WellPoint spending millions in California ballot battle

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

 WellPoint Inc., the second-largest U.S. health insurer, is leading companies that have poured $13.4 million into defeating a ballot initiative that would give California regulators the power to reject increases in health policy premiums.

Indianapolis-based WellPoint gave $12.5 million and its Anthem Blue Cross unit gave $270,000 through April 2 to defeat the measure, according to data provided by MapLight, a Berkeley-based research organization that bills itself as nonpartisan. Oakland-based Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc. also gave $270,000. Supporters, led by Santa Monica-based Consumer Watchdog, have raised $425,521.

Health insurers stand to lose control over raising rates in the most populous U.S. state at a time of dramatic growth in the customer base. More than 1.2 million people have enrolled in private health insurance plans under Obamacare through the end of March, according to Covered California, the state’s health-insurance exchange.

“The bottom line is they want to continue to protect their excessive profits and their ability to set rates as they see fit,” said Dave Jones, California’s insurance commissioner, who is a Democrat and supports the ballot measure.

Premiums for family medical coverage in California have increased by 185 percent since 2002, with average monthly premiums for single coverage at $572 in 2013, compared with $490 nationally, according to a report released in January by the California HealthCare Foundation, an Oakland-based not-for-profit.

Justify rates

The ballot initiative would require insurers to disclose publicly and justify proposed rate changes and give the state insurance commissioner authority to reject increases. It would apply to every plan that covers individual and small-group policy holders.

California voters in 1988 approved a ballot measure that gave the state insurance department the power to regulate rate changes for auto, property and casualty insurance.

About 35 states have the authority to approve or deny rate changes, according to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners.

Darrel Ng, a spokesman for WellPoint and Anthem, and Amy Thoma, a spokeswoman for Kaiser, declined to comment on the spending and referred questions to Robin Swanson, a spokeswoman for Californians Against Higher Health Care Costs, based in Sacramento.

“This initiative creates a costly new bureaucracy that will be headed by a single elected politician who then has broad new powers over health care, including treatment options health insurance covers,” Swanson said. “Treatment decisions should be made by doctors and patients, not someone with a political agenda.”

The California Medical Association is part of the group that opposes the initiative.

‘Special interests’

“California just launched a new independent commission empowered to negotiate health-plan benefits,” association President Richard Thorp said in an e-mailed statement, referring to Covered California. “We should allow them to do their job instead of passing a law that hands authority over health-care coverage to a politician who can take campaign contributions from special interests.”

Jones said Covered California doesn’t oversee premium changes.

“That’s simply not true and an intentional misstatement of how the law works,” he said. “Covered California is governed by a board which negotiates rates. There’s no regulation of rates by Covered California or any committee of Covered California.”

The change is being sought as the Obama administration implements the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. As of March 31, more than 3 million Californians enrolled in health-insurance plans or in Medi-Cal, the state’s health coverage for the poor, according to Covered California.

Early lead

The $13.4 million already in the insurance industry’s campaign fund comes with seven months to go before the November election.

“It is unusual to have such substantial donations this early in the election process,” said Daniel G. Newman, MapLight’s president. “It shows what’s at stake financially for those insurers and also what’s at stake financially for health-insurance consumers.”

In addition to WellPoint, Anthem and Kaiser, Blue Shield of California contributed $180,000 to oppose the measure and Health Net Inc. gave $135,000, according to MapLight, citing 2013-2014 election cycle data from the California Secretary of State. The California Association of Health Plans and UnitedHealth Group Inc.’s United Healthcare unit each gave $30,000.

The largest support for the measure has come from Consumer Watchdog, at $250,000; the Committee for Corporate Accountability and Consumer Protection, $105,000, and the California Nurses Association, $50,000, according to the data.

Funding disparities

Measures with similar funding disparities have failed in recent years. In 2012, California voters rejected a proposal to raise cigarette taxes by $1 to fund cancer research that received $12.9 million in support from the American Cancer Society and other groups, while the opposition gave $47.8 million, led by Altria Group Inc. and Reynolds American Inc., according to MapLight data.

The financial advantage will give the measure’s opponents the ability to run more television and radio advertisements and send out more mailers to sway voters, Newman said.

“This battle will be a David and Goliath fight,” said Carmen Balber, Consumer Watchdog’s executive director. “California voters are smart, and it raises red flags to the public when an industry spends overwhelmingly in opposition to something.”


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. PJ - Mall operators like Simon, and most developers/ land owners, establish individual legal entities for each property to avoid having a problem location sink the ship, or simply structure the note to exclude anything but the property acting as collateral. Usually both. The big banks that lend are big boys that know the risks and aren't mad at Simon for forking over the deed and walking away.

  2. Do any of the East side residence think that Macy, JC Penny's and the other national tenants would have letft the mall if they were making money?? I have read several post about how Simon neglected the property but it sounds like the Eastsiders stopped shopping at the mall even when it was full with all of the national retailers that you want to come back to the mall. I used to work at the Dick's at Washington Square and I know for a fact it's the worst performing Dick's in the Indianapolis market. You better start shopping there before it closes also.

  3. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

  4. If you only knew....

  5. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.