Tag Archives: insurers

Texas Republicans take ESG battle to insurers – The Hill

  1. Texas Republicans take ESG battle to insurers The Hill
  2. ESG and climate change: ‘Woke capitalism’ or smart business? USA TODAY
  3. Hearing Wrap Up: ESG Agenda Prioritizes Leftist Ideology Over the Interests of the American People – United States House Committee on Oversight and Accountability House Committee on Oversight and Reform |
  4. Republican states move to block giant asset manager’s ESG push for utility companies The Hill
  5. Watch: Katie Porter mocks GOP at House hearing for portraying investment firm as a ‘commie organization’ Raw Story
  6. View Full Coverage on Google News

Read original article here

Some auto insurers are refusing to cover some Hyundai and Kia models



CNN
 — 

Progressive and State Farm, two of America’s largest auto insurers, are refusing to write policies in certain cities for some older Hyundai and Kia models that have been deemed too easy to steal, according to the companies.

Several reports say the companies have stopped offering insurance on these vehicles in cities that include Denver, Colorado and St. Louis, Missouri. The insurance companies did not tell CNN which cities or states were involved.

The Highway Loss Data Institute released insurance claims data last September that confirmed what various social media accounts had been saying: Some 2015 through 2019 Hyundai and Kia models are roughly twice as likely to be stolen as other vehicles of similar age, because many of them lack some of the basic auto theft prevention technology included in most other vehicles in those years, according to the HLDI.

Specifically, these SUVs and cars don’t have electronic immobilizers, which rely on a computer chip in the car and another in the key that communicate to confirm that the key really belongs to that vehicle. Without the right key, an immobilizer should do just that – stop the car from moving.

Immobilizers were standard equipment on 96% of vehicles sold for the 2015-2019 model years, according the HLDI, but only 26% of Hyundais and Kias had them at that time. Vehicles that have push-button start systems, rather than relying on metal keys that must be inserted and turned, have immobilizers, but not all models with turn-key ignitions do.

Stealing these vehicles became a social media trend in 2021, according to HLDI, as car thieves began posting videos of their thefts and joyrides and even videos explaining how to steal the cars. In Wisconsin, where the crimes first became prevalent, theft claims of Hyundais and Kias spiked to more than 30 times 2019 levels in dollar terms.

“State Farm has temporarily stopped writing new business in some states for certain model years and trim levels of Hyundai and Kia vehicles because theft losses for these vehicles have increased dramatically,” the insurer said in a statement provided to CNN. “This is a serious problem impacting our customers and the entire auto insurance industry.”

Progressive is also cutting back on insuring these cars in some markets, spokesman Jeff Sibel said in an emailed statement.

“During the past year we’ve seen theft rates for certain Hyundai and Kia vehicles more than triple and in some markets these vehicles are almost 20 times more likely to be stolen than other vehicles,” he wrote. “Given that we price our policies based on the level of risk they represent, this explosive increase in thefts in many cases makes these vehicles extremely challenging for us to insure. In response, in some geographic areas we have increased our rates and limited our sale of new insurance policies on some of these models.”

Progressive continues to insure those who already have policies with the company, he said. Progressive is also providing them with advice on how to protect their vehicles from theft.

Michael Barry, a spokesman for the Insurance Information Institute, said it was very unusual for auto insurers to simply stop writing new policies on a given make or model of vehicle.

“They generally want to expand their market share depending on where they’re doing business,” he said.

Hyundai and Kia operate as separate companies in the United States, but Hyundai Motor Group owns a large stake in Kia and various Hyundai and Kia models share much of their engineering.

Engine immobilizers are now standard on all Kia vehicles, according to a statement by the automaker and the company says it has been developing and testing security software for vehicles not originally equipped with an immobilize. Kia said it has begun notifying owners of the availability of this software, which is being provided at no charge.

Hyundai said it is providing free steering wheel locks to some police departments around the country to give local residents who have easily stolen Hyundai models. Hyundai dealers are also installing free security kits for the vehicles, the company said.

Read original article here

Ship insurers to cancel war cover for Russia, Ukraine from Jan. 1

LONDON, Dec 28 (Reuters) – Ship insurers said they are cancelling war risk cover across Russia, Ukraine and Belarus, following an exit from the region by reinsurers in the face of steep losses.

Reinsurers, who insure the insurers, typically renew their 12-month contracts with insurance clients on Jan. 1, giving them the first opportunity to scale back exposure since the war in Ukraine started, after being hit this year by losses related to the conflict and from Hurricane Ian in Florida.

P&I (protection and indemnity) clubs American, North, UK and West are no longer able to offer war risk cover for some liabilities in the region from Jan. 1, they said in recent notices on their websites. The clubs are among the biggest P&I insurers who cover around 90% of the world’s ocean-going ships.

UK P&I Club said on Dec. 23 that the issue had arisen because of a lack of availability of reinsurance for reinsurers, also known as retrocession.

“The Club’s reinsurers are no longer able to secure reinsurance for war risk exposure to Russian, Ukrainian or Belarus territorial risks,” it said.

American P&I said on Dec. 23 that it had received a “notice of cancellation” for the region from its war risk reinsurers and was cancelling its own insurance as a result.

Ships typically have P&I insurance, which covers third-party liability claims including environmental damage and injury. Separate hull and machinery policies cover vessels against physical damage.

The withdrawal of cover for Ukraine and Russia applies to some but not all types of policy offered by the P&I clubs, three P&I insurance sources said.

“This is being driven by reinsurance,” said Stephen Rebair, deputy global director, underwriting at North, adding that reinsurers were limiting their exposure to the region and “those exclusions have to be passed down the line”.

The exclusions will make it harder for charterers to find insurance, increase prices and may mean some ships sail uninsured, industry sources say.

Providers of reinsurance and retrocession include global players Hannover Re (HNRGn.DE), Munich Re (MUVGn.DE) and Swiss Re (SRENH.S), as well as syndicates in the Lloyd’s of London (SOLYD.UL) market. The firms all declined to comment.

Reuters reported earlier this month that a proposed contract clause being circulated by reinsurers excluded war-related claims for both planes and ships in Ukraine, Russia and Belarus.

The Japanese government has urged insurers to take on additional risks to continue providing marine war insurance for liquefied natural gas (LNG) shippers in Russian waters, a senior official at the industry ministry said this week.

Reporting by Carolyn Cohn and Jonathan Saul in London
Editing by Muralikumar Anantharaman and Matthew Lewis

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Read original article here

Insurers shun FTX-linked crypto firms as contagion risk mounts

Dec 19 (Reuters) – Insurers are denying or limiting coverage to clients with exposure to bankrupt crypto exchange FTX, leaving digital currency traders and exchanges uninsured for any losses from hacks, theft or lawsuits, several market participants said.

Insurers were already reluctant to underwrite asset and directors and officers (D&O) protection policies for crypto companies because of scant market regulation and the volatile prices of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.

Now, the collapse of FTX last month has amplified concerns.

Specialists in the Lloyd’s of London (SOLYD.UL) and Bermuda insurance markets are requiring more transparency from crypto companies about their exposure to FTX. The insurers are also proposing broad policy exclusions for any claims arising from the company’s collapse.

Kyle Nichols, president of broker Hugh Wood Canada Ltd, said insurers were requiring clients to fill out a questionnaire asking whether they invested in FTX, or had assets on the exchange.

Lloyd’s of London broker Superscript is giving clients that dealt with FTX a mandatory questionnaire to outline the percentage of their exposure, said Ben Davis, lead for digital assets at Superscript.

“Let’s say the client has 40% of their total assets at FTX that they can’t access, that is either going to be a decline or we’re going to put on an exclusion that limits cover for any claims arising out of their funds held on FTX,” he said.

The exclusions denying payout for any claims arising out of the FTX bankruptcy are found in insurance policies that cover the protection of digital assets and for personal liabilities of directors and officers of companies that deal in crypto, five insurance sources told Reuters. A couple of insurers have been pushing for a broad exclusion to policies for anything related to FTX, a broker said.

Exclusions may act as a failsafe for insurers, and will make it even more difficult for companies that are seeking coverage, insurers and brokers said.

Bermuda-based crypto insurer Relm, which previously has provided coverage to entities linked to FTX, takes an even stricter approach.

“If we have to include a crypto exclusion or a regulatory exclusion, we’re just not going to offer the coverage,” said Relm co-founder Joe Ziolkowski.

D&O QUESTION

Now, one of the most pressing questions is whether insurers will cover D&O policies at other companies that had dealings with FTX, given the problems facing exchange’s leadership, Ziolkowski said.

U.S. prosecutors say former FTX Chief Executive Officer Sam Bankman-Fried engaged in a scheme to defraud FTX’s customers by misappropriating their deposits to pay for expenses and debts and to make investments on behalf of his crypto hedge fund, Alameda Research LLC.

A lawyer for Bankman-Fried said on Tuesday his client is considering all of his legal options.

D&O policies, which are used to pay legal costs, do not always pay out in cases of fraud.

Insurance sources would not name their clients or potential clients that could be affected by policy changes, citing confidentiality. Crypto firms with financial exposure to FTX include Binance, a crypto exchange, and Genesis, a crypto lender, neither of which responded to e-mails seeking comment.

While the least risky parts of the crypto market, such as companies that own cold wallets storing assets on platforms not connected to the internet, may get cover for up to $1 billion, a D&O insurance policyholder’s cover may now be limited to tens of millions of dollars for the rest of the market, Ziolkowski said.

The FTX collapse will also likely lead to a rise in insurance rates, especially in the U.S. D&O market, insurers said. The rates are already high because of the perceived risks and lack of historical data on cryptocurrency insurance losses.

A typical crime bond — used to protect against losses resulting from a criminal act — would cost $30,000 to $40,000 per $1 million of coverage for a digital assets trader. That compares with a cost of about $5,000 per $1 million for a traditional securities trader, Hugh Wood Canada’s Nichols said.

Reporting by Noor Zainab Hussain in Bengaluru and Carolyn Cohn in London; Editing by Lananh Nguyen and Anna Driver

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Read original article here

Financial screws turned on Russia as insurers exit, London stocks halted

  • LSE halts trading in Russia-related GDRs
  • Trade insurers withdraw from Russian risk
  • Investors continue selling Russian assets
  • Deutsche Bank tests Russia tech centre

LONDON, March 4 (Reuters) – Russia’s global financial isolation intensified on Friday as the London Stock Exchange (LSE) suspended trading in its last Russian securities and some insurers withdrew cover from exporters over Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine.

Banks, investors and insurers have in recent days ratcheted up that pressure by exiting investments in Russia and halting the provision of their services.

The LSE said it had suspended global depositary receipts (GDRs), which represent shares in a foreign company, for eight Russian companies, including Magnit and Sistema, after freezing trading in 28 firms on Thursday. read more

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Register

The trading halts come as Britain, the European Union and the United States continue to roll out financial sanctions on Russia to prevent its companies from accessing Western markets.

In another turning of the screws on Moscow, trade credit insurers, who provide a financial safety net for exports and imports, are pulling back from covering businesses exporting to Ukraine and Russia given the risks of sanctions, high claims or missed payments, industry sources said. read more

The move in the nearly $3 trillion global market will heap further pressure on Russia’s already teetering economy.

“In this last week, trade credit insurers will have paused supporting new risk for Ukraine and Russia,” said Nick Robson, global leader for credit specialties at insurance broker Marsh.

European Union officials are also examining curbing Russia’s influence and access to finance at the International Monetary Fund following the invasion, six officials told Reuters. L2N2V71XO

“For its part, Washington will continue to embrace multilateral sanctions, [and] target the wealth of Russian oligarchs as part of a pressure campaign,” Isaac Boltansky, policy director for brokerage BTIG wrote in a note on Friday.

INVESTORS OUT

British insurer and asset manager Royal London became the latest Western investor to say it will sell its Russian assets as soon as possible, after a rush of similar announcements in recent days.

“We can’t trade these things anyway, but as soon as we can, we obviously intend to divest,” Royal London Chief Executive Barry O’Dwyer told Reuters. read more

The CEO of another major British investment group, Schroders, said on Thursday Russian stocks and bonds are now “in the realms of utterly uninvestable”. read more

Swiss wealth manager Julius Baer (BAER.S) has halted new business with wealthy Russians, two sources familiar with the bank’s operations told Reuters. read more

Some investors are however piling into funds linked to Russia, seeing current distressed levels as a potentially cheap entry point for Russian assets. read more

Deutsche Bank (DBKGn.DE) said it has been stress-testing its operations in Russia, where it employs some 1,500 workers in a major technology centre, as banks with a significant Russian presence grapple with the ramifications of its growing financial isolation.

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Register

Reporting by Carolyn Cohn and Lawrence White, additional reporting by Michelle Price, Tom Sims and Frank Siebelt in Frankfurt, editing by Alexander Smith, Jonathan Oatis and David Gregorio

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Read original article here

Minnesota health insurers passing more COVID costs to patients

Minnesota health insurers are passing more costs of COVID care to patients as health plans start treating some expenses from pandemic illness like those with other ailments.

The move means a growing number of Minnesotans sickened by the virus are joining patients across the country in paying for a portion of their pandemic health care out-of-pocket.

Since Jan. 1, the state’s nonprofit insurers have been requiring patients covered by individual and certain employer-group health plans to make co-pay, deductible and co-insurance payments when seeking care for COVID-19.

The wide availability of vaccines, which are proven to help people avoid serious illness and hospitalizations, prompted the recent change, health plans say.

“COVID vaccinations are a good way for Minnesotans to safeguard their health, stay out of the hospital and avoid the potentially large bill,” the Minnesota Council of Health Plans, a trade group for the nonprofit insurers, said in a statement.

These fees were previously waived due to an agreement made in April 2020 between the state and the insurers. Such fees are described as “cost-sharing” by the insurance industry.

The shift doesn’t mean the pandemic is over.

Health plan enrollees are continuing to receive COVID-19 tests without cost-sharing. The industry trade group says some people in Medicare and Medicaid health plans will continue to see cost-sharing fees waived for acute COVID-19 treatment and hospitalizations until the public health emergency ends. And there’s no cost-sharing for patients in any plan who receive certain monoclonal antibody treatments that can prevent the worst of the disease.

Even so, the decision by the Minnesota health plans matches the national trend to reinstate cost-sharing in several areas, said Cynthia Cox, a vice president at the California-based Kaiser Family Foundation.

“Only a relative handful of insurers were still waiving costs by the end of 2021, so I would be surprised if there are many left that are still waiving these costs now,” Cox said in an e-mail.

“The issue of cost-sharing during the pandemic raises questions about fairness,” she added. “On one hand, if so many people are susceptible to a potentially serious viral infection, is it fair for insurers to make patients face a deductible? On the other hand, why should a cancer patient have to pay their deductible if a COVID-19 patient doesn’t?”

Waiving cost-sharing was necessary early in the pandemic to remove barriers to treatment for patients, said Lucas Nesse, the chief executive of the Minnesota Council of Health Plans. Now that vaccines are widely available, it makes sense to reinstate co-pays, deductibles and co-insurance fees because they help moderate the cost of monthly premiums, he said.

“The lower the premiums, the more enrollment there will be,” Nesse said. “Having broader enrollment leads to stable pools of insurance and broader access to care.”

Plus, by continuing to waive cost-sharing, insurers might worry they’re creating a “moral hazard,” said Sayeh Nikpay, a health economist at the University of Minnesota.

If patients know health insurers won’t make them pay out-of-pocket for COVID-19 care, Nikpay said, they might be less motivated to get vaccinated.

Though that moral hazard doesn’t apply to everyone, she said.

“There are going to be some folks who will continue to get severely ill when they contract COVID, even when they’ve been fully vaccinated and received a booster because they have underlying comorbid conditions,” Nikpay said in an e-mail. “So, this policy is kind of a blunt instrument — some people could be nudged into getting vaccinated, but others will face increased financial risk from cost sharing for COVID-related treatment.”

In the early days of the pandemic, the Kaiser Family Foundation estimated people with employer coverage who were admitted for COVID-19 treatment in hospitals could routinely face out-of-pocket costs that exceed $1,300. At the time, insurers had several possible motivations for eliminating this financial risk, Cox said.

Some likely viewed it as the right thing to do, she said, while others saw that some excess profits at the time would have to be returned to consumers anyway in the form of rebates.

COVID-19 can result in a wide range of expenses depending on the severity of illness.

From 2020 to 2021, the estimate in Minnesota for the median amount paid by health plans for outpatient COVID-19 treatment was about $975, according to an analysis by FAIR Health, a New York-based nonprofit group. The estimate factors laboratory, physician and urgent care services for patients diagnosed with COVID-19 who don’t require hospitalization, according to a December report.

The medical bills skyrocket when cases become more severe. In Minnesota, the median for COVID-19 patients requiring noncomplex inpatient hospital care was $17,906. For patients hospitalized with complex cases, the statewide median jumped to $87,451.

Complex inpatient care for the most serious COVID-19 cases refers to patients admitted to a hospital and requiring a ventilator and/or intensive care unit stay, according to FAIR Health. The group uses claims data to estimate what insurers pay to health care providers for medical services.

At Minnetonka-based Medica, inpatient admissions racked up about $83 million in COVID-19 spending between October 2020 and September 2021. On average, Medica pays about 92% of the cost for medical claims, while patients pay the remaining 8% through cost-sharing payments directly to health care providers.

So, the decision to waive cost-sharing by COVID-19 patients resulted in an expense to the health insurer, since Medica paid the fees to doctors, clinics and hospitals, said Dr. John Piatkowski, a medical director at the health plan. Medica doesn’t yet have full data on its COVID-19 costs for 2021.

Medica started requiring patients to pay cost-sharing on Oct. 1 given the widespread availability of vaccines, he said.

“[We] really felt that as it was controllable and we saw the different populations being able to control their risk, that it really started to look more like some of our other medical conditions,” Piatkowski said. “We just wanted to be consistent across our policyholders.”

Eagan-based Blue Cross says it’s paid about $200 million in COVID-19 treatments with the vast majority going to inpatient hospital care.

“Because vaccines are now widely available and proven to drastically reduce the likelihood of serious illness, we felt that it was an appropriate time to transition COVID-19 treatment coverage to standard coverage,” Blue Cross said in a statement to the Star Tribune. “While the omicron variant has led to more breakthrough infections, vaccines are still proving to be highly effective at preventing serious illness — including hospitalization and death — from the COVID-19 virus.”

The six nonprofit health plans in Minnesota — Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota, HealthPartners, Hennepin Health, Medica, Sanford Health Plan and UCare — are taking different approaches to COVID-19 cost-sharing within Medicare and Medicaid health plans.

Patients with questions should contact their insurer.

Read original article here

Why Hospitals and Health Insurers Didn’t Want You to See Their Prices

This year, the federal government ordered hospitals to begin publishing a prized secret: a complete list of the prices they negotiate with private insurers.

The insurers’ trade association had called the rule unconstitutional and said it would “undermine competitive negotiations.” Four hospital associations jointly sued the government to block it, and appealed when they lost.

They lost again, and seven months later, many hospitals are simply ignoring the requirement and posting nothing.

But data from the hospitals that have complied hints at why the powerful industries wanted this information to remain hidden.

It shows hospitals are charging patients wildly different amounts for the same basic services: procedures as simple as an X-ray or a pregnancy test.

And it provides numerous examples of major health insurers — some of the world’s largest companies, with billions in annual profits — negotiating surprisingly unfavorable rates for their customers. In many cases, insured patients are getting prices that are higher than they would if they pretended to have no coverage at all.



At the University of Mississippi Medical Center, a colonoscopy costs …

$1,463

with a Cigna plan.

$2,144

with an Aetna plan.

$782

with no insurance at all.


Until now, consumers had no way to know before they got the bill what prices they and their insurers would be paying. Some insurance companies have refused to provide the information when asked by patients and the employers that hired the companies to provide coverage.

This secrecy has allowed hospitals to tell patients that they are getting “steep” discounts, while still charging them many times what a public program like Medicare is willing to pay.

And it has left insurers with little incentive to negotiate well.

The peculiar economics of health insurance also help keep prices high.

How to look up prices at your hospital (if they’re there) ›

Customers judge insurance plans based on whether their preferred doctors and hospitals are covered, making it hard for an insurer to walk away from a bad deal. The insurer also may not have a strong motivation to, given that the more that is spent on care, the more an insurance company can earn.

Federal regulations limit insurers’ profits to a percentage of the amount they spend on care. And in some plans involving large employers, insurers are not even using their own money. The employers pay the medical bills, and give insurers a cut of the costs in exchange for administering the plan.

A growing number of patients have reason to care when their insurer negotiates a bad deal. More Americans than ever are enrolled in high-deductible plans that leave them responsible for thousands of dollars in costs before coverage kicks in.

Patients often struggle to afford those bills. Sixteen percent of insured families currently have medical debt, with a median amount of $2,000.

Even when workers reach their deductible, they may have to pay a percentage of the cost. And in the long run, the high prices trickle down in the form of higher premiums, which across the nation are rising every year.



At the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, a pregnancy test costs …

$18

for Blue Cross patients in Pennsylvania.

$58

for Blue Cross HMO patients
in New Jersey.

$93

for Blue Cross PPO patients
in New Jersey.

$10

with no insurance at all.


Insurers and hospitals say that looking at a handful of services doesn’t provide a full picture of their negotiations, and that the published data files don’t account for important aspects of their contracts, like bonuses for providing high-quality care.


These rate sheets are not helpful to anyone,” said Molly Smith, vice president for public policy at the American Hospital Association. “It’s really hard to say that when a lot of hospitals are putting in a lot of effort to comply with the rule, but I would set them aside and avoid them.”

The trade association for insurers said it was “an anomaly” that some insured patients got worse prices than those paying cash.


Insurers want to make sure they are negotiating the best deals they can for their members, to make sure their products have competitive premiums,” said Matt Eyles, chief executive of America’s Health Insurance Plans.

The five largest insurers — Aetna, Cigna, Humana, United and the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association — all declined requests for on-the-record interviews. Cigna, Humana and Blue Cross provided statements that said they support price transparency.

The requirement to publish prices is a rare bipartisan effort: a Trump-era initiative that the Biden administration supports. But the data has been difficult to draw meaning from, especially for consumers.

The New York Times partnered with two University of Maryland-Baltimore County researchers, Morgan Henderson and Morgane Mouslim, to turn the files into a database that showed how much basic medical care costs at 60 major hospitals.

The data doesn’t yet show any insurer always getting the best or worst prices. Small health plans with seemingly little leverage are sometimes out-negotiating the five insurers that dominate the U.S. market. And a single insurer can have a half-dozen different prices within the same facility, based on which plan was chosen at open enrollment, and whether it was bought as an individual or through work.

But the disclosures already upend the basic math that employers and customers have been using when they try to get a good deal.

People carefully weighing two plans — choosing a higher monthly cost or a larger deductible — have no idea that they may also be picking a much worse price when they later need care.

Even for simple procedures, the difference can be thousands of dollars, enough to erase any potential savings.



At Aurora St. Luke’s in Milwaukee, an M.R.I. costs United enrollees …

$1,093

if they have United’s HMO plan.

$4,029

if they have United’s PPO plan.


It’s not as if employers can share that information at open enrollment: They generally don’t know either.


It’s not just individual patients who are in the dark,” said Martin Gaynor, a Carnegie Mellon economist who studies health pricing. “Employers are in the dark. Governments are in the dark. It’s just astonishing how deeply ignorant we are about these prices.”

A vital drug, a secret price

Take the problem Caroline Eichelberger faced after a stray dog bit her son Nathan at a Utah campsite last July.

Nathan’s pediatrician examined the wound and found it wasn’t serious. But within a week, Nathan needed a shot to prevent rabies that was available only in emergency rooms.

Ms. Eichelberger took Nathan to Layton Hospital in Layton, Utah, near her house. It hasn’t published price data for an emergency rabies vaccine, but the largest hospital in the same health system, Intermountain Medical Center, has.

Nathan, then 7 years old, received a child’s dose of two drugs to prevent rabies. The bill also included two drug administration fees and a charge for using the emergency room.

Intermountain owns a regional insurer called SelectHealth. It is currently paying the lowest price for those services: $1,284.

In the same emergency room, Regence BlueCross BlueShield pays $3,457.

Ms. Eichelberger’s insurer, Cigna, pays the most: $4,198.

For patients who pay cash, the charge is $3,704. Half of the insurers at Intermountain are paying rates higher than the “cash price” paid by people who either don’t have or aren’t using insurance.

This pattern occurs at other hospitals, sometimes with more drastic consequences for adults, who require a higher dosage.



Prices for a drug that prevents rabies


Charts include private insurers only. Prices reflect the typical dose for a 160-pound person.

Prices were still secret when Brian Daugherty went to an emergency room near Orlando, Fla., for a rabies shot after a cat bite last summer.


I tried to get some pricing information, but they made it seem like such a rare thing they couldn’t figure out for me,” he said.

He went to AdventHealth Orlando because it was close to his house. That was an expensive decision: It has the highest price for rabies shots among 24 hospitals that included the service in their newly released data sets.

The price there for an adult dose of the drug that prevents rabies varies from $16,953 to $37,214 — not including the emergency-room fee that typically goes with it.

Mr. Daugherty’s total bill was $18,357. After his insurer’s contribution, he owed $6,351.


It was a total shock when I saw they wanted me to pay that much,” said Mr. Daugherty, who ultimately negotiated the bill down to $1,692.

In a statement, AdventHealth said it was working to make “consumer charges more consistent and predictable.”

If Mr. Daugherty had driven two hours to the University of Florida’s flagship hospital, the total price — between him and his insurer — would have been about half as much.

Similar disparities show up across all sorts of basic care.

One way to look at the costs is to compare them with rates paid by Medicare, the government program that covers older people. In general, Medicare covers 87 percent of the cost of care, according to hospital association estimates.

At multiple hospitals, major health plans pay more than four times the Medicare rate for a routine colonoscopy.


Charts include private insurers only.

And for an M.R.I. scan, some are paying more than 10 times what the federal government is willing to pay.


Charts include private insurers only.

Health economists think of insurers as essentially buying in bulk, using their large membership to get better deals. Some were startled to see numerous instances in which insurers pay more than the cash rate.

Whether those cash rates are available to insured patients varies from hospital to hospital, and even when they are, those payments wouldn’t count toward a patient’s deductible. But the fact that insurers are paying more than them raises questions about how well they’re negotiating, experts said.


The worrying thing is that the third party you’re paying to negotiate on your behalf isn’t doing as well as you would on your own,” said Zack Cooper, an economist at Yale who studies health care pricing.

They don’t want their secrets out there’

Employers are the largest purchasers of health insurance and would benefit the most from lower prices. But most select plans without knowing what they and their workers will pay.

To find out what the prices are, they would need to solicit bids for a new plan, which can frustrate employees who don’t want to switch providers.

It also requires the employers to hire lawyers and consultants, at a cost of about $50,000, estimated Nathan Cooper, who manages health benefits for a union chapter that represents Colorado sheet metal and air-conditioning workers.


If you want the prices, you have to spend to get them,” he said.



At hospitals in the Erlanger Health System in Tennessee, administration of a flu vaccine costs …

$104

with a Blue Cross plan.


Employers who do sometimes come up empty-handed.

Larimer County, in Colorado, covers 3,500 workers and their families in its health plan. In 2018, county officials asked their insurer to share its negotiated rates. It refused.


We pushed the issue all the way to the C.E.O. level,” said Jennifer Whitener, the county’s human resources director. “They said it was confidential.”

Ms. Whitener, who previously managed employer insurance contracts for a major health insurer, decided to rebid the contract. She put out a request for new proposals that included a question about insurers’ rates at local hospitals.

A half dozen insurers placed bids on the contract. All but one skipped the question entirely.


They don’t want their secrets out there,” Ms. Whitener said. “They want to be able to tout that they’ve got the best deal in town, even if they don’t.”

Hospitals and insurers can also hide behind the contracts they’ve signed, which often prohibit them from revealing their rates.


We had gag orders in all our contracts,” said Richard Stephenson, who worked for the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association from 2006 until 2017 and now runs a medical price transparency start-up, Redu Health. (The association says those clauses have become less common.)



At Memorial Regional Hospital, in Florida, an M.R.I. costs …

$1,827

with a Cigna plan.

$2,148

with a Humana plan.

$2,455

with a Blue Cross plan.

$262

with a Medicare plan.


Mr. Stephenson oversaw a team that made sure the gag orders were being followed. He said he thought insurers were “scared to death” that if the data came out, angry hospitals or doctors might leave their networks.

Warnings, but no fines





The Eichelberger family at home. Last summer Nathan, second from right, was bitten by a stray dog and needed a rabies shot. The family originally received an estimate that it would cost about $800 paying cash, but later received a surprise bill for over $2,000 more.Lindsay D’Addato for The New York Times

Ms. Eichelberger’s plan had a $3,500 deductible, so she worked hard to find the best price for her son’s care.

But neither the hospitals she called nor her insurer would give her answers.

She made her decision based on the little information she could get: a hospital, Layton, that said it would charge her $787 if she paid cash. The price for paying with insurance wouldn’t be available for another week or two, she was told.

But even the cash price didn’t turn out to be right: A few weeks after the visit, the hospital billed her an additional $2,260.






It turns out that the original estimate left out a drug her son would need.


It was the most convoluted, useless process,” said Ms. Eichelberger, who was able to get the bill waived after five months of negotiations with the hospital.

Daron Cowley, a spokesman for Layton’s health system, Intermountain, said Ms. Eichelberger received the additional bill because “a new employee provided incomplete information with a price estimate that was not accurate.”

The health system declined to comment on prices at its hospitals, saying its contracts with insurers forbid discussing negotiations.

It’s not clear how much better the Eichelbergers would do today.

The new price data is often published in hard-to-use formats designed for data scientists and professional researchers. Many are larger than the full text of the Encyclopaedia Britannica.

And most hospitals haven’t posted all of it. The potential penalty from the federal government is minimal, with a maximum of $109,500 per year. Big hospitals make tens of thousands of times as much as that; N.Y.U. Langone, a system of five inpatient hospitals that have not complied, reported $5 billion in revenue in 2019, according to its tax forms.

As of July, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services had sent nearly 170 warning letters to noncompliant hospitals but had not yet levied any fines.

Catherine Howden, a spokeswoman for the agency, said it expected “hospitals to comply with these legal requirements, and will enforce these rules.”

She added that hospitals that do not post prices within 90 days of a warning letter “may be sent a second warning letter.”

The agency plans to increase the fines next year to as much as $2 million annually for large hospitals, it announced in July.

The hospital that treated Ms. Eichelberger’s son has begun posting some information. But it has spread its prices across 269 web pages. To look for rabies, you have to check them all. It isn’t there.


At the Biggest U.S. Hospitals, Few Prices Are Available

Six months after the new rules took effect, The Times reached out to the 10 highest-revenue hospitals that had posted little or no data about their negotiated rates or cash prices. Here’s what they had to say:


We will not be providing a statement or comment.

N.Y.U. Langone has not published its negotiated rates or cash prices.

Services that do not have a fixed payer-specific rate are shown as variable.

Stanford Health Care has not published its cash prices. Of more than 300,000 possible combinations of insurance and medical treatment in its data file, it includes prices for 479.

We do not post standard cash rates, which typically will not reflect the price of care for uninsured patients.

Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, in Los Angeles, has not published its cash prices. The hospital initially posted a 2.5 GB data file composed almost entirely of more than one million lines that contained no data. After The Times inquired about the large file size, the hospital reduced it to a 1.4 MB file.

We have listed the fixed rates where possible and, where that is not possible, have listed them as ‘variable.’

U.C.S.F. Medical Center has not published its cash prices. Of more than eight million possible combinations of insurance and medical treatment in its data file, U.C.S.F. includes negotiated rates for 346. (U.C. Davis, which is part of the same system and has also not published its cash prices, sent an identical statement.)

The resources we provide ensure that our patients know what kind of assistance is available to them and, ultimately, what a procedure will cost them — not us.

Montefiore Medical Center, in the Bronx, has not published its negotiated rates or cash prices.

Penn Medicine is committed to transparency about potential costs.

The Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania added cash prices to its price transparency file after The Times inquired about why that data was missing.

V.U.M.C. offers a toll-free number which consumers can call if they have questions about what they may be charged for services.

Vanderbilt University Medical Center, in Nashville, has not published its negotiated rates or cash prices.

Orlando Health has worked hard over the past several years to deliver helpful pricing information to its patients.

Orlando Health has not published its negotiated rates or cash prices.

Methodist Hospital (San Antonio) did not respond to multiple requests for comment. The hospital has not published its negotiated rates or cash prices.

We are continuing to work on the machine-readable file that includes payer-negotiated rates. … It involves analyzing a daunting number of data points.

Long Island Jewish Medical Center has not published its negotiated rates or cash prices.


The largest hospitals were chosen based on gross revenue reported to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in 2018, the most recent year with full data available.


Do you have a medical bill we should investigate? Share it with us.

The New York Times is exploring the wide variation in health care prices that patients face in the United States. Medical bills help us see the prices that hospitals and insurers often keep secret. If you have a medical bill that surprised you — maybe because of a high price, or an unexpected charge — we’d love to review it.

Read original article here

In crosshairs of ransomware crooks, cyber insurers struggle

BOSTON (AP) — In the past few weeks, ransomware criminals claimed as trophies at least three North American insurance brokerages that offer policies to help others survive the very network-paralyzing, data-pilfering extortion attacks they themselves apparently suffered.

Cybercriminals who hack into corporate and government networks to steal sensitive data for extortion routinely try to learn how much cyber insurance coverage the victims have. Knowing what victims can afford to pay can give them an edge in ransom negotiations. The cyber insurance industry, too, is a prime target for crooks seeking its customers’ identities and scope of coverage.

Before ransomware evolved into a full-scale global epidemic plaguing businesses, hospitals, schools and local governments, cyber insurance was a profitable niche industry. It was accused of fueling the criminal feeding frenzy by routinely recommending that victims pay up, but kept many from going bankrupt.

Now, the sector isn’t just in the criminals’ crosshairs. It’s teetering on the edge of profitability, upended by a more than 400% rise last year in ransomware cases and skyrocketing extortion demands. As a percentage of premiums collected, cyber insurance payouts now top 70%, the break-even point.

Read more on the Kaseya ransomware attack

Fabian Wosar, chief technical officer of Emsisoft, a cybersecurity firm specializing in ransomware, said the prevailing attitude among insurers is no longer: Pay the criminals. It’s likely to be cheaper for all involved.

“The ransomware groups got way too greedy too quickly. So the cost-benefit equation the insurers initially used to figure out whether or not they should pay a ransom — it’s just not there anymore,” he said.

It’s not clear how the single biggest ransomware attack on record, which began Friday, will impact insurers. But it can’t be good.

Pressure is building on the industry to stop reimbursing for ransoms.

In May, the major cyber insurer AXA decided to do so with all new policies in France. But it is so far apparently alone in the industry, and governments are not moving to outlaw reimbursement.

AXA is among major insurers that have suffered ransomware attacks, with operations in Thailand hard-hit. Chicago-based CNA Financial Corp., the seventh–ranked U.S. cybersecurity underwriter last year, saw its network crippled in March. Less than a week earlier, the cybersecurity firm Recorded Future published an interview with a member of the Russian-speaking ransomware gang, REvil, that is skilled in pre-attack intelligence-gathering and happens to be behind the current attack. He suggested it actively targets insurers for data on their clients.

CNA would not confirm a Bloomberg report that it paid a $40 million ransom, which would be the highest reported ransom on record. Nor would it say what or how much data was stolen. It said only that systems where most policyholder data was stored “were not impacted.”

In a regulatory filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, CNA also said that its losses might not be fully covered by its insurance and “future cybersecurity insurance coverage may be difficult to obtain or may only be available at significantly higher costs to us.”

Another major insurance player hit by ransomware was broker Gallagher. Although it was hit in September, only this past week (June 30) did it disclose that the attackers may have stolen highly detailed data from an unspecified number of customers — from passwords and Social Security numbers to credit card data and medical diagnoses. Company spokeswoman Kelli Murray would not say if any cyber insurance policy contracts were on compromised servers. Nor would she say whether Gallagher paid a ransom. The criminals, from the RagnarLocker gang, apparently never posted information about the attack on their dark web leak site, suggesting that Gallagher paid.

Of the three insurance brokers that ransomware gangs claimed to have attacked in recent weeks, posting stolen data on their dark web sites as evidence, two, in Montreal and Detroit, did not respond to phone calls and emails. The third, in southern California, acknowledged being hobbled for a week.

By the time the Colonial Pipeline and major meat processer JBS were hit by ransomware in May, insurers were already passing higher coverage costs to customers.

Cyber premiums jumped by 29% in January in the U.S. and Canada from the previous month, said Gregory Eskins, an analyst at top commercial insurance broker Marsh McLennan. In February, the month-to-month jump was 32%, in March it was 39%.

In a bid to turn back ransomware-related losses — Eskins said they amounted to about 40% of cyber insurance claims in North America last year — policy renewals are carrying new, stricter rules or lowered coverage limits.

“The price has to match the risk,” said Michael Phillips, chief claims officer at the San Francisco cyber insurance firm Resilience and a co-chair of the public-private Ransomware Task Force.

A policy might now specify that reimbursement for extortion payments can’t exceed one-third of overall coverage, which typically also encompasses recovery and lost income and can include payments to PR firms to mitigate reputational damage. Or an insurer may cut coverage in half, or introduce a deductible, said Brent Reith of the broker Aon.

While some smaller carriers have dropped coverage altogether, the big players are instead retooling.

Then there are hybrid insurers like Resilience and Boston-based Corvus. They don’t simply ask potential customers to fill out a questionnaire. They physically probe their cyber defenses and actively engage clients as cyber threats occur.

“We’re monitoring and making active recommendations not just once a year but throughout the year and dynamically,” said Corvus CEO Phil Edmundson.

But is the overall industry nimble enough to absorb the growing onslaught?

The Government Accountability Office warned in a May report that “the extent to which cyber insurance will continue to be generally available and affordable remains uncertain.” And the New York State Department of Finance said in a February circular that massive industry losses were possible.

Both insured and insurers, stingy about sharing experiences and data, shoulder the blame for that, the U.K. Royal United Services Institute said in a new report. Most ransomware attacks go unreported, and no central clearinghouse on them exists, though governments are beginning to pressure for mandatory industry reporting. As a business sector, insurers are not especially transparent. In the U.S. they are regulated not by the federal government but by the states.

And for now, cyber insurers are mostly resisting calls to halt reimbursements for ransoms paid.

In a May earnings call, the CEO of U.K.-based Beazley, Adrian Cox, said “generally speaking network security is not good enough at the moment.” He said it is up to government to decide whether payments are bad public policy. CEO Evan Greenberg of the leading U.S. cyber insurer, Chubb Limited, agreed in the company’s annual report in February that deciding on a ban is government’s purview. But he did endorse outlawing payments.

Jan Lemnitzer, a Copenhagen Business School lecturer, thinks cyber insurance should be compulsory for businesses large and small, just as everyone who drives must have car insurance and seat belts. The Royal United Services Institute study recommends it for all government suppliers and vendors.

While he considers banning ransom payments problematic, Lemnitzer says it would be a “no-brainer” to compel insurers to stop reimbursing for them.

Some have suggested imposing fines on ransom payments as a disincentive. Or the government could retain a percentage of any cryptocurrency recovered from ransomware criminals, the proceeds going to a federal ransomware defense fund.

Such measures could bite into criminal revenues, said attorney Stewart Baker of Steptoe and Johnson, a former NSA general counsel.

“In the long run, it probably means that resources that are currently going to Russia to pay for Ferraris in Moscow will instead go to improve cybersecurity in the United States.”

Read original article here