IBJNews

Democrats want government approval of health premiums

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

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. liek the rest of America

  2. These quaint,obsessed musings by the stalkers are certainly entertaining, but I'm trying to figure out what, if anything, all the yelping below has to do with Zak Brown.

  3. It's evident that Moffett was pushing the right buttons and corporate America is now trying to squash him. He just wanted to withdraw the free pilot services provided to the company by the pilots to try and put some pressure on a company that has not been interested in negotiating a contract in over 5 years. The company does not provide a contract because not having one has saved them a bundle of money. Shame on any Republic pilots not standing behind their union leader just because things are getting tough, can you not see such strategic moves by the company as putting the last union president in a corporate position and into THEIR pocket. Do you really believe the last union president is so appalled at the attempts by Moffett, do you not remember his oppositions to the company? We stood behind him. It has been proven over and over again for thousands of years without fail, a man cannot serve two masters. Anyone that believes people vote contrary to their paycheck and livelihood deserve to be taken advantage of, the recent statements by the former union president are laughable as he denounces the current union president from his new corporate position. Have you ever seen a drafted sports player score points for his previous team, it cannot be done, he is not on the pilots side anymore, he gets his money a different way now than you and I do, and he should not be allowed to remain on the seniority list. A drafted player brings strength, credibility, tactical knowledge, and a strategic advantage to his NEW team, he would not be drafted or paid were it otherwise. We are all forced to choose only one side to play for and support, not doing so has many references in life such as insider trading and shaving points, all illegal for good reason. This basic fact is why corporate moguls, scientist, and engineers all sign non-discloser agreements and non-compete clauses, as protection in case they are lured into switching sides as our former union president has done. No NFL coach ever drafted a player so that both teams could benefit and better understand each other, they are recruited to win the game against that former team, period. Likewise the company does not recruit the former union president by accident or mutual understanding, its strategy. Don't confuse playing the game with good sportsman-like conduct in support of common business and prosperity goals, with the requirement to only play for one side. Good men we all love and favor fall subject to this manipulation, often without their knowledge, and it is not a betrayal of their friendship to oppose them when they switch sides. If we did not love and trust them, they would not have been chosen and lured to the other side in the first place. The deception by the drafted player is not made at a conscious level, it's just human nature and it's all about money and power which corrupts our ability to be objective and loyal to two masters. This is why our court system created the defense attorney, and why our military created counter intelligence. Its strategy and its propaganda, and it works, and that's why the "powers to be" manipulate the chess pieces by sometimes changing their colors. Some players know they are being manipulated when their color is changed, but it brings them more money and power so they do not care. The rest have good intentions but do not even realize they are being manipulated. This tactic is also known by another name, Divide and Conquer. In battle sending an imperfect message with an imperfect team is obviously not ideal, but it's still being sent by YOUR team, your union leader, a leader that has common goals and common rewards with you, they are the best, because we have elected them to do a job for us. If you are not backing Moffett but believing the spin by those that have recently switched sides, you are taking food out of your own mouth. Showing unity and backing an imperfect situation still results in taking just as much ground, it's about unity and bargaining power. It's not necessary to wait around for that perfect attack because it will never come, the company will spin and attempt to destroy anyone that gets in their way. Ultimately it's not about any specific attack anyway, ASAP or whatever it makes no difference, it is and always has been only about power. If this company cared about safety it would not build pairings with 8 hour overnights, come on, are you that naive? Besides, do you really think Hoffa cares, no, he got a call from corporate America and was squeezed into denouncing Moffett. If he didn't they would spin the safety card against him and the Teamsters National with implication for truckers, future contracts, insurance rates etc...saying something like the Teamsters use safety as a bargaining chip, blah blah blah... Do you really think any pilot is going to do something unsafe for the contract, absolutely not, the only ones threatening safety here is the company with reduced rest, fatigue, and poverty. Do you not find it odd that Hoffa and the Teamsters are opposing a Teamster president publicly? Would the Teamsters National not normally support and work with one of their own? Why did they not sit down and help him strategize, correct any mistakes, and charge ahead? Would the Teamsters National not normally support and leverage a contract for all those pilots that have been paying Teamster dues, isn't that why we have all been paying Teamster dues in the first place? I sure haven't been paying dues so that the Teamsters National could come along and write this kind of an article undercutting our union leader and our unity. Whose side is the Teamsters National really on, it's obviously not the Republic pilots side.

  4. No matter what Moffatt does the company is going to spin it like he is the terrorist and brainwash people like you into believing it, wake up, back your players that are trying to change things for you and your livelihood. Where has Hoffa been for the last 6 years, except collecting our dues. Seriously, do you really think an FO going for upgrade, signed off by a checkairman ready for the upgrade, who then fails, is not even capable of returning as a First Officer.

  5. whoa!

ADVERTISEMENT