IBJNews

Baucus health reform bill draws fire in Indiana, too

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint
On The Beat Industry News In Brief

The health insurance industry’s sudden counterpunch to the Senate version of health reform echoed in Indiana and opened a key issue for the rest of the debate: Will covering half of the country’s uninsured mean raising premiums for the 85 percent of Americans who already have insurance?

The answer is yes, according to a controversial study released Oct. 12 by America’s Health Insurance Plans, a trade group in which Indianapolis-based WellPoint Inc. is a leading member. But the study was blasted by the Obama administration and congressional Democrats as being both flawed and self-serving.

Hillman

In Indianapolis, however, Rob Hillman, president of WellPoint’s Indiana subsidiary, Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield, e-mailed the study right away to dozens of Indiana insurance brokers.

 

Also, Susan Rider, an Indianapolis insurance broker and president-elect of the Indianapolis chapter of the National Association of Health Underwriters, distributed an e-mail with concerns about the so-called Baucus bill, authored by Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont.

Health insurers’ main beef with recent amendments to the Baucus bill is that the amendments back away from a deal the insurers thought they had—in exchange for health insurers’ agreeing to cover anyone regardless of how sick they are, Congress would require all Americans to buy health insurance.

That mandate would have been enforced through salty fees charged to anyone who didn’t comply. But the fees were heavily criticized, so Baucus’ Senate Finance Committee rolled them back from an original amount of $3,800 to $1,500 for families. And in the first year the amended bill would take effect, Americans would face no penalty at all for going without insurance.

“The penalty for not having insurance coverage is too low, and it will result in many people choosing to just pay the fine rather than purchasing insurance coverage,” Carl McDonald, a health insurance analyst at Oppenheimer & Co., wrote in a recent blog post. He added, “This is a recipe for adverse selection, which will raise premium costs across the entire health care system.”

The AHIP study tried to calculate exactly how much premiums would rise, saying the average family policy would more than double in price in the next decade, to nearly $26,000.

But the study, conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers, analyzed only four aspects of the Baucus bill. It failed to examine, for example, the $452 billion in subsidies Congress would spend to help uninsured Americans buy health insurance—a potential boon to the industry. Also, since most of the 29 million new customers would be young, healthy and therefore low-spending customers, their presence in insurance risk pools likely would reduce costs for everyone.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • see
    With the mandate we must have the public option and we can't afford to keep giving away all these subsidies. My Lord, what do we not subsidize?

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. First, the Athenaeum is going to have to get past the hurdle with the Lockerbie residents and the agreement that the parcel would be residential. Second, and in my opinion, this prime piece of property should include parking, PLUS, a black box theater(s), some market rate and affordable artist housing and a plan to renovate and reconfigure the second story theater. I would negotiate to add the DeHaan property surface parking lot into the development mix, place a one story surface parking garage on the DeHaan lot on the street level (for the Dehaan tenants use during the daytime) and add a second story to the garage that would become an addition to the current second story theater and then change the direction of the theater by moving the stage across the alley and on top of the DeHaan lot parking. You can add all the stage elements that are currently missing from the Athenaeum stage to make it more attractive for use by Ballet, Opera and traveling productions. Plus, the theater changes would probably help solve some of the soundproofing issues. Alas,it does not seem to be a part of the strategic plan to conduct a study to determine best use of the property. Seems like the current plan is a quick and easy move that ignores the property best use/potential and any strategic property planning for the effect on future generations.

  2. I recall that MSA's pilings are still in the ground and hard to remove. It’s not likely any proposal will include significant underground construction/parking because of this. Start adding 2 floors of retail, 8 floors of parking and 5-10 floors of possible hotel, and/or 10-20 floors of residential, and you are at 30 floors already with possible expansion of all the uses. But then again I could be wrong.

  3. Accoriding to their website there is no deadline to the Do Not Call list. What is this article referring to??

  4. On what planet are they entitled to this largesse from the stockholders? These people make multi-million dollar salaries: Pay for your own personal travel.

  5. It matters because they're already paid enormously fat salaries: Pay for your own personal travel. Being "taxed on it" isn't a valid excuse--so what? They're still being gifted a raft of luxury perks from somebody else's money on top of an enormous, lavish salary.

ADVERTISEMENT