According to a new public policy report, .AARP finances its operations by overcharging members for health care policies and through its billion-dollar relationship with UnitedHealth Group.
Despite its “non-profit” status, AARP’s profits have been increasing for years largely due to the organization’s practices of marketing of products and services. The report, published by public policy think tank American Commitment, mainly examined AARP’s source of revenue since the passage of The Affordable Care Act in 2010.
AARP reported $1.6 billion of revenue and $246.4 million of profit in 2018, the most recent year in which data was available. In total, AARP received more than $5.3 billion tax free from UnitedHealthGroup from 2007 through 2017.21 Between the year of Obamacare’s passage and 2017, the organization made nearly $4.2 billion in those eight short years.
AARP not only makes money from UnitedHealth- Group – and its members – directly, it does so indirectly as well. The Report claims the organization has established a grantor trust, through which it funnels payments for insurance policies issued by UnitedHealth and other insurers, including MetLife, Genworth, and Aetna.
In the past four years, AARP has been sued three times by its own members over its royalty fee policy, which they argued was deceptive, according to court filings. However, AARP ultimately won each of the cases.
U.S. District Court of Washington D.C. Judge Beryl Howell ruled in favor of AARP in May dismissing the plaintiffs’ class action lawsuit. The plaintiffs, led by AARP member Helen Krukas, argued that the organization misrepresented its Medigap royalty fee structure, according to Forbes.
The plaintiffs specifically argued that AARP was “micromanaging the sale of Medigap and therefore [the 4.95% fee] is not really a royalty fee for its intellectual property. They are a salesman. This is a commission and it’s taxable,” Jacobs said.
Howell originally rejected AARP’s motion to dismiss the case in March 2019 giving credence to Krukas’ argument. Krukas “sufficiently and plausibly alleged that the defendants engaged in unfair trade practices – by materially misrepresenting information about the 4.95% charge,” Howell wrote.
But, in May Howell ruled that Krukas’ argument misses the mark. She said Krukas failed to prove that AARP has a fiduciary relationship with its members.
Similarly, U.S. District Judge Dean D. Pregerson of Los Angeles dismissed two separate AARP class action lawsuits, Forbes reported. Pregerson ruled against plaintiff Simon Levay in November 2018 and against Jerald Friedman in November 2019.
The second dismissal came after the three-judge panel Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. The panel ruled that AARP “transacts” and “solicits” insurance without a license and engaged in fraud by calling the 4.95% commission a “royalty,” according to Forbes.
Pregerson didn’t agree, however, saying the plaintiffs failed to prove they suffered economic harm, Forbes reported
The House Ways and Means Committee investigated AARP in 2011. The investigation pointed out several potential issues with AARP’s structure including its royalty fee practices and concluded with a series of suggestions for the Internal Revenue Service to consider.