IBJNews

White House plans new rules for health insurers

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

President Barack Obama’s health-care proposal will include new rules for insurance companies and greater oversight on the industry, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in an interview.

“More oversight, more transparency, and new rules for health insurers are going to be part of health reform,” Sebelius told Bloomberg Television. She mentioned medical loss ratios, which mandate how much insurers have to spend on health benefits as opposed to administrative costs.

Obama will release a proposal to restart the health-care debate before a bipartisan White House meeting on Feb. 25. He wants a final bill to be “comprehensive,” Sebelius said.

The president will offer a single proposal that takes “some of the best ideas” from House and Senate bills as well as “a number” of Republican ideas, Sebelius said. Obama has challenged Republican leaders to present their own health-care plan at the meeting. A senior White House official said the plan will be posted by the morning of Feb. 22. Sebelius said talks on the administration’s proposal are continuing.

Democrats in Congress are reconciling differences between versions of legislation passed last year by the House and Senate that’s aimed at expanding coverage to millions of uninsured Americans while curbing costs. House Democrats say that while the two chambers are close to an agreement, they may not have a unified plan in time for the televised meeting.

Sebelius targeted health insurers this week, releasing a report that questioned proposed premium increases by companies such as Indianapolis-based WellPoint Inc., the biggest U.S. insurer of individuals and small businesses.

“If we don’t pass health reform, we will have people locked out of the market because of pre-existing conditions, driven out of the market because they simply do not have the extra cash to be able to pay these increases,” she said.

The White House report on Feb. 18 highlighted 2009 premium increases that she said “are five to 10 times larger than the growth rate in national health expenditures.” It also focused on 2009 profits and executive pay at U.S. insurers.

The report follows her inquiry into WellPoint’s proposed 39-percent premium rise for Californians who buy their own insurance. WellPoint has been called to testify before Congress about the increase on Feb. 24.

Sebelius said health legislation would require of insurers “transparency on what amount of money that they’re collecting—are they really paying on health claims.” She said it would force them to show how much money is going for executive compensation, advertising and overhead costs.

She said during a news conference earlier this week that insurance company profits are “way over anybody’s estimates.” She said the five largest U.S. insurers took in combined profits of $12.2 billion in 2009, 56 percent higher than in 2008.

Insurers said they are being scapegoated. “It’s time to stop the politics of vilification,” Karen Ignagni, president of America’s Health Insurance Plans, said in a statement.

Ignagni attributed rising costs in the individual market to “the urgent need to reduce the growth of underlying medical costs and to bring everyone into the system.”

WellPoint executives said unexpectedly high costs made the California premium increase necessary. “Premiums were insufficient to cover the higher costs,” Brian Sassi, head of WellPoint’s consumer business unit, said in a Feb. 18 interview.

Bradley Fluegel, the company’s chief strategy officer, said the increase wasn’t making up for money lost in 2009.

“We’ve already lost that money,” he said. “We just have to reflect on a go-forward basis the higher costs.”

Both the House and Senate bills would place new limits on insurers, barring them from rejecting clients because of a pre-existing condition. They would also require all Americans to get insurance or pay a penalty, offering government aid and creating online exchanges where individuals and small businesses could shop for insurance.

A compromise bill was set to pass both chambers when Democrats lost a special Senate election in Massachusetts that cost them the 60th seat they needed to overcome Republican efforts to block passage. Faced with the impasse, Obama invited Republicans to sit down with Democrats at the Feb. 25 meeting to discuss ways forward.

Mike Steel, a spokesman for House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio, said if Democrats want bipartisan cooperation they must understand it “means a clean sheet of paper, not an infomercial for another Democratic backroom deal.”

Should the Democrats be unable to gain any Republican support, one avenue open to them is using a budget process known as reconciliation that would require only a simple majority of 51 votes in the Senate. Still, that would force them to slim down the bill because it must be limited to spending and tax issues.

Another alternative is for the House to try to pass the bill the Senate approved on Christmas Eve along with a reconciliation measure that would include some of the provisions favored by the House such as more generous subsidies to help people buy insurance and greater aid to the elderly in purchasing medication.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

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