First, on the CBO and the medical loss ratio standard, Franken suggests that further investigation is warranted:
The CBO didn't explain how it came to the seemingly arbitrary figure of 90 percent. Franken said he and Rockefeller met with the CBO chief Doug Elmendorf about his determination and came away uncertain of the reasoning. Elmendorf, who is not an elected official, deemed that 80 percent for small groups and 85 for large didn't amount to nationalization. In the American system of government, what Elmendorf says, goes, so regardless of the rationale, the bill includes the figures he dictated.
Two questions: what technical backup did Franken have (like experts of his in the room, prior briefings, etc)? And what was Elmendorf asked about the 90% point?
As it stands, the meeting appears to have been a mess - and, if for no reason that the 90% thing was Franken's big number on health care, you'd have thought he'd have gone about things rather less casually!
(OpenLefter sTiVO flagged the questionable role of the CBO in relation to the health care legislation, especially the MLR requirement.)
On MLR, the HuffPo piece also flags the provision in the manager's amendment which allows the HHS Secretary to adjust the MLR numbers. Uh oh...
Second, rescission:
The same piece highlights the bizarre case of Anthem Blue Cross, which operates in California.
State regulators identified loads of illegal rescissions by ABC, but at first failed to impose fines fearing that the company would challenge each case in court.
Eventually, company and regulators made agreements under which fines were imposed, and rescissions rescinded - but apparently these deals weren't as tough as they looked.
(Two regulators were involved - one for ABC's HMO business and one for the rest.)
(More on the case here and here.)
I suspect that California has one of the better regulatory regimes - go figure. (That's where my expertise runs out!)
UPDATE
What looks like an interesting piece on the CBO from Reason (there's also this).
|
STATE BLOGS
