Replies to post #87886 on Biotech Values

[jbog]

Zipjet

The question I have is whether there is an industry left after this. Can the industry pay out 80% (or whatever the mandate is) on medical expenses and still be viable? I would love to see some number on the income statement for the industry that broke out the data. I am sure it is out there somewhere.

Depending on who does the report, but many of the non-profits are well above this number now whereas it's only the small for profit group insurers that might not meet this number currently.

By the way, Property and Casualty Insurers have a pay ratio of 40% and Auto insurers are less than 50%.

Maybe they're next.

[DewDiligence]

Re: Constitutionality (or lack thereof) of healthcare bill

I doubt that any [constitutional] challenge to requiring a fixed percentage (80%?) of medical insurance revenues being spent on medical costs will be successful. The question I have is whether there is an industry left after this.

Richard Epstein, a law professor at University of Chicago, has this to say in today’s WSJ:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704304504574610040924143158.html

Traditional public utility regulation applies to such services as gas, electric and water, which were supplied by natural monopolists. Left unregulated, they could charge excessive or discriminatory prices. The constitutional art of rate regulation sought to keep monopolists at competitive rates of return.

To control against the risk of confiscatory rates, the Supreme Court also required the state regulator to allow each firm to obtain a market rate of return on its invested capital, taking into account the inherent riskiness of the venture. The orthodox legal approach was summed up in Justice William Rehnquist's unanimous 1989 decision in Duquesne Light v. Barasch. Duquesne Light allowed the state regulators a wide choice of methods so long as the "bottom line" secured the appropriate rate of return. There's no need to discuss the fine points here, because not one syllable in the Reid bill is dedicated to securing that constitutionally guaranteed minimum rate of return.

Duquesne Light carries extra weight here because health-insurance industries are far from natural monopolies, so that regulating their rates calls for an extra dollop of judicial scrutiny. At this point, the Reid bill is on a collision course with the Constitution. I take it for granted that, constitutionally, the federal government could not just require all private health insurers to liquidate tomorrow, without compensation.

What's done here is a close second. The inexorable squeeze between the constricted revenue sources allowable that insurers get under the Reid bill and the extensive and uncertain new legal obligations it imposes is likely to result in a massive cash-flow crunch that will drive the firms in the individual and small-group health insurance markets into speedy bankruptcy. The Supreme Court should apply the constitutional brakes to this foolhardy scheme if Congress doesn't come to its senses first.