My United Healthcare Rep was pretty open with me

[DonP]

Think about it . United wants to shed big in 2026 . Why not test the mostly non commissionable model in 2026. They could have 1/2 products pay commissions 1/2 Don't ( the no commissions are better products )and see how it goes . If this happens internal call centers with the better products could pick off the worst products that were sold by brokers, The no commission model obviously worked great for WellCare on the pdp's in 2025. The smaller carriers will continue paying commissions for a while as they need brokers to grow. Most agents have a good book of United as there by far the biggest. For me and many agents I'd say their brand loyalty the best . I bet I'd have a tough time flipping 30% of my book away from United

 

[Packerland]

I directly asked her why the company would prefer to move away from using independent agents, given that it would be significantly more cost-effective than hiring additional internal staff. She explained that UnitedHealthcare is willing to invest more in in-house agents because they are frustrated with the high turnover rates associated with brokers and call centers. In many cases, clients are switched to new plans annually, which undermines long-term retention efforts.





She emphasized that their goal is to establish lasting relationships with clients. Additionally, she noted that brokers often fail to adequately present or prioritize ancillary products. As a result, UHC is pursuing a fully in-house model—despite the higher cost of salaries and benefits—because they believe it will ultimately lead to better service, improved client retention, and increased product penetration.

This isn't some bold new strategy… Humana… Anthem… even United themselves have tried going all-in on captive agents before… and let's just say the results were underwhelming…

The economics don't change… salaries… benefits… management layers… and turnover headaches pile up fast… all while brokers bring in business at zero fixed cost until they produce…

Brokers aren't just warm bodies signing apps… they're the ones clients call when their doctor drops out… when their meds aren't covered… when they're about to bolt for a plan with shinier extras… you strip out those relationships and you'll learn real quick how little brand loyalty actually exists…

Maybe United thinks they can outspend market reality this time… but history suggests otherwise… and if they do come back to brokers down the road… don't be surprised if those bridges are harder to rebuild than they thought…

 

[InsuranceGuy29]

Not my experience working w United captive agents. The lead sheets they showed me of who called in was overwhelming. Like shooting fish in a barrel. When they opened up PFFS in OH to brokers it was like the clouds opened up and a race to glory.

Then, CMS stepped in and everything changed. Brokers became the nightmare flipping people cross selling and misrepresenting. AHIP began and pandoras box had been opened.

The captive agents were under the eyes of the company. Behaved clean shaven and in there office daily. Brokers are like rebels bandits who want to run their business without supervision. Unfortunately, theyre trying to act like MA market is a free market which it is not.

Gov't take bak is happening imo. Protect your book the best u can!

There's a reason Aetna doesn't even have any captive agents......this is direct from my former area manager......."They're very expensive, unmotivated, a huge liability, don't produce anywhere even remotely as much as independent brokers, and quit often."

If they think clients leave their plans a lot, just hire a lot of in-house captive employees in the year 2025. Then they'll REALLY understand what churn/people leaving is. Because no worker gives a flying f*ck about any company nowadays.

Workers don't tolerate or put up with much of anything nowadays. If they're unhappy, they IMMEDIATELY bolt. And every time a worker leaves it costs them TONS of extra money and time.

This is literally common sense. Who do you think is more motivated to sell? A person that has their own business, who earns 100% commission, and who will starve if they don't sell.....

or someone trapped in the nightmare of corporate America with a garbage micro-managing boss, a base salary, who is under immense pressure, is jaded and demoralized, and has to abide by strict corporate rules?

I used to work in corporate America, and I genuinely couldn't care less what happened to or with that company. I was just there for the paycheck. Not sure if you've take a look around lately.....but people absolutely hate corporate America. It's never been more unpopular.

The insurance industry already has a MASSIVE shortage of in-house corporate jobs, because those in-house jobs absolutely suck. They are just call-mill slave jobs that no one wants to do, and another MASSIVE downside is you don't own your own book of business when you're in-house.

Any sales you get the company belong solely to the company. So if you want to keep getting paid, you have to stay with them forever, like a literal indentured slave. Not exactly a big motivator to sell anything there.

You have your belief and narrative that you keep trying to push in here for some reason. While most of us in here know better. Assuming it's even true (which I have extreme doubts about), you're talking about a time period that no longer exists and is completely irrelevant. There's no sense in debating it further.

 

[DonP]

There's a reason Aetna doesn't even have any captive agents......this is direct from my former area manager......."They're very expensive, unmotivated, a huge liability, and don't produce anywhere even remotely as much as independent brokers."

This is literally common sense. Who do you think is more motivated to sell? A person that has their own business, who earns 100% commission, and who will starve if they don't sell, Or someone trapped in the nightmare of corporate America with a garbage micro-managing boss, a base salary, and strict corporate rules?

I used to work in corporate America. I couldn't care less what happened to or with that company. I was just there for the paycheck. not sure if you've take a look around lately....people absolutely hate Corporate America.

The insurance industry already has a MASSIVE shortage of jobs, because those in-house jobs absolutely suck. They are just call mills that no one wants to do.

You have your belief and narrative that you keep trying to push in here for some reason. While most of us in here know better. Assuming it's even true (which I have extreme doubts about), you're talking about a time period that no longer exists and is completely irrelevant. There's no sense in debating it further.

Few people are breaking this down . 90% of aep sales are are mapd to mapd . Let's look at the cost to insurance company's . $313 to the broker. $250 total override . $200-$300 total total marketing money paid out whether to fmo's or agents direct. Probably another $100 in other fees. Sure fmo's do some things for some agents . But if carriers really looking at cutting agents out wouldn't it be smarter to either first either cut the fmo out totally or at least cut the total payouts in marketing money and overrides 50-75%? Try this and see how it goes before just cutting the agent and everything

 

[somarco]

the AARP hook/bait.

You can join ARP @ age 50 and start to enjoy savings on all kinds of insurance (not just Medicare) plus discounts at fine eating establishements like Denny's and cruises on ships with hundreds of screaming kids.

If you buy into all that, by the time you turn 65 your brain is mush and you will sign up for anything they push your way.

 

[somarco]

Brokers became the nightmare flipping people cross selling and misrepresenting.

Nothing new here. A large percentage of brokers are only loyal to themselves and will churn their business yearly.

Bad apples almost always mess up the market for the rest of us who strike a balance between what is right for our client and fair for the carrier.

Carriers know which brokers feed them good business and which exploit them. Carriers will not hesitate to terminate an agent who floods them with bad business.

 

[DonP]

In a perfect world that makes sense. I have direct contracts w a few MAPD carriers no FMO. Ironically, those are the ones where inhouse agents have manipulated our clients to switch plans and taken AOR.

You cant even trust these guys w/o an FMO

It reminds me of saddam Hussein and human shields in 1990 Iraq war .You try to kill me and you'll kill these hostage shields protecting me . Agents are the human shields for fmo's . The fmo's saying " you want the agent you got me to " .

 

[vic120]

I directly asked her why the company would prefer to move away from using independent agents, given that it would be significantly more cost-effective than hiring additional internal staff. She explained that UnitedHealthcare is willing to invest more in in-house agents because they are frustrated with the high turnover rates associated with brokers and call centers. In many cases, clients are switched to new plans annually, which undermines long-term retention efforts.





She emphasized that their goal is to establish lasting relationships with clients. Additionally, she noted that brokers often fail to adequately present or prioritize ancillary products. As a result, UHC is pursuing a fully in-house model—despite the higher cost of salaries and benefits—because they believe it will ultimately lead to better service, improved client retention, and increased product penetration.

Here is the problem with that statement, A lot of the big carriers favored the large call centers over the independent agent

Which anyone would know would bring the results they say they are frustrated with

 

[Packerland]

Nothing new here. A large percentage of brokers are only loyal to themselves and will churn their business yearly.

Bad apples almost always mess up the market for the rest of us who strike a balance between what is right for our client and fair for the carrier.

Carriers know which brokers feed them good business and which exploit them. Carriers will not hesitate to terminate an agent who floods them with bad business.

I've got to push back on the idea that agents are "flipping" their books every year… there's no $$ incentive for that and no time during AEP to even attempt it…

The only reason I ever move a client is if something significant changes—like formulary updates, network issues, or major benefit shifts… otherwise, keeping clients happy where they are is better for everyone…

Sure, some agents will try to sell a different plan if they meet someone new during AEP… that's just the nature of a competitive market… but most of us aren't out here churning for the sake of it… we're building long-term relationships and doing what's best for both the client and the carrier…

 

[sman]

I directly asked her why the company would prefer to move away from using independent agents, given that it would be significantly more cost-effective than hiring additional internal staff. She explained that UnitedHealthcare is willing to invest more in in-house agents because they are frustrated with the high turnover rates associated with brokers and call centers. In many cases, clients are switched to new plans annually, which undermines long-term retention efforts.





She emphasized that their goal is to establish lasting relationships with clients. Additionally, she noted that brokers often fail to adequately present or prioritize ancillary products. As a result, UHC is pursuing a fully in-house model—despite the higher cost of salaries and benefits—because they believe it will ultimately lead to better service, improved client retention, and increased product penetration.

So they're "allowing" us to recertify while knowing they are switching to an in-house model. Makes no sense.