Insurers ordered to appear at Frankfort hearing

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Major health insurers are being ordered to a hearing in Frankfort, Ky., next month to explain why they are eliminating child-only policies.

Indiana's largest health insurer, Indianapolis-based Anthem, as well as Louisville-based Humana are among the companies scheduled to attend the Oct. 13 hearing called by state officials.

The companies say they decided to stop selling child-only policies partly because of the new health reform law, which requires them to accept children with pre-existing medical conditions.

Insurers said many parents might have waited until children were very sick before buying coverage, with the addition of many chronically ill children driving up premiums for other customers.

Some insurers said their moves were prompted by the decisions of competitors to stop selling child-only plans, putting them at a competitive disadvantage, The Courier-Journal reported Wednesday.

Kentucky Insurance Commissioner Sharon Clark issued the order to the insurers, saying in a statement that she was concerned it could adversely affect children with health problems.

She also expressed concern about the impact of the insurers' actions on Kentucky Access, the state's high-risk insurance pool.

Clark said it would "prove disasterous" if Kentucky Access were forced to take on several hundred children per month.

Although insurers are no longer offering new child-only policies, they will continue to cover children who have existing policies as well as to accept children with pre-existing conditions under new family policies.

According to Obama administration officials, between 100,000 and 700,000 children nationwide are covered by child-only policies.

In Kentucky and Indiana, Humana reports that its 1 million members include about 1,200 with child-only policies.



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. I am not by any means judging whether this is a good or bad project. It's pretty simple, the developers are not showing a hardship or need for this economic incentive. It is a vacant field, the easiest for development, and the developer already has the money to invest $26 million for construction. If they can afford that, they can afford to pay property taxes just like the rest of the residents do. As well, an average of $15/hour is an absolute joke in terms of economic development. Get in high paying jobs and maybe there's a different story. But that's the problem with this ask, it is speculative and users are just not known.

  2. Shouldn't this be a museum

  3. I don't have a problem with higher taxes, since it is obvious that our city is not adequately funded. And Ballard doesn't want to admit it, but he has increased taxes indirectly by 1) selling assets and spending the money, 2) letting now private entities increase user fees which were previously capped, 3) by spending reserves, and 4) by heavy dependence on TIFs. At the end, these are all indirect tax increases since someone will eventually have to pay for them. It's mathematics. You put property tax caps ("tax cut"), but you don't cut expenditures (justifiably so), so you increase taxes indirectly.

  4. Marijuana is the safest natural drug grown. Addiction is never physical. Marijuana health benefits are far more reaching then synthesized drugs. Abbott, Lilly, and the thousands of others create poisons and label them as medication. There is no current manufactured drug on the market that does not pose immediate and long term threat to the human anatomy. Certainly the potency of marijuana has increased by hybrids and growing techniques. However, Alcohol has been proven to destroy more families, relationships, cause more deaths and injuries in addition to the damage done to the body. Many confrontations such as domestic violence and other crimes can be attributed to alcohol. The criminal activities and injustices that surround marijuana exists because it is illegal in much of the world. If legalized throughout the world you would see a dramatic decrease in such activities and a savings to many countries for legal prosecutions, incarceration etc in regards to marijuana. It indeed can create wealth for the government by collecting taxes, creating jobs, etc.... I personally do not partake. I do hope it is legalized throughout the world.

  5. Build the resevoir. If built this will provide jobs and a reason to visit Anderson. The city needs to do something to differentiate itself from other cities in the area. Kudos to people with vision that are backing this project.