Skip to main content

Yesterday, slink's diary reported that Congressional leaders had asked WellPoint, Kaiser, Assurant, United Health, Humana, Blue Cross and Aetna, seven of the biggest insurance companies in the US, to stop rescissions immediately,  months before the law banning that practice is to take effect in late  September.

And later, another diary by banderson reported that Wellpoint had agreed to halt the practice starting May 1 after being berated by HHS Secretary Sebelius about this very issue.

Now comes word that United Health will immediately stop terminating healthcare coverage for policyholders after they become ill, and

Other insurers, such as Aetna Inc and Assurant Inc unit Assurant Health, have said they would end rescission ahead of the deadline but they did not say when.

So good news!  If even one person is saved the unbelievable cruelty of having their insurance coverage cancelled after they fall ill with cancer, AIDS, or anything else, then all the effort and publicity and pressure from Sebelius, Congress and the public will have been worth it.

The Administration and Dems in Congress seem to be doing an excellent job so far in browbeating the insurance companies.  Let's hope this continues, and that proper regulations are written to tighten the screws ever so tightly on the ability of the insurance companies to practice rescission when the law actually takes effect.

Of course, the insurance companies can just continue to raise premiums to coverage the cost of their new rescission-less policies.  Which is why legislation now before Congress, introduced by Senator Feinstein, to give the Secretary of Health and Human Services the power to regulate rises in insurance premiums becomes ever more important.  There will be no point in not having rescissions if no one can afford to pay their insurance premiums!

Originally posted to jpmassar on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 12:01 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I haven't heard anything about (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Clarknt67, jpmassar

    whether they've agreed to do a third party panel review of rescissions as was requested in the letter by Democrats.

    Join Our Countdown To Health Reform! Project I work with Progressive Congress Action Fund, a 501(c)4.

    by slinkerwink on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 12:07:27 PM PDT

    •  I don't quite get that (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Clarknt67

      By the time such a thing got set up, it would probably be just about time for the law to take effect, which mandates a review.

      •  Yeah. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jpmassar

        Join Our Countdown To Health Reform! Project I work with Progressive Congress Action Fund, a 501(c)4.

        by slinkerwink on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 12:10:45 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  this obviates the panel reviews entirely (0+ / 0-)

          no rescissions, no need for panel review.

          People are upset Obama hasn't solved all the problems yet. C'mon, he's only been in office one year...the man went to Harvard, not Hogwarts. - Wanda Sykes

          by Cedwyn on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 12:15:30 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not true. There still will be recissions (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            pamelabrown

            otherwise they wouldn't be setting up panel reviews.

            Join Our Countdown To Health Reform! Project I work with Progressive Congress Action Fund, a 501(c)4.

            by slinkerwink on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 12:16:38 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  you just said you don't know that they are (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              snackdoodle

              and if they're all agreeing pre-emptively to quit rescinding policies before doing so becomes a crime, there's no need for panel review.

              People are upset Obama hasn't solved all the problems yet. C'mon, he's only been in office one year...the man went to Harvard, not Hogwarts. - Wanda Sykes

              by Cedwyn on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 12:31:30 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You clearly haven't read my comments (0+ / 0-)

                below checking on that.

                http://www.dailykos.com/...

                Join Our Countdown To Health Reform! Project I work with Progressive Congress Action Fund, a 501(c)4.

                by slinkerwink on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 12:33:26 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  and you clearly didn't read this diary (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  vc2, QES, clubbing guy

                  your comment:

                     Democrats, in letters to seven insurers on Tuesday, said the companies should implement the rescission ban immediately and institute independent, third-party reviews of any decisions to drop coverage.

                     UnitedHealth "is aggressively seeking outside vendors and will be instituting independent, external third party review in the near term," the company said.

                     Aetna and Assurant Health have said they have third-party review systems in place.

                  I'm checking out the third-party review system by Aetna.

                  this diary:

                  Now comes word that United Health will immediately stop terminating healthcare coverage for policyholders after they become ill

                  People are upset Obama hasn't solved all the problems yet. C'mon, he's only been in office one year...the man went to Harvard, not Hogwarts. - Wanda Sykes

                  by Cedwyn on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 12:52:30 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I was checking out Aetna since (0+ / 0-)

                    they mentioned they have a third-party review system in place. And you again have misread my comment, Cedwyn, as usual.

                    Join Our Countdown To Health Reform! Project I work with Progressive Congress Action Fund, a 501(c)4.

                    by slinkerwink on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 01:02:51 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  from your comment (0+ / 0-)

                      UnitedHealth "is aggressively seeking outside vendors and will be instituting independent, external third party review in the near term," the company said.

                      which you cited in my reply to my comment above:

                      you just said you don't know that they are [establishing panel reviews]

                      and if they're all agreeing pre-emptively to quit rescinding policies before doing so becomes a crime, there's no need for panel review.

                      the parent comments of which ultimately trace to here:

                      I haven't heard anything about whether they've agreed to do a third party panel review of rescissions as was requested in the letter by Democrats.

                      so, what did i misread, exactly?

                      People are upset Obama hasn't solved all the problems yet. C'mon, he's only been in office one year...the man went to Harvard, not Hogwarts. - Wanda Sykes

                      by Cedwyn on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 05:16:07 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  You misread that my second comment (0+ / 0-)

                        in this thread was a correction to my first comment. That's what you have misread, cedwyn, as USUAL.

                        Join Our Countdown To Health Reform! Project I work with Progressive Congress Action Fund, a 501(c)4.

                        by slinkerwink on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 09:02:49 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  i misread nothing (0+ / 0-)

                          Not true. There still will be recissions otherwise they wouldn't be setting up panel reviews.

                          by slinkerwink on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 12:16:38 PM PDT

                          [ Parent | Reply to This ]

                             
                               

                          you just said you don't know that they are and if they're all agreeing pre-emptively to quit rescinding policies before doing so becomes a crime, there's no need for panel review.

                                    by Cedwyn on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 12:31:30 PM PDT

                               [ Parent | Reply to This ]

                                   
                                     

                          You clearly haven't read my comments

                                              by slinkerwink on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 12:33:26 PM PDT

                          that was your second comment.  i did not take it as any correction of something you said, but you implied that it somehow rebutted my point that without rescission, there's no need for panel review.  

                          People are upset Obama hasn't solved all the problems yet. C'mon, he's only been in office one year...the man went to Harvard, not Hogwarts. - Wanda Sykes

                          by Cedwyn on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 10:38:48 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Yes, you did misread what I said. (0+ / 0-)

                            Join Our Countdown To Health Reform! Project I work with Progressive Congress Action Fund, a 501(c)4.

                            by slinkerwink on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 05:30:27 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  and yet (0+ / 0-)

                            you can't explain how exactly.

                            People are upset Obama hasn't solved all the problems yet. C'mon, he's only been in office one year...the man went to Harvard, not Hogwarts. - Wanda Sykes

                            by Cedwyn on Sat May 01, 2010 at 07:16:30 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I already explained it to you. It's you (0+ / 0-)

                            who refuses to understand.

                            Join Our Countdown To Health Reform! Project I work with Progressive Congress Action Fund, a 501(c)4.

                            by slinkerwink on Sat May 01, 2010 at 07:24:53 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  no; you didn't explain (0+ / 0-)

                            you assumed that i took one of your comments a certain way, but i did not.  i didn't think that comment spoke to anything except my comment it was replying to.

                            let's try this:  how about you explain why panel review is necessary if there is no rescission?  the only thing for them to investigate is actual fraud, since that is a valid reason to drop people.  are you including non-renewals?  cuz that goes away in 3.5 years, too.  

                            don't forget that there is an agency set up in the bill to monitor what insurance cos do twixt now and then.  and you can bet they'll watch for who keeps kicking folks to the curb at renewal times.

                            People are upset Obama hasn't solved all the problems yet. C'mon, he's only been in office one year...the man went to Harvard, not Hogwarts. - Wanda Sykes

                            by Cedwyn on Sat May 01, 2010 at 11:58:53 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  As I and others have pointed out to you (0+ / 0-)

                            there still will be rescissions going on. They'll rescind the policy, allow the policyholder to appeal the rescission to the panel review, where the reviewers will decide if the rescission was valid.

                            It's how Aetna currently handles its rescissions with their third-party 'independent' reviewers.

                            Join Our Countdown To Health Reform! Project I work with Progressive Congress Action Fund, a 501(c)4.

                            by slinkerwink on Sat May 01, 2010 at 04:38:48 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  but that's the whole point of this diary (0+ / 0-)

                            is that those entities agreed to end the practice of rescission.  so what do you mean they will still go on?

                            they said they're not going to drop people for incurring claims anymore.  that leaves only fraud as a reason to drop.  or they can just wait until the policy is up for renewal to drop them, which isn't rescission and will also be illegal when the full HCR bill kicks in.    

                            and the fact that Aetna currently has panel review is irrelevant here.

                            People are upset Obama hasn't solved all the problems yet. C'mon, he's only been in office one year...the man went to Harvard, not Hogwarts. - Wanda Sykes

                            by Cedwyn on Sun May 02, 2010 at 07:22:14 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Ceddwyn, stop playing dumb here. (0+ / 0-)

                            It should be very clear from what I, others, and this diarist have told you---rescissions will still go on.

                            Join Our Countdown To Health Reform! Project I work with Progressive Congress Action Fund, a 501(c)4.

                            by slinkerwink on Mon May 03, 2010 at 12:22:20 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  and yet (0+ / 0-)

                            that's all you can explain about it.  yannow, slink, someone with the goods to back it up would have done so just to put an end to this.  but all you can do is insist they'll still go on.  you won't even answer direct questions...not exactly the hallmark of someone in command of the facts.

                            People are upset Obama hasn't solved all the problems yet. C'mon, he's only been in office one year...the man went to Harvard, not Hogwarts. - Wanda Sykes

                            by Cedwyn on Tue May 04, 2010 at 06:11:04 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I did answer your questions, and (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            TomP, ErinW43

                            provided links. You ignored my answers.

                            Join Our Countdown To Health Reform! Project I work with Progressive Congress Action Fund, a 501(c)4.

                            by slinkerwink on Wed May 05, 2010 at 12:22:19 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

              •  They're not quitting rescinding policies (0+ / 0-)

                As long as the law states that rescissions can be made if there's fraud or material misrepresentation, they'll do it.

                They're just saying they'll stop rescinding policies unless there's fraud or material misrepresentation, which actually was the existing law before the passage of this health bill.

                And if there is a policy they think is fraud or has material misrepresentation, they'll allow it to be appealed to a third party review panel.

                Join Our Countdown To Health Reform! Project I work with Progressive Congress Action Fund, a 501(c)4.

                by slinkerwink on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 12:35:35 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Source? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  slinkerwink

                  They're just saying they'll stop rescinding policies unless there's fraud or material misrepresentation, which actually was the existing law before the passage of this health bill.

                  I know varying State Laws--California specifically had one--regarding rescission policies... but what federal law prior to the one we just passed made rescission illegal before the passage of PPACA?

                  You're saying that PPACA literally changes nothing vis-a-vis rescission law?

                  •  I refer you to this (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    TooFolkGR

                    The problem, however, is that the new law still allows what WellPoint has argued it did in these cases--rescind policies because of "fraud or intentional misrepresentation of material fact," as Sebelius points out in her letter. Sebelius should be taking this story very seriously, and recognize the potential still existing under the new law for a broad interpretation on the part of insurers for "fraud and intentional misrepresentation." This is an area HHS needs to pay particular attention to in crafting the regulations for the law to find any possible way in which they can tighten up potential loopholes and make the law enforcable as it was intended.

                    http://www.dailykos.com/...

                    And this is the kind of stuff that will still go on:

                    http://www.lifehealthdisabilityinsur...

                    That's not really a ban on rescissions. "Fraud and intentional misrepresentation of material fact" are precisely the excuses that the insurance companies are using when rescinding policies. Does the Senate actually believe that the insurance companies are telling people that their policy is rescinded because the got sick? No way.

                    They always claim that it's due to fraud or misrepresentations. For example, one of the many horror stories involves a woman's policy being rescinded because she didn't report a prior case of acne. Her insurance company interpreted this as fraud and rescinded the policy. Fraud! The ban on rescissions is supposed to prevent this.

                    http://www.bobcesca.com/...

                    A federal law passed in 1996 bans rescission except in cases of fraud. But the law goes unenforced because there's no regulation at the federal level and nearly all states have much weaker laws on rescission, says Pollitz.

                    http://blog.newsweek.com/...

                    That would be HIPAA.

                    The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996 (P.L.104-191)

                    Join Our Countdown To Health Reform! Project I work with Progressive Congress Action Fund, a 501(c)4.

                    by slinkerwink on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 01:58:57 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

            •  Agree. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              slinkerwink, jpmassar

              There will still be recessions AND rehepensible rate hikes.  I just received a rate hike from BCBS-FL when as an independent member I basically receive a mammogram and a pap smear for years of paying thousands into the system.

              I, for one am glad that Sebelius, for all her blandness, was a strong insurance commissioner .  She knows all the industry's tricks.  If we hold her feet to the fire and organize to close the loop holes, then we stand half a chance to improve the bill.

          •  It's true that if there were NO recissions (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            slinkerwink

            there would be no need for panels (for this particular issue).

            But it seems likely that the statement is not 100% accurate.  The insurance companies will still want to resciss policies they feel were entered into fraudulently, for some hopefully much narrower standard of fraudulently, but nonetheless still possible (e.g., someone who is dead gets a policy, and someone who is not impersonates that person).

            So it would still be good if there were an independent evaluation of the fraud claim, rather than leaving it to the insurance company to decide, and then having the person have to sue in court.

  •  Just saw this (4+ / 0-)

    Democrats, in letters to seven insurers on Tuesday, said the companies should implement the rescission ban immediately and institute independent, third-party reviews of any decisions to drop coverage.

    UnitedHealth "is aggressively seeking outside vendors and will be instituting independent, external third party review in the near term," the company said.

    Aetna and Assurant Health have said they have third-party review systems in place.

    I'm checking out the third-party review system by Aetna.

    Join Our Countdown To Health Reform! Project I work with Progressive Congress Action Fund, a 501(c)4.

    by slinkerwink on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 12:09:26 PM PDT

      •  Here's a relevant story on Aetna from 2 years ago (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Catte Nappe, jpmassar

        Now Aetna, as part of its ongoing effort to cast itself as the good guy in the health-insurance biz, has announced new measures aimed at curbing unfair rescissions. According to the Hartford Courant, Aetna will now let members appeal rescission decisions to an independent panel of doctors  either before or after contesting them via its own internal-review process.

        Aetna’s name hasn’t come up in any of the rescission scandals of the past several years, at least to the best of my knowledge. In fact, the company says it’s revoked only 165 of the 570,000 individual-insurance policies it’s issued since 2005. Most of those policy cancellations involved fraud, Aetna VP for public affairs Mohit Ghose told the Courant.

        As plans of this sort go, Aetna’s sounds pretty reasonable. The company hired healthcare consultant MCMC of Boston to set up the external panels, which will involve three "independent doctors" and whose decisions will be binding on Aetna.

        Given the industry’s blinkered record on this issue, though, it’s difficult to muster much more than qualified enthusiasm for the move. The real significance of external review will depend heavily on exactly how doctor "independence" is defined and implemented, as well as the rules that govern the reviews — details not explored in the Courant story, and which Aetna may not even have officially resolved yet.

        http://industry.bnet.com/...

        Join Our Countdown To Health Reform! Project I work with Progressive Congress Action Fund, a 501(c)4.

        by slinkerwink on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 12:11:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Yes, info about the in-place third-party (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      slinkerwink

      review practices would be interesting, informative and I suspect very useful.  Go slink!

      •  Here's the link I found from 2 years ago (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jpmassar

        Join Our Countdown To Health Reform! Project I work with Progressive Congress Action Fund, a 501(c)4.

        by slinkerwink on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 12:11:42 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  And here's the consultant that Aetna (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jpmassar

        hired two years ago to put in an independent third-party review process.

        http://www.mcmcllc.com/

        Click on "Independent Peer Review" link, and it comes up with:

        MCMC's Independent Peer Review (IPR) Division completes over 40,000 case reviews each year for more than 300 clients, including BCBS Plans, Managed Care Organizations, PBM's, Workers' Compensation and Auto & Disability Insurance carriers as well as self insured employers and government entities. With over 22 years of experience in performing medical peer reviews, MCMC has developed best practices, which we apply to meet the needs of our individual clients.

        MCMC has become the nation's leading independent peer review organization by:
        #
        Focusing on the business of independent peer review.
        #
        Focusing on the individualized needs of our clients.
        #
        Focusing on sound clinical expertise and "evidence based" medicine.
        #
        Recruiting an extensive and highly qualified panel of credentialed reviewers that allows us to offer specialty matching to the sub-specialty level.
        #
        Creating a case-processing system that allows us to remain timely for all types of reviews.
        #
        Emphasizing and demonstrating superior customer service.
        #
        Developing an extensive infrastructure to support the high volume of reviews performed.
        #
        Establishing a multi-faceted Quality Assurance (QA) and Quality Improvement (QI) program to measure and improve the quality of MCMC's review products and customer service.
        #
        Possessing the financial stability and resources that enable MCMC to meet all of its clients' obligations.

        As a market leader, MCMC has extensive experience in developing and administering independent peer review programs for our clients.  The types of peer reviews provided include:

        #
        Group Health – supporting managed care and utilization review programs
        #
        Pharmacy – including clinical prior authorization, appeals, Medicare Part D reviews, drug misuse/abuse
        #
        Disability – helping to determine medical eligibility for disability benefits, level of disability (partial or total), length of disability (temporary or permanent), and work restrictions and limitations
        #
        Personal Injury & Auto Liability – assisting and supporting claims administrators in verifying all auto- and medically-related liability issues
        #
        Workers' Compensation – supporting the management of claims, including risk, rehabilitation and reserves, by providing quality, objective reviews in cases of workplace injury or illness
        #
        State-Mandated - independent peer reviews concerning health plan adverse coverage decisions involving all types of medical necessity issues, investigational/experimental treatments, clinical trial participation, and contractual or administrative matters
        #
        Quality of Care and Fraud and Abuse - assisting clients in determining if issues of quality care, fraud or abuse are evident in a provider or provider group

        Successful Elements of MCMC's Approach

        Successful elements of MCMC's approach to the provision of peer review services are provided below.

        Turnaround Times

        MCMC is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and offers multiple turn-around time ("TAT") levels to meet our clients' needs.  A sample of the most frequently used TAT deadlines include same- and next-day service, 2 day, 3 day, 5 day, and 15 day service.  Presently, more than sixty percent of all cases referred to MCMC for medical review must be completed within 48 hours and seventy-seven percent of all cases require completion within 72 hours. MCMC can customize its review process to accommodate any client's exact review requirements.

        Problem Solving

        MCMC has encountered and solved all manner of problems that an independent peer review organization is likely to face, such as staff development and training, responsiveness to expedited cases, access to and consistent application of complex client/state agency requirements, and data system development, maintenance, and enhancement.

        Join Our Countdown To Health Reform! Project I work with Progressive Congress Action Fund, a 501(c)4.

        by slinkerwink on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 12:16:06 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  More on "reviewer qualifications" (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jpmassar

        Reviewer Qualifications and Staff Credentials

        MCMC maintains access to a nationally renowned panel of over 1,000 Board Certified physicians and allied health care professionals representing all of the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS), the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology, Inc.(ABPN) and the American Osteopathic Association's (AOA) major medical specialties and sub-specialties.

        MCMC reviewers are located throughout the country, with a majority of them in active practice. Many of MCMC's reviewers are affiliated with an academic research institution and/or leading medical center and have published extensively in peer-reviewed literature. Every MCMC reviewer must surpass MCMC's rigorous credentialing process, and MCMC's reviewers are re-credentialed every three years pursuant to URAC requirements.

        To support the performance of our Expert Reviewers, MCMC utilizes a staff of seasoned health care professionals, including RNs and physicians.  Our staff is responsible for confirming that every case is supported by clinical rationale, the reviewers clearly and accurately answer referral questions, and decisions are rendered in a timely fashion.  This concurrent monitoring by the clinical staff ensures that our clients receive recommendations consistent with the highest standards of excellence.

        Join Our Countdown To Health Reform! Project I work with Progressive Congress Action Fund, a 501(c)4.

        by slinkerwink on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 12:18:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Very interesting....just found a case (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jpmassar

        of the fox guarding the henhouse. It seems that MCMC is credentialed as an independent review organization by URAC, which "ensures that all stakeholders are represented in establishing meaningful quality measures for the entire health care industry."

        http://www.urac.org/...

        Nearly all of the board members are from health insurance companies.

        It's rather convenient, isn't it?

        Join Our Countdown To Health Reform! Project I work with Progressive Congress Action Fund, a 501(c)4.

        by slinkerwink on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 12:22:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I should short their stock, because (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jpmassar

    their entire revenue growth  is predicated on fucking people over.

    Unless they think they can just jack up premia at will...

    •  Yes, right now they can (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      slinkerwink, Silverbird

      just jack up premiums at will.

    •  Speaking of that. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Silverbird

      Didn't Sebilus suppress the report from the Medicare's Office of the Actuary, issued a week before the vote, that indicted that the health care "reform" law would actually increase the cost of health care and impose higher costs on consumers ?

      •  No. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        snackdoodle, banderson

        Stay off the right-wing blogs.

        "I set up a stage, put up a few banners, stuck a podium up there, and started shouting 'Yes we can.' Next thing you know there's 150,000 people here." -Joe

        by Geiiga on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 12:17:39 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The report referenced by this article at MSNBC (0+ / 0-)

          was given to her several weeks before the vote.

          http://www.msnbc.msn.com/...

          •  No, it wasn't. (0+ / 0-)

            In fact, on March 20, the day before the vote in the House, the author of the memo wroteMitch McConnell to say that the scoring wouldn't be complete in time for the vote.

            But even if your conspiracy theory, hinging as it does on the word of one anonymous guy who may have been an HHS employee talking to a writer of a right-wing propaganda rag (original source for this claim therein) who is known for anonymously sourcing Things That Are Wrong, was true despite all evidence to the contrary, Time's Swampland blog points out that while the numbers are different, the conclusion is the same as in the nearly identical memo the same guy released in early January.

            So what you're proposing to me is a grand conspiracy headed by an accountant to suppress old information. And you're doing it based on the word of a possibly invented source who might have been talking to a publication exactly as credible as the Limbaugh Letter, and you're doing it here.

            "I set up a stage, put up a few banners, stuck a podium up there, and started shouting 'Yes we can.' Next thing you know there's 150,000 people here." -Joe

            by Geiiga on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 08:09:13 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  And, really, just in general... (0+ / 0-)

        ...let's refrain from repeating what I'm calling the Dumbest Conspiracy Theory Ever, or indeed any inane conspiracy theories from the right that seek nothing more than to villify the commonplace so their own villainy can escape undetected.

        "I set up a stage, put up a few banners, stuck a podium up there, and started shouting 'Yes we can.' Next thing you know there's 150,000 people here." -Joe

        by Geiiga on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 12:20:54 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Ok, there is plenty to say (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jpmassar

          about what the Democrats have put on our plates.

          For instance, are you aware that the method of paying for the supplements that the government will fund comes from reductions to Medicaid, reductions in Medicare rate increases paid out (this is expected cover about 1/2 of the expenses of the HCR bill), and a new tax of .9% on incomes over $200,000 for an individual or $250,000 for couples (1 1/2% of the population), and counting unearned income towards figuring medicare.  So it looks to me like the Medicare/Medicaid enrollees will be paying for the lions share of our health care that is "funded" by the federal government, plus that new esentially 1% tax on 1 and 1/2 % of the population.

          Please point me in the direction of the Democratic Party.  I want to tell them they gave away too much to the Republicans.  

          In other words, to whom do I complain?

          2.5 trillion dollars have been "borrowed" since the [SS] system was "reformed" in the 80s and they simply don't want to pay it back. - dKos Blogger -

          by Silverbird on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 01:44:49 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  The MSM is ridiculous (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Southside, jpmassar, vc2

    I honestly believe they withhold these stories from their front pages because they don't want Americans realizing the Obama admin and Democrats in general are protecting them.

    The only news outlet that's been following this is Reuters.

    The rest of the media want to create controversy and indecision for the November elections where none should exist, so they're keeping Americans uninformed about what's going down.

  •  Whoopie. UHC still will make their giant profits (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slinkerwink, Silverbird, jpmassar

    ...as proved by the fact that the renewal of our company insurance plan by UHC for the coming year just came in at an increase of 34%.  The reason cited was that they weren't real sure yet about how their costs would be impacted by the new health care plan, so they were hedging their bets on renewals.

    Bastards.

    "I'm not a humanitarian. I'm a hell-raiser." Mother Jones

    by histopresto on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 12:22:22 PM PDT

  •  Kathleen Sebelius (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jpmassar, vc2, StepLeftStepForward

    is known for her strong leadership here in Kansas. When she was our governor she fought the Republican congress tooth and nail and usually came out on top.I expect to see the same type of grit as she deals with the insurance companies.

    From Wiki

    She was first elected to the Kansas House of Representatives in 1986. In 1994 she left the House to run for state Insurance Commissioner and stunned political forecasters by winning – the first time a Democrat had won in more than 10 years. She refused to take campaign contributions from the insurance industry and blocked the proposed merger of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Kansas, the state's largest health insurer, with an Indiana-based company. Sebelius's decision marked the first time the corporation had been rebuffed in its acquisition attempts.[8]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site