> Conventional accounting measures portray large health insurers such as UnitedHealth Group (UHG) as earning relatively low profit margins because they treat premium dollars that are subsequently paid out in medical claims as revenue. However, these medical claims are pass-through costs, not income retained by the insurer.
I don't understand this claim. Doesn't every business have costs to make its goods and services, and revenue when those are sold? A grocery store sells food and uses the money to buy more food, pay its employees, reinvest etc, and the profit leftover goes to the owners. An insurance company sells policies and similarly uses the money to pay claims, pay employees, reinvest, and profit. Why is the insurance company's sales revenue pass-through and the grocery store's sales revenue not?
Update: the replies so far all seem very superficial. Yes, I know that insurance is not exactly the same as grocery stores. This does not explain why they should suddenly be treated differently from an accounting perspective despite what everyone else before this moment has done.
I believe they are saying that only the portion of premiums paid by UHG customers _that are not_ spent on paying out claims should be counted as UHG revenue. That is if I and my employer pay UHG $18,000 over the course of the year and UHG pays out $2,500 to my doctors and to cover my prescriptions, only the remaining $15,500 should be counted as UHG revenue.
The thinking here is that because UHG is legally obligated to pay out claims, this money only "passes through" their hands. I believe the legal obligation is the thing here.
Anyway, if these pass through costs (the claims they are legally obligated to pay) are removed from the equation then their revenue number is smaller and their profit margin is larger.
Not sure I'm buying it tbh. I'm no fan of the American healthcare system, but we don't need to invent new accounting to make it look worse than it is.
Lots of businesses and industries have legal obligations to pay money for various things at various times, they don't treat that as pass through...it's revenue and expenses. Money is fungible.
An intuitive explanation is that financial products are, approximately, buying and selling as part of the same transaction. You can't separate the "selling premiums" part from the "paying out claims" part.
This is true of life insurance, investment firms, and banks. It's also true of marketplaces that connect buyers and sellers, like Etsy.
Groceries stores are buying from suppliers and selling to consumers, but those are separate operations. If the consumers opt out, the grocery stores (temporarily) still have a full and complete obligation to their suppliers. It's hard to sell to customers without supply, but if you try hard, you could theoretically do that as well.
Somebody with a better financial background might be able to define the nuances of accounting practices here, but there's already a pretty meaningful line that's established. It is kind of weird that health insurance doesn't behave like a financial product.
This is contrary to GAAP and operationally false. An insurer takes on the risks including the health of the insured pool and cost changes during the covered period. An insurance BROKER or AGENCY only books commissions as revenue, but an INSURER books premium as revenue. Similarly a stock BROKER or AGENT is only acting as an agent and isn’t a party to the actual transaction they execute. Similarly for platforms, auctioneers, or other agents.
I work for an insurance company so can shed some light here as this article is written by someone that clearly doesn't understand how the business model works.
Fundamentally every insurance company is governed by 3 ratios, loss ratio (what percentage of premium is paid to make the buyer of the insurance whole), expense ratio (cost of doing business, paying staff, keeping office lights on, paying vendors) and combined ratio (both of these combined). These are true for any insurance company which writes premium using their own capital, whether its health insurance, life insurance, property insurance, SMB insurance.
The thing this article is missing here is that the "pass through" costs are costs incurred by UHG directly, they are the ones paying the bills. How is this pass through, it's not being passed to the consumer, the only thing I pay is my deductible and retention which is at most a couple of thousand dollars, these are true costs borne by UHG. So in practice if I pay 100 bucks every paycheck, UHG is taking in 2600 bucks worth of premium, using average industry loss ratios which are say 60%, UHG is paying directly 1,560 bucks to care providers for my own care. I'm not paying that, what I pay is a deductible which is treated entirely separately.
I am the biggest insurance skeptic in the world because I think the business model is awful, a business's return on capital averages at 5-10% a year which is truly an awful return for how much capital is required. Insurance companies will make between 0 and 10% of underwriting profit a year (the pure profit from insurance premium minus total expenses) and they usually operate a very large investment vehicle invested typically 70% into bonds/gilts. That being said, this doctor's view of how insurance accounting works by comparing it to a biopharma or a trading brokerage firm is immensely disingenuous.
I'm not an accountant and don't claim to have a clean answer to how it should be accounted, but I hope I can highlight the conundrum.
Suppose you run a brokerage or some kind of marketplace enabling transactions. Should all transactions passing through your platform be considered your revenue? Or only the part that stays with you for the services you provide, while deducting the component which is simultaneously directed to the transaction counterparty?
In one simple perspective, calling these revenue and inventory would make sense only in a world where you hold on to the cash and the goods for extended periods, so they need to be appropriately accounted for in your books among cash flows and balances.
So what should be the correct accounting model for an insurance service that collects premiums and holds on to your money and pays later for services once you avail them?
I imagine that so long as they are taking on the risk of how much service you might avail rather than simply putting a stop at how much you've paid them in advance, then the premiums they collect ought to be considered revenue, to balance against the as yet unknown inventory costs.
All of this might be relevant in a conversation between accountants or investment analysts, but it's pretty obvious the "study" chose this particular methodology to get a number that makes insurance companies look as bad as possible. In this context, using their methodology does more to obfuscate/mislead than to clarify. If you say that UHI has a profit margin of 15%, most people would interpret that to mean that per $1000 worth of premiums paid, they make $150, which is exactly what happens. Their argument of "they charge $1000 in premiums, but of that $800 is paid out as costs, therefore their margin is 75%" is more confusing.
Insurance companies often have a parent company. That parent company owns healthcare providers and pharmacies.
So it goes something like this
United Health Group -> United Health Insurance
United Health Group -> Sunshine Hospital.
United Health Insurance has a profit cap, it’s a % of revenue. Sunshine Hospital has no cap. So Sunshine Hospital charged United Health Insurance X$ and that profit rolls up to United Health Group.
>United Health Insurance has a profit cap, it’s a % of revenue. Sunshine Hospital has no cap. So Sunshine Hospital charged United Health Insurance X$ and that profit rolls up to United Health Group.
That doesn't really work as a strategy unless UHI cornered the insurance market within a given region, otherwise they'd lose business to competing hospitals. You might then say "hospitals aren't competitive, they're (regional) monopolies!", which might be true, but if that were the case, you'd expect them to raise prices anyways. They're profit maximizing companies after all, not operating out of altruism.
Uhh...? We know for a fact that this is how it works.
It's actually far more insidious.
The payer will have non-owned providers on their network, and by virtue of processing those claims they will understand a lot about the provider. They use this info to decide which providers to acquire. If the provider declines acquisition, the payer will use their member population (i.e. customers/patients of the provider who are covered by the payer) as leverage in negotiations against the provider, effectively crippling their business.
Once a practice is sufficiently maimed, they come back with another acquisition offer, and ta-da, the big player gets bigger.
Yes, all of this only works if the payer is large relative to other payers. There was a period of history where this was a caveat, now it's just an observation about history. Now, there is 1 or 2 mega-players in each region. They've divvied up the country into their own territories and will extract rent henceforth.
It's very important to understand that this model also eliminates all incentives to reduce costs of care. There is not a single player in the entire ecosystem who is incentivized to reduce cost of care except patients, but even there, most patients' health insurer is selected by their employer. Then what is an employer going to do? Select a health plan that doesn't have any local healthcare providers?
I just scanned the doc but I think your question is the core argument of the doc. It explicitly says that United is using standard accounting practices and proposes the “pass through” mechanism as a “better” metric.
Based on the source I, personally, don’t find it to be a credible argument
> It explicitly says that United is using standard accounting practices and proposes the “pass through” mechanism as a “better” metric.
>Based on the source I, personally, don’t find it to be a credible argument
Agreed. This just has "if we redefine [commonly used term], then we get a more shocking/favorable number for our cause" vibes. You see this in government statistics as well, eg. "the official unemployment rate might be 4% (or whatever), but if you factor in people who are discouraged and people who are underemployed (whatever that means), it's actually 15%!" or "the official poverty rate might be 10%, but if you redefine 'poverty' to mean 'not being able to raise a family of 4 on a single income', the actual poverty rate is 40%!"
The nice thing about stuff like this is that you can check the stock price to see if it's actually meaningful. You're not gonna surprise a bunch of wallstreet analysts with a finding that profits are actually 4x, and if you do, the gap up in stock price would be near instant.
That being said, while $UHG has had a good year, the stock is still underwater from where it's been since 2021, and no noticeable movement from this report.
At the same tiem, lately I've been inserting small typos in my writing just to signal that it's not LLM generated. Nothing is a bigger red flag than a wall of text with perfect grammar and punctuation.
Lol, LLMs do some thing better, and some things worse than humans. And you're showing your humanity by purposefully being worse at LLM qualities, instead of beign good at human qualities?
This reduces your credibility. If I was reading, I wouldn’t think “not llm,” I’d think “not detail oriented.” You may want to find some better way that doesn’t make people think less of you.
Perfect grammar and punctuation is par for any publication.
I really don’t think you should do this. It just makes you look dumb, not authentic. There is a lot more to LLM writing than perfect grammar and punctuation that gives it away.
Certainly. But in the current social environment, being seen as (mildly) careless is less bad than being seen as someone who lets an LLM write prose for them.
Medicine is big business. Insurance exists because people are betting against their health. Profits this high indicate insurance is REALLY GOOD at getting people to bet against themselves.
1) medical loss ratio rules mean insurers are expected/required to pass a certain percent of premium on as payment for medical services, in a way that a grocery store is not required
2) insurer is selling you a contract that they will pay your medical bills if you have any - they are NOT retailing you medical services
Brokers quite correctly do not count the value of the shares because they never actually see it. But that's not the way insurance works--while dollars flow in and dollars flow out they are not remotely the same dollars. This feels like someone is trying to lie with statistics.
I don't understand this claim. Doesn't every business have costs to make its goods and services, and revenue when those are sold? A grocery store sells food and uses the money to buy more food, pay its employees, reinvest etc, and the profit leftover goes to the owners. An insurance company sells policies and similarly uses the money to pay claims, pay employees, reinvest, and profit. Why is the insurance company's sales revenue pass-through and the grocery store's sales revenue not?
Update: the replies so far all seem very superficial. Yes, I know that insurance is not exactly the same as grocery stores. This does not explain why they should suddenly be treated differently from an accounting perspective despite what everyone else before this moment has done.
The thinking here is that because UHG is legally obligated to pay out claims, this money only "passes through" their hands. I believe the legal obligation is the thing here.
Anyway, if these pass through costs (the claims they are legally obligated to pay) are removed from the equation then their revenue number is smaller and their profit margin is larger.
Lots of businesses and industries have legal obligations to pay money for various things at various times, they don't treat that as pass through...it's revenue and expenses. Money is fungible.
This is true of life insurance, investment firms, and banks. It's also true of marketplaces that connect buyers and sellers, like Etsy.
Groceries stores are buying from suppliers and selling to consumers, but those are separate operations. If the consumers opt out, the grocery stores (temporarily) still have a full and complete obligation to their suppliers. It's hard to sell to customers without supply, but if you try hard, you could theoretically do that as well.
Somebody with a better financial background might be able to define the nuances of accounting practices here, but there's already a pretty meaningful line that's established. It is kind of weird that health insurance doesn't behave like a financial product.
Fundamentally every insurance company is governed by 3 ratios, loss ratio (what percentage of premium is paid to make the buyer of the insurance whole), expense ratio (cost of doing business, paying staff, keeping office lights on, paying vendors) and combined ratio (both of these combined). These are true for any insurance company which writes premium using their own capital, whether its health insurance, life insurance, property insurance, SMB insurance.
The thing this article is missing here is that the "pass through" costs are costs incurred by UHG directly, they are the ones paying the bills. How is this pass through, it's not being passed to the consumer, the only thing I pay is my deductible and retention which is at most a couple of thousand dollars, these are true costs borne by UHG. So in practice if I pay 100 bucks every paycheck, UHG is taking in 2600 bucks worth of premium, using average industry loss ratios which are say 60%, UHG is paying directly 1,560 bucks to care providers for my own care. I'm not paying that, what I pay is a deductible which is treated entirely separately.
I am the biggest insurance skeptic in the world because I think the business model is awful, a business's return on capital averages at 5-10% a year which is truly an awful return for how much capital is required. Insurance companies will make between 0 and 10% of underwriting profit a year (the pure profit from insurance premium minus total expenses) and they usually operate a very large investment vehicle invested typically 70% into bonds/gilts. That being said, this doctor's view of how insurance accounting works by comparing it to a biopharma or a trading brokerage firm is immensely disingenuous.
Suppose you run a brokerage or some kind of marketplace enabling transactions. Should all transactions passing through your platform be considered your revenue? Or only the part that stays with you for the services you provide, while deducting the component which is simultaneously directed to the transaction counterparty?
In one simple perspective, calling these revenue and inventory would make sense only in a world where you hold on to the cash and the goods for extended periods, so they need to be appropriately accounted for in your books among cash flows and balances.
So what should be the correct accounting model for an insurance service that collects premiums and holds on to your money and pays later for services once you avail them?
I imagine that so long as they are taking on the risk of how much service you might avail rather than simply putting a stop at how much you've paid them in advance, then the premiums they collect ought to be considered revenue, to balance against the as yet unknown inventory costs.
So it goes something like this
United Health Group -> United Health Insurance United Health Group -> Sunshine Hospital.
United Health Insurance has a profit cap, it’s a % of revenue. Sunshine Hospital has no cap. So Sunshine Hospital charged United Health Insurance X$ and that profit rolls up to United Health Group.
That doesn't really work as a strategy unless UHI cornered the insurance market within a given region, otherwise they'd lose business to competing hospitals. You might then say "hospitals aren't competitive, they're (regional) monopolies!", which might be true, but if that were the case, you'd expect them to raise prices anyways. They're profit maximizing companies after all, not operating out of altruism.
It's actually far more insidious.
The payer will have non-owned providers on their network, and by virtue of processing those claims they will understand a lot about the provider. They use this info to decide which providers to acquire. If the provider declines acquisition, the payer will use their member population (i.e. customers/patients of the provider who are covered by the payer) as leverage in negotiations against the provider, effectively crippling their business.
Once a practice is sufficiently maimed, they come back with another acquisition offer, and ta-da, the big player gets bigger.
Yes, all of this only works if the payer is large relative to other payers. There was a period of history where this was a caveat, now it's just an observation about history. Now, there is 1 or 2 mega-players in each region. They've divvied up the country into their own territories and will extract rent henceforth.
It's very important to understand that this model also eliminates all incentives to reduce costs of care. There is not a single player in the entire ecosystem who is incentivized to reduce cost of care except patients, but even there, most patients' health insurer is selected by their employer. Then what is an employer going to do? Select a health plan that doesn't have any local healthcare providers?
Based on the source I, personally, don’t find it to be a credible argument
>Based on the source I, personally, don’t find it to be a credible argument
Agreed. This just has "if we redefine [commonly used term], then we get a more shocking/favorable number for our cause" vibes. You see this in government statistics as well, eg. "the official unemployment rate might be 4% (or whatever), but if you factor in people who are discouraged and people who are underemployed (whatever that means), it's actually 15%!" or "the official poverty rate might be 10%, but if you redefine 'poverty' to mean 'not being able to raise a family of 4 on a single income', the actual poverty rate is 40%!"
That being said, while $UHG has had a good year, the stock is still underwater from where it's been since 2021, and no noticeable movement from this report.
So you're choosing to punish well-written text?
But also, obviously, they’re being a gadfly for funsies.
Perfect grammar and punctuation is par for any publication.
I know what gp is saying. They want to stay credible to the general public without also bearing the over-polished and verbose hallmark of LLM.
1) medical loss ratio rules mean insurers are expected/required to pass a certain percent of premium on as payment for medical services, in a way that a grocery store is not required
2) insurer is selling you a contract that they will pay your medical bills if you have any - they are NOT retailing you medical services
3)
Brokers quite correctly do not count the value of the shares because they never actually see it. But that's not the way insurance works--while dollars flow in and dollars flow out they are not remotely the same dollars. This feels like someone is trying to lie with statistics.