- 14,808
I've been watching this fight for some time now and the ruling just came out.
Anthem fought for a 9% increase last year citing that it needed to build in a 3% profit. Maine's response, to be simple, was "no company should be guaranteed a profit."
So they chopped the increase down to 5% which only allowed a 1% profit. Anthem said "you can't do that" but Maine's top court just say "oh, yes we can."
Maine's Top Court Backs State Authority To Limit Health Plan's Profits – Capsules - The KHN Blog
More to the heart of this matter was Anthem challenging that that state insurance regulator had the authority to limit their profit. Which means if they filed for a 9% rate increase but 3% of that increase was a built in profit, there was nothing the DOI could do about it. Yesterday's ruling was significant because it not only reaffirmed the DIO's authority to hold down rate increase, but limit a carrier's profit.
I feel mixed on this. One on hand, a carrier should be able to do what they want, within reason of course.
However, under the laws of the capitalist jungle, no company is guaranteed a profit and "forcing" consumers to pay a rate increase that includes a profit?
http://www.courts.state.me.us/opinions_orders/opinions/2012_documents/12me21an.pdf
Anthem fought for a 9% increase last year citing that it needed to build in a 3% profit. Maine's response, to be simple, was "no company should be guaranteed a profit."
So they chopped the increase down to 5% which only allowed a 1% profit. Anthem said "you can't do that" but Maine's top court just say "oh, yes we can."
Maine's Top Court Backs State Authority To Limit Health Plan's Profits – Capsules - The KHN Blog
More to the heart of this matter was Anthem challenging that that state insurance regulator had the authority to limit their profit. Which means if they filed for a 9% rate increase but 3% of that increase was a built in profit, there was nothing the DOI could do about it. Yesterday's ruling was significant because it not only reaffirmed the DIO's authority to hold down rate increase, but limit a carrier's profit.
I feel mixed on this. One on hand, a carrier should be able to do what they want, within reason of course.
However, under the laws of the capitalist jungle, no company is guaranteed a profit and "forcing" consumers to pay a rate increase that includes a profit?
http://www.courts.state.me.us/opinions_orders/opinions/2012_documents/12me21an.pdf
Last edited: