Medicare Advantage Compensation Loss – State Regulators Push Back
The tension between state insurance regulators and Medicare Advantage (MA) carriers is reaching a new level. As insurers continue tightening their budgets and limiting new enrollment; often by cutting commissions to brokers and restricting access to online applications. Some state officials are challenging what they view as unfair and potentially unlawful practices when it comes to Medicare advantage compensation loss.
With the 2026 Medicare Annual Enrollment Period (AEP) already underway, this conflict could shape the future of how MA plans are marketed, sold, and regulated.
Why Carriers Are Reducing Broker Compensation
Financial pressures have been building within Medicare Advantage for several years. Rising utilization costs, increased regulatory scrutiny, and shrinking federal reimbursement have pushed Medicare insurers to prioritize profit stability over rapid membership growth.
As part of this shift, some carriers have:
- Eliminated or reduced commissions on specific plans
- Limited access to agent-facing online enrollment platforms
- Discouraged new enrollments that could attract higher-cost members
The carriers intend to use these measures to control risk and protect margins. Although for brokers and agents, the fallout is immediate; lost income, lowered client expectations, and fewer ways to serve Medicare beneficiaries effectively.
Watch a YouTube video on SEPs for discontinued Medicare advantage plans
States Begin to Challenge Commission Cuts
Insurance commissioners in Delaware, Idaho, Montana, Oklahoma, New Hampshire, and North Dakota have taken a firm stance: cutting or withholding commissions to reduce Medicare Advantage enrollment crosses the line into unfair trade practices.
Some regulators have directly warned carriers to stop using marketing tactics that restrict enrollment or disadvantage third-party marketers. Others have gone further:
- Idaho issued cease-and-desist orders against UnitedHealthcare and PacificSource for allegedly violating state insurance standards.
- Additional states have threatened penalties, sanctions, or legal action if insurers refuse to restore fair broker compensation.
State officials argue that if MA plans are sold within their borders, insurers must comply with state marketing and sales laws regardless of the program’s federal oversight.
The Stakes Are High for Both Sides
This conflict puts both insurers and brokers; and ultimately beneficiaries, in a difficult position.
For insurers, compliance with state demands could trigger:
- Tighter pricing
- Fewer $0 premium plans
- Potential consideration of market exits
As one industry expert noted, when carriers feel they cannot adjust compensation or enrollment strategy to manage risk, they may be more likely to scale back or leave smaller markets.
However, carriers also have strong incentives not to leave states completely. If an insurer exits a Medicare Advantage market, it is barred from re-entering for years. This could present a long-term setback few companies want to face.
For brokers, reduced compensation means:
- Inconsistent or unpredictable payment
- Competing against carriers that restrict access to enrollment platforms
- Difficulty supporting clients when carriers remove commissions after applications are already submitted
Marketing groups emphasized that commissions are built into plan pricing and actuarial calculations. In other words; carriers planned for these costs long before selling the product.
If you are a Medicare agent and want to join the team at Crowe; click here for online contracting.
Legal and Regulatory Questions
A key unresolved issue is whether state regulators have the authority to intervene in the sales and marketing of a federal healthcare program like Medicare Advantage.
Many legal experts believe states have more power than carriers acknowledge. They regulate:
- Agent licensing
- Marketing conduct
- Fair business practices within state borders
Some policy analysts argue that states may actually hold more leverage than CMS in enforcing sales and marketing standards; especially when unfair business practices affect consumers or licensed agents.
Idaho’s insurance director has signaled that the state expects legal challenges and is prepared to defend its position. This includes efforts to force insurers to retroactively pay withheld commissions.
On the other hand, insurers may counter-sue states, arguing that Medicare’s federal structure preempts state authority.
Where This Leaves Brokers and Beneficiaries
As this dispute unfolds, brokers remain stuck in the middle. They must comply with evolving state rules while navigating restrictive carrier policies. At the same time, beneficiaries risk losing access to the knowledgeable agents they rely on to explain coverage options, especially in rural or underserved markets.
Let’s Sum it all up
- Medicare Advantage carriers are reducing or eliminating broker commissions to limit new enrollment and protect margins.
- Insurance regulators in at least six states are challenging these tactics and threatening enforcement actions.
- If insurers restore full commissions, they risk enrolling higher-cost or unprofitable members, creating financial strain.
- The question of whether states can regulate MA sales and marketing remains unresolved, setting up likely court battles.