65
   

IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

 
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Nov, 2007 06:26 pm
Health insurer tied bonuses to dropping sick policyholders
By Lisa Girion
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
November 9, 2007

One of the state's largest health insurers set goals and paid bonuses based in part on how many individual policyholders were dropped and how much money was saved.

Woodland Hills-based Health Net Inc. avoided paying $35.5 million in medical expenses by rescinding about 1,600 policies between 2000 and 2006. During that period, it paid its senior analyst in charge of cancellations more than $20,000 in bonuses based in part on her meeting or exceeding annual targets for revoking policies, documents disclosed Thursday showed.

The revelation that the health plan had cancellation goals and bonuses comes amid a storm of controversy over the industry-wide but long-hidden practice of rescinding coverage after expensive medical treatments have been authorized.

These cancellations have been the recent focus of intense scrutiny by lawmakers, state regulators and consumer advocates. Although these "rescissions" are only a small portion of the companies' overall business, they typically leave sick patients with crushing medical bills and no way to obtain needed treatment.

Most of the state's major insurers have cancellation departments or individuals assigned to review coverage applications. They typically pull a policyholder's records after major medical claims are made to ensure that the client qualified for coverage at the outset.

The companies' internal procedures for reviewing and canceling coverage have not been publicly disclosed. Health Net's disclosures Thursday provided an unprecedented peek at a company's internal operations and marked the first time an insurer had revealed how it linked cancellations to employee performance goals and to its bottom line.

The bonuses were disclosed at an arbitration hearing in a lawsuit brought by Patsy Bates, a Gardena hairdresser whose coverage was rescinded by Health Net in the middle of chemotherapy treatments for breast cancer. She is seeking $6 million in compensation, plus damages.

Insurers maintain that cancellations are necessary to root out fraud and keep premiums affordable. Individual coverage is issued to only the healthiest applicants, who must disclose preexisting conditions.

Other suits have been settled out of court or through arbitration, out of public view. Until now, none had gone to a public trial.

Health Net had sought to keep the documents secret even after it was forced to produce them for the hearing, arguing that they contained proprietary information and could embarrass the company. But the arbitrator in the case, former Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Sam Cianchetti, granted a motion by lawyers for The Times, opening the hearing to reporters and making public all documents produced for it.

At a hearing on the motion, the judge said, "This clearly involves very significant public interest, and my view is the arbitration proceedings should not be confidential."

The documents show that in 2002, the company's goal for Barbara Fowler, Health Net's senior analyst in charge of rescission reviews, was 15 cancellations a month. She exceeded that, rescinding 275 policies that year -- a monthly average of 22.9.

More recently, her goals were expressed in financial terms. Her supervisor described 2003 as a "banner year" for Fowler because the company avoided about "$6 million in unnecessary health care expenses" through her rescission of 301 policies -- one more than her performance goal.

In 2005, her goal was to save Health Net at least $6.5 million. Through nearly 300 rescissions, Fowler ended up saving an estimated $7 million, prompting her supervisor to write: "Barbara's successful execution of her job responsibilities have been vital to the profitability" of individual and family policies.

State law forbids insurance companies from tying any compensation for claims reviewers to their claims decisions.

But Health Net's lawyer, William Helvestine, told the arbitrator in his opening argument Thursday that the law did not apply to the insurer in the case because Fowler was an underwriter -- not a claims reviewer.

Helvestine acknowledged that the company tied some of Fowler's compensation to policy cancellations, including Bates'. But he maintained that the bonuses were based on the overall performance of Fowler and the company. He also said that meeting the cancellation target was only a small factor.

The documents showed that Fowler's annual bonuses ranged from $1,654 to $6,310. But Helvestine said that no more than $276 in any year was connected to cancellations.

He said Fowler's supervisor, Mark Ludwig, set goals that were reasonable based on the prior year's experience.

"I think it is insulting to those individuals to make this the focal point of this case," Helvestine said.

Bates' lawyer, William Shernoff, said Health Net's behavior was "reprehensible."

He said the cancellation goals and financial rewards showed that the company canceled policies in bad faith and just to save money. After all, he told the arbitrator, canceling policies was Fowler's primary job.

"For management to set goals in advance to achieve a certain number of rescissions and target savings in the millions of dollars at the expense of seriously ill patients is cruel and reprehensible by any standards of law or decency," Shernoff said.

The company declined requests to make Fowler available to discuss the reviews.

Cianchetti, the arbitrator, earlier ruled the rescission invalid because Health Net had mishandled the way it sent Bates the policy when it issued coverage. At the end of the hearing, it will be up to Cianchetti to determine whether Health Net acted in bad faith and owes Bates any damages.

The disclosures surprised regulators. A spokesman said state Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner was troubled by the allegations.

"Commissioner Poizner has made it clear he will not tolerate illegal rescissions," spokesman Byron Tucker said. "We are going to take a hard and close look at this case."

In recent months, the state's health and insurance regulators have teamed to develop rules aimed at curbing rescissions and to more closely monitor the industry's cancellation policies.

Other insurers that have rescission operations, including Blue Cross of California and Blue Shield of California, said they had no similar policies linking employee performance reviews to rescission levels. Blue Cross said it conducted audits to ensure that claims reviewers were not given any "carrots" for canceling coverage.

Bates, who filed the suit against Health Net, owns a hair salon in a Gardena mini-mall between a liquor store and a doughnut shop. She said she was left with nearly $200,000 in medical bills and stranded in the midst of chemotherapy when Health Net canceled her coverage in January 2004.

Bates, 51, said the first notice she had that something was awry with her coverage came while she was in the hospital preparing for lump-removal surgery.

She said an administrator came to her room and told her the surgery, scheduled for early the next day, had been canceled because the hospital learned she had insurance problems. Health Net allowed the surgery to go forward only after Bates' daughter authorized the insurance company to charge three months of premiums in advance to her debit card, Bates alleged. Her coverage was canceled after she began post-surgical chemotherapy threatments.

"I've got cancer, and I could die," she said in a recent interview. Health Net "walked away from the agreement. They don't care."

Health Net contended that Bates failed to disclose a heart problem and shaved about 35 pounds off her weight on her application. Had it known her true weight or that she had been screened for a heart condition related to her use of the diet drug combination known as fen-phen, it would not have covered her in the first place, the company said.

"The case was rescinded based on inaccurate information on the individual's application," Health Net spokesman Brad Kieffer said.

Bates said she already had insurance when a broker came by her shop in the summer of 2003, and said she now regretted letting him in the door. She agreed to apply to Health Net when the broker told her he could save her money, Bates said.

She added that she never intended to mislead the company. Bates said the broker filled out the application, asking questions about her medical history as she styled a client's hair in her busy shop and he talked to another client waiting for an appointment at the counter. She maintained that she answered his questions as best she could and did not know whether he asked every question on the application.

Bates' chemotherapy was delayed for four months until it was funded through a program for charity cases. Three years later, she can't afford the tests she needs to determine whether the cancer is gone.

So she is left to worry. She is also left with a catheter embedded in her chest where the chemotherapy drugs were injected into her bloodstream. Bates said she found a physician willing to remove it without charge, but he won't do it without a clear prognosis. That remains uncertain.

Shernoff, Bates' lawyer, claimed that the performance goals for Fowler showed that Health Net was bent on finding any excuse to cancel the coverage of people like Bates to save money.

"I haven't seen this kind of thing for years," Shernoff said. "It doesn't get much worse."

[email protected]
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-insure9nov09,0,4409342.story?track=mostviewed-storylevel
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Nov, 2007 10:55 am
Quote:
With so many people left outside the health care system, it is no wonder that the U.S. system performs poorly compared with systems in industrialized nations that have universal health insurance. It is critical on moral and economic grounds that the nation move affirmatively to guarantee affordable, comprehensive and continuous health insurance for everyone.

[...]

We are at a crossroads. A majority of the public is asking its leaders to address our health insurance problem through comprehensive reform, even if it requires a substantial investment of public and private funds. States like Massachusetts are leading the nation in this effort, and national policy leaders are responding with well-thought-out proposals. We are a wealthy and innovative country, and we have the resources and the technology to move affirmatively toward universal coverage in a way that improves quality and controls costs. The time is upon us to resolve ideological differences over strategies and find consensus based on pragmatism and fact.


Source: S. R. Collins, Widening Gaps in Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: The Need for Universal Coverage, Invited Testimony, Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives, Hearing on "Impact of Gaps in Health Coverage on Income Security," November 14, 2007
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Dec, 2007 02:13 am
Almost 20 percent of Americans, or more than 40 million adults, can't afford or access needed health care, according to a new U.S. government report released Monday.

Access to health care is the focus of this year'sHealth, United States, 2007report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). It shows that one-fifth of Americans couldn't afford one or more of these services: medical care, prescription medicines, mental health care, dental care, or eyeglasses.

You can read the full report at the CDC
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Dec, 2007 08:34 am
Quote:
Commentary

Health reforms missing target

Government-provided care would do more to help than mandated insurance coverage, and attract elusive 15%


By James Jaffe
December 7, 2007

Presidential candidates from both parties are barking up the wrong tree when they suggest we can reform the nation's health system by increasing the number of Americans with insurance.

They seem to equate an insured population with a healthy one that receives good and appropriate medical care when it is needed.

That ain't necessarily so.

Many Americans who fail to exercise and eat right and avoid tests such as mammograms and colonoscopies have insurance.

Research showing that patients (about 16 percent of whom are uninsured) receive optimal care only about half the time, suggesting that many insured patients aren't getting exactly what they need.

Getting everyone insured may be a dream that's both misguided and unattainable.

Every state now requires that everyone with a driver's license -- which, in an ideal world, would include every driver -- have auto insurance, but the Insurance Research Council concludes that about 15 percent of drivers are uninsured.

In other words, the percentage of drivers who are uninsured (estimated by the IRC at 14.6 percent in 2004) despite laws mandating coverage, is roughly the same as the percentage lacking health insurance (which the Bureau of the Census put at 15.8 percent in 2006).

Often they're probably the same people.

Intriguingly, the Internal Revenue Service assumes that unpaid taxes hover around this order of magnitude as well. There seems to be a pattern -- getting most people to follow the rules is doable, but reaching that last 15 percent is one tough, and perhaps impossible, task.

Many of those uninsured cannot afford coverage, but this isn't simply a financial problem. Nearly every American child who lacks insurance is eligible for free coverage, yet hundreds of thousands are not yet enrolled. Whatever their reasons, significant numbers of people elect to remain outside the system.

The idea of mandating insurance coverage, which has bipartisan support, is simultaneously radical by American standards and inadequate to solve many of our problems. It promises to be both disruptive and ineffective.

If providing universal and appropriate care is a national priority, we ought to consider a really radical solution like having our government provide each of us with the care we need. Those who want more could buy it.

Public medicine would be like the public libraries or public schools.

People who want to purchase service that goes beyond the standard package or the government's providers would be free to do so, albeit without the tax subsidies now built into our system.

Marginal tinkering with the existing system, like the current debate about expanding the State Children's Health Insurance Program, can help some who are medically disadvantaged. But it will no more solve the underlying problems than the complex but ultimately largely irrelevant solutions being peddled by the candidates.

----------

James Jaffe is a vice president with the Center for the Advancement of Health.
Chicago Tribune
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Dec, 2007 08:36 am
On the one side, Jaffe in above commentary descibes exactly what mandatory health service is and how it works:

Quote:
People who want to purchase service that goes beyond the standard package or the government's providers would be free to do so, albeit without the tax subsidies now built into our system.


On the other hand, he says it doesn't work.

Which leads to to a question, which might be a bit outside the topic: how can it happen that 15% don't have a mandatory (car) insurance?

Certainly you can drive an uninsured car here, too, like your health can be uninsured.
But you can't get a legal number plate, you're (your car) is the system as not insured - and we you drive, it's a criminal act.

Like it would be getting medical service without insurance (or not paying it).
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Dec, 2007 09:06 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Almost 20 percent of Americans, or more than 40 million adults, can't afford or access needed health care, according to a new U.S. government report released Monday.

Access to health care is the focus of this year'sHealth, United States, 2007report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). It shows that one-fifth of Americans couldn't afford one or more of these services: medical care, prescription medicines, mental health care, dental care, or eyeglasses.

You can read the full report at the CDC


And so we need some huge govt. beaurocracy to hand out ration coupons for medical care and drugs?

What we really need is the sort of thing Teddy Roosevelt called "trust busting" to make these things as affordable as other things we buy and deal with. Throwing more money at our present system is like throwing gasoline on a fire to try to put it out.
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Dec, 2007 09:10 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:


Which leads to to a question, which might be a bit outside the topic: how can it happen that 15% don't have a mandatory (car) insurance?


How was the 15% determined?
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Dec, 2007 09:46 am
Miller wrote:
Walter Hinteler wrote:


Which leads to to a question, which might be a bit outside the topic: how can it happen that 15% don't have a mandatory (car) insurance?


How was the 15% determined?


I certainly don't know, but the basic point seems very plausible. We all are aware of the various el cheapo automobile insurance policies (expressly designed to meet state minimum requirements) that are so widely advertised. Getting a policy is quick and easy, but collecting on a claim will likely be very difficult - for either the policy owner or an injured third party. In effect, in this era of no fault coverage, such insurers are exploiting a government requirement for insurance to sell valueless "coverage" to those interested in saving a dime, while the real cost is borne by those more prudent souls who pay more for real coverage to protect themselves from the others.

This, of course is merely human nature at work. I don't propose to (or know any way to) change it. However it does amply illustrate the usually unanticipated second order effects of misguided attempts to create perfect social systems through government management and interference.

I believe the author of the article is merely suggesting that the same phenomenon is at work in our present healthcare system, and that if we increase the government's role in it, this effect will only get worse.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Dec, 2007 10:41 am
gungasnake wrote:
And so we need some huge govt. beaurocracy to hand out ration coupons for medical care and drugs?


No. You've got the insurance companies already. Perhaps you'll get some more.

And then you just get a card - here my mother's and mine (just to show two different insurnce companies)


http://i11.tinypic.com/6ymfxxv.jpg
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Dec, 2007 10:47 am
Miller wrote:
Walter Hinteler wrote:


Which leads to to a question, which might be a bit outside the topic: how can it happen that 15% don't have a mandatory (car) insurance?


How was the 15% determined?


Well, that's why was wondering.

The "Insurance Journal" (2004) says
Quote:
uninsured motorists still comprise anywhere from 4 percent to 34 percent of all drivers

- in states with reporting systems. (Whhich would be like here .... but not those figures.)
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Dec, 2007 03:43 pm
Good editorial in NH's Concord Monitor today about mandates...





http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071207/OPINION/712070340/1270/NEWS97

Don't get sidetracked by the mandate debate

Monitor staff
December 07. 2007 12:40AM

The great health care mandate debate is a sideshow. Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and John Edwards insist that forcing individuals to buy a policy is crucial to providing universal health care or something close to it. Rival Barack Obama disagrees. A mandate may be necessary to force those who refuse to sign up once affordable options are available, he says, but that step should come at the end of the march to universal care, not at the beginning.

The debate has degenerated into arguments over who is or isn't being honest with voters. The question voters should focus on is which candidate, if elected, can convince enough Republicans - who will use words like "confiscation" to describe any mandate - to go along with a plan. The next question should be: Is this plan the best and most affordable path to universal coverage?

On the honesty question, when it comes to health care mandates, the edge goes to Obama. He rightly says they force people to buy something before they know what it will cost and how good it will be, and many won't comply.

A mandate could make insurance cheaper for everyone by forcing the young and healthy, a group that traditionally opts out of the system, to sign up. But making people buy insurance before good plans are affordable could lead more people to ignore the mandate. A mandate to buy insurance before much more is done to make it affordable would also mean even higher profits for insurance companies and bigger government subsidies to make coverage affordable.

Nor do mandates come close to guaranteeing universal coverage. The Massachusetts health care plan enacted when Republican Mitt Romney was governor mandates coverage. By the end of this month, every Massachusetts resident is supposed to be enrolled or pay a penalty.

The plan has caused some 200,000 previously uninsured people to sign up, according to the New York Times. But at least that many, and probably far more, have not. The $219 penalty in the form of a loss of the personal exemption on the state income tax was not severe enough to prompt everyone to enroll. That penalty is expected to grow to at least $1,000 next year.

The Massachusetts plan has two other problems that the presidential candidates should address. The state has had to exempt an estimated 20 percent of its population from the mandate because they can't afford to participate. And the cost of subsidizing insurance for the many low-income residents who signed up for the plan greatly exceeded predictions, and that's before the double-digit increase in rates insurers are expected to charge next year.

Government mandates have been used to force people to buy auto insurance, immunize their children, pay child support and pay workers a minimum wage. But compliance rates, according to the journal Health Affairs, are far from universal; just 77 to 85 percent for immunization and 30 percent for child support. Some studies have found that despite mandates, about 20 percent of people still don't buy auto insurance, which is why the rest have to pay extra to guard against uninsured motorists.

Edwards's plan would catch people who aren't enrolled when they pay the income tax or when they get health care. That might work, but it won't be cheap. About one-quarter of the nation's 47 million uninsured are baby boomers who are heading into their most costly health care years.

As for Clinton, it's easy to see why she hasn't been specific about how her plan would punish people who ignore the mandate. Far better that that particular club be crafted by a bipartisan team in Congress. But it's hard to see how Clinton or Edwards can describe their plans as covering everyone. Mandates, as their track record has proven, fall far short of guaranteeing universal participation.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Dec, 2007 03:55 pm
Good article; mandates up front doesn't make good sense. Obama is spot on! Universal health care should not be funded 100 percent by the government; that's another mistake most conservatives believe will happen.
0 Replies
 
USAFHokie80
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Dec, 2007 02:14 am
how about we stop providing tax exemption status to religious organizations and use that money to pay for health care?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Dec, 2007 09:39 am
Hokie, Your "what if's" are meaningless. Get real.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Dec, 2007 09:51 am
Mandates are absolutely essential. Without everyone paying into the system a universal health care system could not hope to be financially solvent.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Dec, 2007 12:13 pm
au1929 wrote:
Mandates are absolutely essential. Without everyone paying into the system a universal health care system could not hope to be financially solvent.


And how do you propose to get EVERYONE paying in?
What about those that dont work, are homeless, are here illegaly, are working for cash, etc.
There is no way to get everyone to pay in.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Dec, 2007 12:16 pm
au1929 wrote:
Mandates are absolutely essential. Without everyone paying into the system a universal health care system could not hope to be financially solvent.



au, How do you propose that our government enforce mandate on health care? Police state?
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Dec, 2007 12:29 pm
C.I, MM.
In a word similar to the method by which social security is collected.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Dec, 2007 12:35 pm
Not all people work.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Dec, 2007 12:36 pm
au1929 wrote:
C.I, MM.
In a word similar to the method by which social security is collected.


So those who dont work, or only work for cash, wont have to pay into the system?

Are you also willing to set up a govt agency to keep track of who pays in, so that only those people can get medical care?

Or, are you saying that even those who dont pay can get medical care?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 07/27/2025 at 03:41:57