What activist Insurance Commissioners in Blue states often forget about PL-15 aka McC-F is that states are permitted to self-regulate insurance and insurance companies, and are exempt from anti-trust laws for THE BENEFIT of consumers.
Also, there is a requirement in PL-15 that state regulation be effective in protecting consumers from negative anti-trust actions (vs. data collection and research by rating bureaus for the benefit of consumers via increased competition via small insurers with non-credible datasets) by insurers or agents/ brokers. It might be argued in court, very effectively, I believe, that the Trump EO would help consumers of health insurance who were previously inequitably rated and offered insufficient choice of coverage under ACA rules.
Finally, which ‘political color’ states with one or two insurers could be considered in violation of anti-trust laws (Red or Blue) due to the lack of competition (only 1 or 2 insurers offering health insurance – thru the exchanges)?
What activist Insurance Commissioners in Blue states often forget about PL-15 aka McC-F is that states are permitted to self-regulate insurance and insurance companies, and are exempt from anti-trust laws for THE BENEFIT of consumers.
Also, there is a requirement in PL-15 that state regulation be effective in protecting consumers from negative anti-trust actions (vs. data collection and research by rating bureaus for the benefit of consumers via increased competition via small insurers with non-credible datasets) by insurers or agents/ brokers. It might be argued in court, very effectively, I believe, that the Trump EO would help consumers of health insurance who were previously inequitably rated and offered insufficient choice of coverage under ACA rules.
Finally, which ‘political color’ states with one or two insurers could be considered in violation of anti-trust laws (Red or Blue) due to the lack of competition (only 1 or 2 insurers offering health insurance – thru the exchanges)?