Anthem Blue Cross—a subsidiary of WellPoint, the country’s second largest insurer—and its 39 percent rate increase in California became somewhat famous early in 2010 as the health reform law stumbled to the finish line. Democratic politicians used the new rate card to help push the Affordable Care Act over the line. California senator Dianne Feinstein called the rate hike unconscionable, saying it was proof of the need for comprehensive health reform. California representative Henry Waxman’s comment made it on ABC World News. “Health insurers like WellPoint may get richer,’’ the congressman said, “but our nation’s health will suffer. We cannot go down this road forever.” The New York Times questioned whether such “unsustainable” pricing is driven by the “bloodless economics of risk or a corporate culture of greed.” The Times story concluded with a prediction from “several insurance analysts,” who said it was possible “but not necessarily likely” that such increases would become common while the economic downturn persisted.
What a difference two years makes! This winter, Anthem announced an average rate increase of 10.4 percent; for some customers, the rate rose by as much as 30 percent. State insurance regulators, who have no power to stop such increases, did some jawboning, and Anthem rolled back its rate hike to an average of 8.2 percent, and as much as 20 percent for policies sold to small business owners. A few California news outlets reported the news, but the national media paid no attention. “Raising rates in the double digits is now happening with more frequency,” says Jamie Court, the president of Consumer Watchdog, a California advocacy group that fights such increases. “But that’s not news.”
This raises an important question: Is a story a story only when politicians make it one, or when it fits into the narrative of some big national issue, like the struggle to pass health reform legislation? Though insurance rate increases can lead to stories that are tricky for reporters and boring to editors, they will be part of the health care scene for the foreseeable future. After all, wasn’t that what the Affordable Care Act was all about: making health insurance more affordable?
The anecdotes laced throughout the few California media stories there were make that point. Chad Terhune, a reporter for the Los Angeles Times who knows how to cover health insurance, described the predicament of a 57-year-old marketing researcher named Josh Libresco, whose family premium for an Anthem policy will rise 29 percent come May 1. That’s on top of an increase in the family deductible from $5000 to $5900 and increases in copayments. ‘“I don’t know how people can afford these increases every year. We are about at our limit,’” said Libresco. “‘Whether it’s 20 percent or 29 percent, it’s still an enormous number.’”
Victoria Colliver at the San Francisco Chronicle described what happened to small business owners Christopher and Janet Hildreth, who have a policy with one of Anthem’s competitors, Blue Shield of California. Blue Shield did not hit the Hildreths with a premium increase. Instead it replaced their old policy with a new one that gives them less coverage at a higher cost. In insurance jargon, that’s called “closing off a block of business,” and insurers do it all the time when certain policies become unprofitable. Welcome to the Great Health Care Cost Shift, which is occurring alongside double-digit rate increases.
Anthem is not the only California insurer in quest of higher rates. Aetna has just announced increases averaging eight percent annually, and as high as 21.4 percent for some small employers. California insurance commissioner Dave Jones said the increase amounts to 30.3 percent over two years, which he called “unreasonable and not justified by the company’s claims experience.” But Jones can’t do much about it. In states like California without strong regulations, the media is the only watchdog.
While few media properties are strongly partisan, and most of those are owned by the Murdochs, the papers of record clearly slant toward big money whenever big money is at stake. With news reduced to the status of commodity, and interlocking boards of directors abdicating fiduciary duty for personal interest, such a result is lamentably unsurprising.
#1 Posted by Jonathan, CJR on Fri 6 Apr 2012 at 01:07 PM
Are the LA Times and San Francisco Chronicle not "papers of record"? Guess those reporters slid their stories into the paper despite management's slant toward big money.
#2 Posted by Matt J. Duffy, CJR on Fri 6 Apr 2012 at 11:28 PM
You're focusing on the wrong issue. The problem is the underlying costs of our medical care delivery "non-system"
#3 Posted by Kathy Swenson, CJR on Mon 9 Apr 2012 at 04:02 PM
Laugh of the Day: "After all, wasn’t that what the Affordable Care Act was all about: making health insurance more affordable? "
Yeah... That's what it was about.
It wasn't about cramming Gubmint-run health care down the throats of the American people. It wasn't about burning up political capital in slimy backroom midnight deals to score a leftist goal that has been on the commie radar forever.
It was about saving the average American family $2500 a year in premiums at a cost to taxpayers of less than a trillion dollars, right? It was about tickling the Gubmint Money Fairy into sprinkling health care dust upon the masses.
Because when you insert the Gubmint into the equation with a 2900 page law that creates hundreds of bureaucracies and tens of thousands of bureaucrats, what could possibly happen except lower costs and faster and better services, right?
Who (except anyone with a few functioning neurons and even a feeble grasp of economics) could have expected that premiums would increase after the Obamessiah's Blessing? Who could have predicted that the cost to taxpayers would be twice what the Obamessiah told us it would be?
Clearly, the 2900 pages weren't enough! We need a few thousand more pages and just a few more hundred regulatory agencies to get this health care thing under control.
#4 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 9 Apr 2012 at 04:03 PM
You're right. Life would be much simpler under medicare for all.
#5 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 9 Apr 2012 at 04:43 PM
In fact there are a whole range of problems which could be made simpler through activist democratic government rather than the government that tries to pillow prod the private sector into doing public good that we have now.
#6 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 9 Apr 2012 at 04:59 PM
"Activist democratic government" = "commie stupidity".
Take a cab ride in Havana or Pyongyang (or Southeast D.C) to witness the beauty that arises from Gubmint intervention into business.
The government can't do business efficiently. PERIOD.
It can't grow food efficiently. It can't do health care efficiently. It can't build things efficiently. It can't do ANYTHING efficiently. It is inherently inefficient and unresponsive to changing market conditions.
That's just the reality here. Centrally planned economies can only compete with free market economies at gunpoint, and the only way they get there is by eschewing democracy for dictatorship.
History 101.
Adding fifty thousand GS-13's and a couple of hundred thousand contractors to filter through the paperwork of a 2900 page law cannot possibly achieve any market efficiency in health care. It will COST money. GOBS of money. It will REDUCE efficiency and quality of services. DRAMATICALLY.
Just like all the critics said it would, and despite the BS that its proponents blithered.
You notice the liberals doing their best "dodge and weave" to give Obama cover on the costs of this health care boondoggle. Where is a single reporter asking him about his pledge to save American families $2500 a year? Where is anyone calling for him to explain why the CBO forecasts that the estimated cost of Obamacare to taxpayers DOUBLED in just two years? HUH?
#7 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 9 Apr 2012 at 08:34 PM
"The government can't do business efficiently. PERIOD."
Business can't do business efficiently as we've learned over the last decade. Human beings, who have resource maximization ingrained into their design, tend to make any group process inefficient as they try to maximize their individual benefit while charged with serving the group cause. There are ways to mitigate this, but making mindless utterings of "Derp take it out of da gubmit and dah derp dee derp the private sector is more efish...effish..efffishient," isn't one of them.
The only differences between private and public enterprise is that
a) one creates assets for public benefit, such as Hoover Dam and highways; and the other for private, such as coal plants and cars.
b) one can use its power of authority to give exclusive market access, a preferential legal environment and preferential treatment, and access to resources such as government financing; and the other can use its money to contribute to campaigns, hire lobbyists, make the offer of a consultant position for one's post political career, and maybe even send over some hookers and blow to get the same treatment as a public entity without the checks and balances that are demanded of a public one in a democracy.
Fact: The private health insurance market was broken. It was i) charging higher costs for providing lower benefits ii) to a shrinking qualifying population who was iii) increasingly being denied the coverage they paid premiums for. That's assuming you chose to have coverage, iv) otherwise we collectively paid for your trips to the emergency room.
Obamacare largely solved ii) and iii) and iv). I was still on record against Obamacare when they throughout the public option and medicare buy-in at age 55, but now what are you going to tell people that would suffer ii) and iii) and iv) with Obamacare repeal? Go back to the broken system and die? Let the republicans take another 8 year of nothing crack at the problem? Hope Romney proposes something different?
Not going to happen. The law is the best this government in this democracy can do. If you want better, you're looking at emulating Taiwan and/or Japan.
Obamacare or single payer bust. You cannot go back to the 'cause of death-lack of insurance' model.
#8 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 10 Apr 2012 at 12:56 AM