Look @ the date June 17th 2009 Blue Cross praised employees who dropped sick policyholders, lawmaker says Workers received high marks on performance reviews after policies were rescinded, documents show. The health insurer denies the practice is a factor in evaluations. June 17, 2009 |Lisa Girion Executives of three of the nations largest health insurers told federal lawmakers in Washington on Tuesday that they would continue canceling medical coverage for some sick policyholders, despite withering criticism from Republican and Democratic members of Congress who decried the practice as unfair and abusive. The hearing on the controversial action known as rescission, which has left thousands of Americans burdened with costly medical bills despite paying insurance premiums, began a day after President Obama outlined his proposals for revamping the nations healthcare system. An investigation by the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations showed that health insurers WellPoint Inc., UnitedHealth Group and Assurant Inc. canceled the coverage of more than 20,000 people, allowing the companies to avoid paying more than $300 million in medical claims over a five-year period. It also found that policyholders with breast cancer, lymphoma and more than 1,000 other conditions were targeted for rescission and that employees were praised in performance reviews for terminating the policies of customers with expensive illnesses. No one can defend, and I certainly cannot defend, the practice of canceling coverage after the fact, said Rep. Michael C. Burgess (R-Tex.), a member of the committee. There is no acceptable minimum to denying coverage after the fact. The executives -- Richard A. Collins, chief executive of UnitedHealths Golden Rule Insurance Co.; Don Hamm, chief executive of Assurant Health and Brian Sassi, president of consumer business for WellPoint Inc., parent of Blue Cross of California -- were courteous and matter-of-fact in their testimony. But they would not commit to limiting rescissions to only policyholders who intentionally lie or commit fraud to obtain coverage, a refusal that met with dismay from legislators on both sides of the political aisle. Experts said it could undermine the industrys efforts to influence healthcare-overhaul plans working their way toward the White House. Talk about tone deaf, said Robert Laszewski, a former health insurance executive who now counsels companies as a consultant. Democratic strategist Paul Begala said the hearing could hurt the industrys efforts to position itself in the debate. The industry has tried very hard in this current effort not to be the bad guy, not to wear the black hat, Begala said. The trouble is all that hard work and goodwill is at risk if in fact they are pursuing such practices. Rescission was largely hidden until three years ago, when The Times launched a series of stories disclosing that insurers routinely canceled the medical coverage of individual policyholders who required expensive medical care. Sassi said rescissions are necessary to prevent people who lie about preexisting conditions from obtaining coverage and driving up costs for others. I want to emphasize that rescission is about stopping fraud and material misrepresentations that contribute to spiraling healthcare costs, Sassi told the committee. But rescission victims testified that their policies were canceled for inadvertent omissions or honest mistakes about medical history on their applications. Rescission, they said, was about improving corporate profits rather than rooting out fraud. articles.latimes/2009/jun/17/business/fi-rescind17
Posted on: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 15:51:38 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015