Consumer Watchdog Raises Concern that Health Policy Cancellation Rules Have Been Derailed in Deal With Kaiser

Sees Improvement But is Concerned About Loss of Legal Remedies

Santa Monica, CA -- A settlement with Kaiser Permanente over more 1,000 patients whose health coverage was retroactively cancelled is an improvement on past proposals because it acknowledges that patients can make claims for repayment of losses resulting from policy cancellations such as bankruptcy or loss of a home.  In past proposals patients could not recover costs incurred after policies were wrongly cancelled.

However, Consumer Watchdog said that such a deal is no substitute for regulations promised 18 months ago by the Department of Managed Health Care (DMHC) which regulators said today will not be issued.  Consumer Watchdog said that the Department appears to be trading away tough regulations for new legislation that is likely to favor insurance companies.

"Punting this issue to the legislature where insurers have immense lobbying power risks regulation that is more loophole than protection," said Jerry Flanagan of Consumer Watchdog. "The Department has both the ability and the responsibility to develop strong regulations that could be put into effect faster than legislation and provide immediate protection."

Consumer Watchdog also raised concerns that today's "voluntary settlement" with Kaiser stacked the legal deck against consumers whose policies were wrongfully cancelled by forcing them into mandatory arbitration, potentially limiting class action lawsuits, and by letting insurers off the hook for punitive damages.

Under the agreement with Kaiser, patients who paid more than $15,000 out-of-pocket for medical expenses resulting from policy cancellations, or who suffered other damages like bankruptcy, loss of a job or home, would have to submit to arbitrators chosen by the DMHC and Kaiser with no patient input.  It appears that patients would have to pay for their own attorneys, which would be cost-prohibitive for most.

Patients who were retroactively cancelled -- in so called "rescissions" -- would be allowed to buy new coverage from Kaiser, without limitations due to their health conditions, and retain the right to take their cases to court.  However, Consumer Watchdog said that patients with less than $250,000 in damages would have difficulty finding an attorney to take such a case.  The fine print of the settlement would also create roadblocks to future class action lawsuits brought by those patients with smaller damage claims.  

"The Department has clearly acknowledged the loss and harm to patients whose coverage was illegally and callously rescinded," said Flanagan. "However, many of these patients will likely face a cadre of Kaiser attorneys in a complicated and difficult closed-door arbitration where they have to act as their own lawyers.  Kaiser should be required to pay the attorney fees of patients seeking redress for substantial past medical expenses and damages resulting from the loss of coverage."

Consumer Watchdog said the agreement only offered to "sell" new coverage to patients, not to "reinstate" former coverage which would have provided automatic recovery of medical costs rather than subjecting patients to a hostile arbitration.

The Department of Managed Health Care (DMHC) previously granted Consumer Watchdog's petition for new rules to protect innocent patients from wrongful retroactive cancellations -- so-called "rescissions" -- in December 2007 but now is backing away from completing them.

Read Consumer Watchdog's 2006 petition calling for the new rules.

Read DMHC's December 2007 response granting that petition.

- 30 -

Rate This Article:

Comments:

Post A Comment

You are not logged in, please do so at the top of the page.

Recent Posts in Protecting Patients:

Will 'progressives' let middle class burn to prove their point?

When Anthem Blue Cross announced its controversial premium increases in California recently, the insurer claimed, "a carrier must be able to receive actuarially sound rates." So it is remarkable that "progressive" San Francisco State Senator Mark Leno, a single payer health care advocate, recently introduced eleventh hour legislation codifying Anthem Blue Cross's "actuarially sound" defense of premium increases in law.

Read More »

New rates at Blue Cross are a meager victory

At the shoe store, 40% off qualifies as at least pretty good. So why does regulators' approval of new, lower rates by Blue Cross of California not feel like victory? There are lots of reasons, but first is that the revised Blue Cross rate hikes are still in double digits, averaging 14% and as high as 20%, while average wages are still falling. And Blue Cross could announce another rate hike whenever it pleases, just as many insurers continue to do.

Read More »

Health reform regulation scorecard: The big stuff is headed to court

Wouldn't it be great if we could all deduct our federal income and investment taxes from next year's income? And if we could also deduct that stress-reducing trip to a spa in Bora Bora? And if the government would just take our word for it? Fantasy for us, but the health insurance industry think that's what federal health reform ought to allow, on a corporate scale.

Read More »

Seattle Story: Pretty good ending

The worst definitely didn't happen in Seattle. The National Association of Insurance Commissioners deferred the worst insurance industry demands for weakening the implementation of health care reform. For a body so closely linked to...

Read More »

Obama's victory lap in rush hour gridlocks LA to raise $1 million for Congress

It took my wife an hour and half to make the two mile commute home Monday, after the secret service closed some of LA's busiest streets at rush hour to shuttle the president from his Beverly Hills hotel to a fundraiser for Congress...

Read More »

View All Next »

Forward This Page To A Friend

CA Hospitals Risk Collapse In Earthquake