- HOME
- About
- Topics
- Angelides
- Arnold Schwarzenegger
- California Attorney General Race
- California Congressional Races
- California Democratic Party
- California Governor Race 2010
- California Legislative Races
- California Lt. Governor Race
- California Secretary of State Race
- California State Budget
- California State Controller
- Campaign Finance Reform
- Campaigns
- Cell Phones
- Children and Families
- Consumer Rights
- Corporate Accountability
- Criminal Justice
- Death With Dignity
- Disaster Preparation
- Discrimination and Civil Rights
- Education
- Elections and Voting
- Electoral College
- Energy
- Environment
- Farm Animal Cruelty Ballot Measure
- Flood Control
- Food Safety
- Gas Prices
- Governor's Election Race
- Gun control
- Health Care
- Health Insurance
- Hiram Johnson's Corner
- Housing
- Human Rights
- Humor
- Immigration
- Infrastructure
- Initiative Reform
- Insurance Commissioner Race
- Labor
- Language and Politics
- Legal System
- Media and Communication
- Minimum Wage
- Open Government
- Pharmaceutical Companies
- Politics
- Preschool
- Presidential Election 2008
- Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act Prop
- Prison Reform
- Privacy
- Privitization
- Prop 11-Redistricting/Reapportionment
- Prop 1A--High Speed Rail
- Prop 2--Treatment of Farm Animals
- Prop 3-Children's Hospital Bonds
- Prop 4 Waiting Period and Parental Notification
- Prop 5--Non-violent drug offenses
- Prop 7 and 10-Alternative Fuel and Energy Bond
- Prop 8 and-Marriage Equality
- Prop 85 Parental Notification
- Prop 86 Tobacco Tax
- Prop 87--Alternative Energy
- Prop 9 Parole
- Prop 90
- Prop 91--Transportation Funding
- Prop 92- Community Colleges
- Prop 93--Term Limits
- Props 94-97--Tribal Gaming
- Props 98 and 99
- Racial Disparities
- Responsible Lending
- Retirement Benefits
- Site of the Day
- Solar Initiative
- Structure of California Government
- Taxes
- Toxic Chemicals
- Transportation/Transit
- Water
- Westly
- Workers' Compensation
- Stories
- Cavala: A Constitutional Convention for California?
- Eight Years From Bush v. Gore to Palin: The Bridge to Nowhere
- California Proposition 11: Redistricting Commission – YES
- What Does a Republican Running in an Increasingly Democratic District Do? Why Aghazarian Wants to Make Legislative Races Non-Partisan
- Prop 1A and High Speed Rail's Role in Fighting Dependence on Oil and Sprawl in California
- Schwarzenegger Vetoes Bill Recommended By Autism Commission
- Governor Schwarzenegger Can Put a Dent in Auto Repair Fraud and Protect Consumers by Signing AB 2825
- California Assembly District 26: Republican Refuses to Debate Eisenhut in Close Race Democrats May Pick Up
- Bankruptcy Relief and the Bailout
- A Renewed Call for Mortgage Reform in California
- Preschool Legislation Aimed at Closing the Achievement Gap in California Becomes Law
- Debate: Opening Advantage Obama
- Directory
- Donate
- Contact Us
RSS Advertise Here
Deliver your message to thousands of readers every day.
Our readers are influential opinion makers - politicians, journalists and activists.
Our latest headlines
- A Clear and Present Danger: A Californian Finds Gaps in Consumer Communication from Financial Institutions
- California Wildfires and the Urgency of Combating Climate Change
- California Education Cuts in the Year After the “Year of Education”
- A Breeze of Fresh Air from Washington D.C. To California? Waxman and Dingell Battle Today--Reactions to Obama's Climate Remarks—Schwarzenegger Calls Them “Fantastic”
- Stronger Renewable Energy Goals For California: Schwarzenegger’s Executive Order and Where We Go From Here
- Dear Speaker Pelosi, Can California Have $25 Billion?
- California Democratic Party Meeting Last Weekend a Window to the Future and Areas That Need Improvement
About Us
The California Progress Report is published by Frank D. Russo, a longtime observer of and participant in California politics.
About Frank Russo.
About California Progress Report.
Got a news tip? Want to write a guest column? Contact Frank here.
Sponsors
Books
Health Insurer Cost Curb Takes Major Step in California Legislature--Vote This Week on Assembly Floor
Bill to Regulate Insurance Premiums Easily Passes Key Vote
By Jerry Flanagan
The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights (FTCR)
A bill by California Assemblymember Dave Jones that would require health insurance companies to justify and defend their rates and profits passed the Assembly Appropriations Committee today on a 12-5 vote, meaning that it will get a vote of the full Assembly this week. It was a significant defeat of powerful insurance industry lobbying. The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights is a strong supporter of the bill, AB 1554.
No matter what health reforms are ultimately passed this year in California, Assemblyman Jones’ bill would keep down costs to the state, to employers and to individuals. It is particularly important to have these curbs on spiraling insurance premiums if either employers or individuals are required to buy health insurance.
The legislation is similar to requirements in the auto insurance market under Proposition 103 that have saved drivers billions of dollars since 1988 and driven down California auto premiums in relation to other states. AB 1554 would control the administrative waste and profiteering that allowed Blue Cross of California to keep, as overhead and profit, 50% of every premium dollar collected from individual policyholders, and that has increased insurance premiums to levels far above the increases in overall medical inflation.
The proposed legislation, AB 1554:
• Requires health plans to provide detailed financial information to the regulator with each premium increase request.
• Establishes a clear legislative directive that no rate, co-payment or deductible shall be approved or remain in effect which is deemed to be “unfair or excessive.”
• Allows consumers and consumer groups to intervene in rate review proceedings to ensure that the legislative intent is implemented.
We noted with caution an amendment attached in committee that that exempts insurers from regulatory review if their premium increase is less than 5%, and their spending on medical care exceeds 90% of premiums.
If the numbers in this amendment don’t change with further amendment, it is probably benign. But if the percentage of allowable increase goes up, or the percentage requirement for medical care spending goes down, the effectiveness of the bill will be gutted. This amendment must not be treated by the industry as a Trojan Horse to be filled with numbers more favorable to their profiteering.
Even if plans request an increase of less than 5% they must still be required to meet all of the disclosure requirements of the bill, in order to provide proof of their spending on medical care.
The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights (FTCR) is California's leading nonpartisan consumer advocacy organization. For more information, visit the website http://www.ConsumerWatchdog.org
Comments
Post a comment
Get Email Updates
Want the California Progress Report by email? Once a week, we'll send you the latest and greatest headlines.
© 2008 California Progress Report Our copyright and fair use policy.
Powered by Mandate Media. Logo design by Jane Norling.
