Feds reject Indiana request for health care exemption

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana consumers who buy their own health insurance will get a bigger bang for their buck in the next few years, thanks to a decision by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services on Monday.

The federal agency rejected Indiana's bid for an exemption from federal health care overhaul rules that require insurers selling policies to individuals to essentially dedicate 80 percent of the premiums they collect to medical care. In other words, business costs and profits cannot total more than 20 percent of the premiums the insurers collect, or else they must pay rebates to policyholders the following year.

The Indiana Department of Insurance, arguing the 80 percent rule was discouraging insurers from selling individual policies, requested permission to allow the companies to devote just 65 percent of premiums to medical care this year, about 69 percent next year, 72 percent in 2013 and 76 percent in 2014.

Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels condemned the HHS decision.

"Once again, the Obama administration took a position in favor of higher health care costs and against personal freedom," Daniels said in a statement issued by his office.

The Insurance Department, in requesting the exemption, cited five carriers leaving the state's individual market since July 2010.

However, Gary Cohen, acting director of the Office of Oversight at HHS' Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, told reporters in a teleconference Monday that Aetna, Cigna, Pekin and two other companies got out of the market for reasons other than the 80 percent rule or that the departures would not make individual policies harder to get or more expensive in Indiana.

Logan Harrison, Indiana's deputy insurance commissioner for health compliance, disagreed.

"Anytime there's less choice in the marketplace, consumers are adversely affected," Harrison said in a telephone interview.

David Roos, a public health insurance advocate with Covering Kids and Families of Indiana, said insurance companies pressed the state for relief from the 80 percent rule during legislative hearings this past summer.

However, Roos said Indiana was among the first states to hold insurers "to a higher standard" when the Daniels administration, in designing the Healthy Indiana Plan medical savings account, required insurers to return not just 80 percent but 85 percent of premium dollars in medical care. Daniels is seeking federal approval to use the Healthy Indiana Plan to enroll newly eligible people in Medicaid beginning in 2014.

Indianapolis-based Anthem dominates Indiana's health insurance market for individuals with a 65 percent share, Insurance Department officials said this summer. The state's Medicaid actuary, Milliman Inc., has said Anthem and four other companies control 90 percent of the market.

However, consumer advocates say the exodus of Aetna and other companies might result in fewer choices and higher costs for consumers under health insurance exchanges to be established in 2014 under the health care overhaul. The exchanges will pool the resources of large groups of people to offer more affordable health insurance.

About 200,000 Indiana residents now have individual polices rather than employer-provided coverage. About 875,000 have no insurance at all.

Indiana and three other states have had requests for exemptions denied by HHS but several other states including Kentucky have won them. Seven other states have requests pending.


  • politics at its best
    Wow - this article really showcases Republican disdain for anything good out of PPACA.

    Logan Harrison: "Anytime there's less choice in the marketplace, consumers are adversely affected" yet Indiana allows Anthem to control 65% of market and sides with Anthem in all disputes.

    Daniels criticizes the decision but wants HIP to be the vehicle for Indiana that requires 85%!

    Indiana really wants an insurance company to have 35% of the premium dollar go to insurance company costs and profits?

  • Ok for Daniels but not for Obama?
    So how is it ok for Daniels' Healthy Indiana Plan to require insurers to return 85 percent or premiums in medical care but he accuses Obama of causing higher health care costs by requiring 80 percent?

Post a comment to this story

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

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 reality, Lilly is maintaining profit by cutting costs such as Indiana/US citizen IT workers by a significant amount with their Tata Indian consulting connection, increasing Indian H1B's at Lillys Indiana locations significantly and offshoring to India high paying Indiana jobs to cut costs and increase profit at the expense of U.S. workers.

  2. I think perhaps there is legal precedence here in that the laws were intended for family farms, not pig processing plants on a huge scale. There has to be a way to squash this judges judgment and overrule her dumb judgement. Perhaps she should be required to live in one of those neighbors houses for a month next to the farm to see how she likes it. She is there to protect the people, not the corporations.

  3. http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/engineer/facts/03-111.htm Corporate farms are not farms, they are indeed factories on a huge scale. The amount of waste and unhealthy smells are environmentally unsafe. If they want to do this, they should be forced to buy a boundary around their farm at a premium price to the homeowners and landowners that have to eat, sleep, and live in a cesspool of pig smells. Imagine living in a house that smells like a restroom all the time. Does the state really believe they should take the side of these corporate farms and not protect Indiana citizens. Perhaps justifiable they should force all the management of the farms to live on the farm itself and not live probably far away from there. Would be interesting to investigate the housing locations of those working at and managing the corporate farms.

  4. downtown in the same area as O'malia's. 350 E New York. Not sure that another one could survive. I agree a Target is needed d'town. Downtown Philly even had a 3 story Kmart for its downtown residents.

  5. Indy-area residents... most of you have no idea how AMAZING Aurelio's is. South of Chicago was a cool pizza place... but it pales in comparison to the heavenly thin crust Aurelio's pizza. Their deep dish is pretty good too. My waistline is expanding just thinking about this!