Are All Plan Fs (or Gs or Ns ...) Really the Same?

[sam816]

When I see a better premium offered by a less well known carrier for a prospect I am not sure it is the right choice for him because the annual increases down the road could be faster than the big names (UHC, BCBS, etc.) with stable history; and if that does happen, he is not guaranteed to be able to switch back when subjected to underwriting. Should I explain this to the prospect when I present the quote?

TIA.

 

[ineedhelp]

Please look in the Medicare & You book sent out each year to all Medicare Beneficiaries by Medicare. Look on page 68 or 69 and read what Medicare says regarding "Standardized Plans".

 

[thomasm]

When I see a better premium offered by a less well known carrier for a prospect I am not sure it is the right choice for him because the annual increases down the road could be faster than the big names (UHC, BCBS, etc.) with stable history; and if that does happen, he is not guaranteed to be able to switch back when subjected to underwriting. Should I explain this to the prospect when I present the quote?

TIA.

What he is saying about rate increases is true though. There's no since in putting someone with a lower priced carrier if that carrier has a history of double digit rate increases. (Heartland, MoO)

Separate yourself from the competition and get a subscription to CSG Actuarial. Study the rate increase histories of your carriers. The loss ratios will also give you a good indication of potential upcoming increases/decreases.

 

[midwestbroker]

CSG spoke at the Medicare Supplement Conference and said across the board rate increases were stabilizing around 4%. They see this as a trend for the next couple of years and then maybe an upswing.

Of course, this does not prevent a smaller carrier to be on the other side of that average and have a double digit rate increase. With new carriers coming out of the woodwork, it is hard to determine what their increases would be.

You could stick with the larger names with historical data to indicate future rate increases and wait until the smaller carriers have a few years to look back on (this is also info you can share with your clients why you are recommending who you are).

 

[Newby]

CSG spoke at the Medicare Supplement Conference and said across the board rate increases were stabilizing around 4%. They see this as a trend for the next couple of years and then maybe an upswing. Of course, this does not prevent a smaller carrier to be on the other side of that average and have a double digit rate increase. With new carriers coming out of the woodwork, it is hard to determine what their increases would be. You could stick with the larger names with historical data to indicate future rate increases and wait until the smaller carriers have a few years to look back on (this is also info you can share with your clients why you are recommending who you are).

You are assuming smaller carriers have the worst records. What about MOO? What about how United Healthcare builds an extra annual rate increase (called a discount that you lose 10% of each year) that they don't show on rate increase statistics? Aetna is pretty big. Haven't they had double digit rate increases in some states?

 

[sman]

What he is saying about rate increases is true though. There's no since in putting someone with a lower priced carrier if that carrier has a history of double digit rate increases. (Heartland, MoO)

Separate yourself from the competition and get a subscription to CSG Actuarial. Study the rate increase histories of your carriers. The loss ratios will also give you a good indication of potential upcoming increases/decreases.

In defense of MoO, their plan G with OIC here in Georgia has only had a rate decrease. The other year it was no increase. This is clearly different from what they've done in the past. I'm still very cautious about them though.

Hopefully all the people involved with the GI Plan N are no longer there. One of the dumbest things I've ever seen a company do. I refused to write any of the Plan N back then. There is one guy here on the forum who bragged about selling nothing but their Plan N because it was quick and easy. What's even worse is he recruits people.

 

[midwestbroker]

That is true Newby... For a company that has been in the market for only a year or two vs. ten years, the carrier with ten years will have more historical data. I am not saying they are better, just you will have more to go off of for recommendations.

Now of course, larger does not always mean better, but when it comes to looking at market share, the larger carriers have more data because they are larger.

 

[somarco]

because the annual increases down the road could be faster than the big names (UHC, BCBS, etc.)

Are you speculating or do you have data to support this view?

no since in putting someone with a lower priced carrier

Did you mean since, cents or sense?

get a subscription to CSG Actuarial. Study the rate increase histories of your carriers.

Which is better?

Carrier A has the following rate changes - (-25%), 5%, 10%, 15% for an average of 2.5%

Carrier B has the following - 4%, 5%, 3%, 0% for an average of 3%

You could stick with the larger names with historical data

What about Mutual of Omaha (that hasn't issued Medigap plans in years), vs. United World, United of Omaha or Omaha Insurance Company?

In Georgia, UW has been gone since mid 2010 (replaced by UOO) then OIC replaced UOO in late 2013. So which of these carriers would be considered a carrier with stable rate data?

GI Plan N are no longer there. One of the dumbest things I've ever seen a company do

BCBSGA did something similar except did not limit it to plan N.

a company that has been in the market for only a year or two vs. ten years,

Such as United of Omaha that only wrote business (in Georgia) for less than 4 years or OIC, less than 2 years?

looking at market share, the larger carriers have more data because they are larger.

Larger does not mean more credible. Tenure in a market means a lot more to me than market share.

Give me a carrier with a 5 year track record of issuing plans UNDER THE SAME NAME over some big name carrier that plays on name recognition (carrier or trade association).

 

[tins]

What he is saying about rate increases is true though. There's no since in putting someone with a lower priced carrier if that carrier has a history of double digit rate increases. (Heartland, MoO)

Separate yourself from the competition and get a subscription to CSG Actuarial. Study the rate increase histories of your carriers. The loss ratios will also give you a good indication of potential upcoming increases/decreases.

It appears MOO is attempting to break out of that (fitting) image that they will be unscrupulous in by starting with low premiums and then jack them up year over year over year with double digit increases, sometimes multiple times in a single year.
Since changing to MOO (in Missourah), from UOO, they have yet to have a >9% increase in the 3 years, including this upcoming one (effective July 1st) that includes a 0% increase on Plan G. With their 12% household discount and super competitive Plan G, hard to not write them.
It'll take a whole lot longer than 3 years to change their image, but a start is a start.

 

[somarco]

hard to not write them.

I have no problem telling people that want MOO/UW/UOO/OIC they can call the carrier direct.

Most of the time that stops them in their tracks and they listen to what I have to say.

It'll take a whole lot longer than 3 years to change their image, but a start is a start.

Yes, it does take more than 3 years.

I look at what they are doing now (here). They did drop G rates last year. Haven't offered the HH discount yet. Increasing rates on F by 6% in August.

I am still replacing "MOO" policies and will not stop. Just replaced an OIC policy last week. Lady had the plan for 2 months and thought she was buying from a A rated carrier with years in the business.

No ma'm, you bought an unrated carrier that has been writing business in Georgia less than 2 years.