Here's a biography of Harvey Rosenfield.
Consumer advocate Harvey Rosenfield takes on health insurers
Rosenfield, who used California's initiative process to regulate auto insurance rates more than two decades ago, is preparing a new initiative that would force health insurers to get state approval before they could raise premiums.
By Marc Lifsher
Los Angeles Times
November 26, 2011
The former "Nader's Raider" who used California's initiative process to regulate auto insurance rates is headed back to the ballot. This time he's spoiling to take on health insurers.
Harvey Rosenfield, the combative attorney and consumer advocate who wrote California's landmark Proposition 103 more than two decades ago, is preparing a ballot initiative that would force health insurers to get state government approval before they could raise premiums.
Stricter controls are needed to put some restraints on a industry that's reaping fat returns for shareholders and multimillion-dollar salaries for executives while consumers struggle to pay for coverage, Rosenfield said. In California, average premiums for family coverage rose 7.5% in 2010, according to the California HealthCare Foundation. They increased by 3% nationally for the same period. About 1 in 5 Californians, or 7.2 million, have no health insurance.
"Everybody knows the horror stories," said Rosenfield, founder of the advocacy group Consumer Watchdog. "Premiums are going through the roof. A lot of people can't get health insurance at any price. Benefits are going down. Company CEOs are getting rich."
Consumer Watchdog submitted a draft of its initiative to state authorities this month, a first step toward placing the measure on the November 2012 ballot. Getting it there won't be cheap. The Santa Monica group would need to gather signatures from at least 505,000 registered voters, a process that could cost around $3 million, according to election experts.
If approved by voters, the measure would give California the country's most stringent regulation of the 35 states that have some form of health insurance oversight.
Health insurers denounce the initiative as big-government meddling that could lead to higher rates and less coverage for everyone.
"Giving a politician the power to set prices does not address the real reason healthcare costs are increasing and could threaten patients' access to medical care," said Charles Bacchi, executive vice president of the California Assn. of Health Plans.
The industry could spend more than $100 million trying to defeat Consumer Watchdog's proposed initiative, said Michael Mattoch, a former insurance committee staffer in the state Legislature and current executive at auto insurer USAA.
But Rosenfield and Jamie Court, Consumer Watchdog's president, say they like their chances. Private focus groups and polling show 80% of voters queried would support reining in health insurers, they said.
Some independent analysts share their assessment.
"I imagine this would be quite popular going into a [national] election. Insurance companies are not exactly the most favorite institutions," said Larry Levitt, a senior vice president at the Kaiser Family Foundation, a national healthcare think tank not related to the Kaiser Permanente health maintenance organization.
Rosenfield is no stranger to David versus Goliath battles.
Helped by his mentor, consumer activist Ralph Nader, Rosenfield in 1988 persuaded California voters to pass Proposition 103. That landmark ballot initiative slashed car insurance rates and forced auto insurers to get approval from state regulators for future premium hikes. The law also applies to rates for homeowners' and most other lines of property and casualty insurance.
Outspent by the opposition $120 million to $3 million, Rosenfield's tiny operation prevailed by tapping into the frustration of California motorists fed up with skyrocketing premiums. Despite dire predictions that carriers would flee the state, California's auto insurance market remains competitive. Premiums have declined by about 30%, saving Golden State motorists billions, according to the Consumer Federation of America.
Rosenfield said he's again resorting to a ballot initiative to allow California voters to do what the Legislature hasn't been able to do — rein in soaring health insurance premiums. Bills to give the state more authority to regulate rates have been bottled up in Sacramento for years; health companies and insurers have contributed millions to lawmakers to keep it that way, Rosenfield said.
Health insurance "fits perfectly with 103," Rosenfield said.
Insurance industry opponents counter that Rosenfield and his colleagues have other reasons for wanting to expand Proposition 103. Over the last two decades, they've reaped millions in legal fees and settlements from insurance companies while declaring themselves champions of the little guy.
Bacchi of the California Assn. of Health Plans criticized Consumer Watchdog as "a self-anointed consumer advocate," pursuing "yet another deeply flawed policy proposal that is ultimately designed to line their pockets with cash from expensive lawsuits."
Rosenfield, who has shaved his mustache, buffed up his physique and upgraded his wardrobe since his Nader's Raiders days in the 1970s and 1980s, said he welcomes insurer insults. That's "how I know we're doing our job," he said.
But the proposed health insurance initiative promises to earn Rosenfield more adversaries than usual.
Carefully inserted in the measure is a one-sentence "poison pill" that could nullify a proposed auto insurance initiative that's also aimed for the November 2012 ballot. The crafty tactic was aimed straight at Rosenfield's old nemesis: George Joseph, the chairman of Los Angeles-based Mercury General Corp., who is helping to bankroll the auto insurance measure.
That initiative, which would offer certain discounts to longtime insured motorists, would weaken Proposition 103, Rosenfield said, by effectively raising rates for drivers who were previously uninsured. Last year voters defeated a similar ballot measure, with the losing campaign costing Mercury $16 million. Undeterred, Joseph already has pumped $8 million into the new effort, which officially is sponsored by the American Agents Alliance, a trade group.
Rosenfield said his wording would restate and expand a controversial provision of Proposition 103 that previously uninsured drivers should not be penalized with higher insurance rates. It would take effect if both Rosenfield's and Joseph's measures were approved but Rosenfield's gets more votes.
The poison pill, insurers argue, is unconstitutional and is likely to be challenged in court on the grounds that initiatives by law can deal with only one subject.
Rosenfield contends that his measure would withstand such a challenge from insurers.
"We fight just as hard as we can for consumers," he said.
Showing posts with label insurance rate hikes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label insurance rate hikes. Show all posts
Saturday, November 26, 2011
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Employers to continue raising rates, shifting cost to workers
About 31 percent of workers are in so-called high deductible plans this year, up from 10 percent in 2006, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation survey. Such policies are sometimes accompanied by a tax-sheltered savings account that can be used for health expenses.
Employers to continue raising rates, shifting cost to workers
Jim Gallagher
STLtoday.com
October 23, 2011
As open enrollment for health insurance approaches, employees can expect the same-old same-old — paying more for less coverage.
The real cost of health insurance will rise an average of 7.1 percent nationally for 2012, based on early results from a Mercer survey of employers.
That's actually an improvement. Costs have been spiking annually at 9 percent for about five years, said Mercer, the big human resources company.
Companies are responding by cutting benefits, urging employees into lower-cost plans and charging employees a bigger share of premiums. Only 39 percent of companies will not shift costs to employees next year, according to the survey.
Usually starting in November, open enrollment allows workers to choose from a menu of plans offered by their employer. As cost rise, many employees are moving into plans with deductibles of at least $1,000 for single coverage, and higher for families. About 31 percent of workers are in so-called high deductible plans this year, up from 10 percent in 2006, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation survey. Such policies are sometimes accompanied by a tax-sheltered savings account that can be used for health expenses.
Cost-shifting maneuvers are helping companies hold their own cost increase down to an average of 5.4 percent, according to Mercer...
Employer Health Plans Often Omit Part-Timer Workers
Kaiser Health News.org
Oct 23, 2011
Several news outlets this weekend covered work-based insurance issues, including reaction to the Wal-Mart announcement that it would be cutting back coverage for new part-timers and what workers in a number of places should expect as their bosses roll out policies for the coming year.
The Washington Post: Health-Care Coverage Still Eludes Some Part-Time Workers
The news came as a shock: Wal-Mart, the nation’s largest private employer, would not offer health benefits to new part-time employees, the company said Friday. But perhaps it shouldn’t have been so surprising, since the retailer was among a minority of U.S. businesses. Only 16 percent of employers offer health insurance to part-timers, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation’s most recent Employer Health Benefits Survey. The number increases to 42 percent among large employers. ... The health-care law that Congress passed last year is unlikely to change that. While part-time workers will have access to new, subsidized coverage on the individual market, the Obama administration’s signature legislative achievement provides little incentive for employers to cover workers who are not full-time staff (Kliff, 10/22)...
Employers to continue raising rates, shifting cost to workers
Jim Gallagher
STLtoday.com
October 23, 2011
As open enrollment for health insurance approaches, employees can expect the same-old same-old — paying more for less coverage.
The real cost of health insurance will rise an average of 7.1 percent nationally for 2012, based on early results from a Mercer survey of employers.
That's actually an improvement. Costs have been spiking annually at 9 percent for about five years, said Mercer, the big human resources company.
Companies are responding by cutting benefits, urging employees into lower-cost plans and charging employees a bigger share of premiums. Only 39 percent of companies will not shift costs to employees next year, according to the survey.
Usually starting in November, open enrollment allows workers to choose from a menu of plans offered by their employer. As cost rise, many employees are moving into plans with deductibles of at least $1,000 for single coverage, and higher for families. About 31 percent of workers are in so-called high deductible plans this year, up from 10 percent in 2006, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation survey. Such policies are sometimes accompanied by a tax-sheltered savings account that can be used for health expenses.
Cost-shifting maneuvers are helping companies hold their own cost increase down to an average of 5.4 percent, according to Mercer...
Employer Health Plans Often Omit Part-Timer Workers
Kaiser Health News.org
Oct 23, 2011
Several news outlets this weekend covered work-based insurance issues, including reaction to the Wal-Mart announcement that it would be cutting back coverage for new part-timers and what workers in a number of places should expect as their bosses roll out policies for the coming year.
The Washington Post: Health-Care Coverage Still Eludes Some Part-Time Workers
The news came as a shock: Wal-Mart, the nation’s largest private employer, would not offer health benefits to new part-time employees, the company said Friday. But perhaps it shouldn’t have been so surprising, since the retailer was among a minority of U.S. businesses. Only 16 percent of employers offer health insurance to part-timers, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation’s most recent Employer Health Benefits Survey. The number increases to 42 percent among large employers. ... The health-care law that Congress passed last year is unlikely to change that. While part-time workers will have access to new, subsidized coverage on the individual market, the Obama administration’s signature legislative achievement provides little incentive for employers to cover workers who are not full-time staff (Kliff, 10/22)...
Friday, October 7, 2011
Insurers Banking their Cash
Insurers Banking their Cash
By The Palm Beach Post
Sept. 30, 2011
Critics of the Affordable Care Act pounced last week on the news that health care premiums went up 9 percent this year. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, the average family health plan in the U.S. now costs $15,073.
What the critics didn't say was that the year before President Obama signed the law, the cost of an average family policy rose 5 percent. That same year, 2009, the five largest U.S. health insurance companies earned a record $12.2 billion - as 2.7 million Americans lost their private health coverage in the worst year for the economy since the Depression.
This year, some insurers reported double-digit profit increases during the second quarter, and expect to exceed expectations for the year. One reason may be that fewer consumers are seeking medical care in the still-weak economy.
Some of the Affordable Care Act's key portions - the individual mandate, the marketplace-like exchanges - came from Republicans two decades ago. Gov. Scott and other current Republicans who want the health care law repealed say premiums will go down if insurers can compete by selling policies across state lines. Most insurers, however, already have licenses in multiple states. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida recently gave its mental health policies for Florida residents to a Kansas-based company in which it has part ownership.
Objective analysts attribute only about 1 or 2 percentage points in premium increases to the new law's mandates, notably those that require insurers to provide preventive services at no out-of-pocket costs and add adult children to their parents' policies. Those are good changes.
Some analysts believe that insurers are charging more to hedge their bets for when the economy improves and more people seek treatment, and that companies are banking cash before next year, when the law requires them to justify increases. In this case, the health care law is more the target than the problem.
- Rhonda Swan,
for The Palm Beach Post Editorial Board
By The Palm Beach Post
Sept. 30, 2011
Critics of the Affordable Care Act pounced last week on the news that health care premiums went up 9 percent this year. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, the average family health plan in the U.S. now costs $15,073.
What the critics didn't say was that the year before President Obama signed the law, the cost of an average family policy rose 5 percent. That same year, 2009, the five largest U.S. health insurance companies earned a record $12.2 billion - as 2.7 million Americans lost their private health coverage in the worst year for the economy since the Depression.
This year, some insurers reported double-digit profit increases during the second quarter, and expect to exceed expectations for the year. One reason may be that fewer consumers are seeking medical care in the still-weak economy.
Some of the Affordable Care Act's key portions - the individual mandate, the marketplace-like exchanges - came from Republicans two decades ago. Gov. Scott and other current Republicans who want the health care law repealed say premiums will go down if insurers can compete by selling policies across state lines. Most insurers, however, already have licenses in multiple states. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida recently gave its mental health policies for Florida residents to a Kansas-based company in which it has part ownership.
Objective analysts attribute only about 1 or 2 percentage points in premium increases to the new law's mandates, notably those that require insurers to provide preventive services at no out-of-pocket costs and add adult children to their parents' policies. Those are good changes.
Some analysts believe that insurers are charging more to hedge their bets for when the economy improves and more people seek treatment, and that companies are banking cash before next year, when the law requires them to justify increases. In this case, the health care law is more the target than the problem.
- Rhonda Swan,
for The Palm Beach Post Editorial Board
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Facing Government Scrutiny, Kaiser Backs Off Rate Increases
Facing Government Scrutiny, Kaiser Backs Off Rate Increases
by Leighton Woodhouse, NUHW
Oct. 05‚ 2011
Emeryville, CA - Kaiser Permanente recently announced that it will roll back $30 million in premium increases it imposed this summer on hundreds of thousands of Californians, in order to avoid further examination of its rates by the California Department of Managed Health Care (DMHC).
The $30 million rate rollback will affect more than 300,000 Californians employed by small businesses and nonprofit organizations whose monthly rates were boosted by an average 10.7% on July 1, 2011. Kaiser has reduced rates for these consumers by 1.2% across the board going forward, and will refund that portion of the premiums it has collected since July.
In June, the National Union of Healthcare Workers (NUHW) and the Courage Campaign submitted formal letters of complaint to the Governor's office regarding Kaiser's plans to boost these consumers' monthly premiums by an average 10.7 percent. The complaint letters requested an examination of Kaiser's rate hike by the DMHC and explained that Kaiser’s rate review filings to the DMHC “demonstrate significant data deficiencies, and the evidence they do contain makes it hard for anyone to conclude that the rate hikes are justified.”
The letters cited Kaiser’s failure to disclose information about its massive profits ($5.7 billion since the beginning of 2009) and executive compensation practices as well as its failure to provide historical data on prior rate hikes. Furthermore, the letters noted that Kaiser sought rate hikes that were more than triple the rate of medical cost inflation.
Kaiser’s decision to roll back its rate increases, described in this sample letter to customers, follows a review of the HMO's rate hikes by DMHC conducted as requested in the letter from NUHW and The Courage Campaign. Kaiser's letter states that "Kaiser Permanente has undergone a highly complex rate filing and review with the Department of Managed Health Care. As a result, we've agreed to this small rate reduction."
Kaiser’s action is described in a recent press release issued by KaiserQuotes.com, which reports "the information that they [Kaiser] provided to the DMHC presented challenges and delays," as Kaiser does not report financial data "broken down by specific department classifications" as required of other insurers.
Kaiser’s tacit recognition that its rate hike was too high points to a need for further scrutiny by purchasers of the giant HMO's rate increases on other groups. Two weeks ago, a teachers union that represents tens of thousands of classroom instructors sent a letter to Kaiser taking it to task for seeking double-digit rate increases on cash-strapped school districts facing massive budget deficits.
The letter, dated September 22, 2011, states in part:
“Despite this enormous profitability, Kaiser currently seeks a 10% hike in the monthly premiums for health care from Los Angeles Unified School District employees. As you can imagine, this proposed premium hike – which would drain an additional $40 million a year – could not come at a worse time. In the midst of the Great Recession, our city’s school district has laid off 1,400 teachers and other staff and has forced our children to endure ballooning class sizes that deprive them of the education they deserve. In fact, last month Kaiser reported that it earned $1.6 billion in profits during the first six months of 2011 – a 45% increase compared to the same period in 2010. In this context, it’s difficult to understand how Kaiser, which we understand is a nonprofit, can rationalize the boosting of its rates on consumers…”
While Kaiser’s rate rollback is an important victory for California consumers and will save $30 million for small businesses and nonprofit organizations, NUHW and the Courage Campaign seek further investigation of Kaiser's rate hikes, in addition to Kaiser's compliance with DMHC reporting requirements.
“Last week's rate rollback is just the first step we must take to bring Kaiser in line,” said Rick Jacobs, chair and founder of Courage Campaign, a 700,000 member grassroots, progressive, online organization based in California. “Even after returning $30 million to consumers, Kaiser’s will still reap nearly $350 million in profits from its remaining rate hikes, making it the most profitable HMO in California — and it pays no taxes. And with those profits and tax savings, they buy a vast lobbying machine to kill rate regulation, just as they did with AB 52. Californians are struggling with the worst economy since the Great Depression, and Kaiser is acting like the most rapacious hedge fund manager, making money as its members struggle to make ends meet."
by Leighton Woodhouse, NUHW
Oct. 05‚ 2011
Emeryville, CA - Kaiser Permanente recently announced that it will roll back $30 million in premium increases it imposed this summer on hundreds of thousands of Californians, in order to avoid further examination of its rates by the California Department of Managed Health Care (DMHC).
The $30 million rate rollback will affect more than 300,000 Californians employed by small businesses and nonprofit organizations whose monthly rates were boosted by an average 10.7% on July 1, 2011. Kaiser has reduced rates for these consumers by 1.2% across the board going forward, and will refund that portion of the premiums it has collected since July.
In June, the National Union of Healthcare Workers (NUHW) and the Courage Campaign submitted formal letters of complaint to the Governor's office regarding Kaiser's plans to boost these consumers' monthly premiums by an average 10.7 percent. The complaint letters requested an examination of Kaiser's rate hike by the DMHC and explained that Kaiser’s rate review filings to the DMHC “demonstrate significant data deficiencies, and the evidence they do contain makes it hard for anyone to conclude that the rate hikes are justified.”
The letters cited Kaiser’s failure to disclose information about its massive profits ($5.7 billion since the beginning of 2009) and executive compensation practices as well as its failure to provide historical data on prior rate hikes. Furthermore, the letters noted that Kaiser sought rate hikes that were more than triple the rate of medical cost inflation.
Kaiser’s decision to roll back its rate increases, described in this sample letter to customers, follows a review of the HMO's rate hikes by DMHC conducted as requested in the letter from NUHW and The Courage Campaign. Kaiser's letter states that "Kaiser Permanente has undergone a highly complex rate filing and review with the Department of Managed Health Care. As a result, we've agreed to this small rate reduction."
Kaiser’s action is described in a recent press release issued by KaiserQuotes.com, which reports "the information that they [Kaiser] provided to the DMHC presented challenges and delays," as Kaiser does not report financial data "broken down by specific department classifications" as required of other insurers.
Kaiser’s tacit recognition that its rate hike was too high points to a need for further scrutiny by purchasers of the giant HMO's rate increases on other groups. Two weeks ago, a teachers union that represents tens of thousands of classroom instructors sent a letter to Kaiser taking it to task for seeking double-digit rate increases on cash-strapped school districts facing massive budget deficits.
The letter, dated September 22, 2011, states in part:
“Despite this enormous profitability, Kaiser currently seeks a 10% hike in the monthly premiums for health care from Los Angeles Unified School District employees. As you can imagine, this proposed premium hike – which would drain an additional $40 million a year – could not come at a worse time. In the midst of the Great Recession, our city’s school district has laid off 1,400 teachers and other staff and has forced our children to endure ballooning class sizes that deprive them of the education they deserve. In fact, last month Kaiser reported that it earned $1.6 billion in profits during the first six months of 2011 – a 45% increase compared to the same period in 2010. In this context, it’s difficult to understand how Kaiser, which we understand is a nonprofit, can rationalize the boosting of its rates on consumers…”
While Kaiser’s rate rollback is an important victory for California consumers and will save $30 million for small businesses and nonprofit organizations, NUHW and the Courage Campaign seek further investigation of Kaiser's rate hikes, in addition to Kaiser's compliance with DMHC reporting requirements.
“Last week's rate rollback is just the first step we must take to bring Kaiser in line,” said Rick Jacobs, chair and founder of Courage Campaign, a 700,000 member grassroots, progressive, online organization based in California. “Even after returning $30 million to consumers, Kaiser’s will still reap nearly $350 million in profits from its remaining rate hikes, making it the most profitable HMO in California — and it pays no taxes. And with those profits and tax savings, they buy a vast lobbying machine to kill rate regulation, just as they did with AB 52. Californians are struggling with the worst economy since the Great Depression, and Kaiser is acting like the most rapacious hedge fund manager, making money as its members struggle to make ends meet."
Sunday, October 2, 2011
Kaiser rolling back its outrageous 10.7% rate hike on 300,000 Californians to 9.5%
Courage Campaign
October 2, 2011
Last week, Kaiser, a publicly subsidized healthcare provider that pays no taxes, quietly announced that it's rolling back its outrageous 10.7% rate hike on 300,000 Californians to 9.5%.
That may not sound like much, but it amounts to at least $13 million that struggling Californians can keep for their families instead of handing over to multimillionaire Kaiser executives.
Why did they do it? Because you made them. It's a victory, but we can't stop here.
Thousands of Courage Campaign members stepped up, emailed Kaiser's CEO, and told him they oppose raising rates on employees of small businesses and non-profits at a time of record profits for Kaiser. Along with our friends at the National Union of Healthcare Workers, we wrote to Governor Brown, asking him to instruct the Department of Managed Health Care (DMHC) to examine Kaiser's rate hike to see if it was justified.
That's exactly what the DMHC did, and Kaiser is trying to do damage control by reducing its rate increase on hundreds of thousands of people. This is what can happen when we stick together and raise our voices.
We've got to keep pushing them. We won't rest until Kaiser's rates are subject to sensible regulation. Please support our ongoing efforts to stop obscene rate increases for Californians with legislation like AB 52.
Kaiser made $1.6 billion in profits in the first half of 2011 without paying a dime in taxes. Measures like AB 52, which would allow the state to reject health insurance rate increases, are the only way to stop their greed.
Rick, Domingo, Eddie and the Courage team
October 2, 2011
Last week, Kaiser, a publicly subsidized healthcare provider that pays no taxes, quietly announced that it's rolling back its outrageous 10.7% rate hike on 300,000 Californians to 9.5%.
That may not sound like much, but it amounts to at least $13 million that struggling Californians can keep for their families instead of handing over to multimillionaire Kaiser executives.
Why did they do it? Because you made them. It's a victory, but we can't stop here.
Thousands of Courage Campaign members stepped up, emailed Kaiser's CEO, and told him they oppose raising rates on employees of small businesses and non-profits at a time of record profits for Kaiser. Along with our friends at the National Union of Healthcare Workers, we wrote to Governor Brown, asking him to instruct the Department of Managed Health Care (DMHC) to examine Kaiser's rate hike to see if it was justified.
That's exactly what the DMHC did, and Kaiser is trying to do damage control by reducing its rate increase on hundreds of thousands of people. This is what can happen when we stick together and raise our voices.
We've got to keep pushing them. We won't rest until Kaiser's rates are subject to sensible regulation. Please support our ongoing efforts to stop obscene rate increases for Californians with legislation like AB 52.
Kaiser made $1.6 billion in profits in the first half of 2011 without paying a dime in taxes. Measures like AB 52, which would allow the state to reject health insurance rate increases, are the only way to stop their greed.
Rick, Domingo, Eddie and the Courage team
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Health insurance premiums climb faster in 2011
Health insurance premiums climb faster in 2011
By Alina Selyukh
Reuters
Sep 27, 2011
The cost of health insurance continues to climb for companies and workers, with annual family premiums this year growing at a pace triple that of 2010 and outpacing wage increases, according to a survey.
As the United States continues to grapple with a stubbornly weak economy, family premiums in employer-sponsored health plans jumped 9 percent this year and single premiums rose 8 percent, compared with 2010's 3 percent and 5 percent, the Kaiser Family Foundation's annual study, published Tuesday, found.
"We're probably on a more modest side ... but even with a 5 percent increase in a premium (that our workers saw) this year, they didn't get a 5 percent raise," said Jeff Franck, a compensation and benefits manager at Altru Health System, which employs about 3,700 people in North Dakota and Minnesota and participated in the survey.
Health insurance, unlike other industrialized countries, is largely provided by employers. Although the latest Census found more Americans losing company-sponsored insurance, almost 170 million Americans were on employer-based plans in 2010.
Kaiser and the Health Research & Educational Trust surveyed 2,088 randomly selected public and private employers large and small earlier this year.
The survey found that, on average, employees are contributing 28 percent, or about $4,129, a year toward employer-sponsored family plans. That is 131 percent more than a decade ago.
Including employers' contributions, the overall premium has increased 113 percent since 2001 to $15,073 a year.
More workers, especially in smaller firms, continue to join high-deductible health plans. Thirty-one percent of covered employees this year have to pay at least $1,000 in single plans before coverage kicks in, up from 27 percent last year.
The survey also highlighted some early results of President Barack Obama's healthcare reform.
Under one of the few provisions already in effect, people under the age of 26 are now allowed to remain covered by their parents' insurance plans to curb historically high uninsured rates in that age group. The Kaiser survey estimated that U.S. companies have added 2.3 million young adults to their parents' family health policies.
Franck at Altru Health pegged much of the premium costs' increase at his company to adding children of his employees onto their plans.
That part of the healthcare reform was not meant to cut costs, and many cost-cutting provisions have yet to kick in, said Kaiser President and Chief Executive Drew Altman.
"There are a variety of factors that could have been responsible for (premium increases), but the major reason is not the healthcare reform," he said.
Although the survey did not study contributing factors, Altman echoed other analysts in suggesting that insurance companies had planned their premiums in expectation of more people going to the doctor or buying medications as the economy improved -- which did not happen.
Insurers have generally attributed the need to raise premiums to growing underlying medical care costs as coverage also continues to expand. Both have fed into a heated debate over the future of healthcare spending, which for several decades has grown faster per person than the nation's economic output, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
Slowing down those soaring costs is one of the main issues on the agenda of a bipartisan congressional deficit-reduction panel that is due to make recommendations by November 23 on how to slash the U.S. budget deficit by at least $1.2 trillion.
(Reporting by Alina Selyukh in Washington; editing by John Wallace)
By Alina Selyukh
Reuters
Sep 27, 2011
The cost of health insurance continues to climb for companies and workers, with annual family premiums this year growing at a pace triple that of 2010 and outpacing wage increases, according to a survey.
As the United States continues to grapple with a stubbornly weak economy, family premiums in employer-sponsored health plans jumped 9 percent this year and single premiums rose 8 percent, compared with 2010's 3 percent and 5 percent, the Kaiser Family Foundation's annual study, published Tuesday, found.
"We're probably on a more modest side ... but even with a 5 percent increase in a premium (that our workers saw) this year, they didn't get a 5 percent raise," said Jeff Franck, a compensation and benefits manager at Altru Health System, which employs about 3,700 people in North Dakota and Minnesota and participated in the survey.
Health insurance, unlike other industrialized countries, is largely provided by employers. Although the latest Census found more Americans losing company-sponsored insurance, almost 170 million Americans were on employer-based plans in 2010.
Kaiser and the Health Research & Educational Trust surveyed 2,088 randomly selected public and private employers large and small earlier this year.
The survey found that, on average, employees are contributing 28 percent, or about $4,129, a year toward employer-sponsored family plans. That is 131 percent more than a decade ago.
Including employers' contributions, the overall premium has increased 113 percent since 2001 to $15,073 a year.
More workers, especially in smaller firms, continue to join high-deductible health plans. Thirty-one percent of covered employees this year have to pay at least $1,000 in single plans before coverage kicks in, up from 27 percent last year.
The survey also highlighted some early results of President Barack Obama's healthcare reform.
Under one of the few provisions already in effect, people under the age of 26 are now allowed to remain covered by their parents' insurance plans to curb historically high uninsured rates in that age group. The Kaiser survey estimated that U.S. companies have added 2.3 million young adults to their parents' family health policies.
Franck at Altru Health pegged much of the premium costs' increase at his company to adding children of his employees onto their plans.
That part of the healthcare reform was not meant to cut costs, and many cost-cutting provisions have yet to kick in, said Kaiser President and Chief Executive Drew Altman.
"There are a variety of factors that could have been responsible for (premium increases), but the major reason is not the healthcare reform," he said.
Although the survey did not study contributing factors, Altman echoed other analysts in suggesting that insurance companies had planned their premiums in expectation of more people going to the doctor or buying medications as the economy improved -- which did not happen.
Insurers have generally attributed the need to raise premiums to growing underlying medical care costs as coverage also continues to expand. Both have fed into a heated debate over the future of healthcare spending, which for several decades has grown faster per person than the nation's economic output, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
Slowing down those soaring costs is one of the main issues on the agenda of a bipartisan congressional deficit-reduction panel that is due to make recommendations by November 23 on how to slash the U.S. budget deficit by at least $1.2 trillion.
(Reporting by Alina Selyukh in Washington; editing by John Wallace)
Monday, February 8, 2010
Obama official 'very disturbed' by Anthem Blue Cross rate hikes
UPDATE: DEMOCRATS ACHIEVE A SMALL STEP TOWARD HEALTH CARE REFORM
Anthem Blue Cross backpedals on raising rates
Anthem to delay insurance rate hike amid criticism
By LINDA A. JOHNSON (AP)
Feb. 13, 2010
Health insurer Anthem Blue Cross will postpone its much-criticized plan to raise rates for some California residents who buy insurance on their own, after reaching a deal Saturday with state regulators.
Anthem's planned rate hike, which the state estimates would affect about 700,000 customers, averaged 25 percent and would have been as high as 39 percent for some.
Anthem Blue Cross of California, based in Thousand Oaks, agreed to postpone the increase from March 1 until May 1 so California could have outside experts review the company's complex and detailed plan filing, including data on the medical costs it expects to incur...
In this Feb. 4, 2010 file photo, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington. washingtonpost.com
Blue Cross is obviously feeling very powerful. I imagine it will spend the new revenues on campaign ads to defeat universal health care. Hmmm. I'm trying to think of a more arrogant and smug act of contempt for the people who pour their hard-earned money into Blue Cross.
Obama official 'very disturbed' by Anthem Blue Cross rate hikes
By Duke Helfand
LA Times
February 9, 2010
California insurance regulators asked Anthem Blue Cross to delay controversial rate increases of as much as 39% for individual policies, hikes that have triggered widespread criticism from subscribers and brokers -- and now from the federal government.
In a rare step, the Obama administration called on California's largest for-profit insurer to justify its rate hikes, saying the increases were alarming at a time when subscribers face skyrocketing healthcare costs...
HHS secretary asks insurer to justify rate hike
By SHAYA TAYEFE MOHAJER
The Associated Press
February 8, 2010
LOS ANGELES -- The Obama administration on Monday asked California's largest for-profit health insurer to justify plans to hike customers' premiums by as much as 39 percent, a move that could affect some 800,000 people.
In a letter to the president of Anthem Blue Cross, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said she was disturbed to learn of the planned increases, calling them "extraordinary."...
WellPoint sees profit grow eightfold in fourth quarter
The Los Angeles Times, January 28, 2010
CA Health Insurance Companies Pay Fine for Rescinding Health ...
21 Jan 2010 by admin
The recent legal ruling is a result of a lawsuit against health giant Anthem Blue Cross of California. Prosecutors argued that Anthem violated state law by selling health plan members the promise of health insurance, but then later ... “ This puts new cops on the beat,” said Bryan Liang, director of the Institute of Health Law Studies at California Western School of Law in San Diego. “Lots of stuff in the standard operating practices of health plans is going to be affected ...
chocobaby.luv.ph/
Patient Sues Anthem Blue Cross Over Liver Transplant - Consumer ...
7 Oct 2009
Ephram Nehme was gravely ill when Anthem Blue Cross of California agreed to pay for a liver transplant his physician said he needed to survive. Then, his condition went downhill fast. The news from his doctor was bad. ... tremendously important issue because most people aren't savvy enough about how to work this system, and it is totally stacked against them," said Bryan Liang, director of the Institute of Health Law Studies at California Western Law School in San Diego. ...
Consumer Watchdog Updates
Anthem Blue Cross backpedals on raising rates
Anthem to delay insurance rate hike amid criticism
By LINDA A. JOHNSON (AP)
Feb. 13, 2010
Health insurer Anthem Blue Cross will postpone its much-criticized plan to raise rates for some California residents who buy insurance on their own, after reaching a deal Saturday with state regulators.
Anthem's planned rate hike, which the state estimates would affect about 700,000 customers, averaged 25 percent and would have been as high as 39 percent for some.
Anthem Blue Cross of California, based in Thousand Oaks, agreed to postpone the increase from March 1 until May 1 so California could have outside experts review the company's complex and detailed plan filing, including data on the medical costs it expects to incur...
In this Feb. 4, 2010 file photo, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington. washingtonpost.com Blue Cross is obviously feeling very powerful. I imagine it will spend the new revenues on campaign ads to defeat universal health care. Hmmm. I'm trying to think of a more arrogant and smug act of contempt for the people who pour their hard-earned money into Blue Cross.
Obama official 'very disturbed' by Anthem Blue Cross rate hikes
By Duke Helfand
LA Times
February 9, 2010
California insurance regulators asked Anthem Blue Cross to delay controversial rate increases of as much as 39% for individual policies, hikes that have triggered widespread criticism from subscribers and brokers -- and now from the federal government.
In a rare step, the Obama administration called on California's largest for-profit insurer to justify its rate hikes, saying the increases were alarming at a time when subscribers face skyrocketing healthcare costs...
HHS secretary asks insurer to justify rate hike
By SHAYA TAYEFE MOHAJER
The Associated Press
February 8, 2010
LOS ANGELES -- The Obama administration on Monday asked California's largest for-profit health insurer to justify plans to hike customers' premiums by as much as 39 percent, a move that could affect some 800,000 people.
In a letter to the president of Anthem Blue Cross, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said she was disturbed to learn of the planned increases, calling them "extraordinary."...
WellPoint sees profit grow eightfold in fourth quarter
The Los Angeles Times, January 28, 2010
CA Health Insurance Companies Pay Fine for Rescinding Health ...
21 Jan 2010 by admin
The recent legal ruling is a result of a lawsuit against health giant Anthem Blue Cross of California. Prosecutors argued that Anthem violated state law by selling health plan members the promise of health insurance, but then later ... “ This puts new cops on the beat,” said Bryan Liang, director of the Institute of Health Law Studies at California Western School of Law in San Diego. “Lots of stuff in the standard operating practices of health plans is going to be affected ...
chocobaby.luv.ph/
Patient Sues Anthem Blue Cross Over Liver Transplant - Consumer ...
7 Oct 2009
Ephram Nehme was gravely ill when Anthem Blue Cross of California agreed to pay for a liver transplant his physician said he needed to survive. Then, his condition went downhill fast. The news from his doctor was bad. ... tremendously important issue because most people aren't savvy enough about how to work this system, and it is totally stacked against them," said Bryan Liang, director of the Institute of Health Law Studies at California Western Law School in San Diego. ...
Consumer Watchdog Updates
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)