IBJNews

California OKs Anthem rate hike after controversy

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

State regulators have accepted rate hikes on individual Anthem Blue Cross health insurance policies after public outrage and government scrutiny halted a larger increase.

The California Department of Insurance said Wednesday it approved a rate increase averaging about 14 percent for Anthem Blue Cross customers. The department also approved a nearly 19-percent increase for Blue Shield of California.

Anthem, a subsidiary of Indianapolis-based Wellpoint Inc. and the California's largest for-profit insurer, had previously requested a boost that would have raised rates as much as 39 percent for some customers, with average increases of about 25 percent.

But regulators found accounting errors in the proposal and Anthem retracted the filing, which would have affected about 700,000 individual policies regulated by the commissioner. Another 100,000 individual policies are regulated by the state's other insurance regulator, the Department of Managed Healthcare.

Anthem's rate hike was repeatedly criticized by President Barack Obama as an example of a broken health care system in the run-up to the vote on federal health care reform.

The smaller increase announced Wednesday was expected to save consumers $184 million, Department of Insurance spokesman Ioannis Kazanis said.

Anthem spokeswoman Kristin Binns said in a written statement the company "is pleased that the department has posed no objections to our individual rate filings and we look forward to continuing to serve consumers in California."

Not-for-profit insurer Blue Shield of California's rate hike will affect more than 247,000 policyholders.

"We wish it were a much smaller increase, but this is unfortunately what we're paying out to hospitals, doctors and pharmaceutical companies to pay the cost of the claims of these members," said Tom Epstein, spokesman for Blue Shield.

Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner instituted independent reviews of the top four insurers in the state in June to help keep the companies in line with California law mandating 70 percent of income be used for medical treatment of policyholders.

The rate hikes by Anthem and Blue Shield underwent independent reviews that were released Wednesday and found the two major insurers to be in compliance with the law.

Anthony Wright, executive director of Health Access, a not-for-profit advocacy group for consumers, said state regulators need better control over the rate hike approval process. Two bills currently being considered by the Legislature — AB2578 and SB1163 — would strengthen the authority of insurance regulators, he said.

"The fact that Anthem had to pull back and reduce their rate hike shows that public oversight can work, but we're not going to have the presidential spotlight on every future rate increase," Wright said.

Providers must give 30 days notice to policyholders before increasing rates.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Because they are the only bad guys
    Hector - go survey the hospitals and doctors in California and across this country if they see double digit reimbursement increases annually. If any hospital is in the press for getting such an increase in one year it is going to be because the insurance company did not give them any increases for multiple years prior to that.
  • Why the only bad guy?
    Why do only the ones paying for the skyward costs of health care - the insurance companies - get scalded when the raise their prices?

    What about the doctors, hospitals, etc.? Why do they get a free pass when they jack up their rates?

    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. Apologies for the wall of text. I promise I had this nicely formatted in paragraphs in Notepad before pasting here.

    2. I believe that is incorrect Sir, the people's tax-dollars are NOT paying for the companies investment. Without the tax-break the company would be paying an ADDITIONAL $11.1 million in taxes ON TOP of their $22.5 Million investment (Building + IT), for a total of $33.6M or a 50% tax rate. Also, the article does not specify what the total taxes were BEFORE the break. Usually such a corporate tax-break is a 'discount' not a 100% wavier of tax obligations. For sake of example lets say the original taxes added up to $30M over 10 years. $12.5M, New Building $10.0M, IT infrastructure $30.0M, Total Taxes (Example Number) == $52.5M ININ's Cost - $1.8M /10 years, Tax Break (Building) - $0.75M /10 years, Tax Break (IT Infrastructure) - $8.6M /2 years, Tax Breaks (against Hiring Commitment: 430 new jobs /2 years) == 11.5M Possible tax breaks. ININ TOTAL COST: $41M Even if you assume a 100% break, change the '30.0M' to '11.5M' and you can see the Company will be paying a minimum of $22.5, out-of-pocket for their capital-investment - NOT the tax-payers. Also note, much of this money is being spent locally in Indiana and it is creating 430 jobs in your city. I admit I'm a little unclear which tax-breaks are allocated to exactly which expenses. Clearly this is all oversimplified but I think we have both made our points! :) Sorry for the long post.

    3. Clearly, there is a lack of a basic understanding of economics. It is not up to the company to decide what to pay its workers. If companies were able to decide how much to pay their workers then why wouldn't they pay everyone minimum wage? Why choose to pay $10 or $14 when they could pay $7? The answer is that companies DO NOT decide how much to pay workers. It is the market that dictates what a worker is worth and how much they should get paid. If Lowe's chooses to pay a call center worker $7 an hour it will not be able to hire anyone for the job, because all those people will work for someone else paying the market rate of $10-$14 an hour. This forces Lowes to pay its workers that much. Not because it wants to pay them that much out of the goodness of their heart, but because it has to pay them that much in order to stay competitive and attract good workers.

    4. GOOD DAY to you I am Mr Howell Henry, a Reputable, Legitimate & an accredited money Lender. I loan money out to individuals in need of financial assistance. Do you have a bad credit or are you in need of money to pay bills? i want to use this medium to inform you that i render reliable beneficiary assistance as I'll be glad to offer you a loan at 2% interest rate to reliable individuals. Services Rendered include: *Refinance *Home Improvement *Inventor Loans *Auto Loans *Debt Consolidation *Horse Loans *Line of Credit *Second Mortgage *Business Loans *Personal Loans *International Loans. Please write back if interested. Upon Response, you'll be mailed a Loan application form to fill. (No social security and no credit check, 100% Guaranteed!) I Look forward permitting me to be of service to you. You can contact me via e-mail howellhenryloanfirm@gmail.com Yours Sincerely MR Howell Henry(MD)

    5. It is sad to see these races not have a full attendance. The Indy Car races are so much more exciting than Nascar. It seems to me the commenters here are still a little upset with Tony George from a move he made 20 years ago. It was his decision to make, not yours. He lost his position over it. But I believe the problem in all pro sports is the escalating price of admission. In todays economy, people have to pay much more for food and gas. The average fan cannot attend many events anymore. It's gotten priced out of most peoples budgets.

    ADVERTISEMENT