TPMDC

Obama Administration Demands Justification For Blue Cross Rate Increase

Spread the word. Share this article on Facebook!

Share

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius

Share

Twitter Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

The Obama administration has been decrying a California insurer's 39 percent rate hike as an example of why health care reform is so important, and today they put some muscle behind the complaints.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebeilus wrote a letter to Anthem Blue Cross today insisting they have an obligation to explain why the "extraordinary" increases are justified.

Sebelius writes: "Your company's strong financial position makes these rate increases even more difficult to understand. As you know, your parent company, WellPoint Incorporated, has seen its profits soar, earning $2.7 billion in the last quarter of 2009 alone."

An Anthem spokeswoman has not returned our calls.

The full letter after the jump.







February 8, 2010

Leslie Margolin
President, Anthem Blue Cross
Delivered Via Fax

Dear Ms. Margolin,

One of the biggest pressures facing families, businesses and governments at every level are skyrocketing health insurance costs. With so many families already affected by rising costs, I was very disturbed to learn through media accounts that Anthem Blue Cross plans to raise premiums for its California customers by as much as 39 percent. These extraordinary increases are up to 15 times faster than inflation and threaten to make health care unaffordable for hundreds of thousands of Californians, many of whom are already struggling to make ends meet in a difficult economy.

Your company's strong financial position makes these rate increases even more difficult to understand. As you know, your parent company, WellPoint Incorporated, has seen its profits soar, earning $2.7 billion in the last quarter of 2009 alone.

I believe Anthem Blue Cross has a responsibility to provide a detailed justification for these rate increases to the public. Additionally, you should make public information on the percent of your individual market premiums that is used for medical care versus the percent that is used for administrative costs. Policy holders in the individual market deserve to know if their premium increases would be invested in better medical care or insurance company overhead costs like salaries, profits, and advertising. I am aware that the State of California is investigating this matter, and urge Anthem Blue Cross to cooperate fully. In the meantime, I will be closely monitoring the situation.

At a time when health care costs are a critical threat to families as well as the nation's economy, I hope you appreciate the urgent nature of this request. I look forward to your prompt reply.

Sincerely,


Kathleen Sebelius
Secretary of Health and Human Services

Late update:

Anthem Blue Cross sends along the following statement:

Anthem Blue Cross in California has received the letter from Secretary Sebelius. We will reply to her promptly. It is important to note that individual medical insurance premiums do not reflect an individual member's personal claims experience. Therefore, as medical costs increase across our member population, premium increases to the entire membership pool result. Unfortunately, in the weak economy many people who do not have health conditions are foregoing buying insurance. This leaves fewer people, often with significantly greater medical needs, in the insured pool. We regret the impact this has on our members. It highlights, why we need sustainable health care reform to manage the steadily rising costs of hospitals, drugs and doctors . As such, it is important to go back to the beginning and get health care reform done right. At the same time, we are engaging with a broad range of key stakeholders across California to discuss the state's individual insurance market and share ideas on how we can collectively partner on meaningful change.

Comments (48) | Join the Conversation!

Recommend Recommend (2)

February 8, 2010 3:37 PM   

Way to go.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 9, 2010 12:39 PM    in reply to ottis

I can't prove it, but there was a blogger here a TPM who told us about this rate increase, and while their blog tended to blame Obama, which I disagree with, it exposed the rate increase publicly, and I wonder if that was what cued Sebelius to the situation?

Sometimes the 'roots reach up and grab the blade by the ear.

TPM bloggers have done it before.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 8, 2010 3:42 PM   

Hey Katherine......You want to know why they are charging us more for less as usuall.....BECAUSE THEY CAN AND BECAUSE YOU GOOF BALLS IN WASHINGTON DON"T DO A G.D. THING TO STOP THEM! Please spare us the "OUTRAGE" at the latest screwing of the consumer. WHy don't you do something concrete like oh I don't know...PASS MEANINGFUL HEALTH "INSURANCE" REFORM! The health care in this country is fine. IT IS THE INSURNACE COMPANIES WHO NEED TO BE REFORMED OR BETTER YET PUT OUT OF BUSINESS BY HAVING A REAL PUBLIC OPTION THAT WILL SERVE THE PEOPLE NOT THE SHARE HOLDERS OF WHAT EVER COMPANY IS RIPPING US OFF SO THEY CAN PAY LOBBYISTS TO GET YOU GUYS TO SCREW US OVER AGAIN AND AGAIN! SHUT UP AND DO SOMETHING!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 8, 2010 3:59 PM    in reply to IMNOTBITTER

Stop yelling, take a deep breath and please spare US the outrage.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 8, 2010 11:27 PM    in reply to Dorn76

KEEP YELLING! KEEP YELLING UNTIL THE GOD DAMNED ELECTED OFFICIALS OF CALIFORNIA AND THE UNITED STATES DO SOMETHING TO STOP THIS RAPING OF LITTLE PEOPLE TO FEED THE PROFITS OF COLD GREEDY CORPORATIONS!

I am insured by Blue Fucking Cross of California and my rates have gone through the roof! I want a public option sometime before I go bankrupt and die.

KEEP YELLING!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 9, 2010 1:28 AM    in reply to hollywood

Thank you, Hollywood.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 9, 2010 11:10 AM    in reply to IMNOTBITTER

I think your outrage would be more suitably directed towards the wonderful GOP idiots of "NO".

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 8, 2010 4:00 PM   

a strongly worded letter. I bet BC/BS is scared now.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 8, 2010 4:01 PM    in reply to Indie Pro

Naw, only a letter from Reid has that effect.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 8, 2010 5:19 PM    in reply to Indie Pro

Ya know Democrats are known for their strongly worded letters. And then they sternly condemn ya at their cocktail parties, but they never will lay a glove on ya. What brutality eh?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 8, 2010 4:01 PM   

Maybe they are trying to get Democrats elected. Naahhh, probably not so much. They are just a bunch of greedy rich guys who want to make sure they "get" theirs before REAL reform happens!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 8, 2010 4:04 PM    in reply to soupson52

Actually, I think you're onto something here. With the Citizens United ruling, now corporations are free to spend whatever they want to buy politicians. No reason to spend stakeholder $$$ when you can pass the costs of politician shopping on to the consumer. BSBC is ahead of the curve on this one.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 8, 2010 4:27 PM    in reply to Schmed

Sadly this makes too much sense.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 8, 2010 4:08 PM   

Oh why haven't the dems be taking this track over the last year???? I guess better late than never....

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 9, 2010 8:17 AM    in reply to Progressive Party

What's the problem? The Republicans have been given just about enough rope by now, and will begin to hang themelves.

Or they will attend the summit with no bullshit pre-conditions -- like, ya know, DON'T TELEVISE US GETTING THE SHIT KICKED OUT OF OUR "IDEAS" AGAIN!

And We the people will take notice because they'll have both feet in their mouths at the same time.

Or they'll attend the summit without pre-conditions.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 8, 2010 4:15 PM   

Are you surprised by the hike?

http://randomthoughtstd.blogspot.com/

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 9, 2010 9:11 AM    in reply to tduff

NO AND MORE TO COME....INTERESTING TO SEE WHERE THE RACIST GOP STAND ON THIS HIKE??????

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 8, 2010 4:18 PM   

Just more evidence why we need a real public option. BC is no different than any other private insurer. They are ALL going to hike rates simply because they can.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 8, 2010 4:29 PM   

same reason credit card companies started hiking rates and slashing credit limits when congress took up credit card reform.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 8, 2010 4:40 PM   

My wife and I were paying around $1,200/month for Kaiser coverage out here in CA - I'm self-employed. We'd switched from Blue Cross a few years back because it was more expensive. If Blue Cross gets what they want, family coverage in the state is going to be around $20k per year. This is a big F-U to the administration. WellPoint thinks they've scuttled HCR and are now free to do whatever they want. Lovely. Talk about a job killer.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 8, 2010 5:21 PM    in reply to pinson

Talk about a job killer

I hope, in the future, that the impact of our lousy insurance system on the rate of job creation is discussed. I know several individuals who teach at public elementary schools who probably would retire were it not for the fact that they'll lose all their insurance--and will have to wait to be eligible for Medicare. I'm quite certain that there would have been some turnover if Medicare was expanded down to age 55.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 8, 2010 4:52 PM   

Why are they raising premiums? Hey you gotta pay for all that lobbying somehow, and cutting executive bonuses is obviously off the table.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 8, 2010 5:07 PM   

I just don't understand why we need insurance...... Why can't we come to the point were we just eliminate the need for insurance. My family of five, thank god is healthy, yet we pay $12,000 a year for about 6 doctor visits, most of which are healthy annual exams for my teenage kids. I keep thinking I should stash that $12,000 in a money market account annually and when catastrophe hits I will have a lot of money. How I wish we could all PROTEST and drop our insurance.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 8, 2010 5:21 PM    in reply to wimomma

OK. $12K a year over 10 years = $122K. That wouldn't even begin to cover one mountain biking accident with 3 broken ribs. Don't even think about rehab.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 8, 2010 5:37 PM    in reply to wimomma

Part of the collusion between care providers and insurance is that they get to buy care at a reasonable price, and you don't. So if you want to pay $50 for an office visit and not $150, you need insurance just to convince the doctor not to bill you $150. It's even worse for hospitals; if you want to pay a fair price of, say, $10K for an operation and not $100K, you need insurance. The whole system seems to be geared around fleecing those without a corporate protector; hospitals will rob you if you don't have insurance, and insurance will rob you if you don't have an employer.

If medical care was provided at a fair price to everybody, retirement would still be an option; one could risk one's nest egg and pay out of pocket were it not for the premium you pay without a protector. If I retired, my insurance would cost 11K to 19K per year, and only because my employer makes it possible to buy it at all. But at about $150K for insurance from age 55 to age 65, simply paying out of pocket sure would look like a good option were it not for the pricing gotcha.

Oh, and that $11K insurance only costs $4K if I keep working.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 8, 2010 5:58 PM    in reply to wimomma

Also money market accounts are paying about 1% right now. Not the best investment even in this market.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 8, 2010 5:38 PM   

May be its time to get out the white lab coats, call SEIU for a few bodies and Mr Wonderful gives a speech how great Ms Sebeilius is improveing our health care.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 9, 2010 8:23 AM    in reply to inokeah

We need irrlevancies in order to highlight the relevant. Keep up the entry-level irrelevant bullshitting.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 8, 2010 5:41 PM   

As such, it is important to go back to the beginning and get health care reform done right.

Breathtaking.

After whining about the fact that people aren't getting insurance, this corporation wants the status quo.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 8, 2010 6:21 PM    in reply to CT Voter

Isn't that a line right off the Republican talking points?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 9, 2010 8:25 AM    in reply to condew

The other way around: Federally-subsidized insurance monopoly talking points.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 8, 2010 6:20 PM   

As a Californian, I just can't believe that anything here in the "Blue State" is actually catching the federal government's eye. W ignored us because he didn't stand a snowball's chance at winning here, and Obama ignores us because, what, we're going to vote for the Teabagger Wingnut Party?

Just remember the saying, "As goes California, so goes the nation." Time to prep yourselves for some heafty rate increases everyone.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

mcc

user-pic

February 8, 2010 6:21 PM   

Let's say the existing (Senate) health care bill passes. Is there any way of knowing what the reported profit/overhead cap in the bill would do to the rate increase here?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 8, 2010 6:31 PM    in reply to mcc

I don't think it would do much. Yes insurance must spent 85% on actual care, but they've been palying games with owning hospitals for decades. So the'll spend 85% on "care" at their hospital and then make 90% profit in the hospital biz.

That's really my complaint with the entire reform effort; they talk about controlling costs but don't explicitly control costs; it's just another Republican-style "give everything to big business and hope they do the right thing"; only it's Dems doing it. And if the medical establishment had any tendancy to do the right thing, they would not need reform. When the Public option and even the Medicare buy in was gone, I knew there would be no savings. Maybe elimination of pre-existing conditions and recissions is worth something, but not a trillion and a mandate; we're talking things an ethical business should just do, not demand a law and a bribe to do.

With no cost controls, we're just going to use tax dollars to fuel the inflation even more.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

mcc

user-pic

February 8, 2010 6:40 PM    in reply to condew

When the Public option and even the Medicare buy in was gone, I knew there would be no savings.

Then you never understood the public option to begin with. Neither the public option in the House health care bill nor the Medicare buy in had anything to do with cost control. The House public option was projected to cost more than a private health insurance plan. The medicare buy in obviously has no effect on costs to anyone under 55.

A bunch of blogs started announcing, in December, that when the negotiated-rates public option failed that "cost controls" had been removed from the bill. They lied to you.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 8, 2010 6:48 PM    in reply to mcc

Oh, I'm sure there was more truth in the Public Option being a cost control than anything that comes from the Republican side of the asile. The public option was to be health care motivated to provide care, not maximize profits, and it would have set some baseline that told insurance that if they wanted to charge more than the Public Option, then they had to offer more or better service to justify it or their customers would just use the option. There are many many details that matter, but the final form was never negotiated. For example, you need a mechanism to prevent the Public Option from becoming the insurance company's dumping ground for patients who were too sick to be profitable. It's details like that which made the bills thousands of pages long and too obscure for most of us to decode.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 8, 2010 7:03 PM    in reply to mcc

True, the Medicare buy-in would not help those under 55, but it would set a price marker for those over 55, and it would have helped a lot of people; at 55 a pre-existing condition is almost guranteed, and health care for those over 50 is so expensive that I think all the talk about coverage for "a family" missed the point that coverage for just mom & dad after the kids leave home will probably cost more than coverage for the family. That extra cost must be borne while mom & dad may be unemployed due to sickness or ageism, or retired on a smaller, fixed income.

The Medicare buy-in also set up the mechanism to let others buy in. If the buy in was priced a little high it would both give the insurance companies a chance to undersell it, and might have helped Medicare's finances. Once the mechanism was in place to buy in, it may have proven useful for other situations, such as unaffordable COBRA or a cheaper alternative to private insurance for Medicaid.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 8, 2010 6:48 PM   

I'm beginning to think that the revolutionaries of the past had the right tactics - drag people out of their castles, mansions, manor houses, what have you and string their asses up as an example to the other aristocrats to watch their step.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 8, 2010 7:08 PM    in reply to georgecs

Yes, but the aristocracy got smart; let most people get just enough "wealth" so they feel they have something to loses if they revolt and stability is maintained with the aristocracy still on top. What we are seeing now is fine tuning; determining exactly how little it takes to prevent revolt.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 8, 2010 7:02 PM   

Obama NEEDS to restore enforcement of the Sherman Anti-Trust Acts.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 8, 2010 8:51 PM   

Jaycal wrote: "Just remember the saying, 'As goes California, so goes the nation.' Time to prep yourselves for some heafty rate increases everyone."

Prep ourselves, hell; it's already happened. Anthem socked us in Missouri with a 26% hike on Jan. 1st.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 8, 2010 10:03 PM   

My husband and I purchased Blue Cross insurance for our family (self employed) a few months before he turned 35 - a high deductible ($2500 for each family member) and ended up with a $600 a month premium for no prescription coverage etc.

A month after my husband turned 35 the rate was hiked $80 a month. Because he moved up in age by a few months. Fucking stupid, excuse my french. Because we "invested" in our deductibles already its not that easy to drop them. Assholes.

I, for one, would be thrilled to stand in line and see a different doctor every damned time to get seen just to get rid of this rigged, criminal system.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 8, 2010 10:07 PM    in reply to witty1

Forgot to mention that my youngest son is an epileptic - seizure free at the moment - but the medications to suppress seizures in children are criminally priced but the real fear is one bad seizure putting him in a medivac and ICU that could easily run up $100,000 in bills in a 24 hour period.

That's what the insurance is for, not the broken limbs or strep throats.... its to make sure that if our worst fears happen we don't lose our house while our son fights for his life.

Again, assholes.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 8, 2010 11:46 PM   

If conservative christians actually had any morals they would be abandoning the rethuglican party in droves. The party that backs up this corporate raping of the sick and dying with political muscle surely cannot be the modern embodiment of WHAT JESUS WOULD DO. It is plain to see what is going on here and who benefits and who suffers, so why are christians either so immoral or so fucking stupid?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 9, 2010 8:31 AM    in reply to hollywood

why are christians either so immoral or so fucking stupid?
_____

Are they immoral, stupid -- or fucking lying about being Christians?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 9, 2010 12:13 AM   

I wonder how many of those affected are Teabaggers??Yeah Obamacare being shoved down our throats huh? The Republicans would rather rip this country apart then help it and i cannot believe the stupidity of some people for helping them.If America gets a jacked up form of reform,which as time goes by it looks like we're gonna get, it'll be the fault of all you Teabaggin',Palin lovin',"small government" bozos.....thanks!!!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 9, 2010 3:08 AM   

Kathleen, when you act like a doormat you get treated like a doormat. Tell this to Obama, Rahm, Harry and Nancy.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Leave a comment

Your response:

Follow us!

Most Popular

TPM Stories Now Surging on