Highmark Inc. Raises Small Business Premiums up to 79 percent
Highmark Inc., is under scruntiny by legislators and consumers for their recent decision to increase the premiums to 79 percent for small business owners.
Highmark is suing the PA Dept. of Insurance
The health insurance company says the department plans to use illegal obtained information in a public document, among other charges.
Highmark opens health insurance stores
The health insurance retail stores are the first of their kind in PA.
Lack of competition doomed Blues merger
If Independence Blue Cross and Highmark Inc. had agreed to let another “Blue” company sell health insurance in the Philadelphia market to provide competition, their proposed merger probably would have been approved, Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner Joel Ario said yesterday.
Phila. Inquirer: The Blues merger is NOT happening!
Independence Blue Cross and Highmark did not like the provisions that Ario put forth; particularly one specifying what brand under which they would be able to carry on.
Ario setting the stage for a Blues merger
The Insurance Department has let the Blues know privately that it will not approve the merger unless the new company agrees to make an important change in how it markets health insurance in Pennsylvania, among other conditions; reports the Philadelphia Inquirer.
Center for American Progress: Why approving the Highmark/IBC merger will damage the Pennsylvania economy and set it on the wrong direction for health care reform
This afternoon, the Center for American Progress posted on their website an article outlining their opposition to the Blues merger, detailing the problems it says the merger would create.
Times-Tribune: Blues merger decision could alter health insurance market
In the last part of their series on the Pennsylvania Blues, the Times-Tribune’s Daniel Axelrod writes about how state Insurance Commissioner Joel Ario’s decision on the proposed Blues merger between Highmark and Independence Blue Cross could change PA’s health insurance market for years to come.
Highmark is opening health insurance retail stores
The stores will be the first of their kind in Pennsylvania.
Voices against the Blues merger: Tom Knox
Another vocal opponent to the Blues merger; Tom Knox — a businessman who formerly served as a healthcare company CEO — recently spoke to the editorial board at Philadelphia’s The Bulletin.
Tom Knox: Over 10 years ago, IBC and Highmark entered into an agreement not to compete with each other in their respective areas. During the 10-year period of that agreement, both companies embarked on a pattern of activity whereby they built such a dominant market share in their respective regions that no one could enter the market and compete against them and they now have monopolies. As a result, the cost of health insurance in their areas is higher than it should be or needs to be. There is simply no pressure to control spending and to increase the efficiency of their operations. In addition, they have used this market power to drive down the reimbursement rates paid to hospitals and other providers so that the providers are forced to charge much higher rates for the same services to all other payers and uninsured patients.
Highmark and IBC typically get discounts averaging 80 percent off of billed charges. Aetna and United Healthcare, the two largest competitors are lucky to get discounts averaging 60 percent off of billed charges and everyone else gets an average of 20 percent off if they get any discounts at all. This huge advantage has not only kept any competition from entering their regions, but also has diminished the market share of any existing competitors. All of these practices and activities are anti-competitive and in my view constitute serious antitrust violations.
If the proposed merger is allowed to occur, it would put the proverbial icing on this cake and complete what obviously was a well thought out strategy to build a monopoly that was concocted more than 10 years ago. The culmination of this plan is to combine the two entities into a single company. While there may be some economies resulting from this combination, past conduct would lead one to believe that there is no real intention to use them to lower the costs of their products and pass them on to consumers.