Largest health insurer to keep key parts of law regardless of court ruling

[alp227]

Source: Washington Post

The nation’s largest health insurer will keep in place several key consumer provisions mandated by the 2010 health-care law regardless of whether the statute survives Supreme Court review.

Officials at UnitedHealthcare will announce Monday that whatever the outcome of the court decision — expected this month — the company will continue to provide customers preventive health-care services without co-payments or other out-of-pocket charges, allow parents to keep adult children up to age 26 on their plans, and maintain the more streamlined appeals process required by the law.

UnitedHealthcare would also continue to observe the law’s prohibitions on putting lifetime limits on insurance payouts and rescinding coverage after a member becomes ill, except in cases where a member intentionally lied on an insurance application.

The provisions are part of a larger package in the law often referred to by supporters as “the Patients Bill of Rights” that took effect as plans renewed after Sept. 23, 2010. They are popular with consumers and relatively uncontroversial among insurers. And there had already been signals from industry insiders that some insurers were likely to leave them in place. UnitedHealthcare, a UnitedHealth Group company, is the first to publicly commit to the idea.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/largest-health-insurer-to-keep-key-parts-of-law-regardless-of-court-ruling/2012/06/10/gJQA7VYfTV_singlePage.html

[BlueCaliDem]

1. They fear a backlash from consumers. But make no mistake,

the moment they can, they'll begin throwing out those provisions and return to profit as usual, as all corporations inevitably do because it's why they exist: to make profit for their shareholders, and as much of it as they can.

As I've said, what genius thought it was good for the country to have corporations - whose only fiduciary responsibility is to ensure the biggest profit for shareholders - run our health insurance and health care? That was one either one of the dumbest moves Congress has ever made OR one of the, for their greedy selves, cleverest.

[kestrel91316]

2. Exactly. If they immediately dropped those benefits, there would be a HUGE

uproar and health care would be a HUGE factor in elections in November.

They will wait until after the election to change their minds.

[Sherman A1]

4. Precisely

and they will roll them back one at a time in the name of cost savings to their customers.

[onlyadream]

8. This is why I love DU

When I read this, being the gullible, trusting person that i am, was like - wow! That's great! But of course, there's more to it.

[kestrel91316]

13. Where the RW and money is involved, there's ALWAYS more to it......

[Skittles]

3. CORRECT

[Kolesar]

5. That is a superficial summary of the health care law

I am referring to your second paragraph.

[sofa king]

7. Apparently Europe tried to warn us.

Normally I don't toss out "I've heard this" lines, but I haven't had time to check my facts and won't until this conversation runs its course.

So with that huge caveat, I have been told that several European countries fell into the same trap going all the way back to the 1950s, and it took them decades to dismantle the corporate health care systems they had in place. They still hover around the margins with "supplemental insurance," but for the most part, Western Europe at least has largely left that idea behind after a considerable loss of life and capital.

But, as I keep pointing out, the current situation does an excellent job of harming a particular type of American: poorly educated white males in southern states without health insurance, who also happen to vote Republican in unusual numbers. Since life expectancy for those people has dropped below 50 in some cases, that means that most of those who voted for George Bush in 2000 have already lived out half their short, unhappy lives.

So there's that.

[Swede Atlanta]

9. Agree but......

there are more generations of white under-educated males in the South. As demographics change and they continue to be more and more marginalized it won't make much of a difference but for now they continue to be a significant voting block for the Republics.

[sofa king]

16. And it's not like I'm happy about it, either.

I want them to use rational thought, not "use rational thought or die!"

Furthermore, I'm one of them, except for the Republican part, which statistically means I have the same chances of living another five years as someone diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, if I read those tables right, which I hope I didn't. I don't want to use rational thought and die.

[pampango]

10. "They are popular with consumers and relatively uncontroversial among insurers."

You are probably right which is why we need government regulation (which requires legislation that republicans oppose) to force them maintain these provisions.

I would rather have insurers make public commitments now to maintain these provisions than to keep quiet about them. It doesn't guarantee anything about their future actions, but making them eat their own words later may be an effective tactic against them should that become necessary.

If they were just laying low and keeping quiet now (while supporting republican efforts to weaken or eliminate the regulatory force behind these provisions) there would be a greater, more imminent danger of them revoking those provisions as soon as the Supreme Court or republican legislation gives the chance.

[Myrina]

17. ... my guess is they'll continue these provisions BUT

... premiums are going to go through the roof. Cost of doing "good business", dontcha know?

[rox63]

6. There are some of these provisions that make financial sense for them to keep

Continuing the ability for people to keep their young-adult children on their policies means that established customers are still paying to keep a mostly young, healthy population insured. Covering preventative care means that potentially expensive problems will be discovered earlier, when it is less expensive to treat them, and when a more serious, more expensive problem can be prevented.

[Blue Idaho]

11. Could they be signaling the Supreme Court...

to keep their hands off of Health Care Reform? After all - without the mandate, all the health care reforms are going to cost them a bundle.

Am I off the beam here?

Edit = clarity.

[eomer]

12. The PPA reform has turned insurers' motivation on its head.

Before reform, an insurer was motivated to keep benefits as low as possible and premiums as high as possible in order to reap the highest profit margin.

After reform, profits are limited to 20% of claims. Now there is not an advantage to selling low-benefit plans but rather the opposite. Insurers are motivated to sell plans with higher claims since their profit ceiling will then be 20% of a higher number.

[lovuian]

14. Obama wins no matter what the Supreme Court does

if the Courts say no then we get to start all over again and a democratic Congress will be at the helm and get better reforms
the teap party is toast!
if they say yes ...we get to keep it without the mandatory insurance

the Supreme court's influence here is negligible

[pampango]

15. Two More Health Insurers Pledge To Preserve Parts Of Obamacare

Aetna and Humana have joined UnitedHealthcare in promising to preserve several popular provisions of Obamacare, even if the high court rules the law unconstitutional later this month. Bloomberg reporter Alex Wayne tweets:

Alex Wayne @aawayne

Humana too. MT @aawayne Aetna to match UnitedHealth, cover preventive services, young adults as dependents if SCOTUS knocks down #hcr. $HUM

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/06/11/497655/two-more-health-insurers-pledge-to-preserve-parts-of-obamacare/

[antigop]

18. United Health Group's Misleading Promises -- update -- be sure to read

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101632324