Washington Post hypes insurance industry claims

[Mick Jagger]

Washington Post hypes insurance industry claims; doesn't bother to assess credibility​

October 12, 2009 11:41 am ET

by Jamison Foser

The Washington Post's Ceci Connolly "reports" on the insurance industry's assault on health care reform:

After months of collaboration on President Obama's attempt to overhaul the nation's health-care system, the insurance industry plans to strike out against the effort on Monday with a report warning that the typical family premium in 2019 could cost $4,000 more than projected.

...

Industry officials said they intend to circulate the report prepared by PricewaterhouseCoopers on Capitol Hill and promote it in new advertisements. That could complicate Democratic hopes for action on the legislation this week.

...

Though open to dispute, the analysis is certain to raise questions about whether Obama can deliver on his twin promises of extending coverage to millions of uninsured Americans while also curbing skyrocketing health-care costs.​

Connolly then quoted from the report, and quoted an insurance industry spokeswoman. Eventually, near the end of the article, Connolly finally got around to including some disagreements with the study's conclusions. But she didn't make any attempt to answer for readers a rather basic question: Is the insurance industry study correct?

Nor did she spend any time at all putting PricewaterhouseCoopers' involvement in context. It seems like they're a neutral, credible source, right? But as the Washington Post's Ezra Klein explains elsewhere, the firm's track record isn't particularly good:

The report was farmed out to the consultancy PricewaterhouseCoopers, which has something of a history with this sort of thing: In the early-'90s, the tobacco industry commissioned PWC to estimate the economic devastation that would result from a tax on tobacco. The report was later analyzed by the Arthur Andersen Economic Consulting group, which concluded that "the cumulative effect of PW's methods ... is to produce patently unreliable results." It's perhaps no surprise that the patently unreliable results were all in the tobacco industry's favor.
​

That seems like some useful context that could have helped Connolly's readers, doesn't it? Klein goes on to point out glaring flaws in the insurance industry study -- flaws that are nowhere to be found in Connolly's article. Instead, Connolly leads with the alarming conclusion that the "typical family" could pay $4,000 more for health care -- and makes no attempt to assess the validity of that claim. She doesn't even explain what "typical family" means.

Could someone explain to me why Connolly's write-up is on the front page of the Washington Post, and Klein's is on a blog on the Post's web page?

UPDATE: TNR's Jonathan Cohn posted at 10:56 last night an assessment of the study that noted it makes a series of "strange assumptions" that calls its conclusions into question. Like this one, which Cohn quotes directly: "We have estimated the potential impact of the tax on premiums. Although we expect employers to respond to the tax by restructuring their benefits to avoid it, we demonstrate the impact assuming it is applied."

So the insurance industry study is based on assumptions it believes are false. That's a pretty damning piece of information, isn't it? Jonathan Cohn posted it online last night -- but Ceci Connolly couldn't be bothered to include it in her write-up of the insurance industry's attack for today's Washington Post.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/200910120003

 

[Mick Jagger]

Hopes for Passing a Public Option​

One of the most high-profile progressives in the House of Representatives argued on Monday that a new insurance lobby report disparaging the Senate's main reform effort gives an unexpected and strong boost to hopes for passing a public option.

Appearing on MSNBC, Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) was asked about the hot news of the day on the health care front: a new report commissioned by America's Health Insurance Plans, which concluded that, under the Senate Finance Committee's legislation, family premiums would rise more than $4,000.

While dismissing the report's findings as typical of an industry that seeks to protect its profits, the New York Democrat also made a fairly salient point. The analysis basically assumes that insurers will raise their rates because the finance committee won't make the pool of consumers more desirable for them. All of which lays out the logical case for providing consumers with a cheap and available alternative, set up and administered by the federal government.

"I think in a strange way and obviously they didn't mean this, the health insurance lobby fired the most important salvo in weeks for the option," said Weiner. "Because they have said clear as day... they'll raise rates 111%."

"Here is a tell," Weiner offered earlier. "If you have the health care industry complaining that we're going to raise costs because of these changes, it is then putting us on notice that we haven't put enough cost containment in the bill. You know if the health care industry themselves is putting out a whole report saying that, that should be a tell to the Baucus team that, you know what, maybe it is time to go back and revisit the public option.

"But the other thing that is interesting here is the deal was always good for the health care guys. Look, you'll get all these new customers coming in and that is going to be the reason that you're going to take a hair cut here. But make no mistake about it, if the health care industry keeps raising costs, and I think this is what's going to happen with the Baucus bill, we'll put new requirements on them, they raise costs. And whatever subsidies we are giving people to buy their own insurance, they won't be able to afford it And we'll keep on losing people. This is the whole argument for the public option. It is right here laid out by the health care industry right now."

The congressman's argument seems eminently logical. Indeed, champions of the public option essential make the case that the provision is necessary because private insurers won't simply bring costs down on their own. The report commissioned by AHIP and put together by PricewaterhouseCoopers hints as much -- making the case that the finance committee's bill can't and won't reduce long term costs because it does not require enough young, healthy consumers to buy insurance.

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/12/weiner-ahip-report-makes_n_317561.html

 

[shagdrum]

UPDATE: TNR's Jonathan Cohn posted at 10:56 last night an assessment of the study that noted it makes a series of "strange assumptions" that calls its conclusions into question. Like this one, which Cohn quotes directly: "We have estimated the potential impact of the tax on premiums. Although we expect employers to respond to the tax by restructuring their benefits to avoid it, we demonstrate the impact assuming it is applied."

So the insurance industry study is based on assumptions it believes are false. That's a pretty damning piece of information, isn't it? Jonathan Cohn posted it online last night -- but Ceci Connolly couldn't be bothered to include it in her write-up of the insurance industry's attack for today's Washington Post.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/200910120003

Assumptions it believes are false...but are included in the legislation! Interesting how Media Matters ignores that fact.

Another point raised by Cohn's post is that, "this accounting [in the report] leaves out some pretty big things, starting with the subsidies that would help people buy insurance." However, Cohn either ignores or is too uninformed to realize that those subsidies have absolutely nothing to do with actual cost.

So we have Media Matters lies aimed primarily at attacking the messenger; an ad hominem attack.

Since we are allowing fallacious arguments here, Media Matters, due to their habitual dishonest, is automatically discredited in their points here, regardless of the legitimacy (or lack thereof) of those points.

Also, the whole point about PricewaterhouseCoopers supposed bias in the example about the tobacco companies is discredited because the analysis supposedly discrediting it is conducted by Arther Anderson. The ties to Enron negate that.

Also, Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) is a proven habitual liar and has no credibility as well. So, under your standard, his claims have to be rejected.

...or are you advocating some sort of double standard here?

 

[Mick Jagger]

Assumptions it believes are false...but are included in the legislation! Interesting how Media Matters ignores that fact.

Another point raised by Cohn's post is that, "this accounting [in the report] leaves out some pretty big things, starting with the subsidies that would help people buy insurance." However, Cohn either ignores or is too uninformed to realize that those subsidies have absolutely nothing to do with actual cost.

So we have Media Matters lies aimed primarily at attacking the messenger; an ad hominem attack.

Since we are allowing fallacious arguments here, Media Matters, due to their habitual dishonest, is automatically discredited in their points here, regardless of the legitimacy (or lack thereof) of those points.

Also, the whole point about PricewaterhouseCoopers supposed bias in the example about the tobacco companies is discredited because the analysis supposedly discrediting it is conducted by Arther Anderson. The ties to Enron negate that.

Also, Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) is a proven habitual liar and has no credibility as well. So, under your standard, his claims have to be rejected.

...or are you advocating some sort of double standard here?

You're a hoot, dude.

 

[shagdrum]

You're a hoot, dude.

I will take that as a 'yes'.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

With this "report", being released the day before the vote on the Bauchus bill the insurance industry has spoken quite clearly they have no interest whatsoever in helping consumers of health care services and are only interested in protecting their profits. THEY ARE THE ENEMY of any tangible healthcare reform that actually will benefit the consumers and lower out-of-pocket costs. This blatant arrogance should be a wake-up call for all of our lawmakers to finally say "screw you" to the insurance industry and put in a strong public option, or better yet, give them what they really deserve, a single-payer health care system.

 

[hrmwrm]

With this "report", being released the day before the vote on the Bauchus bill the insurance industry has spoken quite clearly they have no interest whatsoever in helping consumers of health care services and are only interested in protecting their profits. THEY ARE THE ENEMY of any tangible healthcare reform that actually will benefit the consumers and lower out-of-pocket costs. This blatant arrogance should be a wake-up call for all of our lawmakers to finally say "screw you" to the insurance industry and put in a strong public option, or better yet, give them what they really deserve, a single-payer health care system.

our province finally removed monthly premiums at the beginning of the year.
used to be $80/mnth.

 

[shagdrum]

With this "report", being released the day before the vote on the Bauchus bill the insurance industry has spoken quite clearly they have no interest whatsoever in helping consumers of health care services and are only interested in protecting their profits.

Yes, that is clearly what these action means. There is no other logical possibility. The facts the PricewaterhouseCoopers group point out should obviously be disregarded out of hand.

You might want to read up on those links I provided so you don't continue mistakenly making the same type of flawed, fallacious arguments in the future.

THEY ARE THE ENEMY of any tangible healthcare reform that actually will benefit the consumers and lower out-of-pocket costs. This blatant arrogance should be a wake-up call for all of our lawmakers to finally say "screw you" to the insurance industry and put in a strong public option, or better yet, give them what they really deserve, a single-payer health care system.

Nice to know you are keeping a level head in analyzing and forming opinions on these things and not approaching it emotionally. Sanctimonious indignation has no sway on you.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...ft-out-of-report-prepared-for-ahip-report.php

Accounting Firm Admits Cost Savings Left Out Of Report Prepared For AHIP Report

Christina Bellantoni | October 13, 2009, 10:12AM

Accounting giant PricewaterhouseCoopers has issued a statement about the audit it performed for America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) that we have been following closely.

Most notable about the statement, issued late last night, is an acknowledgment the cost savings from the bill weren't included, though PWC points out that is noted on page one of the report.

The statement in full after the jump.

America's Health Insurance Plans engaged PricewaterhouseCoopers to prepare a report that focused on four components of the Senate Finance Committee proposal:
*Insurance market reforms and consumer protections that would raise health insurance premiums for individuals and families if the reforms are not coupled with an effective coverage requirement.
*An excise tax on employer-sponsored high value health plans.
*Cuts in payment rates in public programs that could increase cost shifting to private sector businesses and consumers.
*New taxes on health sector entities.

The analysis concluded that collectively the four provisions would raise premiums for private health insurance coverage. As the report itself acknowledges, other provisions that are part of health reform proposals were not included in the PwC analysis. The report stated on page 1:

"The reform packages under consideration have other provisions that we have not included in this analysis. We have not estimated the impact of the new subsidies on the net insurance cost to households. Also, if other provisions in health care reform are successful in lowering costs over the long term, those improvements would offset some of the impacts we have estimated."

This PROVES AHIP/the insurance industry cannot be trusted to talk honestly about health care reform. They pay for an inherently biased "independant report", then release it on the eve of an important finance commitee vote in a clear attempt to intimidate the senate members on that commitee into voting against the bill.

Tell me Shag, what IS your connection to the insurance industry? Your blind, illogical, fact-free defense of them MUST be motivated by something. Is your mommy an insurance agent?

 

[shagdrum]

Actually, I have already confronted the points about the subsidies (see post #3 of this thread) and the supposed "cost cutting measures" are deceptive at best and only seem to cut costs through a static analysis, which is inherently unreliable. The measures are a joke and will (in many instances) likely lead to an increase in costs. To assume that they would cut costs is an unrealistic assumption that would ruin the analysis.