Health Insurance | HealthyCal - Part 6
 

Posts Tagged health insurance

  

Health insurers are the latest punching bag

Click for full-sized image. Source: US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services

For health insurers doing business in California, this is the worst of times, politically speaking. The national movement toward health reform is coinciding with an election year in which several key California players are running for higher office, and they are all eager to put the industry in the spotlight. Combine that with rising costs (and profits), and you have a recipe for a political free-for-all. It is almost starting to feel as if health insurance is becoming the next tobacco industry — a political pariah for whom polite people simply wouldn’t work.

Consider:

Attorney General Jerry Brown, a Democrat presumed to be running for governor, has issued subpoenas calling on health insurers and managed care plans demanding records to support what he says are “possibly illegal” rate increases.

Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner, a Republican running for governor, pressured Anthem Blue Cross into postponing a planned rate increase while his department, plus the Legislature and even Congress, investigate the company, its profit margin and its administrative costs.

Assembly Health Committee Chairman Dave Jones of Sacramento, a Democrat running for insurance commissioner, has held a special hearing to examine Anthem Blue Cross’s planned rate increase, at one point asking the firm’s CEO, “Have you no shame?”

All of this is entertaining, to a point. And some of it might actually produce information relevant to the health care debate. But we should keep in mind that each of these politicians knows, or should know, that health insurance company profits and administrative costs remain a relatively small factor in driving the cost of coverage skyward.

The biggest reason that health insurance is getting more expensive is that health care is getting more expensive. Our population is aging, and as we age we demand, and get, more care. Most signs also suggest we are not as healthy a population as we used to be. Just look at the rates of obesity and diabetes, among other ailments. And when we get sick, we want the best doctors and nurses, the newest and cleanest offices and hospitals, and the best drugs and technology in the world, all available on a moment’s notice. We want titanium knees that cost tens of thousands of dollars and electronic heart monitors read in real time by a technician who calls us when there are signs of an impending problem.

There’s nothing wrong with that, but it all costs money. And it is going to cost money, whether the evil health insurers are managing the system or the government is in charge. You could, in theory, instantly reduce the cost of the system by eliminating the private insurers and their profits and marketing costs. That would be a one-time savings. But then what? All of the other costs in the system would continue to climb at the same rate they are now, unless the government used its power to force down physician and nurses salaries, drug company reimbursements and hospital costs, or took actions to limit our access to medicine, tests, drugs and technology. There is a reason that the health care sector is the one of the few in the current economy that is still adding jobs. (And most of them are pretty good jobs, with healthy salaries and good benefits.)

According to the most recent figures from the federal government, Americans spent $2.3 trillion on health care in 2008. Of that, about 7 percent, or $159 billion, went to private insurers after deducting all the costs they pass through to the doctors, hospitals and other health care providers. Overall, health care costs nearly doubled between 1998 and 2008, increasing by 96 percent. If we had eliminated private insurance companies in 1998, and assuming they provide no benefit in managing costs, health spending still would have increased by 83 percent during that decade, according to the numbers from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

I’ve got no love for health insurance companies. I’ve had my own run-ins with them (ironically over their attempts to limit the cost of my family’s care). But when this election year is over and the current political bash-fest comes to an end, the core costs of health care will still be there, and chances are they will still be rising. If that’s a problem, at some point we as a state or nation will have to address it. For real.

–Daniel Weintraub

 

A pre-emptive strike against state health reform

While Democrats in California and across the country may be fretting about the lack of movement toward health reform in Washington (or Sacramento), at least one Republican seems to think that big changes are coming. And he aims to stop them in their tracks. State Sen. Tony Strickland of Thousand Oaks has introduced a constitutional amendment that he says would block any attempt to implement “socialized medicine” in California. By that he means not only single-payer, which has long been saddled with that label, but also any form of individual or employer mandates or any law or regulation requiring insurance companies to sell policies to all comers without regard to pre-existing conditions. For good measure, the amendment also takes a whack at the Democrats’ much-loved “public option,” banning any entity “created, operated or subsidized by the government” from competing with private sector health plans. As for single-payer itself, Strickland’s proposal bans that too, unless it is approved by the voters. The proposal is SCA 29. Don’t look for it on your ballot any time soon, unless it is adopted by the health insurance industry. It will certainly never see the light of day in the Legislature. But insurers are more likely to lay low and wait for any state reforms to emerge before trying to block them with a referendum or, if they go on the ballot, a competing measure.

 

More illness, less insurance

Women between the ages of 50 and 64 are more prone than younger women to a wide range of health conditions, including asthma, diabetes and heart disease, according to a new policy brief from the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research. Nearly four in 10 women in this age group will be diagnosed with high blood pressure, while nearly six in 10 are either obese or overweight. In both cases, the percentages are higher than for younger women. The research, based on the California Health Interview Survey, also found that the likelihood of having health insurance was related to a woman’s marital status. The study found that one-quarter of older women who had never married and 21 percent of divorced, separated or widowed women were uninsured — more than twice the rates of married women. See the study here.

 

State cracks down on discount health cards

California’s managed care regulator is increasing her scrutiny of companies selling discount health cards that claim to offer price breaks on medical, dental and vision services.

Cindy Ehnes, director of the Department of Managed Health Care, ordered several discount card companies to stop operating in California last week. Ehnes charged that the firms, operating under the name HealthcareOne LLC, are engaged in “deceptive marketing tactics” that mislead consumers into believing that they are purchasing insurance when they are not.

On Monday the department held a hearing in Oakland to begin work on regulations that would require the companies to be licensed as health plans.

“Many Californians are losing their health coverage, and are looking for a way to afford medical care, such as discount health cards,” Ehnes said in a statement issued by her office. “Consumers must have assurance that the discounts are real, and that the
cards will be accepted within the medical community. Discount plans must be properly licensed and, if they are engaging in consumer fraud, they will be stopped.”

If they are licensed by the state, the firms will have to provide bona fide discounts and verifiable contractors with doctors, and they will be required to adopt standards for the cancellation of policies. State regulators will also be able to police their advertising and marketing.

More than 1,000 consumers have contacted the DMHC Help Center with about discount health cards. Many Californians have been left with thousands of dollars in medical bills when they sought care at a doctor’s
office or hospital, thinking they were covered by insurance.

The department also alleges that some companies engage in outright fraud, offering discounts from doctors who have not consented to accept their cards.

Since September 2004, the DMHC has ordered 18 discount health card companies to cease operations or become licensed. The department has so far licensed one medical plan and two dental discount health plans.

 

State rule can’t control health care costs

State regulators, including Insurance Commissioner (and gubernatorial candidate) Steve Poizner, are hyping their deal with Anthem Blue Cross to postpone a big planned health insurance rate increase until at least May 1. But the controversy over the rate hike might in the end demonstrate how little power state officials have to control health care inflation. And the tool Poizner is using — the so-called medical loss ratio — is not only weak but might be counter-productive.

The medical loss ratio rule, in California, requires health plans to spend at least 70 percent of every premium dollar on medical care. A similar rule that’s being considered as part of federal health reform would peg the ratio at 85 percent. Many consumer advocates support these measures because they see them as putting more of the premium dollar into care and less into administration, marketing and profits. That may be true, if you police the definitions tightly enough. But it’s not clear that these rules also limit the growth in health care costs.

All that insurers have to do to meet the 70 percent requirement is increase the amount they pay for doctor visits, drugs, hospital stays and lab tests. They still pocket their percentage as profit on those higher costs. In fact, the higher their costs, the higher their profit. If their total costs are $1 billion, they get to keep $300 million for administrative costs and profits. If their costs rise to $1.5 billion, they get to keep $450 million for their own purposes. The more they pay out, in other words, the more they stand to make.

Many policy makers don’t seem to understand this relationship. US Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said last week that it was “difficult to understand” how premium increases of the size Anthem was proposing can be justified when the firm’s parent company reported a $4.75 billion profit in the last quarter of 2009. But since the higher their costs are, the more they get to keep in profits, it ought to be very easy to understand.

Free-marketers might say the insurers shouldn’t have to justify their rates at all. And in a competitive market, they wouldn’t be free to raise those rates, because competitors would undercut them for the business. But those who support regulation might want to re-examine rules that require insurers to spend a certain amount of their premium on medical care. Those rules may not be accomplishing their desired effect, and could actually be making matters worse. Here is an AP story on the decision.

 

Senate passes single-payer bill

Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco

The state Senate passed SB 810 — a single-payer universal health care bill — on a party line vote, with all the votes in favor coming from Democrats and the opposition coming from Republicans.

The legislation, by San Francisco Democrat Mark Leno, is nearly identical to SB 840, the single-payer bill authored by former Sen. Sheila Kuehl that the Legislature passed in 2008, only to see it vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

The bill envisions a system that would collect $200 billion a year from individuals, businesses and government and use that money to finance health care for every Californian. Individuals would choose their own doctors and hospitals, which would be reimbursed by the state. Benefit levels and reimbursement amounts would be set by a board with members appointed by state officials.

Supporters of the plan say it would save money by eliminating private insurance administrative and marketing costs. But opponents say it would create government control of the health system and lead to rationing. Although an independent economic study once concluded that the Kuehl bill would lead to lower health care costs over time, the authors of that study conceded that the lower costs were mostly the result of an edict in the bill limiting the increase in health costs to no more than the inflation rate. If the demand for services or their actual cost exceeded that trend line, the state board would have to reduce services to fit within the budget.

Senate leader Darrell Steinberg acknowledged today that the single-payer bill has no chance of becoming law this year. But he said he hoped the bill’s passage would stir bipartisan debate on the issue in California at a time when federal passage of health reform is beginning to seem less likely.

Related resources:

Read the bill here.
Read a staff analysis here.
See Sen. Leno’s press release here.

–Daniel Weintraubhttp://www.flickr.com/photos/doxiehaus/ / CC BY-ND 2.0

 

Health insurance by occupation

Which full-time workers in California are least likely to have health insurance? A lot of people assume it’s retail clerks and burger flippers. But helpers in the construction trades top the list at 71 percent uninsured, followed by dishwashers, plasterers, fence erectors and farm workers. See the entire list in this Sacramento Bee database compiled from US Census records. According to the data, 27 percent of full time retail workers do not have health insurance.

 
 
 

Home | Cal Health Report | Community Report | Legislation | Ideas | Forums | About Us

©2012 HealthyCal.org