Intelligence Unit
Special Reports
Special Events
Subscribe
Sponsored
Departments
- Leadership
- Finance
- Technology
- Physicians
- Community Hospitals
- Health Plans
- Marketing
- Quality
- Nursing
- HR
Follow Us
BSCA Revenue Cap Draws Mixed Reactions
The Blue Shield announcement garnered attention from Washington, D.C. where U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius praised the action in a press statement calling it a "great step forward" and noting the health insurer's commitment to "providing better care at prices that better reflect underlying medical costs."
Closer to home however, politicians and consumer advocates weren't as kind. In an e-mail exchange, a spokesperson for the California Department of Insurance said that DOI commissioner Dave Jones would not release a statement specific to Blue Shield's latest announcement.
She did, however, provide a statement Jones made during earlier media interviews: "Blue Shield's announcement is essentially an admission by the insurer that it is…making excessive profits. This non-profit insurer more than doubled its profits from $148 million in 2009 to $315 million in 2010. If anything, Blue Shield's announcement simply serves to underscore, yet again, why the insurance commissioner needs the authority to reject excessive health insurance rate hikes in California."
- $6.4B Henry Ford, Beaumont Merger Failed on Cultural Hurdles
- House Lawmakers Grill CMS Over Health Exchange Navigators
- Fortunately, Angelina Jolie Isn't On Medicare
- Don't Let Nurses Sink Your Bottom Line
- How Chargemaster Data May Affect Hospital Revenue
- Insurer's App Aims to Lower Healthcare Costs, Securely
- Uncompensated Care Faces a Double Hit in Some States
- ED Physicians Key to Half of Hospital Admissions
- Primary Care Docs Average More Hospital Revenue Than Specialists
- Hospital Pricing Transparency a Marketing Game Changer
Comments are moderated. Please be patient.
mrrogers (6/10/2011 at 10:13 AM)
I suppose the big government types would be happier if BSCA just pissed away the money on excess expenses (like the government does) rather than build reserves to a level beyond the "minimum" required by the bureauocrats. Which approach best serves the long-term interest of policyholders [INVALID] hmmmm.