IBJNews

California OKs Anthem rate hike after controversy

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

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. Good ole' Obamacare. Thanks liberals and those who didn't bother to vote.

    2. Yes. Blame those who were too lazy to go vote Obama out and those who voted him in again. That's my take on it. I know folks won't get it on the left. OK. Start berating me now!

    3. Serioulsy, people are AGINST this project? Most communities would be salivating over a project like this. You'd rather have an empty eye-sore gas station and shacks posing as apartments? This project is exactly what BR needs. BUILD IT MR MAYOR. And yes, I am a BR resident, and have been for 20 years.

    4. As a St. Vincent employee of over 20 years, I am saddened and disheartened by this announcement. Unfortunately, as the healthcare "industry" continues on this political and corporate path, all that St. Vincent Hospital has stood for spiritually for its employees and this community is being sucked dry. I know it truly has no choice. It is not just Obamacare or just competition or just any single thing. This trend started long before I was even born when the government became involved in healthcare and it became an "industry." I grieve for those who will lose their jobs, one of whom may be me, but I also grieve for this hospital which I have served for over 20 years. May God give us and it the grace to withstand the future of healthcare.

    5. Why do people constantly harp on this issue and act ignorant about what a city population measures? A city's population is the city's population. There is no argument or debate about it. If you want to measure the density of a city--measure it. If you want to measure the size of a metropolitan area, then measure the metropolitan population. City boundaries cover different sized areas--and they always have (though the disparity has probably increased since about 1900 or so when more cities began annexing their surrounding communities). For example, San Francisco only covers 49 square miles while Houston cover nearly 600 square miles. No one argues about the population rankings of either city even though they clearly cover extremely different sized areas. Indianapolis is the 13 largest city by population in the U.S. That is a fact. While the population of a metropolitan area may give you a better sense of how large a community is, as noted, even metro areas can vary widely in the size of geographic area they cover--so that is not a perfect comparison either.

    ADVERTISEMENT