TPM LiveWire

Health Insurance Lobby Release Report on Baucus Bill

Spread the word and support this article by retweeting it!

Share

Twitter Facebook Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

On October 11, 2009, America's Health Insurance Plans released a study of the Senate Finance Committee health care reform bill. The report was prepared by PriceWaterHouseCoopers(PwC). The following is a memo from Karen Ignagni, CEO of AHIP.



America's Health Insurance Plans Memorandum

TO: Member Plan Presidents and CEOs

FROM: Karen Ignagni

DATE: October 11, 2009

RE: New PwC Report Finds that Senate Proposal Will Significantly Accelerate Health Care Cost Increases

We are writing today to share a new report by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) that examines the impact of the Senate reform proposal on the cost of coverage for both single and family policies in the individual, small group, large group, and self-funded insurance markets.

The report makes clear that several major provisions in the current legislative proposal will cause health care costs to increase far faster and higher than they would under the current system. The report finds that the proposal "will increase premiums above what they would increase under the current system for both individual and family coverage in all four market segments for every year from 2010-2019."

For example, the analysis shows that the cost of the average family policy is approximately $12,300 today and will rise to:

* $15,500 in 2013 under current law and to $17,200 if these provisions are implemented.
* $18,400 in 2016 under current law and to $21,300 if these provisions are implemented.
* $21,900 in 2019 under current law and to $25,900 if these provisions are implemented.

In fact, between 2010 and 2019 the cumulative increases in the cost of a typical family policy under this reform proposal will be approximately $20,700 more than it would be under the current system.

Key drivers of rising costs analyzed in the report include:

* Market reform enacted in the absence of universal coverage will increase costs dramatically for many who are currently insured by creating a powerful incentive for people to wait until they are sick to purchase coverage. Since proposing health insurance reform in 2008, AHIP has provided data showing that market reform needs to be paired with an effective personal coverage requirement to ensure affordability and minimize disruption for those currently insured.

* As noted previously by the Congressional Budget Office, the new taxes on health insurance plans, medical device makers, and pharmaceutical manufacturers will result in increased costs for individuals, families, and employers. We are making the point that health care taxes will add to, rather than reduce, rising medical costs.

*Record reductions in Medicare spending will raise costs as providers shift even more costs to individuals, families, and employers with private coverage.

*Taxes on high-value health plans will raise the cost of employer-based coverage, particularly for companies with older workforces and those whose benefit plans have been secured through collective bargaining agreements.

On the subject of a government-run plan's impact on costs, PwC notes that: "Since government-sponsored programs have traditionally paid providers less than the private sector, as enrollment in a government-run plan increases, hospital revenue margins may decrease and consequently accelerate further cost shift. This would likely lead to increasing payment differentials between the public and private payers and the potential for further spiraling as private sector enrollees, facing continuously higher premiums leave the market."

As you know, as part of a plan to achieve universal coverage, AHIP's Board has committed to a complete overhaul of insurance market rules and new consumer protections to make pre-existing conditions a thing of the past and end rating based on health status or gender. The Board has proposed a massive administrative simplification initiative to slash paperwork, reduce medical errors, and enable providers to focus on patient care--an initiative that is included in the current legislation. We have also committed to funding a reinsurance mechanism to keep coverage affordable during the transition to new market rules, although the current legislation would make it impossible for this mechanism to offset the cost increases attributable to other provisions.

In our discussions with policymakers, we are recommending a series of solutions to create a more affordable and sustainable health care system, including:

* Putting the nation on a path to universal coverage, and ensuring that the linkage to universal coverage and market reform is restored;

* Taking a system-wide approach to bending the cost curve, instead of focusing on a subset of Medicare providers;

* Instituting evidence-based medical care and best practices nationwide;

* Reorienting the entire health care system to focus on prevention, wellness, and management of chronic conditions;

* Transforming health care administration;

* Enacting a 5:1 rating band to avoid rate shock for younger workers, and providing targeted financial assistance to older workers; and

* Enacting medial liability reform.

Attached is the full report from PwC. We will continue to work with policymakers in support of workable bipartisan reform.

Join the Conversation!

14 comments

Recommend Recommend (0)

October 11, 2009 10:21 PM   

"We will continue to work with policymakers in support of workable bipartisan reform."

Is there an opt-out clause on that one?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 11, 2009 10:31 PM   

Good. Forget the Baucus Bill and work with the HELP Bill and the other three House Bills that all have a public option. Improve on the PO and pass something decent. The Baucus Bill is nothing but a giveaway to the insurance industry and apparently the greedy bast**ds still aren't happy.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 11, 2009 11:28 PM    in reply to xargaw

You do understand that this assessment would be even worse for the HELP bill, right?

The goal of this assessment isn't to inform. The goal is to kill healthcare reform by scaring people into thinking that their premiums will rise. If they're saying this about the relatively conservative Baucus bill, they would absolutely ravage the more liberal Kennedy/HELP bill.

Unfortunately, however, it won't matter for many that this is an insurance-sponsored study, or that the PWC is an accounting firm with major clients in the pharmaceutical, insurance and healthcare equipment and services sectors.

Because Republicans will likely trumpet this report, expect most of the media to run this story ad nauseum without noting the blatant conflicts of interest.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 11, 2009 11:37 PM    in reply to hewhohasnoname

"...expect most of the media to run this story ad nauseum without noting the blatant conflicts of interest."

I don't think so. In fact, to the extent that they cover it, I think the MSM will make the source the story.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 11, 2009 11:50 PM    in reply to surely

I hope you're right. But, given that this is study is likely to be co-opted by Republicans as an argument against reform, the notion that people involved with every aspect of this study have blatant conflicts of interest may be disaggregated from the subsequent reports as this story morphs into the media's preferred (and arguably intellectually lazy) "Democrats say/Republicans say" framework. As a sheer matter of conservation -- intellectual and logistical (e.g., article length), essential details always get dropped over time. [Of course, essential details may also be dropped for other motivations.]

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 11, 2009 10:58 PM   

Sounds like a great argument in favor of single payer - all of their objectives would be met, and then some.

Health insurance is a failed industry. At least they're starting to admit it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

rb6

user-pic

October 12, 2009 9:56 AM    in reply to David

My exact response. The problem the insurers have is that every time they highlight the failures of this bill or the other, they are really highlighting the difficulty of achieving cost control and universal health coverage within the framework of private insurance -- people will resent mandates to buy private insurance, so you have to make the penalties less draconian, which, in turn, potentially makes the private insurance market less stable and (possibly) more expensive.

In any event, I have a lot of skepticism about the premise of mandates to begin with -- that by forcing the healthy into the system you will have any impact on health care trends whatsoever. I think the impact will be minor and fleeting, thus exposing another problem: private insurers can't control costs (it's not all their fault -- we don't trust them enough to let them control costs).

The only good thing to see is that you can bet AHIP appreciates all of the above, which means it have only a very narrow ledge to walk in its lobbying efforts. Pelosi should immediately turn up the heat on why AHIP's research highlights the need for a public option.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 11, 2009 11:21 PM   

I would like to see the actual report; can TPM get a link?

Incidentally, I am a bit confused by the logic behind hiring PwC to do such an analysis. It seems like an odd choice. I'm skeptical that PwC's data sets, no matter how well developed they are, even get into the same ballpark as what the CBO has to work with, and thus would be less inclined to take their findings as seriously.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 11, 2009 11:44 PM   

This is a classic example of a falling out among thieves. It's a rare opportunity for Americans to see the truth about what this "reform" means to them. Dump Obamacare! The ONLY way average Americans will see premium reductions is if we have Medicare for All or a robust public option with payments based on Medicare rates.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 11, 2009 11:54 PM    in reply to bmull

Obamacare?

Why are you repeating Right-wing talking points?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 12, 2009 10:44 AM    in reply to Micheline

because bmull is a concern troll pretending to attack health care reform from the left but is only interested in sowing discontent and bad-mouthing obama.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 12, 2009 3:28 AM   

"Enacting a 5:1 rating band to avoid rate shock for younger workers, and providing targeted financial assistance to older workers"

So by the middle part of the 2010 decade, 'younger workers' can be kicking in $500 a month in premiums for lousy insurance for just themselves, while those over the age of 40 can expect to pay five times that much. For family coverage, multiply that by four. With exclusions.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 12, 2009 8:47 AM   

This is an analysis that relies on another consulting firm (Hay Group) to mess with numbers. If one thinks about this, this is the Private Insurance Companies THREAT to those with Private Insurance...if you think we are going to cut our profits...think again...as we are going to raise rates EVEN HIGHER because a Public Option healthcare plan may take away some of our customers.

They are talking like HCR will take effect immediately, which is not the case, so then consider all the rate hikes between 2009 and 2013 that are expected by Private Health Insurance Plans and say huh?

It is amusing that this report is really targeting those "Cadillac" policy holders...who to date get their health insurance FREE...oh my, they may actually have to pay for some of their health insurance premiums?

Yep, I can hear the GOP legislators now....it is unfair to make those with a substanial income actually have to pay for themselves...all because we now have to cover all those individuals with pre-existing conditions...wahhhhhh!

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