Does anyone consider the market data for supplements?

ValeRosso

Guru
512
Using CSG more recently, and seeing the market data for supplements such as # of people enrolled, loss ratio, market percent, etc. Is there any actual use for these market indicators…as in can these numbers reasonably predict future results for the supplement? Do you base any decisions off of this data for those who use CSG?

Another question: Let’s say Company A has 50,000 supplement enrollees nationwide, but only 30 in one state. You should probably stay away from that company if you’re in the state that only has 30 enrollees, because the risk pool is so low that they’d have to raise premiums drastically unless they get a huge influx of premium, right? Or would the 50k nationwide buffer cause the company not to drastically raise the rates? Or is there no data for this and it could be either or?

I know well enough to stay away from new to market supplements, Just want to get some input from yall. Thoughts?
 
Let’s say Company A has 50,000 supplement enrollees nationwide, but only 30 in one state.
I've seen those numbers too and don't believe them for a minute. Only 30 in an entire state?

Hell, if it's a company I write for I'll have more than that.
 
CSG historical data is more of a novelty than something useful. This is especially true for rate increases.

Expanded market data is somewhat useful when evaluating a carrier that has been in the market 5 years or less.

In Georgia, Federal is one of the lowball leaders. Market data shows . . .

4 years in the Medicare market,
2146 lives national, 349 lives state (GA)
$2.6M premium national, $297k state
82.7% loss ratio national, 69.5% state
Market penetration virtually nil

If the premium/lives figures are accurate their average annual premium per life is $851. Unless they are writing a lot of HDG those numbers are way off.

The loss ratio is interesting but hardly credible on so few lives. If anything can be determined by this, the LR is low for a relatively young block.

I don't pay extra for the rate increase history because it is useless, especially so with carriers that turn over carriers every 3 years or so in a state.

AM Best and S&P rating is more meaningful to me than anything, along with the number of years in the market.
 
AM Best and S&P rating is more meaningful to me than anything, along with the number of years in the market.

Makes sense. I do get the increase history information provided to me, but it doesn't seem to be accurate. For instance, for a 57 year in the market supp, between 2019 and 2023, the increase is -3.5, -16.4, 0, 0, 1.4. So it went down 18%?
 
I've seen those numbers too and don't believe them for a minute. Only 30 in an entire state?

Hell, if it's a company I write for I'll have more than that.

Yep. I found another today...72,000 lives nationally. 70 in the state. Really? I guess some of these should really be taken with a grain of salt.
 
Makes sense. I do get the increase history information provided to me, but it doesn't seem to be accurate. For instance, for a 57 year in the market supp, between 2019 and 2023, the increase is -3.5, -16.4, 0, 0, 1.4. So it went down 18%?

Maybe, maybe not.

Just one of the reasons why I don't pay attention to them.

Not picking on anyone in particular . . . let's say Mutual of Ohio lowered rates 3.5%, next year they pulled M Ohio and replaced them with United of Ohio and dropped rates another 16.4% to gain market share, the next 2 years no rate adjustment, then the year later they rolled out Ohio United and raised rates 1.4%

Yep. I found another today...72,000 lives nationally. 70 in the state. Really? I guess some of these should really be taken with a grain of salt.


When I have more business on the books in my state than they do I just keep walking
 
Back
Top