<p>"Ken Wood, a senior vice president at Blue Shield of California, said the report shows more competition is good for consumers and has led to “attractive rates” offered by Blue Shield.</p>
<p>The narrowed networks that keep the Blue Shield rates down should not be a problem, he said.</p>
<p>“We have what I would describe as narrowed networks, but they are far from narrow,” said Wood, noting that the health insurance company has tens of thousands of physicians and hundreds of hospitals for its customers. "It’s a worry that exists, but it just hasn’t played out.</p>
<p>“This is the beauty of the consumer choice model,” said Wood. “People get the plan that best meets their needs.”</p>
<p>Covered California spokesman Larry Hicks said the exchange remains confident that the health care provider networks of each insurer is sufficient. He noted that the state reviews and regulates the adequacy of each insurer’s networks to be sure there are enough doctors and hospitals.</p>
<p>Moreover, he said, “for hundreds of thousands who were previously uninsured, this new era of care and insurance is a bonanza of doctors and hospitals,” he said. “So narrow networks to me is in the eye of the beholder.”</p>
<p>Interesting thing about that Hill article. It claimed that industry officials say that premiums are going to skyrocket. But no current industry officials were willing to be quoted by name. The only person willing to be quoted by name was former Cigna official and former Bill Frist staffer William Hoagland, who consulted his gut rather than any inside information. Bill Frist (R-TN) was the former Senate Majority Leader. It’s just possible that Hoagland was retailing Republican spin when he consulted his gut.</p>
<p>The same stories are being regurgitated now. I guess certain people are out of ideas. The funny thing is the regurgitated stories arent as bad as they used to be because things are getting better. :)</p>
<p>I dont see the Blue Shield guy complaining. :)</p>
<p>Insurance industry officials are not going to go on record saying something negative about a plan that is pumping millions of taxpayer dollars into their industry. They can’t.</p>
<p>dstark figured out the relevant piece. Much as I would like to support GP’s contention that ACA drove up costs, for our situation, even without subsidy, open market might have come out slightly cheaper with the lower silver plan (I think they were at Gold equivalent). I think we had a situation were the existing premiums were higher due to claims in the past.</p>
<p>That Blue Shield guy in dstark’s link is serving up a bunch of self-serving baloney. “Narrow networks is in the eye of the beholder.” Oh please, you have to have an IQ of less than 50 to think he has any credibility. Blue Shield’s network in my region is a joke. 99% of the people who are signing up for Obamacare don’t have a clue as to the size of the network. The foundation for this law is made of straw.</p>
<p>Let’s not argue IQs.<br>
There’s got to be a better way to argue against affordable healthcare than random examples and heaping the words of naysayers on us. I don’t pull anything from the Hill article that we haven’t already discussed. Agree the lack of attribution makes it just sound like a few inflammatory quotes. I don;t think any of us can yet point to provider rate hike requests, much less commission approvals. </p>
<p>And, I couldn’t find a “recent” report from Business record explaining why Iowa exchange rates will rise 100%. For now, that sure seems like air.</p>
<p>The current rates could be enticements to sign up bolstered by the federal government bail out money if the insurers have losses. Low rates this year then wham! they hit you with higher and higher rates as the penalty gets higher and higher.</p>
<p>That’s a putdown masked as a real response. Not well masked. I say you need a better approach and that’s what we get? IQ cracks and repeated references to cheerleaders?</p>
<p>Tatin, I can agree with “could be.” It offers the scenario as something to think about, not a prediction. At this point, we simply don’t know what the insurers will ask for- and how state commissioners will respond. Anyone concerned should be exercising their right to register their concerns with the state. Seriously. Imagine if a substantial number of Californians did this. </p>
<p>Have others here ever made such a call? They usually ask for the basis for your concerns or opinions. </p>
<p>The risk corridors bail out insurers to a certain extent, but if the insurer loses money and is bailed out, they don’t get made whole. They still lose money. Intentionally setting premiums low, and hoping to lose money but not too much, is a feckless business strategy.</p>
<p>“Anyone concerned should be exercising their right to register their concerns with the state. Seriously. Imagine if a substantial number of Californians did this.”</p>
<p>LF, you have watched too many reruns of Mr.Smith Goes to Washington. Covered Cal doesn’t give a rat’s behind what I think. The state commissioner in Ca. is an empty suit</p>
<p>“895k visits to HealthCare.gov and 200k calls to call center yesterday–biggest call rush since December. 12 days to #GetCoveredNow
6:59 p.m. Wed, Mar 19”</p>
That Sebelius even admitted to premiums rising, given she hasn’t admitted to much else, was odd. Odd enough to be considered news at the time. Might give that a 75% chance of being true.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Seems a balanced article, since it included a rebuttal:
Pretty vague though, and that the shipbuilder won’t admit till the captains head goes under that it’s sinking isn’t a new thing. Maybe a 50% - could be he gets lucky and and it’s a little.</p>
<p>OTOH, signs and portents abound and there’s a lot of people, people who should have a much better grip on the numbers, and they’re generally looking sick as a class if their fingerprints are on the ACA.</p>
<p>Hard to see it as nothing other than a political hit piece, since it’s more than likely accurate. Mileage might depend on what you drive, though.</p>