Health Plans
Health Plans
e-Newsletter
Blogs
Industry Surveys
Breakthroughs Reports
Events
Sponsored
Departments Add News Widget

HHS Fires up Rhetoric Against Health Insurance Industry

John Commins, for HealthLeaders Media, August 11, 2009

The Obama administration's pugnacity toward the nation's private health plans intensified today with the release of a short, but sharply worded HHS talking points memo detailing what federal officials say is the industry's widespread "discrimination" against people with pre-existing conditions.

The memo, Coverage Denied: How the Current Health Insurance System Leaves Millions Behind, is slightly longer than a typical press release, but it is striking for a confrontational tone that–for the most part–has not been seen in government advocacy reports since the heyday of Big Tobacco.

The report cites a 2007 Commonwealth Fund Biennial Health Insurance Survey, which found that 12.6 million non-elderly adults–36% of those who tried to buy insurance on the private market–were discriminated against in the past three years because an insurance company said they had a pre-existing condition, charged them a higher premium, or refused to cover their condition. Another Commonwealth Fund survey this year found 1 in 10 people with cancer said they could not get health coverage, and 6% said they lost their coverage because of their diagnosis, the HHS memo stated.

"The insurance company practice of denying coverage because of pre-existing conditions is not confined to serious diseases," the HHS report stated. "Even minor problems such as hay fever could trigger prohibitive responses. An insurer could charge high premiums, deny coverage, or set a restriction such as denying any respiratory disease coverage to a person with hay fever."

As if taking a page from the script of Sicko, the Micheal Moore screed against the private health insurance industry, the HHS memo also included personal testimonials from people whose lives were destroyed when their health insurance coverage was dropped after they or their family became seriously ill.

The biggest point of contention between the White House and the health insurance industry is the Obama administration's call for a public plan to compete with private insurers, which the president has said is needed to keep private insurers "honest." The industry says a public plan would have inherent cost advantages over the private sector in areas like advertising and marketing, and physician reimbursement, and would drive private insurers out of business.

"Our concern is the government run plan, which has been the subject of a lot of concern over the country in the last few weeks," says Alissa Fox, senior vice president for policy and representation at the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association. "We think that is a huge diversion. We want Congress to drop the government run plan. We want them to include insurance reforms and other actions to make sure everyone is covered and costs are reined in."

The HHS talking points memo comes as the Obama administration steps up efforts to bolster sagging support for healthcare reform. White House officials reportedly fear that opponents of healthcare reform are controlling the message. In late July, President Obama began referring to "insurance reform," rather than healthcare reform, to better tap into perceived widespread public resentment toward health insurance companies. Two weeks ago, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) told a room full of reporters that the health insurance companies were the "villains" in the healthcare reform debate.

America's Health Insurance Plans President and CEO Karen Ignagni–who last week complained of attempts to "demonize" her industry—today took issue with the HHS report and insisted that her industry is leading reform efforts.

"Health plans last year proposed health insurance reform to make sure that no one is denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition," Ignagni says. "Our proposal includes new consumer protections and market rules to guarantee coverage for pre-existing conditions, discontinue basing premiums on a person's health status or gender, and get everyone covered through a personal coverage requirement."

1 | 2
2 comments on "HHS Fires up Rhetoric Against Health Insurance Industry"


Jeff L (8/12/2009 at 10:17 AM)
So, the Administration is surprised at the "orchestrated" unruly crowds and behavior at town hall meetings??? It is THEY who have drawn the swords with the shift to health INSURANCE reform for the sole purpose of getting public support where they otherwise were not. Stick to the facts, they say..... Well, the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program - Congress' own insurance -has no public option, has lower than average cost trends, but is federally regulated. Hey Administration - just stick to regulating industry rather than being a competitor with the ugly intention of becoming the monopoly. Mr. President, since you really want a single payor (government) system, just YOU be honest, put the debate on the floor and let's go at it. You will find American will be better off with health CARE reform than just bigger government, unable to do the job as the industry itself

Elaine Coffman (8/11/2009 at 5:37 PM)
I am confused about the negative comments regarding insurance companies discriminating against people with medical conditions. HIPAA was a very effective piece of legislation in allowing creditable coverage to be applied toward satisfying any preexisting condition limitation that may be contained in a plan. So, if you had coverage before, you were protected by law that a preexisting condition limitation would not limit your coverage in a new plan. The exception to this is if someone does not keep coverage in place. Insurance by definition is the act, system, or business of insuring property, life, one's person, etc., against loss or harm arising in specified contingencies, as fire, accident, death, disablement, or the like, in consideration of a payment proportionate to the risk involved. Life insurance companies do not let you buy life insurance if you have a medical condition at the same rate as those that don?t. This compels people to purchase and keep life insurance coverage when they are healthy, so the law of averages apply to the pricing structure. No one is saying that life insurance companies are ?discriminating? when they decline coverage for someone with terminal cancer. I think most American?s understand that if all life insurance was priced the same, regardless of condition, no one would buy it until they needed it and then it would be too expensive to buy. The problem with ?insurance? and the health care industry is that people are able to make purchasing decisions based on a known risk (i.e., I?m having a baby next year so I need health insurance). I know many people who have rolled the dice and not carried coverage until they needed it. To allow people to opt in and out of coverage, paying a couple months premium for potentially very large claims would cause the price of insurance to increase substantially from what it is currently. Unless there is a mandate for everyone to have coverage, the adverse risk for insurance companies is tremendous. I believe AHIP and individual insurance companies like Aetna and Humana have been very supportive of reform in this area. They are extremely willing to change the pricing policy if having coverage is mandatory. It is only in this fashion that risk can be spread and pricing variances can be removed. I am lucky that I live in the state of Michigan where individual coverage can be obtained by BCBS of Michigan and many of the states HMO?s without any pricing variation for preexisting conditions. The plans do have some limitations, but all of them are waived with a Certificate of Creditable Coverage. So for our state, this is largely not a concern of residents unless they have made the choice to not purchase coverage. Why is Washington vilifying this industry for a practice that is basic to the laws of pricing insurance? Is it propaganda to sell a plan to the public? Does it reflect a low level of understanding at a policy level? Either way, it is very disappointing to see. I do not want my taxes increased to pay for health reform, especially the reform being considered in congress at this time. Why is this not brought up in your article to balance the message of health reform?