Two years after bowing to its critics and suspending five-figure annual pay for directors, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts is reinstating the compensation — though at reduced levels and to fewer board members.
The state’s largest health insurance carrier will pay part-time board members who chair committees a maximum of $54,500. That is down from the $78,60 before the public outcry over how much directors were paid at nonprofit insurers regulated as public charities. Blue Cross will pay other directors no more than $47,000, down from $58,600 in 2011.
Comments
Of course they deserve compensation It is hard work feeding on the healthcare system. The insurance parasites add so much value to patient care.
Then you must be happy that the Affordable Care Act is going to really clamp down on this, setting very strict limits on the percentage of health care dollars that insurers must spend on patient care versus administrative costs. Of course, BCBS of MA (and Harvard-Pilgrim, Tufts, and Fallon) already meet these strict limits, so might not matter that much here. We are fortunate here in MA to have very well run, well regarded health insurers, consistently rated as the top providers in the country. Our rates may be high, but you get what you pay for.
No PL the so called ACA does not clamp down on the insurance parasites, it just writes their control of the system into law. It does nothing to cut the massive administrative costs they force on providers. It does nothing to control prior authorization or time spent on “peer to peer” calls. It does not place restrictions on the insurance industry death panels. The truth is every penny spent on the care and feeding of the insurance industry is money completely wasted. That money could be used to provide care or bring down costs for patients.
The ACA completely ignores the fact that health insurance and healthcare are completely different things. But then the goal of the ACA was not to provide healthcare to the American people. It is just another corporate welfare program.
The information about the board makeup is incomplete. Is there a representative from Primary Care medicine? Is there a representative from Mental Health? In the midst of a mental health crisis in the country including an epidemic of gun violence and mass shootings, in the midst of a Primary Care environment which is struggling to provide the foundation for overall care, these voices need to be heard on the board. Instead there is a report about a representative from another insurance company. What kind of input is that going to bring that will offer a counterpoint to the opinions of Blue Cross management? Likely very little. What kind of counterpoint is going to come from Bain? One can only imagine. The business mentality overlayed on health care has been a problem since the mid 1980's. There is a cultural divide between the business mindset and the health care provider mindset. This is a snapshot of a takeover by a group of people who truly are profoundly clueless as to what it means to provide health care to another individual. And they are being paid more per hour to make policy decisions about health care than many of the providers who are caring for people.
The decision to renew board payments continues to be a point of debate. As pointed out in the article, payments in excess of many of the Blue Cross subscribers annual salary for the amount of work provided is a slap in the face to the ordinary person trying to buy health care. And the overall makeup of the board as it is described here raises very serious questions about the core beliefs and goals of Blue Cross as a social institution.
The system is seriously broken.
Uh, oh, get ready for another huge "Golden Parachute" retirement package in the millions plus lifetime healthcare with overwhelming board approval. Meanwhile BC/BS premiums and co-payment fees for its subscribers will rise accompanied by BC/BS reasoning that will cause the average subscribers eyes to roll. Please report the number of boards that each of the board members sit on in addition to their regular jobs. And please reveal the compensation and time spent serving for each if publicly allowable and available.
This a a rain drop in the ocean, and accounts for, at most, a couple of pennies for what we pay for our BCBS coverage. All the other non-profits pay their boards, no surprise that BCBS, being the largest, would pay top dollar. I do find it odd that the COO of Dana-Farber would be appointed. While I'm sure she is an honest and honorable person, a good chunk of Dana-Farber's revenue must come from BCBS.
Check out The Boston Herald story on this issue as well. This is is a classic example of how the same, inward looking circle of people feast on special perks. It seems that the size of the board at 17, is required so that there is room for politically connected people to gorge on the largess.
Thanks, Boston Globe, for keeping the focus upon this story. Hopefully, BC BS leadership will have learned some important lessons from the "Clive" and "inside board members" ordeal, but like many of the commenters here, count me in as one of the doubtful Thomases.
I, too, think it would be helpful to see what other company boards these members are simultaneously sitting upon.
Talk about being powerless, when Clive was ousted (because he wasn't any good) the outrage when he got that huge payout was deafening. Yet, what happened? Absolutely nothing. There is no justice here - N O N E!!!!
Is BCBS still not available for our public sector folks receiving GIC health care? Why not? I suggest the Globe dig into to this. There's more to this story than we've heard thus far.