Legislative News | Collision

Search Autoparts/Abrn/Legislative-news-collision/

Most Favored Nation Clauses are still a collision industry problem

Tuesday, May 28, 2019 - 07:00
Print Article

For those that are not involved in the collision industry, the term Most Favored Nation (MFN) clause may appear to refer to some international trade agreement. These clauses do have an important meaning for the collision industry. How do they apply to collision repairers? MFN clauses, in direct repair agreements (DRP), between insurers and collision repair facilities guarantee an insurer that it will receive prices that are at least as favorable as those provided to other carriers doing business with the collision repair facility, for the same products or services. MFN clauses can, under certain circumstances, present competitive concerns. One instance is when the MFN clause is used by a dominant buyer of intermediate goods, raising other buyers’ costs or foreclosing would-be competitors from accessing the market.

Insurer MFN Clause Example: Provider agrees that if it gives a bottom line discount, rebate or other estimate discount on the overall repair costs to any insurer, such discount constitutes an estimate and bill for repairs for purposes of this section. In that event, pricing provided to the insurer and its customers by Provider shall include the bottom line discount given to any other such insurer.

Examples of the negative impact of MFN Clauses

Collision shops: If the largest or a larger insurer insists on an MFN clause, shops are forced to make decisions as to whether to participate with other insurers that may have smaller market share but require higher discount(s). This could negatively impact the collision shop as well as limit the repair choices of the vehicle owner (consumer).

Consumers: Shops are pressured to reduce direct repair program participation with carriers that require discounts yet have a smaller market share. Consumers may not be allowed to have their vehicle repaired where they prefer to have it repaired. Consumers could face physical inconveniences with the lack of repair shop choice. The cost to repair a vehicle could increase with smaller insurer discounts becoming problematic for collision repairers.

Insurers: Smaller carriers, and some larger carriers that require discounts are at a disadvantage due to shops having to drop their programs in order to avoid the financial pressure of providing all these same discounts to an insurer(s) that is dominant in the marketplace.

The Obama Administration did not look favorably on MFN clauses relative to health care. Unfortunately, their interest did not include property and casualty. In October 2010, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a complaint against Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan about the use of MFN clauses. In 2012, Michigan’s Insurance Commissioner issued a regulation prohibiting the use and enforcement of MFN clauses in health insurer contracts. Michigan’s Governor signed the legislation into law that banned the use of MFN clauses by health insurers, HMO’s and nonprofit health care corporations. 

In the fall of 2012, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice held a joint public workshop on MFN clauses.

Article Categorization
Article Details
< Previous
Next >
blog comments powered by Disqus