Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: DoodleDawg
From what I understand, it's a pain in the @ss for an insurer in one state to do business in another state unless it already has a subsidiary set up there.

Most people think "selling insurance across state lines" means that a low-cost insurer in Mississippi will be able to sell plans in New York with very low premiums. That's not the case at all. For one thing, there will be a major cost for the insurer up front to set up contracts with a network of doctors, hospitals, etc. in New York. And you can be damn sure that no doctors or hospitals in New York are going to accept Mississippi reimbursement rates for their procedures and treatments.

This is why most figures I've seen suggest that a fully operational system of insurers selling across all state lines would probably only result in about a 5% reduction in premiums.

106 posted on 07/11/2019 10:33:06 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ("Knowledge makes a man unfit to be a slave." -- Frederick Douglass)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies ]


To: Alberta's Child
From what I understand, it's a pain in the @ss for an insurer in one state to do business in another state unless it already has a subsidiary set up there.

It's highly unprofitable for the reasons you state. If an insurer has no network established then they are at the mercy of whatever the medical provider will charge. Since they have no network, then any claim the insurance policy holder makes will be covered at the out-of-network rates so the policy holder will pay far more as well. It makes zero sense for either side to enter into that kind of deal.

107 posted on 07/11/2019 10:36:16 AM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson