ICYMI: Colorado Sun Op-Ed Corrects False Claims by Colorado Option Advocates

Aug 16, 2023

“If small businesses aren’t choosing the public health insurance option, it’s because other plans are better and cost less”

DENVER — In case you missed it, an op-ed in The Colorado Sun written by the current and immediate past presidents of the National Association of Benefits and Insurance Professionals of Colorado (NABIP-CO), corrected multiple false claims recently made by Colorado Option supporters at public comment hearings and in a recent separate Sun op-ed. NABIP-CO is Colorado’s professional organization of health insurance brokers.

“A recent guest column published by The Sun suggests that the inability so far of Colorado’s State Government Public Health Insurance Option to deliver lower premiums and high enrollment is, in part, somehow the fault of Colorado’s health insurance brokers because they are ‘not providing enough information about the Colorado Option to current and potential clients.’ This is nonsense,” the authors write.

“Supporters of the Colorado Option law are trying to have it both ways. On one hand, advocates say that the law has been a success – at least in the individual market, where some plans are being sold, though they are still often more expensive; on the other hand, advocates are desperately trying to cast blame for its failures on everything and everyone except the plan’s inherently faulty structure,” the authors continued.

“Claims that the law is struggling because Colorado Option plans have not been marketed enough are out of step with reality. Colorado Option plans are receiving preferential placement on the marketplace, and Colorado health insurance brokers are of course following their ethical and fiduciary duty to lay out all potential options to their clients. In fact, the vast majority of Colorado Option plans that are being purchased are sold because brokers presented them to clients. If the plans are not being chosen, it’s because they aren’t meeting the needs of consumers, plain and simple,” the authors concluded.

If small businesses aren’t choosing the public health insurance option, it’s because other plans are better and cost less

A recent guest column published by The Sun suggests that the inability so far of Colorado’s State Government Public Health Insurance Option to deliver lower premiums and high enrollment is, in part, somehow the fault of Colorado’s health insurance brokers because they are “not providing enough information about the Colorado Option to current and potential clients.”

The National Association of Benefits and Insurance Professionals of Colorado represents the state’s health insurance brokers, all of whom are licensed and regulated by the Colorado Division of Insurance. Brokers work every day to help Coloradans select, purchase and utilize health insurance coverage. Brokers have an ethical duty to provide unbiased health insurance options to clients and we do so without exception. Our members are remarkably well versed on the health insurance coverage options available to Coloradans. We analyze and educate our clients so that the plan choices ultimately made are the best fit for our clients’ needs.

When presenting the Colorado Option to our clients, they clearly see the cost and benefits of the plans compared to similar, less expensive, plans. Clients are also informed on all the variables associated with finding coverage that’s an appropriate fit for their needs. In addition to premiums, brokers review provider networks, pharmacy networks, formulary lists, deductibles, co-pays, and any other benefits that are relevant. Obviously, it is an informed purchaser’s decision to enroll in the plan that best suits their situation.

The Colorado Option plan is one of several alternatives for consumers to choose from when considering health plans based on affordability, quality, and access to health care. The Colorado Option may, or may not, be the best plan for each individual client. It is not the broker making decisions for them, nor should it be. Ultimately, it’s the clients’ decision.

It should be noted here that the preferential displaying of the Colorado Option through the Connect For Health marketplace is wrong, as it adds bias from the onset.

The marketplace is relied upon as an impartial resource for consumers. Colorado Option plans should be displayed along with all other similarly suited health plans. A plan that is affordable and well-designed will be seen by the consumer without having to single it out or prioritize it. Connect for Health Colorado should not have to push or rank any plan on the marketplace.

Supporters of the Colorado Option law are trying to have it both ways. On one hand, advocates say that the law has been a success – at least in the individual market, where some plans are being sold, though they are still often more expensive; on the other hand, advocates are desperately trying to cast blame for its failures on everything and everyone except the plan’s inherently faulty structure.

Claims that the law is struggling because Colorado Option plans have not been marketed enough are out of step with reality. Colorado Option plans are receiving preferential placement on the marketplace, and Colorado health insurance brokers are of course following their ethical and fiduciary duty to lay out all potential options to their clients. In fact, the vast majority of Colorado Option plans that are being purchased are sold because brokers presented them to clients. If the plans are not being chosen, it’s because they aren’t meeting the needs of consumers, plain and simple.

Additionally, the authors of the opinion piece from July mistakenly equate the individual and small business health insurance markets. They ask why, if a small number of carriers have managed to meet the premium reductions for the individual market, they cannot simply do the same in the small business market.

These are two very different segments of the health insurance market. The small business market inherently carries with it many additional unknown risks, which drive up the cost of providing insurance — risks which cannot be reconciled with an arbitrary rate reduction. If the goal is to reduce the costs of providing health insurance, the way we have been trying to go about it — homogenizing insurance by adding on more and more coverage mandates and injecting standardized Cadillac plans into the market, thereby inflating premiums – is not working. A better approach would be to allow insurers the flexibility to design plans based on needs; standardized, one-size-fits-all sets of benefits will not get us there.

It’s disappointing to have to correct the record yet again following similarly false assertions made by advocates for a different system of health care delivery during public hearings last July. Each of these claims have been made with no basis in fact and without any supporting evidence.

In the meantime, Colorado’s health insurance brokers will continue doing our jobs—working with the Division of Insurance and the healthcare industry to provide the best options for health care insurance to all Coloradans.

All stakeholders should work together to find affordable, equitable solutions for all Coloradans, not pointing fingers.

Leah Denzel, of Golden, is president of the National Association of Benefits and Insurance Professionals of Colorado. Meagan Fearing, of Colorado Springs, is the immediate past president of the National Association of Benefits and Insurance Professionals of Colorado.