Massachusetts Health insurers seeking rate hike

Source: Boston Globe

Three weeks after Governor Deval Patrick warned that his administration might turn down health insurance premium increases it deemed excessive for individuals and small businesses, insurers have asked the state to approve rate hikes of 8 to 32 percent for April 1. Patrick last month said the state Division of Insurance would review rate increases exceeding 4.8 percent as part of a broader effort to rein in health care expenses. If the insurers’ latest round of increases is rejected, it would mark the first time Massachusetts has capped health insurance rates.

Insurers say such a move would cause confusion in the marketplace, as they already have negotiated contracts with many individuals and small businesses at the new rates. Capping the rates would also result in immediate financial losses, insurers assert, forcing them to cut payments to health providers and threatening the viability of weaker hospitals.

Executives from Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts, the state’s largest health insurer, have asked state officials to delay their decision on rates. And the Massachusetts Association of Health Plans, a trade group representing 11 other insurers in the state, has asked for time to let insurers propose cost-savings alternatives of their own.

“Rushing into this could be perceived as putting price controls on health costs rather than making decisions based on sound actuarial data,’’ said Blue Cross-Blue Shield vice president Jay McQuaide, who blamed the increase in premiums mostly on the rise in medical spending. “This would cause significant disruption in the providing of health services.’’

Read more: http://www.boston.com/business/healthcare/articles/2010/03/06/health_rate_hikes_flout_new_state_cap/?page=full

How utterly shocking.

Especially since a national private insurancce mandate is actually not constitutional.

Article I, Section 9 poses one area where it can be challenged (though that is an easier one to over come).

Other areas where it fails constitutionality are the 14th Amendment (Equal Protection Clause), 5th Amendment, possibly the 3rd and I can go on.

:shrug:

"No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner; nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

"Get your damn insurance company soldiers out of my living room!"

Hit with a medical catastrophe, they are in a sense giving up their homes.
not to soldiers, but to the Banking/Insurance/Financial industry.

When I read about it in the paper, I thought there was a typo.

I thought they'd swapped the numbers for the employer penalty for not providing insurance with the individual penalty for not buying it.

If they'd swap the penalties, Romney Care could work.

I don't see what mandated health care has to do with illegally quartering troops in your home, but okay. Good luck with that argument.

Including single-payer ones.

Edit: MA, though, is something of a special case, in that it has had above-average costs for a long time (long before their version of universal health care).

of the new (unapproved) rates? Proof positive any attempt at government regulation is, to them, no more annoying than a house fly. Do away with them entirely. It's the only way.

Sadly, I think Patrick may be a one term Governor. I am really going to hate seeing Massachusetts turn red.

I'm not talking about anything to do with insurance (except perhaps malpractice). I'm looking for a breakdown on training (including college expenses), technology, facilities, etc. Where in the medical industry does this inflation live?

that happened to my husband and I when we went to get him seen for several procedures after the fool fell from the roof of the house after I'd warned him not to be up there. He's on military TriCare, so he was seen by civilian providers such as ortho's. When growths, that were benign, were seen by X-ray, were found on his cervical spine and ribs, he was seen by thoracic specialists. I had read something in passing years ago, about how some docs had their own facilities such as radiology labs with C-T scan equipment and chem labs so that they can actually make extra money by ordering loads of unneccessary tests and make money off these other sidelines. I never believed until I saw it myself how unbelievable it was. My husband got so many CT Scans, Xrays, and labs by each of his specialists,and as a former RN, I know he didn't need 1/5 of them. And each of these radiology and labs costs the moon. He had two MRIs, that I know for a fact that he didn't need, that costs $10,000 total for 4 views with and w/o contrasts. Before he even got into the surgical suite for his hip replacement, his pre-surg treatment was $89,000. Most of it into these doc's pockets. So, yeah, a great deal can be done to control the costs of health care.

It is medical malpractice insurance companies that raise rates on any pretext and require test after test so they never have to pay out (or so they think).

And, btw, malpractice insurance premiums are probably just as expensive for lawyers as they are for doctors, if not more so. Go figure.

Please don't buy into Republican anti-lawyer mythology, any more than you would buy into their mythology that the media is liberal.

Just curious that's all. I would like to see charted information on the subject.

From the Bureau Of Labor Statistics (http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpid09av.pdf):

Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U): U.S. city average, detailed expenditure categories....

Percent change from 2008 to 2009

Medical care .................................................................. 3.2
Medical care commodities ..................................................... 3.1
Prescription drugs ............................................................ 3.4
Nonprescription drugs and medical supplies ................................... 2.0
Internal and respiratory over-the-counter drugs .............................. 2.3
Nonprescription medical equipment and supplies ............................... 1.3
Medical care services ......................................................... 3.2
Professional services ......................................................... 2.7
Physicians’ services .......................................................... 3.0
Dental services ............................................................... 3.0
Eyeglasses and eye care ....................................................... .8
Services by other medical professionals ...................................... 2.1
Hospital and related services ................................................. 6.4
Hospital services ............................................................ 6.9
Inpatient hospital services .................................................. 6.7
Outpatient hospital services ................................................. 7.4
Nursing homes and adult day services ......................................... 3.8
Care of invalids and elderly at home ......................................... 1.8
Health insurance ............................................................ -3.2

After all, he drives a truck.

Mandates to buy private, corporate insurance with no alternatives is what the Senate passed as health care reform.

Everthing indicates that the House, in the name of "passing something," will vote to pass the Senate version instead of the sticking to the House version that does create a public option (although a very small public option).

Folks, look at MA because that IS our health care future if the Democrats insist on going down this pathway of destruction.

Are you happy now, Rahm????

I don't know what insurance you have but if I get sick or anyone in my three person company gets sick we are all out on the street. With all of these luxuries our premium is $2500.00 a MONTH. The nightmare is being lived by millions today. Be thankful that you are not living it. Forget Rahm and the pony he rode in on....he is the least of your worries.

You'll soon see a lot of posts like this.

as soon as Romney's stink left the State House. Massachusetts already does that for its state employees.

Another example of Democrats controlling everything and still not managing to do what's best for the people.

Otherwise they couldn't fool anyone!

the Obama Administration is pushing.

Rates have gone up every year of the three years since it was implemented. The punitive fines for those who cannot afford to buy a premium have also gone up, nearly doublied airc. That's how we help the poor get healthcare in America. We punish them if they can't afford it. And when they hand over the protection money we are kind, we only force them to buy the cheapest possible premiums with the highest co-pays. After that we forget about them. We forget that they won't go to the doctor anyhow, even though they are 'covered' because now they can't afford the co-pays.

I remember Democratic outrage over Romney's proposals for 'healthcare reform'. Now, I see Democrats excusing it on a national level by saying 'we have to get SOMETHING done, later we'll fix it'.

Winning is all that matters and making sure to keep those Insurance Industry profits as high as possible. Anyone who thinks that the Senate Bill will not result in the same exhorbant rate hikes as soon as it is implemented, I can only believe are so blinded by partisanship that they have lost all sense of reasoning. Just look at Romneycare if you want to see how the current 'reform' will work. Or don't, if all you care about is that your guy looks like a winner.

............either lack of (there will still be millions NOT covered) or because of excessive co-pays and deductibles? This bill is shit and smells like it. I am not for the Republicans "start over" BS, but at this stage scrap the thing and do a FEW MAJOR insurance reforms, such as revoking the anti-trust exemption, making it illegal to cancel a policy when someone becomes sick and also making pre-existing conditions illegal. At least that is a START at INSURANCE reform. Eventually the country will rise up and DEMAND Medicare for all.

there for real reform. But the WH doesn't seem interested so it's up to Congress. Without a PO then, they may as well leave it as it is. Even the ban on Healthcare corps refusting to cover to sick people (how sick is that, btw?) won't kick in for nearly five years. And in that time, Repubs will probably get it rescinded.

I like the idea of passing several bills. One banning the refusal of treatment for sick people. That should stand alone and be implemented immediately. Imagine the political future of any member of Congress who voted against such a bill?

The rest should take as many pages as it took Henry Paulson to rob the treasury with Congress' help. A good PO as the centerpiece of the bill. Let the Insurance Companies compete if they want to and let people choose them if they want to, but as you say, the current Senate Bill is crap.

....They put themselves in this box and now they are fucked. They need to pass "something" that is seen as helping working people. You pass certain things (no pre-existing, no "rescissions" and a few other consumer friendly issues) and let the fucking Republicans filibuster them. The White House is NOT leading, so both Houses should pass these few "reforms" at the very least.

and about 15% the year before, believe me, this so called universal coverage here in MA is just universal rip-off. I called my state senator and they said they were looking into ways to "contain the increases". What utter bullshit.

I came across an excellent blog today by Ted McLaughlin in which he makes a point about exactly what kind of insurance coverage you can expect from the big corporations once the Senate version of HCR is passed:

"That means the private insurance companies will continue to raise the price of their premiums and cut the number of things those premiums will cover. I can remember that years ago a private insurance policy would cover virtually all medical costs. These days a person is lucky if their private insurance covers a significant part of the costs (and there are many medical procedures not covered at all because private insurance considers them too expensive).

With each rise in premium cost, more people are squeezed off the insurance rolls -- thus making it necessary for the companies to again raise premium costs and further cut coverage. Soon we will be left with expensive private insurance policies that cover virtually nothing.

I believe the CEOs of the insurance companies know they can't keep their spinning plates in the air indefinitely. They know that at sometime down the road their policies will become so expensive and cover so little that the health care system will implode. They just don't care as long as they can continue getting windfall profits for as long as they can stretch this farce out.

Consider the following: Anthem Blue Cross brags that a woman can still get a private insurance policy for only $156 a month. That may sound good to some until they consider this policy has a $1500 deductible, and then only pays for 30% of most medical procedures and tests, makes the woman pay up to $500 a day for a hospital room, and doesn't cover pregnancy or delivery costs at all. How good a policy is that?"



Take a good look at that last paragraph, for that is the future for the millions of Americans without health insurance that will be mandated to become corporate slaves of the health insurance profiteers. Still want to stand up and cheer for reconciliation?


It's a great article. You can read it at
http://theragblog.blogspot.com/2010/03/private-health-insurance-going-way-of.html

something without thinking.

And anyone who doubts this:

"That means the private insurance companies will continue to raise the price of their premiums and cut the number of things those premiums will cover. has only to look at Romneycare in Mass.

Not cheering for reconciliation to pass the Senate Bill. But what is truly amazing is how for so long, as the WH used the excuse that they didn't have the votes, many people DID suggest using Reconciliation to get a bill through with a PO in it. We were told over and over that Reconciliation could not be used for this bill.

If it passes using Reconciliation as it stands, with no PO, that will be the final proof of the deception being perpetrated on the people by the Democrats.

regulation added later, or I feel we will see soaring rates. Short term, the bill will help more people. That's why I'm for starting somewhere. But it is definitely a very flawed bill.

The House will be voting on the Senate bill this week, and the Senate bill has no public option and no possibility for one. The House really needs to push this now, because fixing this afterward will be next to impossible once the architecture is in place.