May 23, 2012

HHS Issues Final Rule on Review of Insurance Premium Increases

Today the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a final rule requiring thorough review of health insurance premium increases. The rule establishes a rate review program to ensure that all rate increases that meet or exceed a specified threshold are reviewed by a state or the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to determine whether they are “unreasonable.” The rule also requires that insurance companies make certain rate information public.

As of September 1, 2011, rate increases of 10% or more must be reviewed by state or federal officials. CMS will adopt state determinations if the state: (1) has an effective rate review program in a given market, as determined by CMS; and (2) provides CMS with a timely final determination that includes an explanation for the state analysis. In all other situations, CMS will review rate increases. Starting September 2012, the 10% threshold will be replaced by state-specific thresholds reflecting trends in each state.

The rule sets forth three criteria for determining whether a rate increase is excessive, unjustified, or unfairly discriminatory, and therefore, unreasonable:

  1. A rate increase is excessive if it causes the premium to be unreasonably high in relation to benefits. In making this determination, CMS will consider whether the projected medical loss ratio would fall below the applicable federal standard.
  2. A rate increase is unjustified if the issuer provides data or documentation that is incomplete, inadequate, or otherwise does not provide a basis to determine whether the increase is reasonable.
  3. A rate increase is unfairly discriminatory if it results in premium differences between insureds with similar risks that are not permitted under state law, or, if there is no applicable state law, does not reasonably correspond to expected differences in costs.

The rule also requires insurance companies that implement unreasonable rate increases to submit to CMS a final justification responding to CMS’ or the state’s determination. The insurance company must also provide this justification, in an easily understood form, on its company website and the Affordable Care Act website for a minimum of three years.

The HHS press release is available at the following link. The final rule is available at the following link

©2012 von Briesen & Roper, s.c

About the Author

Meghan O’Connor is a member of the Health Care Practice Group. Her practice focuses on general health law including managed care and provider contracting, risk management, and regulatory compliance.

Prior to joining von Briesen, Meghan worked for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services where she consulted with states regarding federal health law, regulation and policy, evaluating managed care contracts and conducting compliance reviews.

414-287-1586

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.