Enforce: The Insurance Policy Enforcement Journal vol 12 | issue 1 Enforce vol 12 | issue 1 | Page 5

medical costs), the difference is to be refunded to all policyholders in that group, proportionately. Many employers do not appreciate that they are entitled to this protection. Thus, in the first few years of the health care law, many received refunds in the mail with no understanding as to why. Since then, the insurance companies have gotten smarter. At this point, most have avoided further refunds by meeting their medical loss ratios every year — or at least claiming to do so. Think about it — one easy way for insurance companies to meet their medical loss ratio requirements is simply by increasing their payments of claims. That way, they can keep their premiums the same, or even increase them. For fully insured plans, the ability to increase claim payments, and the maintenance of all records about those payments, lies exclusively within insurance company control. There is no disadvantage for insurance companies in increasing their claim payments; they simply pass through all the increased costs to the employers at renewal time. Next, think about this — as a legal matter, insurance companies actually benefit from overpaying claims, then recovering the overpayment through a fraud recovery action. The overpayment itself increases the numerator of the claim payments; the fraud recovery later provides a credit to that numerator — after the medical loss ratio has been calculated. This double benefit stands in stark contrast to an insurance company’s fraud prevention activities. When insurance companies utilize their alreadyexisting mechanisms for detecting and avoiding fraudulent claims from the outset, they do not get a credit toward their medical loss ratio for either the initial overpayment or the secondary recoupment. Although they end up in the same place financially in terms of the claim payment, they have missed the opportunity to inflate the numerator of the medical loss ratio calculation — and thereby to avoid owing policyholders a refund. Against this backdrop, it should not come as a surprise that there has been an increase recently in insurance company lawsuits seeking reimbursement of their own overpayments to providers. Or — that some insurance companies have been overt in acknowledging that the medical loss ratio Continued next page VOLUME 12 | ISSUE 1 5