United States: IREG Update - The Emerging Regulatory Battleground Over Long-Term Care Insurance Rate Increases

The emerging regulatory battleground over long-term care insurance rate increases

As class action lawsuits challenging premium rate increases on long-term care (LTC) insurance have faced dismissal in recent years, policyholders have become increasingly active on the administrative front, filing grievances with regulators to protest approved rate increases through the administrative hearing process and making efforts to sway regulators to preempt or limit rate increase approvals.

Background

A relatively new product that gained traction in the late 1980s, LTC insurance pays for some or all of the costs of nursing homes, assisted-living facilities and home health care. When insurers first began pricing LTC policy blocks, they had little comparable experience to draw on. Over time and with the benefit of hindsight, it has become clear that the LTC industry as a whole missed the mark in their initial pricing assumptions and underestimated factors such as the number of policies that would lapse, the longevity of policyholders, and rising health care costs. As a result, LTC insurers set premiums too low for those older blocks of business and have since sought regulatory approval for rate increases. Not surprisingly, policyholders have fought back.

The rise and fall of LTC rate increase litigation

Beginning in the late 1990s, insurers have been faced with class action lawsuits challenging LTC rate increases. A common argument has been that LTC insurers defrauded consumers through a "low-ball pricing" or "bait and switch" scheme intended to deceive customers into buying insurance policies at artificially low rates only to increase rates later, leaving policyholders with no choice but to pay up or forfeit their policies. Although causes of action vary from case to case, policyholders have typically brought claims for fraud, unfair or deceptive trade practices, and/or breach of contract. Yet, despite some initial successes, policyholder class actions to challenge LTC insurance rate increases have faltered in recent years.

In 2008, two federal court decisions signaled a sea change in the judicial response to such claims. In Rakes v. Life Investors, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed a district court's grant of summary judgment to the LTC insurer, finding that policyholders had been duly warned about the possibility of rate increases "on the first page of its policies, in boldface, capital letters." 582 F.3d 886, 894 (8th Cir. 2008).  As such, plaintiffs could not plausibly claim that the insurer had fraudulently misrepresented that policyholders should expect level premiums. Id. Similarly, in Alvarez v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit rejected the policyholders' argument that "guaranteed renewable" language in the policy somehow implied level premiums.  Rather, the court held that the policies explicitly warned that rates could increase and therefore only "guaranteed the right to renew the policy, not the financial ability to renew the policy." 2008 WL 647784, at *3 (3d Cir. 2008).

Then, in 2011, a pair of court decisions applied the "filed rate doctrine" to dismiss claims challenging LTC rate increases. See, Armour v. Transamerica, 2012 WL 234032, at *3 (D. Kan. Jan. 25, 2012); see also Flint v. MetLife, 2011 WL 7463938, at *2 (6th Cir. Dec. 12, 2011). In deference to the unique expertise of state regulators who evaluate and approve insurance premium rates, the filed rate doctrine bars policyholders from challenging insurers over premium rates that have been filed with a state regulatory body.

The precedent set by these recent decisions have proven to be a powerful defense against rate increase challenges.

Administrative proceedings: The new battleground?

As policyholders have failed to prevail against insurers in the courtroom, some have instead petitioned for administrative review of the state's decision to approve rate increases. These administrative proceedings typically have the hallmarks of a litigation, and although the state insurance department is typically the focus, insurers may also get caught in the cross-fire.

For example, in 2009, an insurer's intervention was instrumental in defending the Kentucky Department of Insurance's work when a retired teachers association sought a hearing to challenge Kentucky's approval of LTC rate increases. After discovery, pre-/post-trial briefing, and a four-day trial with fact and expert witnesses, the administrative judge ultimately upheld the rate increases. Similar to a trial, the administrative process subjected the state (and the insurer) to intense scrutiny, resulting in a 60-page opinion analyzing the Department's rationale for approval, including a detailed discussion of whether the Department had applied the proper loss ratio test, whether the insurer supplied accurate data and reasonable projections, and whether the Department had fully complied with all statutory requirements prior to approving the rate increase.

This year, a new proceeding is underway to challenge LTC rate increases that were approved by the Washington Commissioner in July 2015. The policyholder has requested a hearing to determine whether the rate increase approval should "be set aside as legally unfounded and unenforceable," and more specifically whether the Commissioner considered the insurer's past and prospective loss experience in Washington or other similar states. Discovery is now underway and a hearing is set for June 2016.

State agency's responses to policyholder activism

As policyholder outcry grows with each LTC rate increase, state insurance regulators have reacted in myriad ways.

First, the NAIC has been active in developing model language for the states that is designed to account for the interests of both policyholders and insurers, such as the NAIC Long-Term Care Insurance Model Act, Model Regulation, and Model Bulletin. For example, the Model Bulletin, adopted by the NAIC in 2013, suggests more stringent loss ratio tests to be applied in evaluating rate increase applications on older "pre-rate stability" policies, and provides guidance for mitigating the impact of approved rate increases on policyholders.  Many states have adopted portions of the NAIC's model language, both formally and informally. For example, in 2015, Virginia enacted new rules that, in part, incorporate recent revisions to the NAIC's Model LTC Regulation regarding long-term care premium rate increases.  Other states are using, as one metric in the rate increase review process, the new "dual loss ratio" framework in the Model Bulletin, even without formally adopting that Bulletin. 

Second, commissioners in several states are holding public hearings before making decisions on large rate increase requests. In August 2015, in large part due to the volume and magnitude of rate increase applications being filed in that state, Minnesota held a "fact-finding" hearing to gather information from consumers and insurers on how to appropriately evaluate the long-term care industry. This month, the Pennsylvania Insurance Department plans to hold a public hearing on March 10, 2016, in part to explain its process in reviewing and approving LTC rate requests. The Pennsylvania Insurance Department explained that the magnitude of the latest requests—which range from 100 to 130 percent—calls for transparency by having four specific LTC insurers "publicly explain why they are asking for large increases."

Third, some states are instituting formal rate caps on annual LTC rate increases. In February 2015, New Hampshire adopted rules capping the size and frequency of rate increases based on policyholders' ages. See N.H. R.S.A. Ins. §§ 3601.03(b)(1); 3601.08(e); 3601.19; 3601.27. In February 2016, Oklahoma announced that it would cap LTC rate increases at 10 percent annually, and, this year, Maryland intends to hold a public hearing on the possibility of instituting a 15 percent LTC rate increase cap. Other states may be using informal "desk drawer rules" to limit rate increases.

Finally, at least one state appears to be uniformly denying rate increases based on their interpretation of whether the increases are "unfair," "excessive," or "affordable" pursuant to state statutory bases for disapproval. According to recent news articles, Vermont has uniformly denied all LTC rate increase requests on closed blocks of business, taking the position that it is "unfair" to pass along the costs of inaccurate actuarial assumptions to consumers even if those assumptions were reasonable at the time.

Conclusion

As LTC insurers have struggled with rate adequacy on their older blocks of business, rate increase requests on those policy blocks have been commonplace for nearly two decades. Regulatory and policyholder pushback has only increased over time, and is now at a boiling point.  However, regulatory action to severely limit increases may have unintended consequences.  Some carriers have elected to stop new sales in states that have been unwilling to approve necessary rate increases. Other carriers are discontinuing new business altogether in light of the challenging regulatory environment.  As a result, senior citizens in some states may find themselves with fewer LTC options, and states may ultimately be shouldering more of the cost of providing LTC services to their aging populations.

ICYMI...

Noteworthy links from the past two weeks

General

Health

  • US News reported that the Affordable Care Act has not dramatically reduced ER visits [U.S. News & World Report]
  • The federal Office of Inspector General issued an exhaustive report on the initial failures and subsequent recovery of Healthcare.gov [Law360]
  • Membership in "health sharing ministries" (which are exempt from the Affordable Care Act) has grown [U.S. News & World Report]
  • Congress grilled CMS officials over the failure of several Affordable Care Act co-ops and the health of those that remain [Modern Healthcare]

Property and Casualty

International

  • Fitch Ratings agency opined on the proposed Insurance Capital Standard for Global Systemically Important Insurers [Reuters]
  • The US and EU met to sketch the broad outlines of a potential "covered agreement" governing transatlantic insurance regulation [Law360, The Wall Street Journal]

The IREG Update is edited by Matt Gaul

Dentons is the world's first polycentric global law firm. A top 20 firm on the Acritas 2015 Global Elite Brand Index, the Firm is committed to challenging the status quo in delivering consistent and uncompromising quality and value in new and inventive ways. Driven to provide clients a competitive edge, and connected to the communities where its clients want to do business, Dentons knows that understanding local cultures is crucial to successfully completing a deal, resolving a dispute or solving a business challenge. Now the world's largest law firm, Dentons' global team builds agile, tailored solutions to meet the local, national and global needs of private and public clients of any size in more than 125 locations serving 50-plus countries. www.dentons.com.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Events from this Firm
18 Sep 2018, Other, Dubai, United Arab Emirates

In December 2017, FIDIC published new editions of the Red Book (Construction), the Yellow Book (Design and Build) and the Silver Book (Turn-key), the first re-write since 1999.

26 Sep 2018, Conference, New York, United States

Dentons is delighted to support a global IT services and consulting firm Miratech as an event host partner at their annual conference called M-Force18 New York on September 27th. The event will be held at Dentons New York office in the heart of Midtown Manhattan, opposite Rockefeller Center.

2 Oct 2018, Seminar, Dallas, United States

We are pleased to offer a program of five sessions designed specifically for in-house counsel. Topics will include:

  • In-house corporate ethical issues
  • What recent Supreme Court decisions mean for business
  • Keeping lawyers out of your benefit plans
  • Litigation tactics for in-house counsel
  • Employment issues in the age of #MeToo
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions