As you might imagine, yesterday’s post on the excessive and deceptive nature of broker compensation raised a few hackles. I received several protests from brokers/agents who argued that they are saddled with inordinate responsibilities in exchange for their commissions.
In the interests of fairness, we should first keep in mind that what brokers do for the money is distinct from the inappropriateness of the scale and manner of their compensation. These are separate issues, and despite what many of them say, it is difficult to reconcile their inherent financial conflicts with the plans and their representation that they are employer advocates.
Then we should put aside most people’s two natural responses to brokers’ pleas that we appreciate their workload: 1) Who cares? and 2) How is this different than the rest of us?
But with those issues out of the way, brokers’ arguments about the relationship between their compensation and responsibilities do make a significant statement about their role as flak-catchers, trouble-shooters and intermediaries between an increasingly dysfunction and unresponsive health plan system and increasingly irate enrollees and employer benefits managers. Here are a couple more comments, from the same, very articulate broker I quoted yesterday.
As a personal aside I want to emphasize that this guy’s not whining – he was the one who brought up the subject of crazy broker compensation in the first place. Instead, he’s trying to present a balanced perspective on how brokers are a cog in a much larger set of gears that are spinning out of control.
Your readers probably think I sit on my fat butt and collect big paychecks and do nothing for them.
Although my gross commissions would appear to most folks, at
first glance, to be a pretty good paycheck, I have to pay myself for
all my business expenses.In exchange, I get to be on call 24/7
(yes, my clients frequently call me at all hours, since they often
can’t contact the carrier when their ID card doesn’t work, or the
hospital ER won’t treat them if they can’t verify benefits, or they’re
on vacation and break a leg). I get to be psychiatrist, counselor,
coach, and babysitter for my clients. Since the advent of HIPAA
privacy regs, I also get to be the focal point for every employee’s
medical problems (since their employers shouldn’t be involved). All of
the animosity swirling around health insurance? It’s not directed at
the carriers, or the employers, or the legislators, or the lobbyists.
It is all laser-focused towards me – because I’m the guy they see.Vacations
are something other people take – I cannot take off two weeks, because
there is nobody to do my job. The best I can hope for is a few days,
and even then I’m tethered to email and voice mail.The plan
designs change constantly, carriers are always adding or deleting one
benefit or another, and don’t even get me started on how much the
ever-changing networks cause grief for my clients (and ultimately for
me and my staff).Yes, the commissions are stupid money, but
only in that they represent such a large part of the gross premium
dollar. Where it really breaks down is that the carriers are so inept,
incompetent and ignorant that they’ve created and nurtured a tortured
system that becomes more inefficient, more costly, more difficult to
navigate every year – and increasingly, it is only us brokers and
agents who stand in the way of total collapse. While I realize that the
commission issue is important, it is just a symptom of a much larger
I can’t help injecting here that this reminds me of the $7/hour customer service reps for large companies – see my piece on Mega Life and Health
– who take all the heat for their bosses who lay corrosive,
self-serving plans, and then hide from view. The difference is that the
brokers are paid very well for their role.
As several respondents have pointed out, there are better ways.
Health information exchanges and standardized benefits structures could
provide a lot of transparency and simplicity in an overly complex
marketplace. Brokers could work for the purchasers as consultants. But
of course they’d probably make less, and they won’t be the ones who
advocate for that.