IBJNews

Consumer group sues Anthem over policy changes

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

A consumer watchdog group filed a lawsuit Monday against California's largest for-profit health insurer on behalf of policyholders, claiming they were pushed to take coverage with fewer benefits and higher deductibles.

In the case filed in Ventura Superior Court, Anthem Blue Cross is accused of violating a California law requiring health insurers to offer new, comparable coverage or minimize premium increases when they close a policy.

According to the lawsuit, plaintiffs Mary Feller and Randy Freed received similar form letters from the Woodland Hills-based insurer, stating their policies were closed and they could "switch to any Anthem Blue Cross individual health plan with no underwriting required."

The lawsuit alleges that the few plans Anthem would allow Feller and Freed to switch into had higher premiums, higher deductibles, less coverage, or a combination of those undesirable traits.

Anthem Blue Cross spokeswoman Peggy Hinz said the insurer hasn't yet reviewed the case, declining further comment.

Consumer Watchdog, a Santa Monica-based consumer advocacy group, filed the case on behalf of Feller and Freed. The lawsuit seeks class action status.

When the practice was outlawed in 1993, legislative analysts called it a "death spiral" because rates inevitably increased until policyholders could no longer afford coverage. As the coverage pool shrank over time, rates went up and up.

"It's a very profitable practice, and what we know is the insurance industry is very focused on short-term returns," said Jerry Flanagan, a health advocate for Consumer Watchdog.

With her family's premiums up to nearly $25,000 a year, Feller says she, her husband and daughter — a cancer survivor — are spending more on health insurance premiums than they do on their mortgage, "and we live in Marin County, California, which is one of the costliest real estate markets in the country."

"I think for the first time, we're really scared that we're going to be without health insurance," she said.

The lawsuit comes on the heels of government scrutiny of a steep Anthem Blue Cross rate hike for roughly 700,000 individual policyholders in California. The hikes average 25 percent — some premiums will rise as much as 39 percent — but implementation of the hike has been delayed until May 1 while a state regulator investigates.

Anthem executives have blamed the current economic climate, flaws in the national health care system, high costs of health care and fewer young, healthy people holding onto insurance policies for the rate hikes.

The Obama administration has called Anthem's hike a harbinger of rising premiums in its arguments for health care reform.

In special hearings last week, California legislators and the U.S. House of Representatives questioned executives from Indianapolis-based WellPoint, Anthem's parent company, about proposed premium hikes in California, Maine and elsewhere.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • mark my words...
    ...I have a VERY special place in hell reserved for thes corporate evildoers whose sole purpose is to enrich their earthly pockets while selling their eternal souls to the devil, and unfortunately people are dying because of the GREED of these whores...really, Larry GLASSCOCK, Braly and the rest of these corporate criminals should burn forever for their sins!!!

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. In my opinion the estridge companies are crooks. They filed bankruptcy on their 'track housing' side of the business two weeks before they closed on one of my clients' homes. When my client first interviewed Estridge as a builder 6 months before, they specifically ASKED about the solvency of their business, knowing that some builders were struggling. Estridge truly misrepresented their financial situation at that time. I suppose I am more unhappy with the whole system than I am with the builder because what the heck==you can file bankruptcy on 'track homes' but still keep building and make money off of 'custom built' homes??? How ridiculous! They are all homes. How can a company be allowed to bilk thousands of dollars from their subcontractors but still be allowed to build houses?? they should have been made to pay back all their unpaid contractors before being allowed to profit from building any more houses! This alone makes them and the system crooks in my eyes. I would never build an estridge home and I would not recommend for my clients either. If they were truly 'bankrupt' how could they afford to keep building homes anyway??? The whole system needs fixed.

  2. I live a couple blocks east of the Angie's campus and my house is assessed for ~$160,000. If I could get that amount, let alone $384,000 (a 140% bonus), I'd sell in a minute. Either Angie's stockholders just got fleeced, or Angie's is getting about a 58% discount on their property taxes, if these properties are actually worth what they paid Mr. Oesterle for them. Which do you think is the case?

  3. Perhaps the IMA board is really to blame! They agreed to hire Charles. They can't seemingly find donors among themselves, or bring in new blood that will support the museums operating budget with an expanded museum and money to provide curators with something to do (ie buy art). The headlines of disarray at the museum and mass firings are hurting the reputation of the museum for some time to come. If people on the board had misgivings, perhaps they shpuld have more forcefully opposed efforts that they have seemingly been unable to fund, like expansion and the costs it has created!

  4. See, I told u Indyman and Dipsicle....this 8 days is overkill. It's barely worth a weekend....great job Tony George! Your dream has been fulfilled....he fans want the I r l back. Thats how good it was.....and that sucked.

  5. I have been in training for a short time now but right off I can see that safety and quality are the number one issues, my experience as of late has been a positive one, the employees along with Jeff the plant manager and the operation supervisor as well as the engineers are a highly motivated group of people, what an asset for the area to have and for company's in need of a quality metal products.

ADVERTISEMENT