New York orders WellPoint to make refunds for overcharges

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indianapolis-based WellPoint Inc. is among 11 insurers ordered to refund money to almost 600,000 New Yorkers who were charged too much for health insurance.

New York Governor Andrew M. Cuomo told the insurance companies they had to give back $114.5 million to policyholders because the carriers failed to spend the minimum 82 cents of each premium dollar on health care as required by the state, Cuomo said Wednesday in a statement. The mandate to spend a certain amount on medical care also is a federal requirement under the 2010 U.S. health overhaul law.

“In this economic climate, every penny counts and, in this case, insurance companies were overcharging New Yorkers to the tune of millions of dollars,” Cuomo said. “This should serve as a message to companies that we are watching, and we will not tolerate any action that wrongly hurts the finances of the people of New York.”

Refunds already are being sent to policyholders in the individual and small business market. The state has instructed insurers to make refunds on plans for larger employers by Dec. 15, according to the statement from Cuomo’s office.

WellPoint’s Empire BlueCross BlueShield was ordered to pay $61.1 million, the largest rebate demanded from insurers in New York. Excellus Health Plan Inc., a not-for-profit BlueCross BlueShield organization based in Rochester, New York, has been instructed to pay $21.4 million, the second-largest amount.

Other insurer refunds include $11.5 million for Connecticut-based Aetna; $5.1 million for Health Net of New York; and $4.8 million for Oxford Health Insurance Co., a unit of UnitedHealth Group Inc. of Minnesota.

New York changed its medical loss ratio, the formula that requires insurers to spend a certain portion of premium revenue on health care, in the middle of last year and applied it retroactively to January 2010, Cynthia Michener, an Aetna spokeswoman, said in an e-mail. This didn’t give the company the opportunity to price its plans “appropriately,” she said.

“The overwhelming majority of our New York business complied with the rules,” Michener said. Based on the previous requirements, “Aetna’s 2010 results would have met the standards.”

WellPoint’s Empire payments represent about 3 percent of its total premium revenue for insurance products subject to these laws, Kristin Binns, a WellPoint spokeswoman, said.

“As in previous years, and consistent with New York law, if the amount Empire pays for medical claims is unexpectedly low, Empire pays refunds to its customers,” Binns said. All Empire refunds were forwarded to affected customers as of Sept. 30, she said.

“Our spending on consumers’ health-care costs was within one-half of 1 percent of the state required level, illustrating the discipline we have in pricing our health plans to ensure premium rates closely track with expected claim costs,” said Daryl Richards, a spokesman for UnitedHealth. “In New York, the average company’s total annual rebate from UnitedHealthcare is about $120, evidence that costs closely matched premium collected.”


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. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.