27% is an outrageous increase request, similar in scope to last year's proposed 20% increase which the state reduced substantially. The state of Maryland should once again do all it can to reign in CareFirst and their attempt to price people in need of health insurance out of the Exchange market. Such an increase would be a hardship to me as a self-employed business partner who uses CareFirst through the MD exchange and certainly to others who rely on affordable insurance to attend to chronic health issues. Please reject this outrageous and usurious price increase request from CareFirst.
    Submitted By: Marc D    Location: Hyattsville MD    Date: 5/22/2015

Documents: None   

27% is an outrageous increase request, similar in scope to last year's proposed 20% increase which the state reduced substantially. The state of Maryland should once again do all it can to reign in CareFirst and their attempt to price people in need of health insurance out of the Exchange market. Such an increase would be a hardship to me as a self-employed business partner who uses CareFirst through the MD exchange and certainly to others who rely on affordable insurance to attend to chronic health issues. Please reject this outrageous and usurious price increase request from CareFirst.
        Location: Baltimore MD    Date: 5/26/2015

Documents: None   

Last year's 13.3% hike was hard enough to stomach and pay. Now asking 27%???? Please, please approve only what is necessary for financial stability. Cost of medical care has NOT increased 27% this year. This is absurd. I can only hope the regulators do their job.
        Location: Baltimore MD    Date: 6/3/2015

Documents: None   

This increase is simply ridiculous. It's way to high and would put insurance costs way out of reach for myself and others. If any other industry had a 30% increase the company would be forced to respond to consumers with a lower price because they simply wouldn't stand for it. This is theft, through and through.
    Submitted By: Mike     Location: White Hall MD    Date: 6/3/2015

Documents: None   

I think we all know they probably won't get this much, but why should they get any increase? These prices can't keep going up when the salaries of their consumers are not, in addition to the fact that the consumers are generally paying MUCH higher deductibles. Few consumers are reporting an anticipated increase in income for 2015 over 2013 or 2014. Plus the Blues are still getting a significant % of the individual market share. I also believe the Blues can be much more efficient with the premiums they are already getting. Consumers who desperately need coverage should be the primary focus of these considerations, not the profits of these insurance companies, and their minor losses, if they're even real.
    Submitted By: Pat Gussio    Location: Baltimore MD    Date: 6/8/2015

Documents: None   

Hopefully this is not just a pro forma request for comments. Due to character limit, I’ll focus only on one plan (28137MD0370009, BC Bronze 6000) that illustrates the essence of why this request (and all requests that rely on the same “justification”) should not be approved. Section III of the Unified Rate Review Template shows that in 2014, this plan took in $28.6 million in premiums and allowed claims of $18.0 million, of which $17.3 million were paid. Thus, the claim rate was 63% of premiums and the payout rate was 60%. 40% of premiums should be quite sufficient to administer this already overpriced plan. Section IV of the same Template shows the plan forecast for 2016, upon which this rate request is presumably based. Forecasted premiums increase by 52% to $43.5 million (through a combination of rate and membership increases). However, forecasted claims increase by 340% to $79.1 million. Forecasted payouts increase by a more “modest” 94% to $33.5 million. The amount of premiums available to fund non-claim related activity declines by about 11% from $11.3 million in 2014 to $10.1 million in 2016. The entire linchpin of this forecast is the increase in claim payout. If claims are scaled with premiums, the forecasted 2016 claim figure would be $27.4 million with a payout of $26.3 million. At $43.5 million, premiums collected exceed claims paid by $17.2 million, an increase of 71% from that forecasted for 2016 by CareFirst and 52% from that observed by CareFirst in 2014 (where the payout rate by CareFirst’s own calculations was quite favorable to CareFirst at only 60%). However, even this forecast is overstated since the premium increase includes both new members (for whom additional claim activity would be expected) and new rates (which should have no influence on claims). If we estimate the effect of allowing no increase in rates by holding the forecasted 2016 “Plan Adjusted Index Rate” to $172.15 as observed in 2014 (as opposed to $230.15 as assumed in CareFirst’s forecast for 2016), then increased membership alone would drive premium increases to $32.6 million (down from $43.5 million). This still represents an increase of 14% over 2014. If we then scale payouts in accordance with the premium increase, the forecasted 2016 claim figure would be $20.5 million with a payout of $19.7 million. Premiums collected would exceed claims paid by $12.9 million, a 14% increase over the $11.3 million observed in 2014. The increase would be sufficient to fund an 8% increase in the claim payout rate while maintaining the 2014 premium overage. The bottom line is that under any reasonable scenario, this plan, just as it did in 2014, will operate in the black for 2016 without any rate increase. Barring some rational explanation for why individuals in a high deductible plan would somehow start consuming that deductible so as to increase claims by an incredible 340% over the activity observed in 2014, it is not possible to find the CareFirst forecast to be plausible (let alone likely). Given the performance of this plan in 2014, the actual requested rate increase should be negative. Given the rate increases I have observed in the last two years as a self-employed engineer, it is clear that no one will take these issues seriously until such time as all individuals, regardless of employer, have the pleasure of working through the individual marketplace. Maybe then, there will a realistic assessment of the equity of the rates for individual plans. A look at the requested rates for the small employer plans suffices to illustrate the general “who cares” attitude when it comes to individual payers; as exemplified in the May 16 Baltimore Sun article on these rate requests, “rates are not for insurance coverage offered by large employers or companies that are self-insured, so they would not affect most people.” Nice, as long as one is “most people.” Please perform the appropriate due diligence on this request.
    Submitted By: Dan Meszler    Location: Abingdon MD    Date: 6/10/2015

Documents: None   

My insurance cost more than doubled under the forced change to Obamacare. Raising it at all 1 year later is completely unacceptable. My income has not increased. I expect health insurance, a basic necessity, to increase no faster than inflation, 3 to 4% a year. Everyone's income should increase correspondingly. Obviously Carefirst is taking good care of its executives and administrative branch with 40% of extorted health care dollars going to pay for those expenses. In countries where health care is socialized they pay typically 10% of health care dollars to administration. We socialize our police, fire and military and we need to do so with our health care. Thank you, Will
    Submitted By: William Small    Location: Annapolis MD    Date: 6/15/2015

Documents: None   

These increases are hurting the consumer. We already have plans that we are afraid to use since you have to meet the high deductibles that are in place ($1500 - $6000+) before the plans kick in and pay something. Most of the plans also have a 20% co-insurance clause "after the deductible", which has to be met as well. The consumer's out-of-pocket expenses are quite high, even with the cap, which is typically $6350. Now, with the increase, this will mean higher premiums. Just don't get sick and try to use the insurance. Stay well and ensure that you take advantage of the preventive care services that are available. I do not support the increase unless the deductibles are substantially reduced and the co-insurances are eliminated.
    Submitted By: PG G    Location: Silver Spring MD    Date: 6/15/2015

Documents: None   

Thanks to the comment and analysis by Mr. Meszler, he is right on. Another comment was last year the average rate increase request was 23%, the average approved was 10%. This year the average requested increase is 27%, not hard to see where this is going. My wife and I are both on a bronze plan, the actual increase from last year to the current year was 17%, and we never only accumulated less then $ 200 toward the bronze deductible, (12000) we work hard to not use medical services and are blessed to avoid them for the most part. Its tough on any couple to spend over $ 8000 per year when the services used would cost retail no more then $ 600.00. I understand risk management and the need for insurance, but now the risk is all in the unwarranted increases. Customers should get a rebate at the end of a service year for risk pool dollars saved as an incentive. If this going to be a mandated and regulated industry, then lets keep these increased tied to CPI or some other index that is reflective of real cost increases, not some pie in the sky request of 27% then mandated by state to 12% which is still to high. After two years the state regulatory agency should have a better handle on these cost and what is appropriate, don't just settle on the easy round numbers.
    Submitted By: B H    Location: Mardela Springs MD    Date: 6/25/2015

Documents: None   

My husband and I have a Carefirst Blue Choice policy through the Maryland Health Exchange. We have recently had an experience with CareFirst that leads us to rather strongly object to their request for a rate increase. The take home message of our story is that CareFirst was presented with 2 bills for identical services on our behalf and chose to make payment based on the higher of the two. To briefly explain, after an overnight hospital stay, 2 bills were generated for identical routine lab services (blood work): one for $390 and one for over $10,000.00. Both bills were for the exact same lab tests. CareFirst chose to make payment based on the higher bill and denied the lesser amount. Rather than increase the rates for its Health Exchange customers, perhaps they should examine their business model? What is the advantage to the company for paying the inflated bill? Hmmmm. Please let there be someone in this arena who is truly an advocate for his constituents. Do the right thing and deny CareFirst’s request.
    Submitted By: Theresa Reschke    Location: Baltimore MD    Date: 7/1/2015

Documents: None   

I urge the Insurance Commission to limit CareFirst's rate increase to 5% or less. While CareFirst reduces allowed charges paid to providers, how much has CareFirst reduced administrative, promotional, marketing, advertising and internal costs? Why is CareFirst giving away gift cards to subscribers when they and the PCP complete a health assessment (which is a pain in the neck)? Doesn't CareFirst know my health condition? The 2015 increase already caused me to make late payments for the first time in a decade. A similar or greater increase in 2016 will be a disaster for my pocketbook and I won't be able to afford my current plan.
    Submitted By: P Clarke    Location: Kensington MD    Date: 7/1/2015

Documents: None