• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Celebrate the fucking wins.

If you don’t believe freedom is for everybody, then the thing you love isn’t freedom, it is privilege.

Republicans: “Abortion is murder but you can take a bus to get one.” Easy peasy.

Russian mouthpiece, go fuck yourself.

Let’s not be the monsters we hate.

Balloon Juice, where there is always someone who will say you’re doing it wrong.

Too often we confuse noise with substance. too often we confuse setbacks with defeat.

You are either for trump or for democracy. Pick one.

Reality always lies in wait for … Democrats.

Consistently wrong since 2002

The republican speaker is a slippery little devil.

It’s the corruption, stupid.

Republicans are the party of chaos and catastrophe.

White supremacy is terrorism.

If you are still in the gop, you are either an extremist yourself, or in bed with those who are.

The desire to stay informed is directly at odds with the need to not be constantly enraged.

I see no possible difficulties whatsoever with this fool-proof plan.

So many bastards, so little time.

Dumb motherfuckers cannot understand a consequence that most 4 year olds have fully sorted out.

Donald Trump found guilty as fuck – May 30, 2024!

Good lord, these people are nuts.

Our job is not to persuade republicans but to defeat them.

They don’t have outfits that big. nor codpieces that small.

We will not go back.

Mobile Menu

  • Seattle Meet-up Post
  • 2025 Activism
  • Targeted Political Fundraising
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • COVID-19
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2025 Activism
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Anderson On Health Insurance / CSR assumptions and impacts

CSR assumptions and impacts

by David Anderson|  May 10, 20179:17 am| 8 Comments

This post is in: Anderson On Health Insurance, C.R.E.A.M.

FacebookTweetEmail

Yesterday’s letter from Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Tennessee illustrates the strategic dilemma insurers face as they have to set prices for next year. What should they assume on Trump administration monkey wrenching?

Given the potential negative effects of federal legislative and/or regulatory changes, we believe it will be necessary to price-in those downside risks, even at the prospect of a higher-than-average margin for the short term, or until stability can be achieved. These risks include but are not limited to the elimination of Cost Sharing Reduction subsidies (CSRs), the removal of the individual mandate…

Now it is time for some game theory.

Let’s assume that executives at insurers are risk loss averse. The pain of losing $100 million dollars outweighs the benefit of making $100 million dollars as the executives may get fired for losing money. There are two cases we need to think through. The first is the simpler case when a single insurer is the only insurer in a region. The second case is when there are multiple insurers with two subcases.

Let’s start simple.

Here the insurer faces two choices. Assume that CSR will be paid or not. The government can make two choices: pay CSR or not pay CSR.

If the insurer and government agree (Yes, Yes) or (No, No) then the product is priced on the underlying assumptions and contours of the market. It is business as usual. The interesting cases are where there is disagreement.

If the insurer thinks the government will fund CSR and thus price their products at medical growth rate and then the government does not pay CSR, the insurer is in severe trouble. A very large, very well capitalized insurer can take the hit of a loss but smaller insurers will go under in weeks as the state regulators have a legitimate reason to worry about solvency. If the insurer thinks the government will not fund CSR and thus prices very high but the government pays CSR, the insurer makes extremely outsized profits.

The Medical Loss Ratio (MLR) requirements will come into play. However MLR is a three year rolling average of claims over premiums. If an insurer had an MLR above 80% in 2016 and/or 2017, they can carry forward the credits to smooth out some of the excess gains so there would be less pay back to members. In a skewed way, this outcome cell in this scenario is an extremely convoluted and inefficient risk corridor.

Now what happens if there are multiple insurers in the market? We have two sub-cases. The first case is when all insurers make the same assumption. The second case has insurer decision making variance.

Same decision making is a bit more interesting. (Yes, Yes) and (No,No) has all of the insurers operating in a normal market. Insurers that offer the best products with the best value proposition regarding relative post-subsidy price should pick up most of the membership. This is effectively boring.

But things get a bit odder when all carriers agree but get the government action wrong. If the carriers think the government will pay but the government does not, the outcomes are unequal. The carrier with the absolute worst value proposition is not hurt that much. No one wants to buy that product anyway. It is a minor hit for an ugly plan.

Now if a insurer offers a very attractively priced plan with a good network and good customer service, they attract all of the membership. That usually is a good thing! Not in this case. Offering the most attractive plan means that plan takes all of the losses. And if that plan goes under, the special enrollment period refugees will choose the next most attractive plan, sending it under. This is an odd winner’s curse scenario.

If there are multiple insurer and they disagree the dynamics are interesting.  Insurers that assume they won’t be paid CSR always survive.  They won’t get much membership as they are massively overpriced for the market.  They will keep some portion of their sickest membership so they will be net risk adjustment recipients and their administrative costs relative to premiums will be very high.  But they survive.

In this split decision making scenario, the carriers that are optimistic that CSR will be paid are in an all or nothing scenario.  If they are right and the government pays CSR, they get almost all of the membership in the market.   Assuming they priced appropriately, they should make good money for the year.  If they guess wrong and CSR is not paid, they get all of the membership and the state regulators shut them down due to either a premium deficiency reserve (PDR) event as they have to come up with an extra 20 points of actuarial value that is not being compensated by the government, or there is a risk based capital problem as they have too many members to be safely covered by their current reserves.

But the dynamic changes once all of the optimistic insurers fold, liquidate or withdraw.  The surviving insurer(s) will have priced appropriately to handle the special enrollment period refugees from the optimistic insurers.  The pessimists will do fine in this scenario.

I am having a hard time seeing (with a strong risk aversion assumption) why a carrier would price on the assumption that CSR will be paid. There is little pay-off and great risk.

 

/game theory

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « When the papa found out he began to shout and he started the investigation
Next Post: Laughingstock »

Reader Interactions

8Comments

  1. 1.

    Ohio Mom

    May 10, 2017 at 9:33 am

    I admit that sometimes my eyes glaze over when the details of health coverage and policy are described. My take-away: the ways in which this administration and congress are screwing us over are varied and rich.

    I just called my Rep and one of my Senators. I only call the other — Sherrod Brown — once in a while to say, Carry On and Thanks.

    Now on to the rest of my day.

  2. 2.

    David Anderson

    May 10, 2017 at 9:47 am

    @Ohio Mom: This post is aimed at a different audience .. so glazed donuts are very good!

  3. 3.

    Bradley

    May 10, 2017 at 9:57 am

    David
    There is money to be made, potentially. You are strongly risk averse. But the variable you left out is you are basing your strong risk aversion on what probability the CSRs won’t get paid? It sure isn’t zero.

    I am not an actuary, and I am not in the insurance business. I may have an easier time sleeping with my nighty night set point.

    Brad

  4. 4.

    JFA

    May 10, 2017 at 10:17 am

    Emjoyed your post, but I have a nitpicky comment: “Let’s assume that executives at insurers are risk averse. The pain of losing $100 million dollars outweighs the benefit of making $100 million dollars.” The second sentence actually describes loss aversion, not risk aversion. In a standard risk averse (i.e. concave) utility function, the utility gain from receiving a certain amount of money is equal to the (magnitude of) utility loss from losing that same amount of money. (Utility of losing $100 million = -(Utility of getting $100 million)) What makes a person risk averse is that the utility from taking a risky bet is less that the utility from receiving the expected value of the bet for certain.

  5. 5.

    David Anderson

    May 10, 2017 at 11:21 am

    @Bradley: There is definitely a continuum of probability over the CSR payment but at some point a binary decision needs to be made — do we price as if CSR will be paid or if it is not to be paid. The actuaries and finance folks can massage the pricing assumptions behind the numbers a bit, but there is not a wide middle ground of “maybe” that works at all in any scenario.

  6. 6.

    Pie filter maintenance crew

    May 10, 2017 at 12:56 pm

    We’ll be done in a minute.

  7. 7.

    Frank Wilhoit

    May 10, 2017 at 1:38 pm

    A couple of factors that you do not mention could decisively outweigh the factors that you do discuss:
    1) Business decisionmaking is, quite generally, not rational but emotional. In this case the emotional drivers include sabotage and a subset of this is the game of chicken.
    2) State regulators have probably been captured/corrupted to some extent. State regulators and legislatures may have motives of sabotage etc. as above.

    Granted, it would be impossible to take these things into account in any rigorous manner.

  8. 8.

    Daddio7

    May 10, 2017 at 9:19 pm

    Call me a convert. Ever citizen should be provided free medical care. The billions of dollars saved should be reason enough not to mention better health for all. BUT! The government will also have to employ all medical personal and own all treatment facilities.

    The government has so enmeshed itself in healthcare they must go all the way. For example my wife needs a controlled medication with the letters “meth” in the name. No doctor in my county will proscribe this. Every month we drive 60 miles to see a specialist. Her insurance pays him $300 for him to see her for five minutes. He has a constant flow of patients. I imagine he sees over 200 a week. Sixty thousand a week because of drug laws. On top of that I heard his receptionist talking and he is opening up a medical marijuana clinic also. God only knows how much he will make there. As a government employ he would earn a good civil servant’s salary and save the system millions.

    Of course all that free care cost something and we can’t treat the whole world so a border wall would also have to be built. That way both sides could get some of what they want.

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

On The Road - BarcaChicago  - Off the Gunflint Trail/Boundary Waters 6
Image by BarcaChicago (7/7/25)

World Central Kitchen

Donate

Recent Comments

  • WTFGhost on Open Thread: BRICS-A-Bracket (Jul 7, 2025 @ 7:36pm)
  • dnfree on Open Thread: BRICS-A-Bracket (Jul 7, 2025 @ 7:33pm)
  • They Call Me Noni on Belated Pennsyltucky Dispatch Open Thread (Jul 7, 2025 @ 7:30pm)
  • Jackie on Belated Pennsyltucky Dispatch Open Thread (Jul 7, 2025 @ 7:30pm)
  • Geminid on Belated Pennsyltucky Dispatch Open Thread (Jul 7, 2025 @ 7:28pm)

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
No Kings Protests June 14 2025

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)
Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Social Media

Balloon Juice
WaterGirl
TaMara
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
DougJ NYT Pitchbot
mistermix

Keeping Track

Legal Challenges (Lawfare)
Republicans Fleeing Town Halls (TPM)
21 Letters (to Borrow or Steal)
Search Donations from a Brand

Feeling Defeated?  If We Give Up, It's Game Over

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2025 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!