A Superior Court Judge today refused to block the Patrick administration’s move to reject health insurance premium increases. Globe:
Suffolk Superior Court Judge Stephen E. Neel today denied a request by six health insurers to allow them to implement double-digit premium rate increases for tens of thousands of small businesses and individuals.
Neel’s decision not to grant an injunction sought by the insurers means the state Division of Insurance’s rejection of 235 proposed rate hikes stands for now.
In making his much anticipated ruling, Neel accepted the argument of state government that the insurers should appeal the decision of Insurance Commissioner Joseph G. Murphy within the insurance division before they turn to the courts.
“Because plaintiffs have not exhausted their administrative remedies, and because they have not demonstrated that they are otherwise entitled to injunctive relief, their motion for preliminary injunction will be denied,” the judge wrote.
Here’s the Gov’s statement:
“I appreciate the court’s decision. It’s a welcome decision for small businesses and working families who need immediate relief from excessive and unreasonable increases in their health care costs. We look forward to working with the insurance companies, as well as hospitals and other providers, to secure this short-term relief, and to working with the legislature on proposals to reduce costs throughout the industry.”
This is obviously good political news for Governor Patrick. But more importantly, it’s a big step toward getting serious cost controls in place. The battlefield is now, appropriately, away from the courtroom and in the state legislature, which should act quickly on the Gov’s bill to allow him some authority over medical costs to match the authority he already has over insurance premiums. That’s the way to keep health insurers from being placed in an impossible position.
What in the world did the insurers think their grounds were for denying the state it’s statutory powers to regulate?
from my understanding the judge denied the request since the insurers did not first try to seek an appeal through the insurance commissioner. True they wanted to circumvent the process and were denied. That’s a win. But if insurers fail in their appeal they could then go back to the court. Which they probably will. My sense is that the longer this plays out the better it is for Patrick. I want to hear Baker, etc. fight for 32% increases in insurance premiums during their campaigns. That should work out well.
…I still don’t get what grounds they have for appeal.
A permanent and prominent list or link to list of accomplishments by the governor.
<
p>And every time you make a post like this of a new “win”, include the grocery list of previous accomplishments.
<
p>some of us forget just how many things he’s done.
A while ago, the state denied a rate increase for auto insurance to Peerless. They were part of CAR, the risk pool for MA drivers, and were part of the requested rate increase.
<
p>When company(s) request a rate increase from the DOI, they must justify it. Increases in costs, how much loss there was due to current insufficient rates, etc. (Christopher – they can’t just waltz in and say – we want, oh, a THIRTY percent intrease! They have to justify WHY such an increase is warranted, and when the DOI says they can’t have it based on the numbers submitted, THAT is where the basis for appeal comes in).
<
p>Mass. thought they were just too profitable a market, and refused the increase. They guessed wrong, and Peerless left the state. They ALSO used Jim Shannon, saying that the denial of the rate increase was political, rather than actuarial.
<
p>They won.
<
p>Because the rates for ALL auto carriers were identical in our whacky system, the rate increase applied retroactively to every policy in Mass. All drivers had to cough up an additional $50 or have their current policy cancelled. Merely moving the policy to another company didn’t work, as they had to provide proof they had paid what was called the ‘auto remand’.
<
p>To what extent is this situation with health carriers political rather than acturial? Will other health carriers do as Peerless did, and leave the state and file suit?
<
p>The judge is correct – they should have filed a proper appeal. But see this for what it is – a temporary fix. And one which may further shrink the insurance market in a state which is already top heavy with coverage mandates.
First, thank heavens that Deval introduced competition into MA’s auto insurance market — something that 16 years of Republican Governors somehow never managed to do.
<
p>Second, of course it’s a temporary solution — Deval has said as much all along. He has authority to refuse health insurance premium hikes; he wants authority to do the same for provider costs; but it’s all a temporary (two-year-ish, IIRC) fix until the lege can implement a comprehensive cost control strategy.
for championing reform in the face of political opposition. What was Deval’s role? I can’t say.
one of the most willfully stupid, mindlessly Deval-bashing comments I’ve yet seen on BMG. Truly amazing.
<
p>David, how old are you? Remember wage-and-price controls? “Whip Inflation Now”? Airfares, flight frequency, and route setting prior to the disbanding of the Civil Aeronautics Board (passed in 1978)? Gas lines circa 1979 and 1980? Cambridge rent control?
<
p>These were all legislative attempts at price controls, and their collective NET result were higher prices and scarcity, whether it was on labor, air travel, oil prices, or the cost of housing.
<
p>Please point out to me a government-sponsored-price-control success story. (Extra credit: a Massachusetts government-sponsored-price-control success story.)
<
p>Buhler? Buhler? Anybody? Anyone?
Partial gov’t sponsored price control success story?
I frankly couldn’t think of anything where price controls have worked, but the NFL is correct. The NFL is a bit of weird market a quarterback making 30M or 25.5M (under salary caps) isn’t going to effect the game.
<
p>I don’t think general BMG audience would not be in support of restricting health care workers salaries, but who knows…..
<
p>We already special laws for “Health Care Fraud” (it should be just Fraud why would Health care be special) – I’m just waiting for the laws to be passed for the Health Care “wreckers”. This month it’s health care executives – next month ?
it’s spelled “Bueller.”
<
p>Second,
<
p>
when small businesses were suffering from 30% increases, oh I bet I know he wasn’t running for re-election.
<
p>Of course all this has done is clog up the small group insurance market.
<
p>
on how to deal with the damn problem.
http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=hq…