"Obama’s provision ... protects consumers from unreasonable rate increases..."

[Clio the Leo]

Will Obama’s New Premium Rate Review Authority Lower Insurance Prices?

Responding to the Anthem Blue Cross rate hikes in California, President Obama will include a provision in the White House health care bill that would allow the federal government to review and deny excessive, unreasonable or discriminatory health insurance premium increases. Obama’s proposal is modeled on a rate review amendment offered by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) during the Senate’s floor debate in December and revived as a stand-alone measure in recent weeks.

The final Senate health care bill already bars insurers with excessive rate hikes from participating in the insurance exchanges but this new provision would go a step further, federalizing the states’ traditional and somewhat uneven role in monitoring insurance rate increases. At least 25 states have some “form of a prior approve process for premium increases,” but state governments often lack the resources or political will to keep insurers in check. Obama’s provision is both politically and substantively significant. It protects consumers from unreasonable rate increases but also prohibits insurers from dramatically increasing rates during the elections of 2010 and 2012 or the period between the passage of comprehensive reform and implementation.

Democrats were worried that insurers would exploit the interim period to boost profits ahead of the new insurance regulations. The federal government’s new rate review powers could blunt at least some of the anticipated increases. Here is how rate review would work:

- Insurance companies would have to justify unreasonable premium increases.

- The Secretary could deny or modify health insurance rate increases that are found to be unjustified.

- The Secretary would determine whether states have the capability to conduct rate reviews.

- Establishes a Health Insurance Rate Authority to advise the Secretary. It will have seven members, including consumer representatives, an insurance industry representative, a physician and other experts like health economists and actuaries.

More...
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/02/22/rate-review/

[high density]

1. Sounds great to me

The public option was supposed to be around for lowering costs, but in absence of that let's just tell the insurance companies what the cost is going to be!

[John Q. Citizen]

3. What's to stop them from buying off the regulators, like they always do? If we let these

criminals continue to to suck us dry, we only have ourselves to blame.

Obama seems to prefer appeasing the criminals to just getting rid of the criminals. It won't work any better this time than it did with the criminals who looted our jobs, our homes, and our lives.

Obama is already on their pay roll, so i don't have much faith in his ability to hold anyone accountable. He's not really interested in accountability as far as I can tell.

[phleshdef]

8. By your fatally flawed logic, if there was a PO, they could just buy off the regulators of that too.

By your fatally flawed logic, we shouldn't do anything, at all, ever, because someone might buy someone off.

[SPedigrees]

9. Strict regulation of private insur cos works in one of the Scandinavian countries.

Can't recall which country it is, but they do not technically have socialized medicine, they have affordable care for all via regulated private carriers. It can work, providing the RW doesn't get back into power and remove the restrictions.

[John Q. Citizen]

2. No more "band-aide" solutions. Singler Payer now!

[Overseas]

4. Exactly. A strong public option would control insurance company rate hikes

better than any commission could.

Of course if you're planning to exclude a public option then you'd better have some kind of mechanism to control their practices of the past ten years-- hiking premiums and reducing coverage while profits soar by double digits.

[karynnj]

7. Not sure you are right unless "strong" means something far

beyond the House bill, that could not pass the Senate (possibly not even under reconciliation). The public option would not impact employer paid plans, which cover a huge percent of people.

[Phx_Dem]

6. ...

:eyes:

[freddie mertz]

5. No public option.

And apparently, no medicare buy-in.

Meet the new proposal...

REAL HCR takes another hit.

[ibegurpard]

10. Great...now what will that insurance cover?

eom