Insurers warn of problems with federal regulator

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

President Obama's latest push for a health care overhaul could drive health plans around the country into insolvency, according to an insurance trade group.

A plan released Monday by the White House would give the federal government the power to regulate health insurers like a public utility. The Health and Human Services Department — in conjunction with state authorities — would be able to deny substantial premium increases, limit them or demand rebates for consumers.

But the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association warned against separating premium reviews from the responsibility of state regulators to make certain that health insurers have enough money to pay claims. A separation like that could lead to "multi-plan insolvencies," the association said in a statement.

"The risks of such a proposal — namely undermining the security and stability of Americans' health insurance — must not be ignored," the statement said.

Indianapolis-based health insurance giant WellPoint Inc. also warned about "significant solvency risks" from a federal rate-approval system. The insurer said in a separate statement that additional regulation also would do nothing to address "soaring medical costs," which are the main reason behind rate increases.

Insurers have endured waves of criticism over big premium hikes in individual insurance markets since WellPoint's Anthem Blue Cross said earlier this month it needed to raise rates in California by as much as 39 percent.

Large premium hikes or requests for them also have been reported in Maine, Oregon and Michigan, among other states. The Obama administration has pointed to these hikes — and billion-dollar profits the industry collected last year — as proof of the need for health care reform.

WellPoint said it lost millions last year on individual insurance in California. The insurer said a tough economy is forcing more healthy people to drop their individual insurance. That leaves a higher concentration of sick people who generate medical claims in their risk pools.

Insurers say these problems — not a push for profit — are the main reasons behind cost increases. Insurers and analysts say companies cannot subsidize their money-losing segments with premiums from other parts of their business.

Federal regulation of rate increases could hamper health insurers, said Edward Jones analyst Steve Shubitz. He noted that WellPoint already has said it lost millions and could be hurt if forced to lower premium increases.

"You can't run a business losing money year after year," he said.

But BMO Capital Markets analyst Dave Shove noted that a federal rate review would include an actuary who monitors insurer financial health. He doubts the proposed regulation would push any health plans into insolvency.

But he also said many details remain to be resolved, and a federal regulator might motivate insurers to stop selling individual policies in some markets.

"That is a a very real possibility," he said. "You probably will reduce choice for consumers."


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. President Obama has referred to the ACA as "Obamacare" any number of times; one thing it is not, if you don't qualify for a subsidy, is "affordable".

  2. One important correction, Indiana does not have an ag-gag law, it was soundly defeated, or at least changed. It was stripped of everything to do with undercover pictures and video on farms. There is NO WAY on earth that ag gag laws will survive a constitutional challenge. None. Period. Also, the reason they are trying to keep you out, isn't so we don't show the blatant abuse like slamming pigs heads into the ground, it's show we don't show you the legal stuf... the anal electroctions, the cutting off of genitals without anesthesia, the tail docking, the cutting off of beaks, the baby male chicks getting thrown alive into a grinder, the deplorable conditions, downed animals, animals sitting in their own excrement, the throat slitting, the bolt guns. It is all deplorable behavior that doesn't belong in a civilized society. The meat, dairy and egg industries are running scared right now, which is why they are trying to pass these ridiculous laws. What a losing battle.

  3. Eating there years ago the food was decent, nothing to write home about. Weird thing was Javier tried to pass off the story the way he ended up in Indy was he took a bus he thought was going to Minneapolis. This seems to be the same story from the founder of Acapulco Joe's. Stopped going as I never really did trust him after that or the quality of what being served.

  4. Indianapolis...the city of cricket, chains, crime and call centers!

  5. "In real life, a farmer wants his livestock as happy and health as possible. Such treatment give the best financial return." I have to disagree. What's in the farmer's best interest is to raise as many animals as possible as quickly as possible as cheaply as possible. There is a reason grass-fed beef is more expensive than corn-fed beef: it costs more to raise. Since consumers often want more food for lower prices, the incentive is for farmers to maximize their production while minimizing their costs. Obviously, having very sick or dead animals does not help the farmer, however, so there is a line somewhere. Where that line is drawn is the question.