IBJNews

WellPoint, Obama administration battle over cost of health reform to employers

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
On The Beat Industry News In Brief

At this point in the health reform debate, you have to take numbers from any side with a grain of salt. That said, Indianapolis-based WellPoint Inc. has done perhaps the only local analysis of how proposed reforms would affect the cost of health insurance for employers.

Its conclusion? Reform would generally reduce premiums for Indianapolis companies with workers in poor health but raise them for Indianapolis companies with workers in good or average health.

An eight-person firm in Indianapolis with unhealthy workers would enjoy a 23-percent premium cut under health care reform. But WellPoint figures a firm the same size with workers in average health would suffer a 20-percent increase. And an eight-person firm with healthy employees could see its premiums shoot up nearly 94 percent.

The increases do not include any rise in medical costs, which have been going up about 6 percent each year. They do, however, factor in federal subsidies to help uninsured Hoosiers buy health coverage, as well as savings that would come for some because WellPoint could no longer charge more based on health status and gender—and would be restricted in how much it could charge to older customers.

President Obama’s administration immediately criticized WellPoint for failing to give enough credit to the cost-saving measures of health care reform. The administration also countered with its own report, stressing that nearly 77,000 companies in Indiana would be eligible for premium tax credits to reduce their burden.

The White House report also emphasized that small employers would have access to low-cost plans in the health insurance exchange, which could save their employees as much as 28 percent on premiums compared with average family policy premiums today.

And it added that, by insuring more people, health reform would reduce the “hidden tax” that comes from shifting the costs of caring for the uninsured on to those who are insured.

“Health insurance reform will lower premiums for small businesses,” it asserted.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • White House's Rosey Prediction
    The White House claims the "exchange" will provide cheaper coverage, but we don't know that because we still don't know what will be mandatory coverage under "Essential Health Benefits." If the package is too rich, it will be costly. Plus with limitations on rating bands, those employers with healthy employees (and therefore cheaper current rates) will see premiums go up. The degree of subsidies is still undefined, as is the risk adjustment mechanism that is supposed to stabilize premiums. Until rules are finalized, there is no basis to predict how much, if at all, the exchanges will save money.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT