Skip to main content

PA judge rules that it's OK for "non-profit" Highmark to make "incidental" profit of $1.2 billion

From the Pittsburgh Post Gazette:

Highmark Inc. has not accumulated "excess profits" in violation of state law, and its executives make a "reasonable" salary, according to a judge's dismissal of a lawsuit that had been filed against the insurer. 
The state's largest health insurer was sued two years ago by Philadelphians Herman Wooden and Thomas Logan, both former nonvoting "lay" members of a since-disbanded Highmark advisory committee serving the company's board of directors. 
Both of the plaintiffs argued that the $1.2 billion in profits that Pittsburgh-based Highmark had earned from 2005 to 2009 was excessive. 
This month, Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Patricia McInerney also rejected arguments that Highmark shouldn't be able to reinvest money in its for-profit subsidiaries and that the company awarded improper bonuses to its executives. 
In an Aug. 8 order, the judge wrote that the "plaintiffs' argument is logical and compelling. However, the judiciary is not the proper arm of government to restrain this particular charity's acquisitiveness." The legislature and the executive branch "are the ones who must say whether the accumulation of substantial profits by a nonprofit health insurer is improper."
Clearly feeling hamstrung by the letter of the law, Judge McInerney ruled in favor of Highmark of narrow technical grounds, but included in her opinion phrases like:
this particular charity's acquisitiveness... 
the public may look ... aghast at the high level of compensation paid to the executives of this supposedly 'nonprofit' corporation...
And, yes, those of us in Delaware were part of the Highmark "incidental" profits:
In 2012, Highmark reported $432.3 million in profits, a figure that includes assets absorbed when the insurer acquired Blue Cross Blue Shield of Delaware. Much of that income was driven by the company's three main subsidiaries -- vision, dental and reinsurance units -- which, together, had net income of $193.6 million. 
The company's "surplus" reserves grew slightly, from $4.1 billion in 2011 to $4.14 billion in 2012.
One of the reasons that Highmark's "surplus" reserves grew by $30 million in 2012 was being released from a requirement (thanks, Patti Blevins and Karen Weldin Stewart) from a requirement to maintain such a "surplus" reserve in Delaware to the tune of $175 million.

Free markets are a great thing.  But a market in which a company like Highmark can claim non-profit status while racking up $1.2 billion in "incidental" profit from it 35 for-profit subsidiaries is NOT a free market.

It is a market "regulated" (and I use the term with vomit in the back of my throat) by the State government to the advantage of Pittsburgh profiteers (and Delaware sell-outs) who are laughing all the way to the bank.

I think I actually did throw up (just a little) when Judge McInerney described Highmark as a "charity."

Comments

Anonymous said…
Are these surpluses part of the regulated RBC they must carry?
beconerik said…

Thank you again for another” feel good, uplifting, that there are good people in this world story”. We read so many stories that are negative about people and what they do to others. A random act of kindness is always such a great thing to hear about. Peace and blessings.
Business consultancy dorset
With a proven track record and our specialist knowledge we will prove our efficiency! We will show you the way to Success Business restructuring dorset.We pride ourselves on professionalism and knowledge. We will apply all our resources and commit to your success Business Rescue dorset.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...