IBJNews

Democrats want government approval of health premiums

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Insurers like WellPoint Inc., UnitedHealth Group Inc. and Aetna Inc. should be required to get U.S. approval to increase premiums, Senate health committee chairman Tom Harkin said Tuesday at a hearing.

Legislation signed by President Barack Obama in March requires the companies to explain any “unreasonable” premium increases, though it doesn’t regulate the insurers’ decisions until 2014. Obama criticized a California subsidiary of Indianapolis-based WellPoint in March after the insurer proposed a 39-percent premium increase on some customers.

Senator Diane Feinstein, a California Democrat, has introduced a bill that would empower federal regulators to approve or reject rate hikes. At the hearing, Harkin, an Iowa Democrat, told members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee that the United States should enact legislation similar to Feinstein’s proposal.

“We can and should do more,” Harkin said. “If that review determines that premiums are unjustified—that insurance companies are just trying to run up profits—corrective action must be taken,” he said of the premium review proposal.

America’s Health Insurance Plans, the Washington lobbying group representing the medical-insurance industry, opposes federal review of premium changes. In a Nov. 7 letter by the group’s president, Karen Ignagni, insurers said a government rejection of premium increases “could result in insufficient funds being available to pay benefits on behalf of enrollees.”

Ignagni said at the hearing that insurers aren’t to blame for rising premiums. Pharmaceutical companies and medical device makers are responsible for higher insurance costs because of rising prices for their products and their company profits, she said.

“Health care premiums are a symptom, not a cause, of the problem,” Ignagni said.

Drugmakers “are not the driving force behind increasing health insurance premiums,” Ken Johnson, senior vice president for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, said Tuesday in an e-mail. “Such claims simply aren’t supported by the facts.”

Spending on prescription drugs increased 3 percent in 2008, compared with 10 percent in 2003, according to a 2009 study by the Kaiser Family Foundation, a health policy research organization based in Menlo Park, Calif. Hospital care and physician service costs increased by more than drug costs in 2007 and 2008, according to Kaiser’s analysis of national health data collected by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, a U.S. government agency.

“Medical devices and diagnostics are not responsible for excessive increases in insurance premiums, Stephen J. Ubl, president and CEO of Advanced Medical Technology, said Tuesday in an e-mail.

About 6 cents of every health-care dollar is spent on medical technology, while devices and diagnostic tools have been “a key factor in increased life expectancy and dramatic reductions in deaths from diseases like heart disease, stroke, and breast cancer,” Ubl said.

Regulations on health insurance were a major part of Obama’s health overhaul, which also contains a mandate on how much of premiums must spend on care.

Passing additional legislation to give the government power to regulate rates was unfinished business from that effort, Feinstein said Tuesday. The proposal initially was included, then stripped out under a procedural rule, she said.

“I’m very worried about it,” Feinstein said. “This is a glaring loophole.”

Harkin said the committee would take up the bill and pass it this year, without offering a specific timeline.

Ignagni said the insurance industry would prefer that lawmakers let changes in the health care overhaul go into effect before adding more regulation.

“All parts of our businesses and operations have been regulated,” Ignagni said. “We think the changes should be allowed to work,” she said.

Obama signed the final piece of the health-care overhaul law on March 30. The legislation is designed to expand health insurance coverage to an estimated 32 million uninsured people, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

The law is expected to cost $940 billion and reduce the deficit by $143 billion over a decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Critics think the plan will cost even more and add to the deficit. Democrats in Congress and the administration have said it will also lower the cost of insurance premiums and improve the quality of care.

Under the legislation, state-run market places, called exchanges, will be created beginning in 2014 to allow consumers to choose among health insurance plans. Premium increases can be considered as part of a decision whether to allow a plan to be offered through the exchanges, according to the law.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • answer this topic
    freelance writer
  • answer this post
    freelance writer
  • Stupid and ignorant
    This is what you get when people who have never run businesses get the power OVER other peoples businesses.

    Rate increase does not equal profit. Only a fool would claim that. What the Health Insurance Mandate that Congress just passed does is force an increase in costs in insurers, by compelling them to accept people who are already sick, and who did not have the foresight or legal ability (in Blue states) to buy insurance. This is a cost only, and will never to compensated by any premiums this person must pay. In effect, it's a forced discount.

    What is being set up is the bankruptcy of health insurers--who make 5% net profit in a GOOD year, and much less than that most years--which will result in mass unemployment, reductions in responsiveness, and increases in denied claims. Medicare, as serious people know, is typically the insurer who denies the most claims, percentage-wise, and of course in absolute numbers.

    Don't listen to ignorant Communists, who don't even know the source of their talking points.
  • Who's responsible for escalating HC costs?
    Rising health care costs are caused by the administrative expenses claimed by the for-profit health insurers--running an est. 20-30 cents on every health care dollar we spend in the US. As the middlemen insurers laugh all the way to the bank, our people cannot afford care. Unfortunately, the new bill will give the insurers even more of our money--taxpayer-funded subsidies so that we can "purchase " their costly inadequate products.

    Is your insurer listed as a Fortune 500 company? I'll bet so.

    Meanwhile democracies around the world can afford to cover all their people--while spending much less than we do. How do they do it? They eliminate the for-profit insurance companies. They have single payer systems.

    Go to Hoosiers for a Commonsense Health Plan www.hchp.info/ or pnhp.org to learn more.

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. PJ - Mall operators like Simon, and most developers/ land owners, establish individual legal entities for each property to avoid having a problem location sink the ship, or simply structure the note to exclude anything but the property acting as collateral. Usually both. The big banks that lend are big boys that know the risks and aren't mad at Simon for forking over the deed and walking away.

  2. Do any of the East side residence think that Macy, JC Penny's and the other national tenants would have letft the mall if they were making money?? I have read several post about how Simon neglected the property but it sounds like the Eastsiders stopped shopping at the mall even when it was full with all of the national retailers that you want to come back to the mall. I used to work at the Dick's at Washington Square and I know for a fact it's the worst performing Dick's in the Indianapolis market. You better start shopping there before it closes also.

  3. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

  4. If you only knew....

  5. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

ADVERTISEMENT