Description: ACA risk adjustment has now been in play for years. The original intent of risk adjustment was to help stabilize the market through measuring risk levels of each issuer. However, the risk adjustment program may have introduced additional uncertainty due to annual market shifts and model changes, making risk adjustment estimation is a difficult task. This article analyzes the results over time, including impacts from market changes and model changes.

Description: Any prudent organization that is obligated to cover health claims will consider the risk that those medical claims vastly exceed expectations. This is true for an employer self-funding employee health benefits, a health system contracted with two-way risk (e.g., Accountable Care Organizations ACOs), and a small or mid-sized health insurance company. Without protection, these risk bearers can incur ruinous losses. Interestingly, the forms of insurance sold to cover such large medical claims, although quite similar, sometimes go by different names depending upon the buyer. • Employer Stop-loss (ESL): self-funded employers who want protection against large unanticipated claims • Provider Excess (PXS): at-risk health systems who have taken delegated risk from a public or private payer and desire protection against large unanticipated claims • Medical Excess/HMO Reinsurance (HMO Re): health insurers (including HMOs) who desire protection against large unanticipated claims The concepts we discuss in this article apply to all three categories of large claim risk.

Description: An introduction to the ACA@10 Strategic Initiative, which examines the impact of the Affordable Care Act 10 years after its passage.

Description: Read the December 2019 issue of Health Watch, published by the Health Section. Practical information for actuaries, articles impact sections, section activities.

Description: Numerous behavioral finance theories have emerged in recent years, many of which apply to insurance. The presenters look at key theories and their use in explaining, predicting and inducing behavior from the perspective of the health insurance customer journey.

Description: On average, contracts receiving their first star rating receive 3.20 stars, compared to existing or established contracts receiving 3.90 stars on average. This 0.70 disparity in quality ratings creates significant hardship on new contracts when this lower star rating decreases their payments in the following calendar year. This article explores the disparity in Medicare Advantage Star Ratings between contracts receiving their first star ratings (“New” contracts) and existing contracts, including: 1. Understanding what happens to Medicare Advantage Payments when contracts receive lower star ratings? – What is the Star Rating cliff and why does it matter to new contracts? 2. Explaining when a contract receives their first star rating and how much enrollment this requires – When does the Star Rating cliff occur? 3. Noting which specific star measures “New” contracts struggle with, including those contracts under large parent organizations, contracts with rapid growth, and all other new contracts. – How can my contract avoid the Star Rating cliff?

Description: Read the February 2020 issue of Health Watch, published by the Health Section. Practical information for actuaries, articles impact sections, section activities.

Description: Actuarial Perspectives on COVID-19: June 10 Twitter Chat with the Society of Actuaries