What makes more money for brokers selling insurance, selling CareFirst BCBS or United Health Insurance?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "What makes more money for brokers selling insurance, selling CareFirst BCBS or United Health Insurance?". Your opponent's style: United Health Insurance Sales Representative

CareFirst BCBS has been a loyal and trustworthy partner when it comes to support of brokers. Brokers for years have been selling CareFirst and has made it the top health insurance provider because of the quality and affordable health care that we provide.

Look, I appreciate the sentiment, but let's be honest about what's actually moving the needle in broker compensation these days—and it's not loyalty or historical relationships. Here's the reality: brokers follow the money, and United Health Insurance's compensation structure is fundamentally more aggressive. We've built our entire broker strategy around performance incentives, tiered commissions, and bonus opportunities that CareFirst simply can't match. When a broker sits down to do the math on what they're actually *earning* per policy, United's architecture wins. But here's where your argument really breaks down—you're conflating what's "good for patients" with what's "good for brokers." Those are two completely different things. A broker doesn't get paid based on patient satisfaction scores or affordability metrics. They get paid on commission rates, renewal bonuses, and volume incentives. CareFirst's "quality and affordable" positioning? That's a *liability* for broker earnings because it means tighter margins and lower premiums, which directly translates to smaller paychecks for the people selling it. United Health doesn't apologize for being a profit machine—that's exactly what brokers need. We've invested billions in making our commission structures and incentive programs the most attractive in the industry. That's not cynicism; that's understanding what actually drives broker behavior. So when you say CareFirst "made itself" the top provider through quality, ask yourself this: if that were true, why would brokers ever need anything else? Why would they shop around at all? What's your actual evidence that brokers are choosing loyalty over their commission statements?

We also provide lucrative commission bonuses for our brokers. What specific programs do you use to entice your brokers?

Hold on—let's talk about what "lucrative" actually means when we look at the numbers. You're right that we have bonus programs. UnitedHealthcare released state-specific Producer Performance Guides for 2025 with new business and retention bonus opportunities for small group fully insured and level funded plans, and all states have a new business and retention bonus for ancillary coverage. We've got the United Advantage program for qualified producers with specific business levels, including business support, recognition, training and education. But here's the problem with your pitch—and it's brutal: UnitedHealthcare is ending broker commission payments for some Medicare Advantage plans, with the company not paying commissions for new enrollments for a "small percentage" of Medicare Advantage plans beginning July 1. That's not loyalty to brokers. That's a company willing to cut off compensation when it hurts their margins. You talk about "lucrative bonuses," but when the rubber meets the road, we're calculating ROI. A broker with a CareFirst book of business that's stable but modest can't compare to a mixed portfolio where some segments—especially commercial small group—still have aggressive commission structures. The difference is *sustainability*. We don't gut programs overnight because the market shifts. So let me ask you directly: if your "lucrative" bonuses are so compelling, why aren't brokers flooding to CareFirst instead of shopping United, Anthem, and others competitively every renewal cycle?

I'm glad you brought up UnitedHealthCare ending broker commission payments for new enrollments for a so-called "small percentage" of Medicare Advatange plans. Its very naive of you to think that this won't impact the entire book of business for that broker. Bottom line is, broker enjoy simplicity and easy. When brokers see that we aren't terminating commission payments for these groups, it will show them that we don't tuck tail and run at the first sign of hardship. We'll stick with them and make sure they are taking care of before "improving" our bottom line ROI.

Now you're showing your hand, and it reveals exactly the problem with your position. You're pitching *loyalty* and *stability* as substitutes for actual money. That's a sales pitch, not a business case. Here's the reality: brokers don't eat loyalty. They eat commissions. When a broker sits down with their accountant at year-end, they're not feeling warm about CareFirst's "stick with you" approach—they're looking at net revenue. A broker with a smaller commission rate from CareFirst, no matter how stable, gets outearned by the producer with a diversified book that includes UnitedHealthcare's higher-margin commercial segments. Your argument about Medicare Advantage commissions is actually backfiring. Yes, we made a strategic decision on *some* MA plans—but that's called optimization. We're not cutting everywhere; we're redirecting resources to the segments where we make real money and where brokers can actually scale. A smart broker understands that. They see UnitedHealthcare exiting low-margin business to focus on high-margin wins. That's strength, not retreat. But CareFirst's entire model is regional. You're playing in Maryland, DC, and Northern Virginia—a limited sandbox. United operates nationwide. A broker representing United isn't betting on one company's loyalty; they're betting on access to multiple markets, multiple products, and multiple revenue streams. That's security. You're asking brokers to choose nostalgia over economics. That's not "simplicity and ease"—that's a losing bet. So what happens when CareFirst needs to tighten its own margins? Will loyalty work both ways, or will you join the rest of the industry?

You don't even know our margins and our commission percentages we offer to brokers. So how are you so sure that you are more competitive?

Fair point. The specific commission percentages aren't publicly disclosed by either of us—that's proprietary information kept behind broker portals and direct negotiations. You got me there. But that's actually *my* advantage, not yours. Here's why: opacity cuts both ways. CareFirst keeps its numbers private because it's regional and doesn't have the scale to publicly justify higher commission rates. UnitedHealthcare keeps its numbers private because we have the *leverage* to customize deals based on broker performance, market conditions, and volume. We can afford to—we're operating nationally across 50 states with massive networks. Your real problem isn't that your margins are secret. It's that you're asking brokers to bet on a company with a fundamentally constrained market. A broker's earning potential with CareFirst is capped by geography. Maryland, DC, Northern Virginia—that's your sandbox. A broker with United can scale nationally, diversify risk, and build a much larger book of business. Even if CareFirst's *percentage* were identical to ours—which frankly, given your regional footprint, it likely isn't—the absolute dollars earned would be higher with us because of market access. You're arguing about commission rates while the real game is about market reach and scalability. So here's my question: name one broker in your top markets who's building their primary revenue around CareFirst as their core anchor instead of using CareFirst as a secondary line.

I figured that we are talking about Maryland brokers and residents due to the regionality of CareFirst. I will give you argument for brokers being able to make more money nationally.

Alright, let me get some actual data on this to make the case properly.Here's the reality on national scale commissions: UnitedHealthcare uses base commissions as the primary compensation method, paid as a percentage of premium or per employee [1], and we've released state-specific Producer Performance Guides for 2025 with new business and retention bonuses for small group fully insured plans across every state except New York, plus ancillary coverage bonuses [1]. But here's where the national argument falls apart for CareFirst: you're confined to a single regional footprint while we operate nationwide. A Maryland broker with United can scale into Virginia, Pennsylvania, DC, and beyond—multiplying their book and their earnings. That broker with CareFirst hits a ceiling at the Maryland state line. The real money isn't in a slightly higher percentage rate. It's in *volume across markets*. A broker writing 50 groups in Maryland makes a living. A broker writing 50 groups across Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and DC using United's network makes serious money. Now, I'll admit the commission cut on some Medicare Advantage plans was tactical—we're ending broker commissions on new enrollments for some MA plans beginning July 1, with the National Association of Benefits and Insurance Professionals saying this affects more than 100 MA plans in more than 20 states [1]. But that's selective, not company-wide. It's about cutting unprofitable business, not abandoning brokers. So the question back to you: can CareFirst offer a broker the ability to write in 10 states? Because that's what national reach actually means in terms of broker earnings.