HHS Explicitly Threatens the Insurance Lobby

After claims from insurance companies that they plan to dramatically increase premiums this year because of the Affordable Care Act, the White House fired off a threat to the industry’s main lobbying group today.

Writing to the head of America’s Health Insurance Plans, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said insurers that hike rates for consumer unjustifiably may be locked out from the state exchanges due to be set up by 2014. These exchanges will be the primary means by which small groups and individuals will purchase coverage. Being excluded from these marketplaces could be devastating to insurers. (full text of the letter after the jump)

The overt nature of Sebelius’s warning shot means a few things. It means that HHS knows that the industry’s support during the health care reform debate means little now. And it means that HHS is tough – ready and willing to use all means necessary to stop insurers from padding profits and using the Affordable Care Act as an excuse. It’s this second matter that’s worth more exploration.

For starters, how much power does HHS really have to control insurance companies? Despite Sebelius’s threat, it’s not clear to me that the federal government will have the authority to decide which insurers will be allowed into the exchanges, which will be run by states. (States that don’t set up their own exchanges will see their residents routed to a federal version, however.) Also, it’s still not clear whether insurance will be sold only via exchanges or whether policies could be marketed and sold independent of the exchanges. Some of these questions will be answered as HHS issues more regulations implementing the new law.

In her letter, Sebelius concedes that the Affordable Care Act will, by Sept. 23, 2010, require insurers to offer additional benefits. More benefits cost more. Says the letter:

Many of the legislation’s key protections take effect for plan or policy years beginning on or after September 23, 2010. All plans must comply with provisions such as no lifetime limits, no rescissions except in cases of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of material fact, and coverage of most adult children up to age 26. New plans must comply with additional provisions, such as coverage of preventive services with no cost sharing, access to OB / GYNs without referrals, restrictions on annual limits on coverage, a prohibition on pre-existing condition exclusions of children (which applies to all group health plans), access to out-of-network emergency room services, and a strengthened appeals process.

Sebelius goes on to say that these extra costs could be mitigated by the elimination of the “hidden” tax” now levied on those with insurance to make up for care provided to the uninsured. But major provisions to expand coverage – like new Medicaid eligibility rules and subsidies – won’t kick in until 2014. Until then….?

Sebelius also writes:

Any premium increases will be moderated by out-of-pocket savings resulting from the law.

This is certainly true – pay a little more each month, but pay nothing when you go for a checkup – but, if anything, it justifies charging higher premiums. The doctors’visits won’t be free; they’ll be paid by insurers.

In her letter, Sebelius reveals what has really incensed her – independent analysts have said the Affordable Care Act should tack 1-2% to premiums, not 9% as some insurers are claiming. So insurance companies are just jacking prices because they have an easy scapegoat in the new law, right? Well, probably in some cases. Remember the Anthem case? But it’s worth noting that every plan and policy is unique.

A small group plan that happens to insure only people without children shouldn’t have to charge more to pay to treat children with pre-existing conditions. Likewise, a plan that caters to young adults shouldn’t have new expenses from young adults staying on their parents’insurance policies. Individual plans, on the other hand, will still be allowed to charge enough to cover their costs. Sure, you can buy a policy for your child with a pre-existing condition now when you couldn’t get one before – but there’s nothing that says you won’t pay dearly for that plan. A plan whose business model rests on canceling policies of customers who get sick – in other words, the kind of bad behavior we’ve heard so much about – will have to raise rates dramatically when it becomes illegal to do that.

It may be convenient to talk about averages and baselines, but to know if a rate hike is justified, regulators need to examine a plan’s financials, practices and risk pool. This is a critical role, in particular, for states moving forward.

Here’s the Sebelius letter:

Ms. Karen Ignagni

President and Chief Executive Officer

America’s Health Insurance Plans

601 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

South Building, Suite 500

Washington, DC 20004

Dear Ms. Ignagni:

It has come to my attention that several health insurer carriers are sending letters to their enrollees falsely blaming premium increases for 2011 on the patient protections in the Affordable Care Act. I urge you to inform your members that there will be zero tolerance for this type of misinformation and unjustified rate increases.

The Affordable Care Act includes a number of provisions to provide Americans with access to health coverage that will be there when they need it. These provisions were fully supported by AHIP and its member companies. Many of the legislation’s key protections take effect for plan or policy years beginning on or after September 23, 2010. All plans must comply with provisions such as no lifetime limits, no rescissions except in cases of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of material fact, and coverage of most adult children up to age 26. New plans must comply with additional provisions, such as coverage of preventive services with no cost sharing, access to OB / GYNs without referrals, restrictions on annual limits on coverage, a prohibition on pre-existing condition exclusions of children (which applies to all group health plans), access to out-of-network emergency room services, and a strengthened appeals process. And health plans that cover early retirees could qualify for reinsurance to sustain that coverage for businesses, workers, and retirees alike.

According to our analysis and those of some industry and academic experts, any potential premium impact from the new consumer protections and increased quality provisions under the Affordable Care Act will be minimal. We estimate that that the effect will be no more than one to two percent. This is consistent with estimates from the Urban Institute (1 to 2 percent) and Mercer consultants (2.3 percent) as well as some insurers’ estimates. Pennsylvania’s Highmark, for example, estimates the effect of the legislation on premiums from 1.14 to 2 percent. Moreover, the trends in health costs, independent of the legislation, have slowed. Employers’ premiums for family coverage increased by only 3 percent in 2010 – a significant drop from previous years.

Any premium increases will be moderated by out-of-pocket savings resulting from the law. These savings include a reduction in the “hidden tax” on insured Americans that subsidizes care for the uninsured. By making sure insurance covers people who are most at risk, there will be less uncompensated care, and, as a result, the amount of cost shifting to those who have coverage today will be reduced by up to $1 billion in 2013. By making sure that high-risk individuals have insurance and emphasizing health care that prevents illnesses from becoming serious, long-term health problems, the law will also reduce the cost of avoidable hospitalizations. Prioritizing prevention without cost sharing could also result in significant savings: from lowering people’s out-of-pocket spending to lowering costs due to conditions like obesity, and to increasing worker productivity – today, increased sickness and lack of coverage security reduce economic output by $260 billion per year.

Given the importance of the new protections and the facts about their impact on costs, I ask for your help in stopping misinformation and scare tactics about the Affordable Care Act. Moreover, I want AHIP’s members to be put on notice: the Administration, in partnership with states, will not tolerate unjustified rate hikes in the name of consumer protections.

Already, my Department has provided 46 states with resources to strengthen the review and transparency of proposed premiums. Later this fall, we will issue a regulation that will require state or federal review of all potentially unreasonable rate increases filed by health insurers, with the justification for increases posted publicly for consumers and employers. We will also keep track of insurers with a record of unjustified rate increases: those plans may be excluded from health insurance Exchanges in 2014. Simply stated, we will not stand idly by as insurers blame their premium hikes and increased profits on the requirement that they provide consumers with basic protections.

Americans want affordable and reliable health insurance, and it is our job to make it happen. We worked hard to change the system to help consumers. It is my hope we can work together to stop misinformation and misleading marketing from the start.

Sincerely,

Kathleen Sebelius

Related Topics: affordable care act, Health Care, health insurance, health reform, ignagni, insurance, sebelius, Uncategorized
  • Latest on Swampland

    At CPAC, Romney Stresses Conservative Credentials

    Three days after a trifecta of losses underlined lingering questions about his ability to win over the Republican Party’s base, Mitt Romney arrived at CPAC to allay skeptics’fears. Throughout his second bid for the GOP nomination, Romney has made his business bona fides the centerpiece of his candidacy. But on Friday, before a packed room at the annual conservative confab, he sought to emphasize the record he compiled in Massachusetts. “I was a severely conservative governor,” he told the crowd. “I know conservatism, because I have lived conservatism.” 

    Romney: 'I Misspoke'HuffPost Politics

    Pablo Martinez Monsivais / AP

    Mired in the Sticky Politics of Health and Faith, Obama Shifts on Contraception

    In the face of mounting pressure from Catholic leaders and politicians, the White House on Friday tweaked its position on contraception coverage mandates in the Affordable Care Act. Rather than require large religious institutions like Catholic colleges and hospitals to provide employees with free health insurance coverage for contraception, insurance companies themselves will have to pick up the tab.

  • deconstructiva

    Kate, thanks for reporting this. Please keep posting follow-ups at this blog (aka “Kate Plus Eight” or “Right Wing Groundhog Day”) first over dead-tree. It’s obvious that insurers still want to flaunt the rules. The earlier planned Wellpoint rate hikes should’ve been a blinding obvious warning. If we’re stuck with this exchange thingy it needs to be heavily Socialized by fiat with full Soviet armed force tightly monitored. Good for Sebelius. Do you see court battles over THIS issue (in addition to state kill-the-bill suits) or Congressional infighting? Thanks for your insights and please feel free to reply / share more thoughts, Kate.

  • queencersei

    OMG! Health insurance companies jacking up their prices for flimsy excuses or no excuses for that matter! Shocked I tell you, just shocked! When will the masses realize, these companies are not your friend, they do not care if you die. Actually scratch that. If it helps them to make even one penny more, then by all means die and be quick about it!

  • deconstructiva

    Alas, it figures companies wish to profit from our deaths, capitalism at its finest, sigh. Like this …
    http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_31/b4044001.htm
    (this article is from 2007 but the schemes are still active today)

  • destor23

    The government doesn’t need to be able to control the insurance companies, per se. It can, however, express itself. The Feds could, if they wanted, point to preferred providers on the exchanges. Even if they couldn’t exclude an exchange they could markedly asterisk one. Now say you’re the procurement manager for a midsize company and you’re choosing between the company that the federal government has labeled a rate jacker and the company the federal government has endorsed as a good player…

  • melaniene

    Anthem / Blue Cross recently sent me a letter claiming that they planned to increase my premium in order to comply with the Affordable Care Act. However, even before healthcare legislation was passed, Anthem frequently increased my premiums. I saw it double in about a two year period prior to the law. Now they are blaming the Affordable Care Act for the next round of increases!? The misleading letters obviously have a political agenda. Anthem/Blue Cross is horrible, and not only because of the letters.

    When I got sick and was hospitalized a couple of years ago, Anthem refused to pay the medical bills. First they claimed the hospital made a billing mistake. Then they claimed it was a clerical error. Then they claimed that they suspect I may have a preexisting that I did not inform them about. And Anthem then proceeded with an investigation and made the hospital submit all my medical records. The investigation took a year! In the meantime, since my hospital was not collecting payment from Anthem, my hospital started sending me the bills and threatening to ruin my credit if I did not pay. Eventually Anthem realized that I did not have a preexisting condition and paid my bills, but they made sure to put me through hell first. What a way to kick someone while they are down.

    This whole ordeal also made me discover a loophole that insurance companies use to get around the law that prohibits them from increasing the premiums on people with preexisting conditions. What they do is introduce new insurance plan options that are almost identical to the older plans and jack up the prices on the older plans. If you are healthy, you can easily switch to one of the new similar and cheaper plans by submitting an application. If you have a preexisting condition, on the other hand, your application will get rejected. And you are stuck with the old plan that is much more expensive than its newer (and very similar) version. The insurance plan that I currently have is so old, and Anthem does not market it anymore. It is more expensive than the similar plans I see Anthem advertise, and they rapidly jacks up the premiums on my plan. But there is nothing I can do, because after being hospitalized, I now have a preexisting condition. I can’t wait until 2014.

  • stuartzechman

    Kate Pickert:
    .
    You write:
    .
    …insurers that hike rates for consumer unjustifiably may be locked out from the state exchanges due to be set up by 2014. These exchanges will be the primary means by which small groups and individuals will purchase coverage. Being excluded from these marketplaces could be devastating to insurers
    .
    Let’s say for the sake of argument that the Federal government ultimately prevails over insurers and state governments in various courts, and HHS gets to exclude the insurers who run afoul of Sebelius’(or the next GOP Administrations?) stated intentions.
    .
    Let’s just stipulate that all goes according to plan, and her threats are real. Let’s say she goes ahead keeps insurers from doing business in an exchange.
    .
    It’s at this point that you mention
    .
    Being excluded from these marketplaces could be devastating to insurers.
    .
    Really?
    .
    But isn’t the whole premise of state exchanges based on the notion that competition in them between insurers will hold down prices?
    .
    If insurers are excluded from participating, doesn’t that simply mean less competition, less choices for the individuals forced to select from plans offered in the exchanges?
    .
    Doesn’t that lack of competition ultimately mean higher prices for those consumers, and, for those paying their premiums with new subsidies, ultimately a higher price tag for the government?
    .
    Who has who over a barrel, again?
    .
    Have you really thought this through, yourself, Kate Pickert, or have you just read the Administration’s letter thoroughly?

  • shepherdwong

    Despite Sebelius’s threat, it’s not clear to me that the federal government will have the authority to decide which insurers will be allowed into the exchanges, which will be run by states.
    .
    Good report and analysis, Kate Pickert. I’m curious though, are you saying the federal government can’t set the standards of the plans that are offered by exchanges created under federal law?

    All plans must comply with provisions…

    Aren’t they deciding which insurers are allowed to participate in any exchange federally, based on a minimum product standard, rather than meddling in state operation of the exchanges? States regulate all sorts of things, alcohol, tobacco and firearms (you never know what’s going to spring to mind), medical care, that also have regulated minimum standards at the federal level. Why is this different?

  • Cliff

    Let me go dig out the smallest violin in the world so that I may play a sad, sad song for the insurance companies.

  • newfreedomblog

    These are the additional coverages, per the letter from Sebelius….
    .

    “All plans must comply with provisions such as no lifetime limits, no rescissions except in cases of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of material fact, and coverage of most adult children up to age 26. New plans must comply with additional provisions, such as coverage of preventive services with no cost sharing, access to OB / GYNs without referrals, restrictions on annual limits on coverage, a prohibition on pre-existing condition exclusions of children (which applies to all group health plans), access to out-of-network emergency room services, and a strengthened appeals process. And health plans that cover early retirees could qualify for reinsurance to sustain that coverage for businesses, workers, and retirees alike.”

    .
    Then Sebelius says……
    .

    “We will also keep track of insurers with a record of unjustified rate increases: those plans may be excluded from health insurance Exchanges in 2014. Simply stated, we will not stand idly by as insurers blame their premium hikes and increased profits on the requirement that they provide consumers with basic protections.”

    .
    Fact Check #1
    .
    The Government through OBAMACARE aka ACA, requires insurance companies to offer MORE coverage. This will increase the costs of the insurance company to provide.
    .
    Fact Check #2
    .
    Premiums WILL increase based on these new requirements and regulations under the OBAMACARE / ACA law.
    .
    Fact Check #3
    .
    In the Sebelius letter she merely threatens to exclude an insurance company if they increase premiums above some unknown amount she alludes to, but does not state in her letter insurance companies are forbidden from increasing premiums at all. THEY MAY be in trouble with her department if they increase insurance rates more than they (government) think they should be raised.
    .
    Fact Check #4
    .
    YOUR INSURANCE MONTHLY PREMIUMS WILL INCREASE, WHAT IS NOT KNOWN IS BY HOW MUCH AT THIS TIME. DON’T WORRY, UNCLE OBAMA AND AUNT SEBELIUS WILL DETERMINE HOW MUCH IT WILL COST YOU. BE REST ASSURED WHEN YOU ARE LYING IN YOUR HOSPITAL BED, IT WILL COST YOU MORE MONEY, “NOT NECESSARILY OUT OF POCKET”.

  • gotopick

    ============= http://www.gotopick.com
    boots: $80-130
    G HD C H I CHD: $40-60
    NFL NHL MLB NBA Jerseys: $30
    jordan air max oakland raiders $34–39;
    E d H ardy AF JUICY POLO Bikini $25;
    Hand bags(Coach lv fendi d&g) $35
    Tshirts (Polo ,e d hardy,lacoste) $16
    Jean(True Religion,e d hardy,coogi) $30
    Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,g u c c i,Armaini) $16
    New era cap $15
    Bikini (E d hardy,polo) $25
    P a y p a l accept,delivery door to door free shipping

    ============= http://www.gotopick.com

  • square1

    Wow. What a sternly, sternly worded letter. That must send shockwaves through the insurance industry.

    Here would be a better letter:

    Dear Attorney General Eric Holder:

    It has come to my attention that several health of America’s largest health insurance companies have been increasing, or threatening imminent increases, in the premiums that they are charging their customers. The insurance companies claim that provisions in the Affordable Care Act create additional expenses that they are passing through to their customers.

    In fact, our analysis indicates that there is no economic basis for their claims. Rather, the increases appear to be a result of the monopolistic or oligopolistic power that the companies enjoy in various insurance markets.

    Accordingly, I am bringing this information to your attention and I request that the DOJ Antitrust Division perform an appropriate review.

    Sincerely,

    Kathleen Sebelius

    cc:
    Ms. Karen Ignagni
    President and Chief Executive Officer
    America’s Health Insurance Plans

    Whooops! I forgot. The Democrats stripped all the antitrust language out of the bill! Never mind.

  • markcu

    I hate to rain on anybody’s paraded but added benefits cost more money and “Free” care has to be paid by someone, the Chinese don’t count, at least not in the long run. For those of you out there in cloud cuckoo land who think the government can do anything you should look to its successes here in the states or the failing economies of Europe. But then I forget no one ever thought you math. And yes I will agree that some insurance companies have acted greedily but on a far less rapacious scale then the Administrations friends and contributors on Wall Street or the true protectors of our nation in Congress. I am a firm believer in health care reform and have worked for it for years but what we have here is a giant ill planned, unread, massively underfunded welfare plan that will bankrupt the nation. If reform is to be successful we must scrap the vast majority of this legislation and go back to the fundamentals of Cost, Quality and Access. We must have real methods of bring down cost not artificial attacks on the messengers. We need to insure quality and then and only then can we look at expanding access. The Administration in it unbridled zeal to complete a long cherished promise jumped the shark and went right to the lat element and then and only then paid lip service to the main requirement. So those of you out there chanting the Administration’s line, put down the Kool-Aid for a second and think, how much is this going to really cost and who is going to pay for it. If you have an ounce of intellectual honesty you will see my point. For real reform to work everyone’s Ox will have to be gored somewhat. We cannot be selective in applications but must look to building a better system from all the parts.

  • beartz1

    Kate,
    Both you and Secretary Sebelius forgot a most important point regarding the posibility of significant premium rate increases because of the new regulations.
    Both individual/family and smail group policies will be governed by a profit restricting regulation. Small group policies must show that a minimum of 85% of premiums were used for benefits. Individual/family policies must show a minimum of 80% of premiums were used for benefits. If lesser amounts are used the difference must be returned to the policy holders in January of the following year.
    Therefore, profits will be greatly restricted for all the insurers. At this point in time for example, one of the largest insurers, has used only 45% of premiums for benefits. That’s why the huge compensations paid to their executives. Guess who just might be taking a pay cut. Agents already have taken a substantial cut, now it’s the managements turn.
    You will see products coming out that will allow insurers to get around the new law such as indemnity products that pay cash for each visit or procedure. But don’t let the fearmongers overwhelm you with misinformation. Yes, there are things that need to be adjusted in the new law, and other things need to be added. Drug companies must be more highly regulated to produce more affordable prescription medications as an example. But this law will be the beginning of better health costs and health care in this country. We can no longer tolerate being 28th in the world when it comes to our health.

  • 53_3

    Keep those guns trained on the HCICs.
    .
    Also, the billions spent by HCICs in opposing HCR should be borne by the execs of those companies.
    .
    They should not take it out of my pockets…

  • 53_3

    For a ringer, this is par for the course…

  • 53_3

    Rusty:
    .
    Try scaring us with something that hasn’t always happened in the past.
    .
    Tonight, the sun will go down, too…

  • cmncents1

    Everyone needs to face up to the reality that nothing is free. If you want more benefits, its going to cost you more money. And everything gets more expensive over time. Why anyone thinks health insurance and health care are any different is beyond me.

    This White House, its agency heads, and its Congressional leaders are feeding you a bunch of propaganda to make you think they know how all of this works. But none of them have ever run a health insurer or a health care system, so why do you trust anything they say.

    These threats are nothing more than a game of political poker. HHS doesn’t have the cards to win and is bluffing. They have to say this even though they know that ObamaCare will not reduce the cost of health insurance and health care. Everyone who understands how health insurance and health care works knows this. They just don’t say it publicly because this administration trashes them in the press for it.

    You can keep drinking their kool-aid and live in their fantasy world . . . or wake up and join the rest of us with common sense who see right through this charade and will be voting them all out of office in two months.

  • 53_3

    There is an old saying:
    .
    tanstafl.
    .
    There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.
    .
    We know that.
    .
    You know that.
    .
    The problem is, the GOPers don’t want to pay anything for the health of all Americans, and the Dems want to use tax revenues for the purpose of paying for it.
    .
    I personally favor UHC, and the taxes that would go along with it, but that’s beside the point.
    .
    The point is, that you should be clear: You don’t want to pay taxes for HCR.

  • herby002

    melaniene,

    You were lucky that they broke down and paid. Anthem/Blue Cross is famous for paying their drones bonuses based on the amount of dollars they save the company by refusing to pay customers’medical bills. This means such practices as labeling high-school acne treatments as “pre-existing conditions” which invalidate the whole insurance policy if the cancer patient did not remember to include it on the insurance application.

  • gotopick

    lease click my name,get my e-page

    we got lots brand summer t-shirt b a g s n e a k e r ,s a n d l e,s u n g l a s s,c a p s etc…
    All famous brand and hot style!!
    U G G B O O T S 85 U S D
    n i k e , j o r d a n, s u p r a, S h o x ,P u m a , PRICE 35 U S D
    l v, c o a c h, p r a d a ,c h a n e l ,g u c c I, h a n d-b a g 33U S D
    c h a n e l ,g u c c i ,p u r s e 15U S D
    D & Gs u n g l a s s e s U S D
    new e-r-a c-a-p 10 U S D
    p a y p a l Accept,Door to Door vvvvvv (doc) gotopick (doc) com
    please click my name,get my e-page

  • czx1950

    Wonderful. Share a website with you , ( http://www.nfljersey-online.com/ ) Believe you will love it. huge select of jerseys, wholesale price.

    ===== http://www.nfljersey-online.com/ ====

    NFL JERSEYS $27
    NBA JERSEYS $30
    MLB JERSEYS $30
    NHL JERSEYS $35.98

    IF you order more than 10 pieces jersey, the shipping fees is free.
    accept paypal, IPS, western union, credit card.
    shipping method is EMS, We will offer a tracking number to you when send the goods to you.
    delivery time is 5–8days, and door to door.

    ===== http://www.nfljersey-online.com/ ====

  • http://www.insuranceinutah.com jaredjb

    Since insurance companies can’t deny children for medical conditions, they have to accept all children who apply. It doesn’t matter what medical conditions the child has when they apply, the claims must be paid by the insurance company if they are legit.

    Of course insurance companies in Utah have to raise rates to cover for that, or else they would simply go out of business. The insurance companies would lower their rates as much as they could to remain profitable, and still be competitive. It’s simple economics. This is just one example of how Utah insurers can justify raising their rates as they have. There are more.

    The fact is that healthcare reform is going to raise costs. No doubt about it. You can’t add millions of people with health conditions and expected claims to a healthcare system (as will be done in 2014) and expect rates to go down or stay the same.

    Jared B.
    Utah Health Insurance Agent
    http://www.utahinsurance.org

  • http://www.insuranceinutah.com jaredjb

    Amen…

  • http://nfljerseys2011.wordpress.com nfljerseys2011

    Thank your for sharing, It’s a interesting news, I like it ~!
    If you’re free to take a look at my site Oh ~!
    Cheap Jerseys, Accept PayPal.
    Website: http://www.nfljersey-online.com

blog comments powered by Disqus