Politics
Insurers Nervous Over Prospect Of Romney’s Victory
You’d think health insurance CEOs would be chilling the bubbly with Republican Mitt Romney’s improved election prospects, but instead they’re in a quandary.
Although the industry hates parts of President Barack Obama’s health care law, major outfits such as UnitedHealth Group and BlueCross Blue Shield also stand to rake in billions of dollars from new customers who’ll get health insurance under the law. The companies already have invested tens of millions to carry it out.
Were Romney elected, insurers would be in for months of uncertainty as his administration gets used to Washington and tries to make good on his promise repeal Obama’s law. Simultaneously, federal and state bureaucrats and the health care industry would face a rush of legal deadlines for putting into place the major pieces of what Republicans deride as “Obamacare.”
“There are a lot of dollars and a lot of staff time that’s been put into place to make this thing operational,” G. William Hoagland, until recently a Cigna vice president, said of the health care law.
Insurers “are not going to be out there saying, ‘Repeal, repeal, repeal,’” said Hoagland, who oversaw public policy at the health insurance company. “They will probably try to find the particular provisions that cause them heartburn, but not throw the baby out with the bath water.”
Likewise, America’s Health Insurance Plans, the major industry trade group, isn’t talking about what its members are telling the Romney campaign, though informal discussions are under way through intermediaries. Insurers like Romney’s plan to privatize Medicare, and some point out that it looks a lot like Obama’s approach to covering the uninsured.
Robert Laszewski, an industry consultant and blogger, says the tension is becoming unbearable.
“I spend a lot of time in executive offices and board rooms, and they are good Republicans who would like to see Romney win,” said Laszewski. “But they are scared to death about what he’s going to do.”
There is no consensus among Republicans in Congress on how to replace Obama’s law, much less anything like a bipartisan middle ground on health care, a necessity if the House retains its GOP majority and the Senate remains in Democratic hands.
In contrast, Obama’s law is starting to look more and more like a tangible business opportunity. In a little over a year, some 30 million uninsured people will start getting coverage through a mix of subsidized private insurance for middle-class households and expanded Medicaid for low-income people. Many of the new Medicaid recipients would get signed up in commercial managed care companies.
A recent PricewaterhouseCoopers study estimated the new markets would be worth $50 billion to $60 billion in premiums in 2014, and as much as $230 billion annually within seven years.
“I think it’s limited what they’ll be able to accomplish in terms of repeal,” said Coffina. “We have to remember that Romney implemented very similar legislation” as governor of Massachusetts.
If Romney wins he’s more likely to reduce the scope and scale of the law, Coffina added. Possibilities include delaying all or parts of the new coverage, particularly a Medicaid expansion that GOP governors don’t like.
The industry has three items in particular it wants stripped out: cuts to Medicare Advantage private insurance plans; a requirement that insurers spend 80 percent of premiums on medical care or rebate the difference to their customers; and new taxes on insurance companies. But CEOs don’t share the visceral objection that many Republicans have to a bigger government role in health care.
Industry executives “are Republicans in the sense that they’re worried about the bottom line and they want to retain private sector involvement,” said Hoagland, the former Cigna vice president. “But some of their bottom line is now driven by Medicare and Medicaid. So it’s not like they’re red or blue. It’s more like purple.”
On Wednesday, the House of Representatives passed, through a second reading, a bill seeking to retain immunity for the Office of the President and remove immunity from the Vice President, the Governors and the Deputy Governors.
The bill was one of the 42 considered and passed through the second reading stage during plenary presided over by the Deputy Speaker, Mr Benjamin Kalu, in Abuja.
Sponsored by Hon. Solomon Bob (Rivers PDP), the bill is seeking the amendment of Section 308 of the 1999 Constitution to guard against abuse of office and to ensure transparency in governance.
The long title of the proposed legislation read: “A Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, to qualify the immunity conferred on the President, remove the immunity conferred on the Vice President, the Governors and their deputies, in order to curb corruption, eradicate impunity and enhance accountability in public office and for related matters.”
Key amendments include changes to Section 308 of the Constitution, which currently grants immunity to the president, vice president, governors, and deputy governors while in office.
The proposed bill will amend subsection 3 to ensure that immunity only applies to the President and the vice president when acting as President under Section 145 of the Constitution.
Additionally, a new subsection 4 will be introduced to make the immunity clause inapplicable if the office holder is acting in an unofficial capacity, engaging in actions beyond the powers of the office, or involved in criminal conduct.
“The bill seeks to foster transparency and strengthen the fight against corruption by making public officials more accountable for their actions, both in and out of office.”
“Section 308 of the principal Act is amended by:(a) substituting a new subsection (3) as follows: “(3) This section applies to a person holding the office of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the Vice President only when acting as President, in line with Section 145 of this Constitution.
Creating sub section (4) thereto as follows:”(4) The foregoing provisions of this section shall be inapplicable where the person to whom this section applies is acting in an unofficial capacity or where the conduct of the person is beyond the powers of his office or the conduct is criminal in nature.
“This Bill may be cited as the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Alteration) Act 2024.
The bill is currently awaiting further debate and consideration by the National Assembly.
The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has written to notify Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, the senator representing Kogi Central, about the petition by constituents seeking her recall from the national assembly.
INEC said it has also received the contact details of the petitioners.
“Pursuant to section 69 of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, as amended, I write to notify you of the receipt of a petition from representatives of registered voters in your constituency seeking your recall from the senate.
“The notification is in line with the provisions of clause 2 (a) of the Commission’s Regulations and Guidelines for Recall 2024.
“This letter is also copied to the presiding officer of the senate and simultaneously published on the commission’s website. Thank you”, the letter read.
The letter was signed by Ruth Oriaran Anthony, secretary to the commission.
Meanwhile, in a statement issued on Wednesday, INEC said it has now received the updated contact details from representatives of petitioners seeking to recall the senator.
In the statement, Sam Olumekun, INEC’s National Commissioner and Chairman of Information and Voter Education, said a letter notifying the senator of the petition has been delivered to her official address, copied to the senate presiding officer, and published on the commission’s website.
“The next step is to scrutinise the list of signatories submitted by the petitioners to ascertain that the petition is signed by more than one half (over 50%) of the registered voters in the constituency. This will be done in the coming days.
“The outcome, which will be made public, shall determine the next step to be taken by the Commission. We once again reassure Nigerians that the process will be open and transparent”, Mr Olumekun said.
Sen. Akpoti-Uduaghan had recently accused Senate President Godswill Akpabio of sexually harassing her.
The allegation came in the wake of seating arrangement related altercation between Senator. Akpabio and the Kogi Central senator at the red chamber
She was subsequently suspended from the senate for six months for “gross misconduct” over the incident.
The constituents behind the recall move also accused her of “gross misconduct, abuse of office, and deceitful behaviour”.
The senator has denied wrongdoing and called the recall effort a “coordinated suppression” of her voice.
The House of Representatives on Wednesday passed the second reading of a bill to upgrade the Lagos State 37 Local Council Development Areas (LCDAs) to full-fledged Local Government Areas (LGAs ).
The bill, was sponsored by James Faleke, Babajimi Benson, Enitan Badru, and 19 other lawmakers.
The bill is titled “A Bill for an Act to Alter the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) to Accommodate the Thirty-Seven (37) Development Area Councils of Lagos State as Full-Fledged Local Government Areas, Increasing the Total Number of Local Government Areas in the Federation to Eight Hundred and Eleven (811), and for Related Matters (HB. 1498),”
Once fully enacted, Nigeria’s total number of LGAs will rise from 774 to 811, with Lagos overtaking Kano and Katsina, which currently have 44 and 34 LGAs, respectively.
Proponents of the bill argue that granting full LGA status to the LCDAs would bring governance closer to the people. The 37 LCDAs were created by President Bola Tinubu in 2003 when he was governor of Lagos State.
However, it’s worth noting that the Lagos State House of Assembly has been working on a bill to replace the 37 LCDAs with newly designated administrative areas.