Crimefighters at the Justice Department put on their antitrust capes today, filing a lawsuit against Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan. The DOJ alleges the insurance company violated antitrust laws by asking hospitals to sign contracts that precluded other insurers from offering a better discount.
From Reuters:
There are two types of clauses criticized by the antitrust division. One requires the hospitals to charge other commercial insurers more than Blue Cross is charged, while another type bars the hospitals from giving Blue Cross’ rivals a deeper discount than Blue Cross receives, according to court papers.
The DOJ says that such clauses cause “substantial harm to the marketplace,” and effectively let the insurance company determine the level at which its rivals can set prices.
A rep for BCBS tells Reuters something very different — that the lawsuit will just lead to higher health care prices for the people of Michigan:
This lawsuit is without merit, and we will vigorously defend our ability to negotiate the deepest possible discounts for our members and customers with Michigan hospitals.
U.S. Justice Dept sues Michigan Blue Cross [Reuters]
More From Consumerist
-
Exec Who Looked Other Way As Countrywide Sold Off Bad Mortgages Is Now Running Chase’s Foreclosure Review Dept.
-
Senators Call Out Attorney General For Treating Banks Like They Are “Too Big To Jail”
-
Barnes & Noble Says Government’s Proposed Settlement Would Hurt E-Book Buyers
-
UPS Hit With $40 Million Settlement In Illegal Online Pharmacy Probe
-
Former Asurion Staffer Shares Insider Tips On Making Cellphone Insurance Claims
What doesn’t lead to higher health care prices these days?
+1
Dying. Death care prices, on the other hand…
I think different deaths exist on different price lines. Although I do agree with you, just stating Death will not do. Some deaths will raise the prices of health care for the living. This is what we should be studying, in hopes of lowering Health care for the living. Cheap death versus expensive wasteful death.
Public options.
See, Now I pay for My insurance AND the public option with it being seeded with federal funds and all.
How does limiting your competition help you set the lowest prices for your customers?
If you set the contractually-obligated lowest price, well … you’ve literally set the lowest price.
BCBS is right – this will lead to higher prices, because if BCBS has to compete with other insurance companies, it’ll mean that customers can see that BCBS’ prices are higher than those offered by the other insurance companies.
Hell, the health insurance premium for my wife and myself went from $884/month to $1029/mo back in September and that’s still the cheapest I’ve paid in the last five years.
We pay $850/month and I’m terrified to see what it will be at renewal time.
If I got insurance through my employer, it’s like $950 a month for a family of 4 with a $3000 yearly deductable *per person* and a $200 yearly prescription deductable per person.
So basically you’d spend like $12000-$15000 a year for insurance if you used it moderately. Now, keep in mind, the average employee that works here makes about $7.50 an hour.
One more reason to assure me not having kids is the smart thing to do.
I’m sorry, I really don’t want to rub it in, but reading comments like that is so hard to believe. My supplementary insurance provided through my work costs me about $20 a month, and covers prescription drugs, dental, and even things like massage and chiropractics (to a limited degree). Any direct care through physicians and hospitals is automatically covered.
I just don’t know how anyone can afford monthly bills like that. My parents raised 6 kids, two of whom required fairly frequent medical care (for asthma and repeated knee problems). I don’t know how they could have done that if they lived in the US.
**Edit- but comments like that are so hard to believe.
“the lawsuit will just lead to higher health care prices for the people of Michigan”
“we will vigorously defend our ability to negotiate the deepest possible discounts for our members and customers with Michigan hospitals”
So basically what they’re saying here is, they’ll decide what the lowest price is, and if you don’t like it, they’ll start jacking up rates.
Oh! I wonder if this has to do with why my company dropped HAP and will only offer BCBS next hear.
GM?
Yes. It won’t make a big difference for me, but it’ll be less convenient.
Do you still have to deal with Delta Dental? My Dad’s a dentist and I remember hearing horror stories growing up at how terrible they were to deal with on his side.
Actually, this is common in the commercial setting, it’s called a “most favored nations” clause. Lot’s of companies ask for them, but rarely get them. But why have the prohibition? Just put in that you’ll get the best price of all the hospital’s customers, period. Putting in the belt and suspenders language saying that you can’t give someone a deeper discount is what got you in trouble.
I don’t see anything wrong with the second kind of contract… how is that any different from hollywood contracts where a star demand that nobody make more than them? And it does help customers get the best prices because if another insurer does manage to get lower prices, then BCBS automatically gets them too. In fact, I see this as a way of insuring the best prices for insurers/customers
Can you read???
“[The clause] bars hospitals from giving Blue Cross’ rivals a deeper discount than Blue Cross receives.”
Another insurer can’t get a better discount since the contract with BCBS strictly forbids it. This isn’t helping competition at all. It’s completely eliminating it for BCBS.
Can you think? With your brain? Somebody else not getting a deeper discount than BCBSM means that if they want that deeper discount, BCMSM has to get it too. A lot of other industries have contracts like that.
The problem is in the wording. I know it sounds strange but saying that the hosptial will always give BCBS the lowest price is very different than saying you are prohibited from giving another insurance provider a better deal. Functionally, they result in the same thing, but by prohibiting the hospitals ability to set prices with another insurance company, you’ve engaged in anti-competitive behavior. Chances are, this was drafted by a lawyer who decided he wanted belt and suspenders and now the suspenders could end up hanging them.
The fact that BCBS gets to dictate the prices of the competition makes it so that their price is always “the lowest price.” However, this does not mean that their price would not be lower with actual competition, or that the competitors prices could be lower without the anticompetitve agreement.
I should point out by the way that BCBS of Mi is a non-profit insurer and generally has the most customer-friendly policies in my experience
wish my experiences with BcBs were like yours.
fair and reasonable my foot.
I completely disagree with you. Their customer service is non-existent after 5 PM and they won’t send you a contract explaining their acceptance policies and coverages. Humana has reasonable hours and sent me a complete contract explaining what will be covered.
b…b…b..but…if we harass poor BCBS, well…that will lead us to OMGWTFBBQ SOCIALISM!!!1111 What about our FREE-DOMZ!!!11
Maybe they meant that this lawsuit will force BCBS to charge more…