What you wrote seems fully consistent with the blogpost. Unless you are suggesting that health insurance companies collude with providers to raise the cost of medical service?

▲

tqi 3 days ago | parent [-]

It doesn't require collusion, just misaligned incentives.

"Perversely, with the MLR requirement capping profit margins and administrative costs, insurers are discouraged from containing health plans’ premium increases. Economists have noted that the MLR requirement effectively turns health insurers into “cost-plus” businesses: If insurers’ predicted premiums are less than the actual medical care spending on claims, it can lead to higher MLRs and less profits, within MLR restrictions. Professor Scott Harrington warned early on that MLR requirements could reduce insurers’ motivation to control premium increases. Prior research has found that the MLR requirement is associated with stronger financial performance for insurers, since they can raise premiums to cover higher claims and still comply with the MLR threshold."

▲

peyton 3 days ago | parent [-]

That’s an opinion from an economist along with prior behavior, not reality. I’ve talked to one of the guys who worked on the ACA, and his take was basically providers will do things like e.g. buy up all the cardiologists in an area, then jack up prices across the board. Employers need to provide a certain bundle of services under the ACA. That’s where people are taking advantage.

	▲	supertrope 3 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		They’re locked into a red queen race. Providers merge to gain scale and negotiation power. Insurers merge to gain scale and negotiation power. The ACA encouraged scaling up to drive down unit costs, but it just resulted in companies scaling up to protect their margins.
	▲	486sx33 2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[dead]