I suspect you might vote no if you worked in the dental insurance industry.

So, yes if you’re not.

I mean, in order to pay for the shit that government doesn’t consider 84% I’d assume insurance companies will just raise their rate.

That's not how loss ratios work.

By law if they "raised their rate" they would have to offer even more coverage after doing so.

Question 2 looks to put a limit on the % profit they are allowed to make, not the actual number. If a dental company is over the limit, do you really think they are going to give the money back? Probably not.

I work in fraud, waste, an abuse (albeit more on the medical side than dental) and a fairly common thing we see is companies with medical loss ratio limits is allowing A LOT more FWA to occur in their plans, then increase spending on recoveries/tracking (which falls under the umbrella of "efforts to improve the quality of care" even though in reality they are allowing behavior they didnt allow before) which puts them under the MLR limit. And oh by the way, they also get to keep the money they recover which doesnt affect the MLR.
So basically, it incentives payers to allow more fraud, waste, and abuse to happen in their plans, which increases costs for the average member, and then they double dip by profiting from the recoveries

Your point?

It's literally in the first sentence. But since you seem literacy-challenged I'll just reiterate that there's no causal link between this law and them raising rates.

[deleted]

"That's not how loss ratios work." That's literally my point. It's like you're just using phrases you've heard an adult say in an argument before without understanding their rhetorical function.

Just, because you have a literacy problem doesn't mean I or anyone else here besides you "doesn't understand ratios."

The fact that you aren't even capable of articulating what you think I'm getting wrong but are arguing it anyway just outs you as a barely literate trog trying to sound smarter on the internet than you could ever in your absolute wildest dreams hopw to actually be.

[deleted]

Oh that's cute it thinks it figured out how to read and do math.

84% of $1 is $0.84, leaving $0.16, not $0.26.

>Your low IQ is showing.

The irony

>There is no reason to support this unless you are a dentist who wants to raise their rates.

FYI, overly broad statements like this make your whole argument suspect because they show you can't be trusted to be honest and/or think

I'm leaning towards yes, but i do have genuine reservations with this.

For one, how am I in any way qualified to decide what ratio is appropriate? Why 83% and not 80%? Or 90%? I like the idea here, but, and i know this is a more complicated ask, id like to see these things done through a mandate to a trustworthy and qualified group who sets the ratios.

Also, there is a carve out for the insurance commissioner to be able to adjust or wave the refund, but if that's not done, i imagine small insurers probably can't tolerate this law? I'm not sure how much to worry about that given that would require they have a worse loss ratio and therefore likely just be a worse plan