Passed in 1945, the McCarran-Ferguson Act exempts the business of insurance from most federal regulation, inclusive of many antitrust statutes, of which other industries must comply. Healthcare reform, which would permit interstate competition within the insurance industry, would require significant modification or repeal of McCarran-Ferguson.
In February 2010, the US House of Representatives voted (406-19) to repeal McCarran-Ferguson. The related Senate bill was killed. Last year, the House again voted overwhelmingly to repeal McCarran-Ferguson. By contrast, the Senate failed to even take up the bill.
On February 16, 2017, the ADA submitted a white paper of formal testimony to Congress that highlighted the problematic concerns related to McCarran-Ferguson. The ADA contends that repeal would increase interstate competition within the insurance industry, elevate the number of insurance products and choices offered consumers, and reduce costs for purchasers (employers and patients) of plans.
The Competitive Health Insurance Reform Act, HR 372, which passed the House in 2017, was narrowly focused. Its design was limited to the business of healthcare insurance, including dental insurance. It would have no impact on the business of life insurance, property or casualty insurance, or any similar insurance vehicles. It was designed to reduce healthcare insurance costs for consumers. But once again, the Senate has failed to take up the bill.
“Oftentimes, the obstacles result when senators reach out to their state insurance commissioners. When senators review issues, they often seek input from state officials,” said Michael Graham, senior vice president of government and public affairs at the ADA.
“In this instance, the insurance commissioners have expressed that it is their responsibility to regulate insurance and do not want federal oversight and involvement in what they perceive is solely a state insurance commissioner’s responsibility,” said Graham.
However, Graham was not optimistic that there would be a realistic chance of the Senate addressing the bill in 2018.
“There is always a chance at the end of 2018 that we could see the advancement of many unfinished policy proposals. At this time, Senate leadership of both parties is focused on other issues,” said Graham, who also noted the potential difference between a House bill and a Senate bill.
“The bill passed the House last year,” Graham said. “We are still trying to have a Senate version of the bill introduced. The goal would be to have a Senate bill identical to the House bill.”
Related Articles
Calnon to Receive ADA Distinguished Service Award
The ADA’s Morning Huddle Focuses on Public Dental Benefits
