Not-for-profits vying with WellPoint may get $3.8B in loans

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Not-for-profits that compete with insurers such as WellPoint Inc. are eligible for $3.8 billion in U.S. financing under the health law, and the government expects more than a third of the loans not to be repaid.

Recipients may include church groups and not-for-profits created after July 16, 2009, the United States said in a rule issued Monday. The funding promotes so-called co-op health plans that the government expects to vie with insurers in marketplaces called exchanges opening in 2014 under the law.

Democrats who wrote the law, led by Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota, intended the co-ops as a fallback to a proposed government-run insurance plan called the public option that was abandoned before the law was passed. The rule doesn’t specify when the loans would become available.

The co-ops will give consumers “more choices, greater plan accountability and help ensure a more competitive insurance market,” said Steve Larsen, director of the U.S. Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight, in a prepared statement.

The health law enacted last year provided $6 billion in start-up funding for co-ops. President Barack Obama signed a fiscal 2011 budget deal with congressional Republicans in April that canceled $2.2 billion of the co-op money.

“There must be a level playing field where all companies providing insurance, including co-ops, are required to abide by the same rules and regulations,” said Robert Zirkelbach, a spokesman for Washington lobbying group America’s Health Insurance Plans that includes Indianapolis-based WellPoint, in an e-mail.

Under rules announced Monday by the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, co-ops applying for government loans must be governed by a board elected by their members. A majority of the board must be members of the co-op.

Loans will “only be made to private, nonprofit entities that demonstrate a high probability of becoming financially viable,” the agency said. Four co-op health plans already in operation in Washington, Idaho, Minnesota and Wisconsin cover “in excess of 1 million lives,” the government said.

The nation’s two largest are Puget Sound Health Plan in Washington, and Health Partners operating in Wisconsin and Minnesota, said Richard Popper, deputy director for insurance programs in Larsen’s agency.

The rule may limit funding to newly created health plans established by not-for-profits that “face a major change in purpose,” according to the rule.

The U.S. created two categories of funding: “start-up” loans to establish health plans and “solvency” loans to help them meet state requirements for insurers. Start-up loans must be re-paid within five years, and solvency loans within 15 years.

CMS said in its rule that it expects 40 percent of the start-up loans and 35 percent of the solvency loans to not be repaid. The defaults will cost the government about $320 million from 2012 to 2031, the agency estimated.

“We certainly hope and frankly don’t expect the default rate to be that high,” Larsen said in a conference call with reporters. “Part of our role is to make sure the money goes out to entities that create sound business plans.”


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 could be wrong, but I don't think Butler views the new dorm as mere replacements for Schwitzer and or Ross.

  2. An increase of only 5% is awesome compared to what most consumers face or used to face before passage of the ACA. Imagine if the Medicaid program had been expanded to the 400k Hoosiers that would be eligible, the savings would have been substantial to the state and other policy holders. The GOP predictions of plan death spirals, astronomical premium hikes and shortages of care are all bunk. Hopefully voters are paying attention. The Affordable Care Act (a.k.a Obamacare), where fully implemented, has dramatically reduced the number of uninsured and helped contained the growth in healthcare costs.

  3. So much for competition lowering costs.

  4. As I understand the proposal, Keystone would take on the debt, not the city/CRC. So the $104K would not be used to service the $3.8M bond. Keystone would do that with its share.

  5. Adam C, if anything in Carmel is "packed in like sardines", you'll have to show me where you shop for groceries. Based on 2014 population estimates, Carmel has around 85,000 people spread across about 48 square miles, which puts its density at well below 1800 persons/sq mi, which is well below Indianapolis (already a very low-density city). Noblesville is minimally less dense than Carmel as well. The initiatives over the last few years have taken what was previously a provincial crossroads with no real identity beyond lack of poverty (and the predictably above-average school system) and turned it into a place with a discernible look, feel, and a center. Seriously, if you think Carmel is crowded, couldn't you opt to live in the remaining 95% of Indiana that still has an ultra-low density development pattern? Moreover, if you see Carmel as "over-saturated" have you ever been to Chicago--or just about any city outside of Indiana?