Commentary

New Analysis: Auto Insurance Costs Out of Control

Costs on the rise, will get worse if nothing is done

The average cost of treating an auto accident injury in Michigan tripled over the last decade and is now more than five times the cost in the next most-expensive state. Despite this, insurance companies have, on average, lost money selling auto insurance over the same period. Those are two of the findings from a recent deep dive conducted by Crain’s Detroit Business and Bridge Magazine.

Crain’s and Bridge recently teamed up to do some fantastic research on the hottest topic in Lansing: auto insurance reform. The results strongly support the case for changing the way auto insurance works in this state.

The most obvious and immediate take-away from looking at the data is that there is a very real problem with Michigan’s auto insurance laws. And, if the status quo remains, things are likely to get worse.

For example, according to Crain’s and Bridge’s analysis of data from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, the average cost for treating automobile injuries in Michigan tripled from 2000 to 2013, growing 90 percent faster than total health care inflation. And this was during a period when the number of motorists injured in accidents actually decreased. The average cost to treat an injury from an auto accident in Michigan is now north of $75,000, more than five times the next highest state, New Jersey.

This is not hyperbole: Medical costs for treatment from car accident injuries are out of control. The primary reasons for this are that medical providers can essentially charge whatever price they think they can get away with and there’s no limit to the amount of benefits an individual can receive. Plus, a 2010 Michigan Supreme Court ruling made it easier for people injured in accidents to sue and win even more benefits.

This is why the cost controls proposed in House Bill 5013, sponsored by Rep. Lana Theis, R-Brighton, are necessary. Since the state requires all drivers to purchase expensive personal injury protection, it should impose a fee schedule on what medical providers can charge insurers for services and procedures. Similar types of fee schedules are used for Michigan’s workers’ compensation program and government-run insurance programs, such as Medicaid and Medicare. The bill would also allow drivers to choose a policy that limits their total benefits, resulting in a reduced-priced premium.

Opponents to this type of reform often claim that efforts to change the system are simply attempts to further enrich profitable and powerful insurance companies. The Crain’s and Bridge research shows, however, that insurance companies in Michigan are not raking in the dough. In fact, they’ve paid out more in medical benefits, or to use the industry term, “losses,” than they’ve received in revenue through premiums paid by Michigan drivers. This has been the case for the past several years now. Not surprisingly, then, from 2005 to 2014, the average profits for companies selling auto insurance were -2.9 percent, according to Crain’s and Bridge.

Even though the record shows that Michigan drivers aren’t lavishing large profits on insurers, their premiums have consistently ranked at or near the top in the nation. The new data obtained by Crain’s and Bridge provides even more detail on how Michigan compares to states that use similar no-fault insurance systems.

From 2004 to 2013, total spending on medical care for people injured in auto accidents in Michigan increased by 78 percent. In New Jersey, however, spending fell by 29 percent, even though the Garden State has close to the same number of drivers as Michigan. Total spending on medical care caused by auto accidents increased by 17 percent in New York and 14 percent in Florida. Those increases are significantly less than what Michigan has seen, despite the fact that these states have one-and-a-half to two times as many drivers as Michigan.

Regulating insurance markets is a complicated business, but the latest data unearthed by Crain’s and Bridge Magazine supports a simple conclusion: Michigan’s auto insurance laws are failing and need to be substantially reformed.

To learn more about this issue, visit https://www.mackinac.org/insurance.

Michigan Capitol Confidential is the news source produced by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. Michigan Capitol Confidential reports with a free-market news perspective.

News Story

It’s Mostly Dems Pushing Auto Insurance ‘Alternative’ Bills That Benefit Trial Attorneys

Alternative package would make it easier to sue, raising costs of nation’s most expensive auto insurance

Editor's note: The headline and story were altered to add clarification.

A package of bills sponsored primarily by Republicans but with far more Democratic cosponsors and touted as an alternative to an auto insurance reform proposal supported by legislative leaders and Detroit Mayor Mike Duggan would likely raise Michigan insurance prices. That’s the conclusion of the author of a recent study on the issue published by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.

Matt Coffey, an attorney who wrote a recent study on Michigan’s auto insurance system, identified a number of provisions in the alternative package that are more likely to drive rates higher. This includes making it easier for individuals and trial lawyers to sue insurance companies and collect larger damage awards. The cost of the awards then gets passed to vehicle owners in the form of higher insurance premiums.

One of the measures in the package would let courts award punitive damages against auto insurers based on potentially subjective claims of auto insurers not acting “in good faith and fair dealing.” This idea has been proposed more than 20 times by legislative Democrats since 2001. If the bill passes, auto insurers would have to prove that they dealt in good faith in case of a lawsuit.

Insurance companies say that the state insurance code already prescribes in detail the duties of insurance companies to settle claims in a prompt, fair and equitable manner.

Another provision would limit insurance companies’ ability to require individuals collecting benefits to get an independent medical exam if there are reasons to believe a health care provider is billing for unnecessary medical treatments. Under House Bill 5105, auto insurers would be limited to using medical examiners who were approved by a state oversight body. The health care provider and the driver are not, by contrast, limited to who can be uses as a medical examiner.

Two bills in the package would lower the “causation standard” that prevents auto insurance from being used to get treatment for conditions unrelated to a crash. For example, a driver could sue an insurer for health care payments for the rehabilitation of an injury that wasn’t directly tied to the original accident.

Coffey argues that these provisions lower the barrier to lawsuits too much, and he believes drivers already have reasonable access to the courts if an auto insurance provider fails to provide benefits.

"It’s easy to sue ... and there’s plenty incentive to do so," he said. "The [alternative package of] bills actually makes it easier when it was already too easy with too much incentive to run to court."

Supporters of the alternative reform package including the Coalition Protecting Auto No-Fault and the Michigan Association for Justice, which represents trial attorneys. They argue that it would reduce fraud and abuse in the handling of auto insurance claims.

A press release issued by the Michigan Association for Justice makes no mention of the effect the alternative package will have on the number of auto accident-related lawsuits in the state.

House Speaker Tom Leonard and Detroit Mayor Duggan support House Bill 5013, sponsored by Rep. Lana Theis, R-Brighton. Both that bill and the alternative proposal place caps on how much hospitals and other medical service providers can charge insurers for treating injuries sustained in vehicle crashes. Unlike the Leonard-Duggan bill, however, the alternative package contains no limits on the extent or amount of charges for long-term attendant care.

According to an analysis by Crain’s Detroit Business and Bridge Magazine, the cost of treating crash victims in Michigan is over five times higher than in any other state. Crain’s also reports that auto insurance companies have seen zero profits, on average, over the past 10 years.

Coffey says that if the state’s problems are not addressed, they could lead to less competition and higher prices in the auto insurance market.

“Companies aren’t making money on these things,” he said. “If these bills (the alternative package) stay the same, I think you’ll start to see companies pull out” and stop selling vehicle insurance policies here.

Michigan Capitol Confidential is the news source produced by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. Michigan Capitol Confidential reports with a free-market news perspective.