This is an Interesting Twist

[somarco]

(Washington)State Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler said he is ordering Regence BlueShield to "stop illegally denying insurance to children, effective immediately."

"Regence is in clear violation of state law that prohibits insurers from denying insurance to people on the basis of age,"

Never thought about challenging carriers on the basis of age discrimination. I suppose it carrier similar weight to . . .

• refusing to offer maternity except on family plan
  
• refusing to issue policies to those with a BMI xs of 40
  
• refusing to issue a policy to a non-citizen
  
• refusing to issue a policy to someone who had a heart attack
  
• refusing to issue a family plan to a same sex couple

 

[stuy119]

Never thought about challenging carriers on the basis of age discrimination. I suppose it carrier similar weight to . . .

• refusing to offer maternity except on family plan
  
• refusing to issue policies to those with a BMI xs of 40
  
• refusing to issue a policy to a non-citizen
  
• refusing to issue a policy to someone who had a heart attack
  
• refusing to issue a family plan to a same sex couple

It may be simple-minded of me, but they can take the position that they aren't "refusing" but rather "choosing" what market(s) is/are best for their business. Then you get into the commerce aspect of business vs. the health issues of insurance.

 

[Newby]

Some life insurance companies will only sell to ages 50 to 80. How is that different?

 

[GreenSky]

I don't know any insurance carriers who will write people 65 and over except for MA and Supplements. I don't think the state has a case here.

Rick

 

[jbage007]

Based solely on its insurance laws, Washington state is located on the WRONG coast.

 

[somarco]

WA is on the left coast . . . just like CA . . .

 

[jbage007]

Right. But all 3 west coast states really need to be back in the northeast. The way people in states like Massachusetts think makes California look like Texas.

 

[LGilmore]

Basically the laws for sales of individual coverage allow for age banding, currently a kid's policy would simply pay the under 25 class. Regence changed it to 19-25. So we have a stand off right now. Regence has two options, comply or stop individual sales.

We went through this back in 94 when WA adopted the clinton plan. Individual sales stopped for 5 years. Same old same old here in the evergreen state.

 

[somarco]

Under normal circumstances, carriers might be willing to fight. But with the anticipated changes, it is more likely they will dig in then relinquish individual sales if it really comes to that. I would anticipate a court fight, but not much of one unless 11/2/10 (11/4/10 in Chicago) breathes new life into the health insurance market.

If govt wants to play hardball they and the consumer lose. We have seen this over and over in our industry in various states. Same thing with taxes.

If the tax situation becomes onerous, individuals and businesses simply move to one of the other 56 states and pick up where they left off before.

 

[LGilmore]

When we went through this before 94-2000, all carriers stopped selling individual new sales. the state government came back and compromised from their end and individual sales started again.

We really only have about 4-5 individual players in the market. Commissions are not close to what you folks get. Very few here go out and solict individual health sales that hard. Plus the majority of those looking only want (or expect) to spend about $25 for full coverage.

I am waiting to see what the other blue does as well as group health (hmo). Currently they are in wait and see. If either one of them gets burned by automatic claims out of the gate, look for them to stop selling too.

Stay tuned, we'll see who blinks first. My guess is that it is going to be the government. Simply because they did not threaten to stop Regence's individual sales completely tells me they are more afraid of the public than Regence is. The public will jump down the OIC throats if they stop all sales. I mean everybody's charitable, but not that charitable.

It's more "we'd like you to do for them, but not at my expense." taking away everybody's right to buy, doesn't make the insurance company look bad.

Been through this before, it's going to play out the same way.