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)...
Showing posts with label rates too high. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rates too high. Show all posts
Sunday, October 23, 2011
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."
Friday, February 18, 2011
Calif regulator: Malpractice insurance too pricey
Calif regulator: Malpractice insurance too pricey
By SHAYA TAYEFE MOHAJER
Associated Press
02/17/2011
Medical malpractice insurance rates might be too high because some insurers are spending as little as 2 or 3 percent of premiums to pay out claims, according to the California Department of Insurance.
Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones said in a statement Thursday that insurers should reduce rates paid by doctors, surgeons, clinics and health providers while his staff scrutinizes the numbers.
"We have found that recent loss ratios—the percentage of every premium dollar the insurer spends on claims—of many medical malpractice insurers are low," said Jones. "Low loss ratios are one indication that premiums may be too high."
Medical malpractice is the failure of a doctor or medical professional to operate with an ordinary level of professional care, which can result in injury or death. Medical professionals are liable to pay damages in such instances, and take out insurance policies to cover such costs.
On average, insurers in California spent nearly 23 percent of collected premiums on claims and other losses.
The state's biggest medical malpractice insurer, Napa-based The Doctors Company, spent only 10 percent of the $179 million collected in premiums on claims in 2009. The company handles about 37 percent of the market in medical malpractice in California.
In a statement, the insurer's executive and general counsel David McHale said the company is committed to working with the state's regulator to charge
Advertisement
reasonable rates and reflect the realities of the marketplace.
McHale added the company is the only medical malpractice insurer in the state to reduce rates in the past five years, referring to an average 18 percent rate cut for many of its 19,000 policyholders in 2008.
Doug Heller, president of the Santa Monica-based consumer advocacy group Consumer Watchdog, said the problem ends up hurting consumers who suffer because of malpractice and must too often fight insurers to get claims paid.
"The medical malpractice premiums in California have so much extra padding right now because the companies are taking premiums from doctors and hospitals but don't have to pay much out in claims," said Heller, calling on the commissioner to hold rate hearings.
By SHAYA TAYEFE MOHAJER
Associated Press
02/17/2011
Medical malpractice insurance rates might be too high because some insurers are spending as little as 2 or 3 percent of premiums to pay out claims, according to the California Department of Insurance.
Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones said in a statement Thursday that insurers should reduce rates paid by doctors, surgeons, clinics and health providers while his staff scrutinizes the numbers.
"We have found that recent loss ratios—the percentage of every premium dollar the insurer spends on claims—of many medical malpractice insurers are low," said Jones. "Low loss ratios are one indication that premiums may be too high."
Medical malpractice is the failure of a doctor or medical professional to operate with an ordinary level of professional care, which can result in injury or death. Medical professionals are liable to pay damages in such instances, and take out insurance policies to cover such costs.
On average, insurers in California spent nearly 23 percent of collected premiums on claims and other losses.
The state's biggest medical malpractice insurer, Napa-based The Doctors Company, spent only 10 percent of the $179 million collected in premiums on claims in 2009. The company handles about 37 percent of the market in medical malpractice in California.
In a statement, the insurer's executive and general counsel David McHale said the company is committed to working with the state's regulator to charge
Advertisement
reasonable rates and reflect the realities of the marketplace.
McHale added the company is the only medical malpractice insurer in the state to reduce rates in the past five years, referring to an average 18 percent rate cut for many of its 19,000 policyholders in 2008.
Doug Heller, president of the Santa Monica-based consumer advocacy group Consumer Watchdog, said the problem ends up hurting consumers who suffer because of malpractice and must too often fight insurers to get claims paid.
"The medical malpractice premiums in California have so much extra padding right now because the companies are taking premiums from doctors and hospitals but don't have to pay much out in claims," said Heller, calling on the commissioner to hold rate hearings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)