First the bad news.
INSURANCE
INDUSTRY DEFEATS CONSUMERS
Health
Insurance
To really have competition between health insurance
companies you have to stop allowing the dominant carrier in the state, Blue
Cross Blue Shield (BCBS), from contractually forcing healthcare providers to
charge BCBS competitors higher fees.
This process is called the “most
favored nation” clause in a contract.
If one health insurance company is guaranteed to
have the lowest reimbursement rates for doctors and hospitals, that company has
lower costs and thus can be more competitive in premiums charged. But that company also has no incentive to
drive down healthcare costs. In fact, it
has an incentive to allow healthcare costs to increase thus enabling it to make
more profit through higher premiums. As
a result the other healthcare companies are forced to have higher costs and
thus less competitive premiums. With no
market-driven containment on healthcare costs, premiums for all health
insurance companies increase.
We supported S.316 which would have outlawed most
favored nation clauses in health insurance company contracts with
providers. But S.316, which was introduced
in January of 2011, never even got a subcommittee assignment from the Chairman
of the Senate Banking and Insurance Committee.
You can probably figure out why.
The last reason given to me by the Chairman, who was
defeated in his primary election, was that BCBS was under federal investigation
for using the most favored nation clause to restrict competition thus harming
the consumer. The Chairman didn’t think
it was appropriate for the state to get out in front of the feds and possibly
pass a law that might have to be changed later depending on the outcome of the
investigation.
I didn’t buy the logic. While it was true that the U.S. Justice
Department has been (and probably still is) looking into the contractual
practices of BCBS, confirmed by a call I received from the Justice Department
to discuss the matter, this was a poor excuse for not moving S.316 along the
legislative process.
First, since when does South Carolina kowtow to the
federal government? We think nothing of
sticking a finger into Uncle Sam’s eye whenever it means scoring some political
points. And if we can do that for
partisan reasons, surely we can do that to help make health insurance more
affordable for our citizens.
Second, a federal investigation would be looking at
the past behavior of BCBS. Legislation
would address future behavior. We should
have been taking action to correct uncompetitive behavior going forward and let
the feds worry about the past misdeeds.
The bottom line is that because the Senate Banking
and Insurance Committee failed to promote competition between health insurance
companies either because of the lobbying power of BCBS or the Chairman’s
reluctance to hurt the fed’s feelings, South Carolinians will still pay higher
rates for the same coverage compared to Georgians and North Carolinians right
across the border.
No comments:
Post a Comment