BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 1962 Page 1 Date of Hearing: April 30, 2014 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS Mike Gatto, Chair AB 1962 (Skinner) - As Amended: April 22, 2014 Policy Committee: HealthVote:15-3 Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No SUMMARY This bill requires dental plans and insurers to comply with specified loss ratios (calculated as a ratio of premium revenue spent on clinical services and improving dental quality to the total amount of premium revenue) or to provide rebates to customers if the loss ratio is less than a certain amount. Specifically, the bill requires rebates if loss ratios are less than 80% in the individual or small group market, or 85% in the large-group market. It also authorizes the Department of Managed Health Care (DMHC) and the California Department of Insurance (CDI) to adopt regulations, including emergency regulations, implementing these provisions, and requires regulations to parallel those adopted with respect to full-service plan contracts and policies. FISCAL EFFECT 1)One-time costs to DMHC and CDI, combined, of approximately $400,000 (Managed Care Funds and Insurance Fund, respectively) to develop complex regulations. 2)One-time costs to DMHC of $200,000 (Managed Care Fund) to modify IT systems and develop reporting requirements. 3)Ongoing costs to DMHC of $200,000 (Managed Care Fund) to examine reports and review compliance. Costs to CDI are likely to be minor and absorbable. 4)The fiscal impact of loss ratio enforcement is uncertain. The actual costs would depend upon plan compliance with the AB 1962 Page 2 measure, whether plans are meeting requirements or must issue rebates, and the extent to which there is disagreement between carriers and regulators over the details of the calculations, including actuarial assumptions and the allocation of costs to the appropriate categories. 5)Potentially significant, unknown cost pressure on dental plan premiums paid by the state on behalf of state employees. Depending on how far dental plans are from meeting mandated loss ratios, dental plans may raise premiums as one strategy to meet loss ratios. The state currently spends approximately $10.5 million on dental HMO plan premiums, and $203 million on dental PPO premiums. Large-group PPO plans are more likely to meet the bill's specified ratios; thus, significant impacts are not expected for the majority of state employee plans. Dental HMO plans, which are lower-cost and have a smaller premium base on which the loss ratio applies, are more likely to be affected by this bill. COMMENTS 1)Purpose . A federal ACA provision requiring health insurers to spend a minimum amount of premiums collected on clinical services has been promoted as increasing transparency, value, and administrative efficiency of health plans. This bill intends to provide the same benefits to consumers of dental plans by establishing minimum dental loss ratios (DLRs). 2)Current Loss Ratios . According to the National Association of Dental Plans 2009 Financial Operations Report, current DLRs as defined in this bill appear to be in the range of 65% for individual and small group markets, and around 75% for all markets combined. Generally, PPO products with wide networks of dentists from which patients can choose tend to have higher premiums than HMO products with constrained networks and rules related to specialist access. PPO plans generally have higher premiums, so administrative costs comprise a smaller proportion of the premium, leading to higher DLRs. Currently, DMHC calculates loss ratio for dental plans based on other reported financial information, but it is not based on standardized calculation as required for health plans. The Medi-Cal program requires a minimum loss ratio of 70% for contracting dental plans, and the former Healthy Families Program under the Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board AB 1962 Page 3 required loss ratios of around 80%. The National Association for Insurance Commissioners indicates in model code that benefits are generally deemed reasonable in relation to premiums provided the anticipated loss ratio is at least 60% for specialized health plans. 3)Recent Report on DLR in California . A report commissioned by the California Dental Association, the sponsors of this bill, evaluates factors to consider in establishing a minimum loss ratio for dental plans. It concludes: a) Any DLR requirement should be evaluated in the context of the current market and the changing landscape in a post-ACA marketplace. b) Additional data with respect to the actual loss ratios for California dental plans is needed before a specific value can be established. c) Uniform data and reporting should be established in order to gather the required data. d) Given the potential for imposition of a loss ratio to destabilize markets, careful monitoring and flexibility to phase in requirements are desirable. 1)Support . The California Dental Association (CDA) is the sponsor of this bill and argues that a minimum DLR will ensure dental consumers are afforded value for dental premiums in the same way that the MLR for health coverage protects consumers and has returned millions in rebates for consumers from health plans that exceed the limit. CDA states that the DLR requirement will encourage administrative efficiency, allow for greater transparency, increase the overall value of the benefit and possibly reduce premium costs. 2)Opposition . Health and dental plans write in opposition that this bill will dramatically increase dental premiums for Californians because a DLR requirement would not change the costs to administer the dental benefits. To comply, dental plans would either have to increase premiums or reduce administrative costs, which include customer service, grievances and appeals, prevention, clinical review, timely claims processing, fraud prevention, consumer education, regulatory compliance, and other core functions of the dental plans. Opponents point out that the ACA did not impose a DLR and federal law recognizes dental coverage as different from medical in terms of the way benefits are offered and premium AB 1962 Page 4 levels set. Opponents state that dental plans face disproportionately higher administrative costs (typically 4-6%) and typically lower margins. Since dental coverage is a voluntary purchase, dental plans incur additional marketing and outreach costs because purchasers are generally not buying coverage for hundreds or thousands and so the market must be reached group by group, individual by individual. Plans state that the voluntary nature of the market also forces dental plans to be efficient in order to keep premiums affordable and competitive. In addition, the California Chamber of Commerce opposes this bill, indicating they expect it will increase dental provider rates and increase the costs of coverage. 3)Staff Comment: Impact of Minimum Loss Ratio. As defined in this bill, the numerator of the loss ratio is the amount of premium revenue expended on costs for reimbursement for clinical services and for activities that improve dental quality. The denominator is the total premium revenue, excluding taxes and licensing fees, adjusted for various payments such as reinsurance. Assuming dental plans currently operate with lower loss ratios than required by this bill, there are two main strategies plans could use to increase loss ratios. One strategy is to reduce administrative costs, including profit, in order to ensure more premium dollars are spent on clinical services. The second strategy is to raise premiums and direct extra dollars to clinical services. Given the limited data available about current DLRs among California dental plans, it appears that many would be in violation of this bill's standards. If this bill were to become law, and if plans are indeed far from meeting the required loss ratios, it is reasonable to assume a two-pronged strategy of reduced administrative expenses, coupled with increased premiums and payments for clinical services would be necessary in order to comply. In this way, premium pressure could result across all dental markets, although competitive pressure could mitigate the increase. If loss ratios were deemed too high to meet while maintaining a worthwhile profit margin, particularly for very low cost dental plans in the individual and small-group markets, it is reasonable to assume the level of loss ratio required by this AB 1962 Page 5 bill would lead to some level of reduced competition in these markets. This may reduce availability of low-cost dental plans. Given apparent consensus that dental plans differ from health plans in important ways, the fact that no standardized loss ratio calculations are available to serve as a basis by which to assess the current California market, the potential for market disruption, and, most importantly for this committee, the potential for premium cost increases in order to meet a minimum loss ratio threshold designed for comprehensive health care plans, staff suggests considering options other than immediate imposition of numerical thresholds specified in the bill including, potentially, lower numerical thresholds, standardization of loss ratio reporting, flexibility to exempt very low-premium plans, phasing in of a minimum loss ratio, or other ways to set achievable goals that further the consumer interest in transparency and accountability while mitigating unintended consequences. Finally, significant concern has been voiced by dental plans regarding the requirement to send rebates to consumers if their dental plan fails to meet DLR requirements. They argue they would be forced to allocate significant administrative resources to issue de minimis rebates, given the low very cost of some plans. If a minimum threshold is imposed, alternative enforcement mechanisms should be considered in order to avoid significant administrative costs and burden to mail de minimis rebates. 4)Previous Legislation . AB 18 (Pan) of 2013 initially focused on pediatric oral care offered in the California Health Benefit Exchange and was amended to impose a dental loss ratio, rate filing and review requirements and other specific standards on dental plans offering that coverage. AB 18 was referred to this committee but was not heard at the request of the author. Analysis Prepared by : Lisa Murawski / APPR. / (916) 319-2081