Regence stops selling child-only insurance

[rsmith6621]

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/427499_regence.html?source=rss

Want to buy insurance just for your kid? As of Friday, don't bother looking for it at Regence BlueShield.

That's because the health insurer, one of the largest in the state, plans to stop selling child-only policies as of October 1. It's a decision that disappoints state Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler, who had been working to dissuade Regence from pulling out of the child-only insurance market, which covers children under age 19.

"I'm appalled," Kreidler said in a statement. "We've made regulatory concessions to limit Regence's exposure. Their overreaction will seriously harm Washington families."

The federal health-care reform law signed this year requires many plans to cover children's pre-existing conditions without a waiting period. As a way to help Regence reduce its risk and stay in the kid-only market, Kreidler's office issued an emergency rule last week on the issue.

[mike_c]

1. "Their overreaction will seriously harm Washington families."

For which they don't give a rat's buttocks. Limiting their exposure isn't the point either-- their ONLY interest is in squeezing maximum profits from sick and injured people. Anything that limits their potential to make obscene amounts of money on the backs of sick children and their parents is justification for refusing coverage.

This is America. Don't get sick if you can't afford it.

[PoliticAverse]

5. Regence BlueShield is a nonprofit.

"The largest not-for-profit health Plan in the Pacific Northwest and Mountain West states- we are Regence BlueShield of Idaho, Regence BlueCross BlueShield of Oregon, Regence BlueCross BlueShield of Utah and Regence BlueShield (serving parts of Washington)."
http://www.regence.com/careers/index.jsp

[mike_c]

9. then why would they care about risk exposure...?

That doesn't make any sense.

I took a look at their 2008 Annual Report-- the most recent one available on their web site-- and it includes this sentence:

General inflation is outside our scope, so we focus on slowing the growth of medical costs and eliminating unnecessary use. In 2008, Regence programs helped members avoid more than $80 million in unnecessary care.

Again, strange behavior for a non-profit. They also state that only $0.01 from every member premium dollar goes toward investments for maintaining capital reserves. That's exactly what I'd hope to see, yet it begs the question why eliminate coverage for individual children when they have so much money available to pay claims, and are not in the business of generating shareholder profits?

Some of the preachiness about doctors and medicine in the Annual Report is weird for a non-profit-- they're highly critical of the medical profession:

(reasons why insurance costs are rising)

• More testing/defensive medicine. As a society, we are convinced that “more is better” and doctors overtreat to satisfy patient expectations and avert lawsuits.

• Duplication and waste. Our fragmented system’s lack of information sharing lends itself to expensive and potentially dangerous duplicate testing and treatment.

• The dysfunction of our overall system. Our system encourages doctors to practice defensive medicine and it rewards them for doing more.

Finally, I found this, from an Oregon news report about protests and arrests at Regence offices in Portland:

http://www.thelundreport.org/resource/police_arrest_twelve_at_regence

Last year, Regence – a non-profit health plan – took in $600 million in premiums. It spent 86 percent of those dollars on medical care. In Oregon, it spent $42 million on administration, and paid its CEO Mark Ganz at least $1.8 million last year.

And while enrollment shrunk, premiums increased by 26 percent last year and 14 percent already this year.

Rejected for carpal tunnel

According to Gillian Hearst, Regence denied her husband, Patrick Collier, coverage for an individual health plan because of a pre-existing carpal tunnel syndrome.

Sure sounds more like the behavior of a for-profit insurance company. I keep seeing the words "non-profit" on their web sites, but they sure seem to be paying their executives a lot of money!

[PoliticAverse]

10. You have some good questions

Especially about the executive compensation at Regence.

Congress Look At Executive Pay Includes Regence:
http://www.thelundreport.org/resource/congress_look_at_executive_pay_includes_regence

With nonprofits there's always the question about how much the nonprofit exists for the benefit
of the people running the organization vs how much it exists for the purpose for which it was
formed.

Regence CEO Ganz's compensation looks huge at $1.8 Million. The problem though seems to be that CEO
compensation in general has exploded especially in health-related fields.

Here's some articles discussing health related CEO salaries:
http://www.healthreformwatch.com/2010/02/09/why-angela-braly-wellpoint-insurance-co-ceo-deserves-a-raise/
http://www.healthreformwatch.com/2009/11/16/nonprofit-health-related-ceo-compensation/

Ganz's $1.8 million salary is low compared to that of the CEOs of other nonprofits in the health field, and
a fraction of that of health insurance forprofit CEOs.

Some of the other questions you raise I think have to do with Regence trying to reduce medical costs.
This seems to be rational behavior for a nonprofit since they do have to ultimately pass costs onto policy
buyers. Is it wrong for them to want their policy holder to pay less for health care?

[LiberalFighter]

2. What is the point of kids only insurance if they are on their parent's coverage?

I would think that kids insurance would become obsolete.

[Broderick]

3. Not every kid has parents

[virgogal]

4. Maybe the parents have no coverage.

[kristopher]

6. It goes with the requirement for everyone to get insurance.

No children are being denied insurance and no families are incurring extra hardship as a result of the law.

This is a non-issue that is being blown up by REPUBLICANS. Don't fall for it.

[virgogal]

8. Thanks. I'm on Medicare so I'm not as well informed as I should be.

[Statistical]

11. Not every parent can afford family coverage.

Some when facing coverage costs beyond their means would like for their children to be covered at a minimum.
Now even that option is taken away.

So they can't get child-only coverage, they can't afford family coverage and in a couple years they will be taxed/fined for the crime of being too poor to afford health insurance.

Got to love HCR.

[BanzaiBonnie]

7. They're committing suicide

The problem is it will hurt others first.

But as sure as anything the insurance companies are hastening their own demise.

I say, BRING IT.