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. If I were a developer I would be looking at the Fountain Square and Fletcher Place neighborhoods instead of Broad Ripple. I would avoid the dysfunctional BRVA with all of their headaches. It's like deciding between a Blackberry or an iPhone 5s smartphone. BR is greatly in need of updates. It has become stale and outdated. Whereas Fountain Square, Fletcher Place and Mass Ave have become the "new" Broad Ripples. Every time I see people on the strip in BR on the weekend I want to ask them, "How is it you are not familiar with Fountain Square or Mass Ave? You have choices and you choose BR?" Long vacant storefronts like the old Scholar's Inn Bake House and ZA, both on prominent corners, hurt the village's image. Many business on the strip could use updated facades. Cigarette butt covered sidewalks and graffiti covered walls don't help either. The whole strip just looks like it needs to be power washed. I know there is more to the BRV than the 700-1100 blocks of Broad Ripple Ave, but that is what people see when they think of BR. It will always be a nice place live, but is quickly becoming a not-so-nice place to visit.

  2. I sure hope so and would gladly join a law suit against them. They flat out rob people and their little punk scam artist telephone losers actually enjoy it. I would love to run into one of them some day!!

  3. Biggest scam ever!! Took 307 out of my bank ac count. Never received a single call! They prey on new small business and flat out rob them! Do not sign up with these thieves. I filed a complaint with the ftc. I suggest doing the same ic they robbed you too.

  4. Woohoo! We're #200!!! Absolutely disgusting. Bring on the congestion. Indianapolis NEEDS it.

  5. So Westfield invested about $30M in developing Grand Park and attendance to date is good enough that local hotel can't meet the demand. Carmel invested $180M in the Palladium - which generates zero hotel demand for its casino acts. Which Mayor made the better decision?