The Center for Public Integrity

I’ve often said that the Affordable Care Act is the end of the beginning of health reform.  It addresses many problems associated with health insurance, but more must be done to control costs and access real universal coverage. And flaws in the law need to be fixed.

However,  the reform law will end some of the most abusive insurance industry practices,  such as blackballing  folks with pre-existing conditions and cancelling policyholders’ coverage when they get sick.

And health insurance companies now have to spend at least 80 percent of our premiums on actual health care. If they devote more than 20 percent to administrative overhead and profits, they are supposed to send rebate checks to their policyholders. Since that 80/20 rule went into effect last year, consumers have saved almost $1.5 billion, mostly in the form of those rebates, according to a new study by the Commonwealth Fund.

The rule has also resulted in lower premiums for many and elimination of hundreds of millions of dollars in administrative waste. That’s the good news. The no-so-good news is that because the reform law does not give the federal government the authority to regulate rates, many health plans used their administrative savings to boost profits instead of reducing premiums.

That situation reflects not only a flaw in the federal reform law, but also the ineffectiveness of health insurance rate regulation at the state level.  In only a few states do insurance commissioners have the authority to reject unwarranted rate increases, and even in the states that do, many health plans are exempt from state regulatory oversight.

I’ve written before about the tight relationships between health insurance companies and organizations that claim to represent the interests of small employers, specifically the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Business.

Those two groups have accepted hundreds of millions of dollars over the past two decades from the insurance industry in an effort to kill or weaken health reform initiatives designed to protect consumers, including those who work for small businesses.

The Chamber was the insurers’ organization of choice to derail Obamacare. During 2009 and 2010, America’s Health Insurance Plans —the major industry trade group— funneled more than $100 million of policyholders’ money to the Chamber’s anti-reform advertising campaign.

A decade ago, the NFIB did much of the insurers’ bidding. AHIP and a handful of big insurers bankrolled a front group called the Health Benefits Coalition to block a patients’ bill of rights that enjoyed bipartisan Congressional support. NFIB’s current president, Dan Danner—who was the group’s chief lobbyist at the time—was the Health Benefits Coalition’s lead spokesman.

More recently, the NFIB has been playing a similar role for yet another group that purports to represents small businesses, the Stop the HIT (health insurance tax) Coalition. Insurers are using that group as part of its campaign to get Congress to repeal an Obamacare provision that imposes a fee on some insurance policies. Revenue from the fee will help subsidize coverage for millions of low-income folks who are currently uninsured.

Although it’s a few days past Thanksgiving, I’m still feeling grateful, even to much maligned federal employees. Last week bureaucrats at the Department of Health and Human Services did us a big favor by resisting pressure from insurance company executives. Those executives wanted to keep charging some of us more than others and to keep selling policies that offer far less coverage than we need.

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius reaffirmed last week that starting in 2014, insurance firms will not be able to discriminate against us nearly as much as they can now because of our age, gender and health status. And they won’t be able to sell policies with deductibles that are unreasonably high and benefits that are dangerously skimpy.

Among the long-awaited Obamacare regulations from HHS were those that further define the “essential health benefits” that health plans must offer in the future and that limit the amount of money we will have to pay out of pocket if we get sick or injured.

Even though HHS did give the insurance industry some wiggle room on the essential benefits and the upper limits of deductibles they will be able to charge, the integrity of the reform law was protected.

This is important for everyone but especially for those of us who have been around a bit longer. Many of us are now uninsured. That’s because we can’t get coverage at any price due to preexisting conditions or can’t afford what’s available to us because of our age. HHS reassured us that not only will we be able to join the ranks of the insured, we’ll be able get policies that are actually worth buying.

Disruption.

Get ready to hear that word many times in the coming weeks, especially if you hang out inside the Washington beltway.

“Disruption” will be the new buzzword in an upcoming advertising campaign aimed at scaring us. The campaign is selling the idea  that millions of Americans will face higher premiums and possibly be forced into health plans with skimpier benefits — i.e., disrupted — if Congress doesn’t repeal a provision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that raises money to pay for expanding coverage for the uninsured.  

The greed of the health insurance industry knows no bounds. Insurance companies will get billions of dollars in new revenue every year as a result of the health act’s requirement that, starting in 2014, we will have to buy coverage from private insurers if we’re not eligible for Medicare or Medicaid.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 32 million uninsured Americans will finally get coverage as a result of the law. While many will be newly eligible for the Medicaid program, millions of others will get subsidies from the federal government to help them buy private insurance. So insurance companies will get new premium revenue not only from individuals and families but also from the government.

To help finance this expanded coverage, the ACA includes a premium fee on insurers and their business customers that provide the highest level of coverage (like the so-called Cadillac plans). The fee, which is estimated to raise $87 billion over ten years, will go into effect simultaneously with the individual mandate.  

Health insurers invested a lot of what you paid them in premiums in an effort to get more of their friends elected to Congress. As the Center for Public Integrity reported last month, the political action committees of the 11 largest health insurers and their biggest trade group—America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP)—gave $10.2 million to federal politicians between January 2007 and August 2012. Most of that money went to Republicans who pledged to repeal or gut the Affordable Care Act.

The return on that investment was not so good. But that doesn’t mean insurers have come to accept that Obamacare must be implemented as Congress intended. On the contrary, even more of your premium dollars are about to be spent on a propaganda campaign to get the law changed to protect profits.

Even as insurers were helping to bankroll their friends’ campaigns, they were  publicly expressing support for the reform law. AHIP president Karen Ignagni said in April 2010, a month after the president signed the Affordable Care Act,  that her group was “strongly committed” to its “successful implementation.”

What she really meant is that insurers were committed to the parts of the law they like—such as one that requires us to buy coverage from them—but not so much to the ones that might negatively impact their bottom lines. Like those that will end the abusive practices that have enabled them to pad those bottom lines.

When Ignagni and insurance company executives speak, it is important to parse their words to understand what they are really saying. That’s just as true now as it was in 2010.

Here’s what Ignagni said after it was clear that her industry’s campaign investments had not paid off last Tuesday:

Wouldn’t it be great if our candidates had to take a dose of truth serum every morning before hitting the campaign trail? If they did, those of us who will be voting tomorrow wouldn’t be nearly as confused about what Obamacare is and what it isn’t, what it will do and what it won’t.

Since there is no such truth serum requirement, I believe that many of us will actually be voting against our own best interests. Many Americans will vote for candidates who have scared them into believing that Obamacare is a government takeover of health care that it will bankrupt the country while slashing Medicare benefits.

In the event that you or someone you know might benefit from some truth-telling, here, then, are a few things you ought to know before pulling that lever tomorrow:

·         The Affordable Care Act is not a government takeover that has put us on a slippery slope toward socialism, or even toward a single-payer system like the one in the People’s Republic of Canada. In fact, the law actually shores up our uniquely American,  market-based,  multi-payer system now dominated by for-profit insurance corporations.  That is not my favorite part of the law. But if you think insurance companies contribute value to our system, you should know that Obamacare gives them a new lease on life.  Their business practices—which for years have included refusing to sell coverage to people with pre-existing conditions and pricing many other folks out of the system—have actually resulted in an ever-shrinking market. As a consequence, the insurers’ business models are not sustainable. Without a requirement that we all buy coverage from them, insurance companies will be able to grow only by taking market share away from each other and by persuading senior citizens to enroll in their profitable Medicare Advantage plans.

The big five health insurance companies have begun reporting their third quarter 2012 earnings and so far, they are pleasing their shareholders with profits that are better than Wall Street expected, in large part because they are doing especially well in one key area: Medicare.

Over the past several years, the largest insurers — Unitedhealth, WellPoint, Aetna, Cigna and Humana — have reported record profits, even during the quarters when enrollment in their employer-based and individually purchased health plans declined because of the recession. They’ve been able to do this in two ways: by taking in significantly more in premiums from their commercial customers than they have paid out in medical claims, and by persuading increasing numbers of retirees to enroll in their Medicare Advantage plans. If you enroll in one of their plans, the government sends a check to the insurance company you choose for your coverage. The amount varies depending on where you live. You might have to pay an additional premium out of your own pocket for better drug coverage, a broader network of providers, reduced copayments and discounts on gym memberships.

Many lawmakers have wanted to privatize Medicare for years and saw the Medicare Advantage program as an ideal way to begin that process. But insurers wouldn’t offer the plans without a significant financial incentive to do so. So several years ago the government started padding the checks it sends the insurers to get them to participate. By 2010 the cost to the government of Medicare Advantage patients on average was 117 percent of regular fee-for-service Medicare.

When people find out I used to work for an insurance company, many of them ask if I can help find them a decent policy that won’t bust their family budgets. Many others ask if I would consider going to bat for them after their insurer has denied coverage for a potentially life-saving treatment. And a lot of folks have reached out just to tell me their stories, just to get someone to listen.

That was the case following my column last week about Mitt Romney’s contention that uninsured people don’t have a problem getting the care they need — that the care is readily available in hospital emergency rooms. The commentary provoked an outpouring of emotion illustrating just out tragically out of touch many of our political leaders are.

Readers have left more than 600 comments since my column was published last Monday here and by the Huffington Post. Many were written by folks who just wanted to express an opinion about Mr. Romney’s comment or about Obamacare. But many others were from people who wanted to talk about losing a loved one or not being able to pay for care because of a system that has come to be controlled by powerful insurance companies. Here, in their own words, are a small number of them. They should provide all the evidence any politician needs to understand that the ER is not the magic cure some of them apparently think it is.

I understand where Mitt Romney was coming from when he said last week that Americans without health insurance don’t have to worry about dying at home.

“We don’t have people that become ill, who die in their apartment because they don’t have insurance,” the GOP presidential nominee told members of the Columbus Dispatch editorial board. “We don’t have a setting across this country where if you don’t have insurance, we just say to you, ‘Tough luck, you’re going to die when you have your heart attack.’ No, you go to the hospital, you get treated, and it’s paid for, either by charity, the government or by the hospital.”

I have no reason to believe that Romney saw anything wrong with what he said. In fact, I probably would have said the same thing back when I was still a health insurance PR guy and trying to convince folks that the problem of the uninsured wasn’t really such a big deal.

And Romney is absolutely right, people who are uninsured don’t have to die in their apartments. They can indeed be rushed to a hospital, and the hospital is obligated to treat them. It’s what he didn’t say, and likely doesn’t understand because he simply can’t relate to 47 percent of us, that is actually more important: many of the uninsured die in the hospital, in the emergency room, because they could not afford to get care earlier when it might have saved their lives. Instead of going back home to their apartments, many of them, unfortunately, go to the morgue.

In 2007, when the Democratic candidates for president were beginning to talk about health care reform, I was asked to write a policy paper that the insurance industry would use to “educate” people about the uninsured. I found that if you sliced and diced the data in just such a way, you could make people believe that many of the uninsured were simply shirking their responsibility by not buying coverage.

During last week’s debate, GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney once again pledged to repeal Obamacare, but he was light on details about what he would replace it with, other than to suggest that his administration would encourage states to come up with reform plans of their own.

“What we did in Massachusetts is a model for the nation, state by state,” he said. “And I said that at that time. The federal government taking over health care for the entire nation and whisking aside the 10th Amendment, which gives states the rights for these kinds of things, is not the course for America to have a stronger, more vibrant economy.”

But considering that the Massachusetts law was the model for Obamacare, what, other than replicating what Massachusetts did, are the states to do?

High on the list of recommendations in Romney’s health care platform is an idea frequently touted as a silver bullet by conservatives: allow insurance companies to sell policies across state lines. Doing so, they say, will increase competition and, consequently, bring down the cost of coverage.

The problem is that no one had done a study to determine definitively whether the across-state-lines idea would work — until now. And the conclusion of that study, conducted by the Georgetown University Health Policy Institute, is that allowing coverage to be purchased across state lines is much more of a blank than a bullet.

The study also finds that no new federal law is even needed to allow insurance companies to sell policies across state lines.

“With or without changes to federal law, states already have full authority to decide whether or not to allow sales across state lines and, if so, under what circumstances,” the study noted.