The company says it is protecting nursing home residents by curbing unnecessary hospital transfers. Whistleblowers allege cost-cutting tactics have endangered the elderly
Premiums are revenue. You posted stats showing they are not already getting the 20% portion for themselves, and that 20% portion is for running the business. Rebates never come into play because they never hit the 20%.
If they only get 15% of the revenue from premiums they are only getting 75% of their potential cut which is used to run the fucking business before the possibility of profit comes into play. That means they have a huge incentive to cut any costs they can to approach their 20% cut WHICH THEY ARE NOT ALREADY GETTING.
I already posted the simplest math possible. Your math is wrong. Your assumptions are wrong. Just fucking accept that you don’t understand and believe literally everyone else that understands how this works including the people who write professional articles about the topic.
Again, I quoted you the exact figures that show year over year consistency with aligning to the range required by the law. Do you disagree with their findings?
No, they are saying it doesn’t work the way you describe because the companies never actually reach their 20% cut. Rebates don’t cap their net revenue because they are never close to the cap.
No, they are saying it doesn’t work the way you describe because the companies never actually reach their 20% cut.
Lol absolutely not. They said no such law exists that would require insurers to rebate customers. Again, unlike you I’m happy to quote anything you think wasn’t said.
Rebates don’t cap their net revenue because they are never close to the cap.
Therefore, no matter how much you drop
b,dis still always going to be 20% ofa.Where does the extra amount in
dcome from?Premiums are revenue. You posted stats showing they are not already getting the 20% portion for themselves, and that 20% portion is for running the business. Rebates never come into play because they never hit the 20%.
If they only get 15% of the revenue from premiums they are only getting 75% of their potential cut which is used to run the fucking business before the possibility of profit comes into play. That means they have a huge incentive to cut any costs they can to approach their 20% cut WHICH THEY ARE NOT ALREADY GETTING.
I already posted the simplest math possible. Your math is wrong. Your assumptions are wrong. Just fucking accept that you don’t understand and believe literally everyone else that understands how this works including the people who write professional articles about the topic.
Premiums are gross revenue.
dhere is net revenue. That is what you misunderstood here. Do you understand it now?I showed you a source that says they are.
No one here has shared a single one…
Can you admit that they are not starting out with their full 20% cut?
That is the entire reason you cannot accept any explanations based on the reality that they have some wiggle room to increase profits.
Again, I quoted you the exact figures that show year over year consistency with aligning to the range required by the law. Do you disagree with their findings?
Removed by mod
The range I’m referring to is the MLR requirements under the ACA.
It’s a range, because they must take on a minimum 80% MLR, but in some cases the law requires them to take an even higher MLR.
No, they are saying it doesn’t work the way you describe because the companies never actually reach their 20% cut. Rebates don’t cap their net revenue because they are never close to the cap.
Lol absolutely not. They said no such law exists that would require insurers to rebate customers. Again, unlike you I’m happy to quote anything you think wasn’t said.
So you disagree with the findings I linked you?