Healthy Profits Don't Equal Good Health
Foundation for Taxpayer & Consumer Rights Corporateering
  Home | Volunteer | Donate | Subscribe | FTCR Websites | Books | Site Map   
Main Page
Press Releases
In the Media
Medical Malpractice Stories
HMO Arbitration Abuse Report
Casualty of the Day
 - Corporate Accountability
 - Insurance
 - Citizen Advocacy
 - The Justice System
 - Billing Errors
 - Energy
 - About FTCR

Read Making a Killing

home / healthcare / in the media

Los Angeles Times
Apr 18, 2002

by Commentary by Jamie Court

Healthy Profits Don't Equal Good Health

If the California Public Employees' Retirement System--the Goliath of
buyers--can get stepped on, then without new controls the little guys--small
businesses and individual purchasers--will be crushed.

The announcement by the nation's second-largest purchaser of health insurance
that it expects to pay an average 25% more in premiums next year should sound an
alarm bell in Sacramento that following the money in the health care system is
as important as dealing with abuses of patients' rights.

While auto, homeowner and commercial insurance companies have to justify
premium hikes and seek state approval for them, no such requirements apply to
health maintenance organizations and health insurers.

For years politicians in Sacramento have rebuffed efforts to require that the
state regulate HMO premium increases. Cash register politics contributed to the
lack of resolve, but so did a confidence that markets would self-regulate. This
confidence shattered in the wake of CalPERS' failure to control premiums.

Requiring the state's prior approval for the coming tsunami of HMO premiums
is particularly important this year because the rate hikes are far in excess of
actual medical cost increases. For instance, analysts at CalPERS, who have
greater scrutiny of HMO costs than state regulators, found price gouging at the
state's largest HMO, Kaiser Permanente.

A memo from the analysts stated, "Kaiser's proposed rates are not only
disappointingly high but also higher than justified target rates. Further,
Kaiser's current approach appears to be to charge what it thinks the market will

This is how the HMO is treating a system that represents 400,000 Kaiser
patients. Imagine how individual purchasers will fare.

The truth is that poor investment returns on Wall Street for HMOs and
insurers are responsible for a good deal of the cost crisis. Insurers raise
premiums based not on claims filed (product cost) but on their investment
results. When interest rates increase (so investment yields are higher),
insurers reduce their price to attract greater capital for investment,
underwriting greater risk. When interest rates are low, premiums increase to
maintain profit levels. When investments fail, patients and policyholders pay

For such reasons, insurers might also stonewall payment on claims to increase
interest income on their capital by investing it in capital markets longer.
While auto policyholders have some protections against this cycle, there are no
comparable tools to prevent health insurers and HMOs from passing on bad
investment losses to patients.

Another reason prior state approval of HMO premiums and policies is so
critical now is the new breed of policy debuting this year that barely qualifies
as insurance. Under these plans, patients must pay thousands of dollars out of
their own pockets at varying stages before the HMOs pay. These hollow policies
limit employee coverage and employer costs.

The HMO industry no doubt believes it has found a foolproof way to make a
healthy profit in the age of a patient revolt: Dissolve the notion of insurance
by shifting the risk onto the insured but continuing to charge or it.

The question is whether employers will buy a product about as worthless as a
fax machine that prints only every other page. The bet is employers will since
it is employees who will bear the increased risks and burdens.

The state, however, needs to inspect these policies closely to guarantee that
insurance is not simply another market illusion that disappears when individuals
need it most.

How HMOs explain their rate hikes of up to 41% for CalPERS is thorny for an
industry that bragged about controlling rising costs. No doubt patients' rights
laws will be an easy scapegoat, but the truth is that HMOs have managed only
their own profits.

Politicians could turn a blind eye to gripes about HMO delays and denials
when there at least seemed to be some cost savings at the end of the rainbow.
With both patients and the bottom line suffering, however, the wreck of the
health care system is harder than ever to ignore.

The only silver lining in this dark cloud is that the CalPERS concession to
the HMO industry may garner populist support for real solutions as more
Californians see the possibility of being uninsured.


Jamie Court is executive director of the Santa Monica-based Foundation for
Taxpayer and Consumer Rights. jamie@consumerwatchdog .org.

back to top

©2000-2004 FTCR. All Rights Reserved. Read our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy | Contact Us