United Healthcare

Regardless of whether or not AARP is endorsing UHC (or Oak Street Health or anything else for that matter) is sort of a technicality (yes a legal technicality but I am using the more general use of the word). Most people assume AARP wouldn't associate themselves with the dregs of the earth companies so to speak and would want their name associated with something that is good.

Yes the fine print says legally what they are doing but many don't read the fine print - or can't read it as it may be in tiny type or hard to find. And a very well done International research study documented that if you are German or Japanese you are most likely to read instructions, fine print, or anything else before you even took the laptop computer out of the box (they were rigged to have a self fixable problem where how to fix it was in the user manual). And...if you were American you were the least likely of all first world countries in the study to read that stuff prior to trying to use it. This means companies need to design what they do around that since this is a society thing and they will get less blow back from consumers if they take that into account when they do something.

Certainly I'd suspect there'd be fewer complaints if AARP made that obvious with their relationship with UHC. And people would be less likely to jump to conclusions, Many would then realize that AARP likely (and I don't know this as a fact) allowed UHC to use their name as a marketing device (rather than another insurance company) as they were willing to pay them more in royalties than other insurance companies. I'd guess (and again I don't know this for a fact) that likely some of what they get is also dependent upon how many sign up, or share of the market for the person's age (or some other metric) and so it gives incentive for AARP to put what they do on their website even though we are then directed to the UHC site (this way UHC can see how we got there to pay AARP IF IN FACT this is part of their royalty agreement. As that one article I posted already indicates both AARP and UHC are pretty secretive about the details of their relationship. 

But before people trash AARP and UHC for this (despite it does, in my opinion, imply a conflict of interest with respect to what AARP's mission although the money goes to their for profit arm and not their non-profit arm), what they both are doing is VERY common in the business world and not an anomaly. Do I think AARP should be far more upfront and open about getting paid to advertise UHC's products - YES!. We need to trip over it because of AARP's mission and what can easily be implied, and not have to find it in the fine print - if we even were to go looking.

.This next bit only read if you care about details of risk pools and other more technical things (inclosed in === lines, final more general comment on the other side of the second === at the end).

======

If there had been more than one community rated supplement company in my state I would have compared them critically and not been influenced by AARP's advertising of UHC's products (but I know many are). BUT there is only this one it is what it is. And in some degree it is a mixed product for it's "price" pool. The underlying risk pool is community (eg all of us in one risk group so generally healthier younger people keep the overall price down) however the rates are more like age attained -  eg what they call their "discount" structure which makes the full price premium more expensive due to giving discounts to younger people (up through 75 or 80 depending on when you first turned 65 - I also wonder if they have separated us into two different risk blocks as well but I have no way to find out).

But they have to give the discounts so younger people will even sign up. Many don't think to ask what their premium would be if they were 80 or older and see that community rated risk pools are generally cheaper at that stage of their life. However the pot of money needs to be the same to meet expenses regardless of how the company structures their premiums. As a result if some pay less others have to pay more to meet the needed amount.

Based on how the discount has now been changed for newer signees to get a discount through basically the average of men and women's average life span (eg 80 vs the earlier 75 - so averaging the male and female life span and rounding) it really is driving up older people's premiums the same way age attained risk pools do even though the underlying risk pool is community. The advantages of this being a community risk pool is diluted that way for older people. When I checked when I first signed up I did see that other companies tended to charge more if I had been 80 or 90 (ages I asked about) and found those companies/agents were really reluctant to give me those figures. 

Of course if you don't pass medical underwriting (and don't live in some of the states that allow you to switch every year without medical underwriting) and can bail to a different plan if you are ticked enough then it is what it is. You can switch to an advantage plan (and suffer the consequences of networks (which exclude places like the Mayo, MD Anderson Cancer Center, and many others for out of state advantage plans even those that are PPO, HMO, or SELECT) out of pocket maximums that tend to be more than premiums plus supplement deductible than an advantage plan premiums (if any) plus out of pocket minus money saved by dental, etc (well unless you have a supplement with those "extras" then that part is closer to break even).

If you get an advantage plan and the move such that it isn't accepted in that state then you have guaranteed rights to switch supplement insurance companies with no medical underwriting (and I do NOT know the situation with UHC's advantage plans across state lines other than your premium may change) and you can get a supplement back without medical underwriting (some states say it has to be with the same company others don't have rules about that). 

=======
But I'd guess for most of us if we don't pass medical underwriting (and eventually most won't if they live long enough) we are "stuck" with our UHC supplement and the AARP royalty (which no doubt is added to our premium costs) and it is what it is. And it is a shame AARP doesn't take a more active roll in addressing complaints about what UHC does regardless of the technicality of a royalty and no responsibilities with respect to that. One would have hoped that AARP's larger mission of elder concerns and protecting senior citizens would mean they would become involved to address repeated complaints either with their for profit arm (where the royalties go) or their non-profit arm (the organization we pay membership to). By the way after you sign up for a supplement and are accepted you can drop your AARP membership and keep your supplement (medicare rules; by the way you don't need a membership to sign up for an advantage plan). In the end some of the people reading this can bail from UHC and some of us can't and for those of us who can't it is what it is.

Hmm I discussed royalties in a reply today. I wonder when that post of mine will be taken down. AARP owns these forums so freedom of speech is not our right when we post here. AARP though might find it useful to read about complaints and then think about how they can make folks happier or discuss it with UHC (and others they get royalties from) to see if they can get them to fix issues. That certainly would be in the mission of AARP if they so choose.