Why “Open Broker Bidding” Can Backfire for Employers When Quoting Staff Health Insurance
At first glance, “open bidding” appears to be a logical way to get the most competitive health insurance quotes. The idea is that by having multiple brokers engage insurers on your behalf, you increase the chances of getting better rates. However, international insurers do not operate like consumer marketplaces where multiple sellers compete to undercut each other’s prices.
Instead, most insurers have strict protocols for dealing with multiple broker submissions, and these protocols can work against the client’s interests. Here’s why:
- Duplicate Quote Submissions Confuse Insurers When multiple brokers approach the same insurer with quote requests, the insurer is left unsure about which broker is truly representing the client. This can cause delays and inefficiencies, as insurers may hesitate to finalize pricing without clear direction from the client.
- Less Favorable Pricing Leading health insurers have explicitly stated that open bidding typically results in less competitive pricing, not more. Why? Because insurers prefer to work with a single, exclusive broker who can effectively manage the process and provide a clear negotiation strategy. Without this, insurers are less likely to extend their best rates or make meaningful concessions.
- Limited Broker Leverage in Negotiations When a single, experienced broker is appointed, they have direct access to underwriting teams and can negotiate better renewal terms and benefits on behalf of the client. When multiple brokers are involved, no single broker has full control over the strategy, making it much harder to push for the best possible deal.
- Risk of Information Discrepancy One of the biggest downsides of open bidding is that different brokers may provide insurers with inconsistent or incomplete data. Some brokers might submit incomplete member census details, outdated claims data, or varying benefit structures — leading to insurers pricing the plan more conservatively (= higher) due to a lack of clarity.
- Slower, More Bureaucratic Decision-Making Because insurers often require clarification and alignment when multiple brokers are involved, open bidding drags out the renewal timeline, leaving clients with less time to evaluate options and make informed decisions.
- Brokers May Prioritize Short-Term Wins Over Long-Term Stability If a broker knows they are in a competitive bidding war with other brokers, their focus may shift toward aggressively pushing the lowest premium price possible, sometimes with the wrong insurer — without ensuring long-term cost sustainability. This could lead to low-ball pricing from insurers that results in steep premium hikes in subsequent years.
What Cigna and Other Leading Insurers Have Said About Open Bidding
Cigna, one of the largest international health insurers, has gone on record stating that open bidding is not in the best interest of clients. Here’s what they have said:
“In terms of the open bidding approach, we assume this means engaging multiple brokers to request quotes from the market on the client’s behalf. While some companies take this approach, it is generally not recommended as it creates ambiguity regarding which broker we should work with. This often leads to less competitive pricing than when a single, exclusively appointed broker manages the process.
From our experience, working with an exclusive broker results in a more streamlined process, better alignment between all parties, and stronger negotiation leverage, which ultimately benefits the client. When multiple brokers approach us for quotes, we will provide the same pricing to each broker—assuming the broker commission, requested benefits, and information shared with us are identical—but insurers provide more favorable terms when there is a clear and exclusive broker relationship.”
This sentiment is echoed by other insurers, including Allianz, AXA, MSH International and Bupa, all of whom prefer to work with a single, experienced broker who can lead the renewal process efficiently.
The Alternative: A Strategic, Exclusive Broker Partnership
Rather than open bidding, the best approach is to partner with one dedicated broker who specializes in managing international health plans for organizations like yours. The right broker will:
- Provide full transparency on broker fees and commissions so you know exactly what you are paying.
- Access all top-tier insurers on your behalf, ensuring that you are getting the best possible rates and benefits.
- Leverage claims data analytics to identify cost-saving opportunities beyond just switching insurers.
- Negotiate with insurers to hold them accountable for fair pricing and service commitments.
- Ensure your renewal is completed early, allowing for thorough evaluation and avoiding last-minute surprises.
Final Thoughts: Don’t Fall Into the Open Bidding Trap
If you’re considering an open bidding approach, think twice. The risks of delays, higher pricing, lack of transparency, and weaker negotiation leverage far outweigh any perceived benefits.
Instead, a strategic partnership with One World Cover can ensure you receive competitive pricing, full transparency, and a long-term plan for sustainable health insurance costs.
If you’re tired of the uncertainty and inefficiencies that come with open bidding, let’s talk. We specialize in helping organizations take control of their health insurance strategy — with a proven track record of keeping premium increases low, ensuring smooth renewals, and delivering best-in-class service.
Contact us today to discuss how we can help your organization secure the best health insurance plan.
Michael Pennington, Customer Experience Director, One World Cover – [email protected]
为什么“开放经纪人竞标”在健康保险采购中可能适得其反？
在初看之下，“开放竞标”似乎是一种合理的方式来获得最具竞争力的健康保险报价。 其基本思路是，通过让多个经纪人代表您与保险公司交涉，增加获得更低保费的机会。然而，国际健康保险市场并不像普通消费市场，多个卖家竞相压低价格来争取客户。
相反，大多数保险公司都有严格的流程来处理来自不同经纪人的报价请求，而这些流程往往不利于客户的利益。以下是主要原因：
- 重复的报价请求让保险公司无所适从
当多个经纪人同时向同一家保险公司提交报价请求时，保险公司无法确定哪个经纪人真正代表客户。这通常会导致延误和低效，因为保险公司可能不会立即提供最终定价，而是等待客户提供明确的指示。 - 价格可能更不具竞争力
领先的国际保险公司已经明确表示，开放竞标通常不会带来更有竞争力的价格，反而可能导致更高的保费。为什么？因为保险公司更倾向于与单一、专属的经纪人合作，以确保整个采购流程的高效管理和清晰的谈判策略。如果没有这样的合作关系，保险公司不太可能提供最优惠的费率或额外的让步。 - 经纪人在谈判中失去议价能力
如果一家企业指定唯一、经验丰富的经纪人，该经纪人可以直接与保险公司的核保团队进行谈判，为客户争取更好的续保条件和福利。但如果多个经纪人参与竞标，那么没有任何经纪人能够完全控制策略，这使得争取最优报价变得更加困难。 - 信息不一致可能导致更高的定价
开放竞标的另一个常见问题是，不同的经纪人可能会向保险公司提供不完整或不一致的数据。有些经纪人可能提交不完整的员工信息、过时的索赔数据或不同的福利结构，这会让保险公司为了规避风险而采用更保守的定价策略（即更高的保费）。 - 决策过程拖延，导致续保延误
由于保险公司需要花时间澄清和协调多个经纪人提交的信息，开放竞标通常会拖延续保流程，导致客户在最后一刻才收到报价，缺乏足够的时间进行评估和决策。 - 经纪人可能会优先考虑短期价格，而忽视长期成本稳定性
如果经纪人知道自己正在与其他经纪人竞争，他们可能会优先压低初始报价，而不考虑长期的成本管理。这可能导致保险公司在第一年提供较低的价格，但在后续几年大幅度涨价，使企业的预算管理更加困难。
招商信诺及其他领先保险公司对开放竞标的看法
招商信诺是全球最大的国际健康保险公司之一，他们明确表示，开放竞标模式对客户并无益处。他们的官方立场如下：
“关于开放竞标模式，我们的经验表明，这种方法通常不会带来更具竞争力的价格，反而可能导致更高的保费。因为保险公司无法确定应该与哪个经纪人进行谈判，这会影响谈判效率，并且削弱经纪人对客户的议价能力。”
“从我们的经验来看，与专属经纪人合作能够简化流程、提升各方协调性，并增强谈判能力，从而为客户带来最佳的定价和服务体验。当多个经纪人向我们提出报价请求时，我们会提供相同的报价——假设经纪人佣金、所需福利和提供的信息完全一致——但如果客户有清晰的专属经纪人关系，保险公司通常会提供更优惠的条款。”
这一观点也得到了安联、安盛、MSH和柏盛健康等其他国际保险公司的支持。他们同样更倾向于与单一、经验丰富的经纪人合作，以确保客户能够得到最好的续保体验。
更好的选择：与专业经纪人建立长期战略合作
与其采取开放竞标的方式，更好的方法是与一位经验丰富、专注于国际健康保险的经纪人建立专属合作关系。正确的经纪人将会：
✅ 提供完全透明的经纪人费用和佣金，确保您清楚自己支付的费用用途。
✅ 代表您接洽所有顶级保险公司，确保您获得最优的价格和福利组合。
✅ 利用索赔数据分析优化成本，帮助您发现可节省成本的机会，而不仅仅是通过更换保险公司来降低费用。
✅ 与保险公司进行策略性谈判，确保定价公平，服务优质，避免无端上涨。
✅ 提前完成续保谈判，让客户有足够的时间进行评估，避免临时决定带来的风险。
结论：避免落入开放竞标的陷阱
如果您的公司正在考虑采用开放竞标方式，建议三思而后行。因为开放竞标带来的不确定性、较高的价格、缺乏透明度和较弱的谈判能力，可能会让您的企业处于不利地位。
相反，与OWC建立战略合作伙伴关系，能确保您获得最具竞争力的报价、完全透明的服务，以及长期可持续的健康保险解决方案。
联系我们，了解如何避免开放竞标的弊端，建立长期可持续的健康保险计划。
Michael Pennington, Customer Experience Director, One World Cover – [email protected]
