased administrative costs.

methods

For the United States and Canada, we calculated the administrative costs of health insurers, employers’ health benefit programs, hospitals, practitioners’ offices, nursing homes, and home care agencies in 1999. We analyzed published data, surveys of physicians, employment data, and detailed cost reports filed by hospitals, nursing homes, and home care agencies. In calculating the administrative share of health care spending, we excluded retail pharmacy sales and a few other categories for which data on administrative costs were unavailable. We used census surveys to explore trends over time in administrative employment in health care settings. Costs are reported in U.S. dollars.

results

In 1999, health administration costs totaled at least $294.3 billion in the United States, or $1,059 per capita, as compared with $307 per capita in Canada. After exclusions, administration accounted for 31.0 percent of health care expenditures in the United States and 16.7 percent of health care expenditures in Canada. Canada’s national health insurance program had overhead of 1.3 percent; the overhead among Canada’s private insurers was higher than that in the United States (13.2 percent vs. 11.7 percent). Providers’ administrative costs were far lower in Canada. Between 1969 and 1999, the share of the U.S. health care labor force accounted for by administrative workers grew from 18.2 percent to 27.3 percent. In Canada, it grew from 16.0 percent in 1971 to 19.1 percent in 1996. (Both nations’ figures exclude insurance-industry personnel.)

conclusions

The gap between U.S. and Canadian spending on health care administration has grown to $752 per capita. A large sum might be saved in the United States if administrative costs could be trimmed by implementing a Canadian-style health care system.

... insurance overhead

In 1999 U.S. private insurers retained $46.9 billion of the $401.2 billion they collected in premiums. Their average overhead (11.7 percent) exceeded that of Medicare (3.6 percent) and Medicaid (6.8 percent). Overall, public and private insurance overhead totaled $72.0 billion — 5.9 percent of the total health care expenditures in the United States, or $259 per capita).

The overhead costs of Canada’s provincial insurance plans totaled $311 million (1.3 percent) of the $23.5 billion they spent for physicians and hospital services. An additional $17 million was spent to administer federal government health plans. The overhead of Canadian private insurers averaged 13.2 percent of the $8.4 billion spent for private coverage. Overall, insurance overhead accounted for 1.9 percent of Canadian health care spending, or $47 per capita.


Slightly out of date, but somehow I doubt the picture has improved.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TreasonousBastard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-29-09 09:49 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. A couple of quick notes (before...
looking more deeply into the numbers)

The low overhead of Medicare and Medicaid is largely because they contract out much of the administrative and claims costs to the private sector. Should we we eliminate the evil, greedy, wasteful insurance companies, Medicare and Medicaid will simply pick up all the costs themselves, with none of the temptation to cut costs that the private sector and stockholders encourage.

I don't doubt provider costs were lower in Canada, if for no other reason than the don't have a dozen major hospital groups in Toronto each in competition for patients and reputations in services. I am amused, however, that the 30% or so of provider administrative costs has been assumed by many to be the same for insurance companies.

I would like to see cost breakdowns for HHC, the Mayo Clinic, Columbia Presbyterian, Mass General, Sloane-Kettering, Kaiser-Permanente, and the Hospital for Special Surgery, along with a few others. The differences in costs, and the reasons for those costs would be enlightening. As would some relevant comparison of the level of care and cure of each of these institutions.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 18th 2024, 12:54 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Health Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC