Reuters has an eye-opening investigation today showing how the health-insurance company Assurant Health (formerly called Fortis) systematically targeted sick patients for “rescission”—where insurers pick expensive customers and find technicalities to dump them.
A computer program and algorithm targeted every policyholder recently diagnosed with HIV for an automatic fraud investigation, as the company searched for any pretext to revoke their policy. As was the case with Mitchell, their insurance policies often were canceled on erroneous information, the flimsiest of evidence, or for no good reason at all, according to the court documents and interviews with state and federal investigators.
The great investigative journalist Murray Waas is on the case here, getting hold of “previously undisclosed records” from a case that went to the South Carolina Supreme Court involving a 17-year-old who sued (and won $10 million) Assurant for dropping him. The records come out of that case:
By winning the verdict against Fortis, Mitchell not only obtained a measure of justice for himself; he also helped expose wrongdoing on the part of Fortis that could have repercussions for the entire health insurance industry.
Waas reports that the news was found in two judge’s order denying Assurant motions. And the courts found that Assurant covered its moves up:
“The lack of written rescission policies, the lack of information available regarding appealing rights or procedures, the separate policies for rescission documents” as well as the “omission” of other records regarding the decision to revoke Mitchell’s insurance, constituted “evidence that Fortis tried to conceal the actions it took in rescinding his policy.”
And Waas is excellent to tie in Assurant’s dirty actions with its CEO’s testimony to Congress in favor of rescission:
On June 16, 2009, the House Energy and Commerce Committee, held a hearing on the practice of rescission by health insurance companies, and among the industry executives who testified was Don Hamm, the CEO and President of Assurant Health.
Hamm insisted before the committee that rescission was a necessary tool for Assurant and other health insurance companies to hold the cost of premiums down for other policyholders…
He also suggested that those who had their policies rescinded by Assurant had attempted to intentionally mislead his company: “Unfortunately, there are times when we discover that an applicant did not provide complete or accurate medical information when we underwrote the risk,” Hamm said.
Waas follows this, as a reporter should when encountering a lie, with some “you’re full of it” graphs:
But state regulators, federal and congressional investigators, and consumer advocates say that in only a tiny percentage of cases of people who have had their health insurance canceled was there a legitimate reason.
A 2007 investigation by a California state regulatory agency, the California Department of Managed Health Care, bore this out. The DMHC randomly selected 90 instances in which Anthem Blue Cross of California, one of WellPoint’s largest subsidiaries, canceled the insurance of policy holders after diagnoses with costly or life-threatening illnesses to determine how many were legally justified.
The result: The agency concluded that Anthem Blue Cross lacked legal grounds for canceling policies in every single instance.
Nice.
What’s interesting to me is how little coverage this case got in the press until now. A Factiva search finds that coverage was limited to a 480-word Associated Press story and a Buffalo News editorial—neither of which reported on the systematic rescission of HIV-infected customers of Fortis/Assurant.
Why not? This was information in the public record, involving a major case (at least in South Carolina), on one of the biggest public issues of the age—and involving serious wrongdoing by a $9 billion-a-year company against a sick kid.
It’s a great testament to Waas and Reuters that they dug this up. This story could more easily have been one of the many (more these days, with the gutting of newspaper newsrooms) that slip through the cracks.

I'm sorry, but you don't get it. Individual Health coverage is only available to currently healthy people. That sounds mean, but it can't be otherwise. If health coverage were available to those with pre-existing conditions, it would force premiums up on the healthy, because 10% of the people cost 90% of the medical costs.
Health insurance was never designed to deal with people who are known to have large costs coming. It is meant to deal with people who might have large costs in the future, but do not have large costs now.
Recission can only be done early in the term of the policy, as a protection against fraud. Health insurance companies that rescind are only enforcing terms of the policy against those that would defraud them, for the most part. There may be some errors, but they are not the rule.
#1 Posted by David Merkel, CJR on Thu 18 Mar 2010 at 01:43 AM
David, did you read the whole post? Let me re-quote the Reuters passage from above:
A 2007 investigation by a California state regulatory agency, the California Department of Managed Health Care, bore this out. The DMHC randomly selected 90 instances in which Anthem Blue Cross of California, one of WellPoint’s largest subsidiaries, canceled the insurance of policy holders after diagnoses with costly or life-threatening illnesses to determine how many were legally justified.
The result: The agency concluded that Anthem Blue Cross lacked legal grounds for canceling policies in every single instance.
Also see this.
#2 Posted by Ryan Chittum, CJR on Thu 18 Mar 2010 at 01:56 AM
You win. I missed that. Let me re-phrase: health insurers run into a lot of people who omit material information known to them at the time of policy issue.
But if insurers are canceling coverages where there is no fraud on the part of the insured, then the insurer is committing fraud. And that is happening to some degree here, the only question is: how much? If it is common, the results of a a class-action lawsuit would be huge. I would like to see the techniques used for estimating the frequency of occurrence, because the insurers say that there are flaws in the estimates.
But I am wrong with respect to what I wrote; I guess I know too many people in the industry, and just took their line. Apologies.
#3 Posted by David Merkel, CJR on Thu 18 Mar 2010 at 12:53 PM
I'm rubbing my eyes, David.
I think this is the first time in the history of comments that anyone has apologized or said they erred.
That kind of honesty and willingness to adapt a position to new facts is all-too-rare and much appreciated.
#4 Posted by Ryan Chittum, CJR on Thu 18 Mar 2010 at 02:18 PM
All my anonymous respect to both of you
#5 Posted by tris, CJR on Fri 19 Mar 2010 at 05:31 AM
I believe that the whole debate boils down to the following - If you think that health insurance is a commodity, then yes what the insurance companies are doing is right and makes perfect business sense. You will do all you can to protect your bottom line, you are running a business, like any other business.
If however you believe that health care is a right - then that changes the ball game. Your driver then is not to make money but to preserve health and save lives.
Then you take the insurance companies out of the picture - because till you can answer the question of what they actually do, then they stay out.
#6 Posted by Armen, CJR on Fri 19 Mar 2010 at 10:53 AM
Let's look at an example that might demonstrate an insurable risk to you knuckleheads ...... you believe it's perfectly OK for someone who owns a car, does NOT buy insurance for that vehicle, then has an accident and totals it, to then go to any auto insurer and buy coverage that will pay for the cost of the car. Yeah, that's real fair. All that does is make the costs HIGHER for EVERYONE WHO ALREADY BUYS insurance. Unbelievable. That is why insurers do not insure against pre-existing conditions. They will sell insurance to sick people, they just want to collect enough premium to cover the higher costs that sick person will incur. And when someone LIES on an insurance application about existance of a pre-existing condition, that constitutes FRAUD.
#7 Posted by big pappa, CJR on Mon 24 May 2010 at 10:28 AM
my comments were directed at the authors of the article itself and not previous commentors, just to be clear. Thanks.
#8 Posted by big pappa, CJR on Mon 24 May 2010 at 10:31 AM
For a really good piece on Assurant, see the laurel we gave Westword, Denver's alternative weekly. http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/laurel_to_denvers_westword.php?
Reporters might want to look for similar cases in their own areas.
#9 Posted by trudy lieberman, CJR on Tue 25 May 2010 at 08:20 AM
Kudos to David Merkel.
#10 Posted by Anna Haynes, CJR on Tue 25 May 2010 at 04:05 PM