SIIA objections to House bill noted in NU: National Underwriter magazine’s coverage this week of insurance industry reaction to the House healthcare reform bill included two of Chief Operating Officer Mike Ferguson’s objections over possible damage to the self-insured employer-based healthcare system.

‘Research board’ could usurp employer prerogatives: The National Underwriter article stated: “Michael Ferguson, chief operating officer of the Self-Insurance Institute of America, pointed out one provision would levy a tax on all employer-sponsored health plans to fund a Research Board proposed to determine the effectiveness of medical treatments.” SIIA has long opposed such a tax and its purposes because the so-called “Research Board” would substitute its views rather than those of practicing physicians on the effectiveness of medical protocols and – in effect – become a federal healthcare rationing system.

Discouragement of small to mid-size self-insurers cited: The magazine also cited SIIA’s opposition to elements of the bill that would discourage all but the largest employers from adopting self-insured employee group health plans while herding most toward a new government-regulated health insurance “exchange” where private insurers would compete – according to the House bill – with a government-operated plan.

Article covered a broad spectrum of insurance industry opposition: The NU article noted that the insurance industry is “voicing dismay over healthcare reform legislation passed by the House and expresses hope that a more acceptable product would be produced by the Senate.” The article included these “sound bites:”

• As the Senate and House (may) move to conference, Congress is urged to reconsider the effect on consumers and small businesses.
• A public option government-provided health plan would unfairly compete with the private insurance marketplace, limit consumer choice and increase the taxpayer burden. It could acquire nearly 120 million Americans that could otherwise balance private risk pools.
• The House bill risks completely derailing employer-provided benefits. It limits premium variations so much that healthy behavior could not be rewarded with lower premiums.

Tags:

This entry was posted by Adam V. Russo on Wednesday, November 18th, 2009 at 10:06 am and is filed under Health Care Legislation. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.