THE HILL
 

No anti-trust exemption for health insurers (Rep. Raúl Grijalva)

By Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.) - 10/22/09 01:25 PM ET

When I announced my support for a full repeal of the health insurance industry’s anti-trust exemption yesterday, I was thinking of three things: regulatory fairness, consumer protection and the economy. If we’re going to fix the problems in our health care industry, we need a policy that adequately addresses all three.

Repealing the exemption is fair because, frankly, the status quo is unfair. Members of most American industries are forbidden to fix prices, create de facto local monopolies or divvy up the country in ways that hurt consumers. We need to make sure health insurance is subject to these same unobjectionable regulations.

The policy I support protects consumers by giving the Federal Trade Commission the power to investigate alleged wrongdoing by insurance providers and, if necessary, to sanction guilty parties. Health insurance companies today argue that state anti-trust laws are enough to keep them honest. In fact, few industries enjoy such lax oversight. With many states seeing major budgetary shortfalls, who believes there’s enough regulatory authority at the state level to truly protect consumers? Giving the FTC the support it needs, and should have had in the first place, is the best way to guard against future predatory business practices.

Tightening up these regulations will help the economy by cutting overall health care expenses. When people – for instance, in rural areas – are denied coverage by the only insurer within 50 miles, they don’t just sit at home hoping to get well. They go to the emergency room, and that costs everyone money. We need to make sure insurers play by the rules because we’ve seen what happens to health care costs when they don’t.

The exemption granted in the 1945 McCarran-Ferguson Act was only intended to last until lawmakers addressed the issue more comprehensively. Let’s eliminate it now and tell the government to treat health insurance the way it treats the rest of the economy.

Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva is co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

Source:
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/healthcare/64345-no-anti-trust-exemption-for-health-insurers-rep-raul-grijalva-

Comments (6)

Thank's for caring about the people.For eight years, we were left behind,Rep Raul Grijalva.BY Bettye Andrews on 10/23/2009 at 00:17
That's fine. Now then, let's add tort reform, term limits for Congress and a line item veto for the 2012 President - not Barry O. Then, Congress gets the same health plan I have to buy. No raises or increase in benefits for Congress unless approved by the voters- or let's cut benefits by 90% just like the pay czar wants for over-paid CEOs. Each member of Congress should have to pass a test on the Constitution- Justice Roberts will grade your test. Then you must abide by the Constitution. Go directly to jail- do not pass Go - if you don't pay your taxes or decide to become a lobbyist.BY Superlou on 10/23/2009 at 00:17
No anti-trust exemption for health insurers is great just dont try an sneak in any union garbage or other trash with the bill.BY ANN on 10/23/2009 at 11:02
Great idea, albeit a bit late in the game. Big Insurance already has near monopolies in most major healthcare markets, so any removal of exemptions from anti-trust will have to dismantle a cartel-like situation that's been building for years. What are the odds that'll happen? Leaving anti-trust matters to the states is a fallacious idea and Big Insurance knows it. The vast majority of employers covered by the Blue Cross, Cigna, United Healthcare, Aetna, and others have health plans that are already exempt from state laws by virtue of ERISA anyway. So states' influence over the way the way these giants do business has always been minimal. It's going to take a federal effort to have any impact at all.But I personally won't hold my breath on this one. Given the extent to which Big Insurance lobbyists have influenced the healthcare debate to their own benefit thus far, it's likely they'll do the same thing with any anti-trust efforts.Good luck.BY AJ Lester on 10/23/2009 at 14:16
While I appreciate your motives, I doubt creating even more federal oversight will improve anything. The insurance companies and their lobbyist have influenced you, our representatives for years. If all regulations that prohibit purchasing health insurance across state lines were eliminated it would do more for cost reduction than anything you propose. Furthermore, the real solution to fight the high costs of healthcare would simply force the hospitals, doctors and medical providers to publish the costs of tests and procedures and let the American people shop for services as they do for everything else they buy. I don't have coverage, I try to inquire as to prices of tests, etc. and have had providers laugh and hang up the phone. I'd like to see a regulation that forced providers to publish rates for procedures for those that are uninsured or want to go out of net-work under their plans. Would you buy a car without first knowing the price that will be charged?BY R.Nierenberg on 10/26/2009 at 06:30
If you say "free and fair market", then they, who supposedly believe a free and fair market is essential to economic success, say "too much regulation". If people are to be governed by laws and regulations, why should corporate entities be any different? And why is ANY industry exempt from antitrust laws? Isn't it obvious that the distortions in the health care market are a direct result of the McCarran-Ferguson Act? Conservatives don't want any change unless it comes from the Republican Party or the Conservative Party, regardless of whether it benefits the country or not.BY grasshopper818 on 11/08/2009 at 10:18

Add Comment

Name (required)

E-Mail (will not be published) (required)

Your Comments

You need Flash Player 8 (or higher) and JavaScript enabled to view this content

Get latest news from The Hill direct to your inbox, RSS reader and mobile devices.