Oregon insurers seek huge rate hikes
Many health insurers across Oregon are seeking huge rate hikes that could boost premiums between 15 percent and 22 percent...
PacificSource, which reported $520 million in 2009 revenue, requested group rate hikes ranging from 9.23 percent to 20.27 in each of the last five years. Regence’s most recent group rate request (22.7 percent) comes after a 24.1 percent increase in 2008 and a 17.1 percent jump in 2009.
Some businesses remain skeptical about why their rates are rising. Sean Moriarty, operations manager of Portland’s Cessco Inc., believes insurers’ increased collections will go toward repealing the patient act, as opposed to providing better patient care. Moriarty’s construction equipment supply company employs more than 30 workers.
“It doesn’t sound like they’re following the intent of lawmakers by any stretch,” Moriarty said...
Oregon state Sen. Chip Shields, a Portland Democrat, wants Oregon’s insurance regulators to thoroughly review rate-hike proposals.
“If Regence is saying reform will cause them to raise rates by 4 percent, what about the other 18 percent?” Shields said. “Maybe it’s justified, but either way, I want the division to take a fine-toothed comb to their filing.”
(Full story is by subscription)
Read the full article here. Discuss below.
Posted on Sept. 17, 2010
|
|
connect with blueoregon
4:40 a.m.
Sep 19, '10
Did anyone really believe that "reform" was going to reform anything? Obama's healthcare plan will make this years rate hikes seem like nothing. You can't pollute risk pools with chronically unhealthy people and expect rates for everyone else to do anything but go stright up. Doesn't anyone ever do any of their own thinking anymore? here is another surprise thats coming your way "the deficit will NOT go down with Obamacare ,... when Obama said that HE WAS LYING!
12:46 p.m.
Sep 19, '10
My insurance went up big time last year so I had to reduce coverage even though I hardly use my policy. I would like to see some competition in the market. Right now it's a protected industry due to heavy lobbying. Here is a quote I picked up from a ROBERT B. REICH's NY times article:
"..the five largest providers of small group insurance controlled 75 percent or more of the market in 34 states, and 90 percent or more in 23 of those states, a significant increase in concentration since the G.A.O.’s 2002 survey."
Sounds like that might have something to do with it.
9:50 p.m.
Sep 19, '10
Steve. Your argument may indeed be plausible for 2014 or beyond, but I'm not sure it adds up for the increases today.
For this year, children are the only ones who cannot be denied coverage on employment-based plans for pre-existing conditions. So first, that ban on denial couldn’t explain dramatic increases in the individual market, the primary subject of the article, because the ban on denying children coverage for pre-existing conditions only applies to employer plans, not individual plans.
Second, I don’t see how banning denial of coverage for kids with pre-existing conditions could explain exponential rate increases in the employer-based plans either, since so few people can actually afford to insure their kids through their employers.
Also kids are generally healthier than adults and are profit centers for insurance carriers. Thus I would think that the number of kids with pre-existing conditions would be relatively low and would not drive rates up significantly.
The article focused on Regence increase of 22.7% in the individual market. In 2006, Regence cut rates by 16, and then every year thereafter increased rates exponentially. It would seem to me that virtually the only people left in their plan are those sick people with pre-existing conditions who have no choice but to pay these stiff premium increases. Those with options have probably fled. So contrary to sick people being forced into Regence’s plan, as you suggest, healthy people instead are being forced out and Regence is stuck with sick people in its plan
The good news for Regence is that the sick people will pay just about any price to keep their policies. They have no real options. No one else will take them because of pre-existing conditions. They’re like smokers or heroin addicts. They have what economists call inelastic demand schedules. They will pay just about any price put in front of them, because they have no other plausible options.
10:04 p.m.
Sep 19, '10
Sorry, I meant my comment to be in response to Robert's post.
12:43 a.m.
Sep 20, '10
Hi Chip,
The point I didn't make very thoroughly as I slid into my rant was that the Obama plan didn't reform health care it didn't even reform health insurance. Obama passes these laws by calling them things they aren't and counting on people not knowing any better to get them passed. Nothing has been done to slow down the escalating costs of health care. in very general terms the costs keep rising because the population keeps making themselves unhealthier. We poison our bodies with fast foods and terrible diets and eating habits. As the people get progressively more obese and unhealthy at younger and younger ages they develop chronic illnesses like diabetes and heart disease and numerous other chronic conditions which require treatment throughout the rest of their lives. The cost of care will start going down when America slims down and gets back in shape. The other contributing factor to the high costs of care is the amount of it we give away for free (to illegal aliens) those costs don't just go away they have to be spread to the people who do pay. Illegal immigration has taken down some very well run hospitals along the border states and it's a huge huge problem. Billions and Billions of dollars annually are written off and those costs are picked up by everyone else. We can't afford to do it anymore we give away alot of aspirin to people who don't pay and won't pay so when you come in with your insurance in your pocket that aspirin is now $15.00.
10:35 p.m.
Sep 20, '10
Those are some very good points that tends to happen with a lot of bills we see. Sponsors of bills like to label them with misleading names and the majority of the public just goes along. I think the obesity problem in America has a lot to do with what is in our food as well. When a lean beef sausage has ingredients in it that cause a high glycemic response we are headed down heart attack alley. Mix that with highly processed grains and chemicals that would be considered poison in most other societies and you have an outbreak of obesity and other metabolic conditions. When I first started visiting China some years ago, I never saw obese people, now I see an increase as more and more American fast food restaurants have opened in major cities. Children tend to represent the largest number of victims. The crazy thing is, the food lobby in America is as strong as Big Pharma and it makes it difficult for small farmers to compete due to subsidies etc. This is slowly changing as people change their buying habits, but we still have a long ways to go. I think government intervention in the market and FDA regulations have contributed to 80% of our health problems. Where they should be protecting us, they are not. Did you hear about the current effort to rename corn syrup to corn sugar? Also corn has more than 20 different names on product labels. We should all be thinking about that.