Connect with us

Alaska

Anchorage Superior Court sides with state on repeal of rule meant to control health care costs

Published

on

Anchorage Superior Court sides with state on repeal of rule meant to control health care costs


An Alaska judge is backing the state’s decision to repeal a longstanding rule that was meant to keep down health care costs in the state.

Under the 80th percentile rule, which was repealed by the administration of Gov. Mike Dunleavy in January 2024, insurance companies were required to pay out-of-network providers at least the 80th percentile of the average going rate for a medical service.

The rule prevented Alaska patients from receiving large medical bills for out-of-network care. But the Dunleavy administration and the state’s biggest insurance company, Premera Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alaska, argued the rule also increased the cost of health care over time.

The repeal was broadly opposed by dozens of health care providers across the state, who said the removal of the rule will make it harder for them to stay afloat while benefiting insurance companies that are headquartered in the Lower 48.

Advertisement

If insurance companies significantly lower their reimbursement rates, providers said, keeping their doors open may no longer pencil out.

A coalition of providers sued in late 2023 to keep the rule in place, arguing that the Division of Insurance had not sufficiently proven that the rule was responsible for increases in the cost of health care in Alaska.

The case went to trial in February. Late last month, Anchorage Superior Court Judge Yvonne Lamoureux ruled in favor of the state.

“The evidence at trial established the Division (of Insurance) did not make the repeal decision lightly,” Lamoureux wrote in her ruling, concluding that the repeal was “not unreasonable or arbitrary.”

In a statement, Dr. John Morris, an anesthesiologist who spearheaded the lawsuit on behalf of the health care providers, said the coalition is “disappointed with the ruling.”

Advertisement

“Each year insurers pay physicians and healthcare providers less for the same care but somehow also blame doctors for rising health insurance costs,” Morris said. “We remain committed to bringing health care costs down while making sure our seniors and veterans have a doctor to see. This ruling doesn’t help.”

The Division of Insurance had considered repealing the rule for over a decade as part of its efforts to address rising health care costs in Alaska. Premera, an insurance company that controls a large share of Alaska’s individual insurance market, was strongly in favor of the repeal.

Former Division of Insurance Director Lori Wing-Heier previously indicated that repealing the rule would lead to a reduction in Premera’s premium rates by between 2% and 3%.

In reality, rates are set to remain largely unchanged next year, after massive increases in the preceding three years, according to Premera’s federal filings. Premera executives contend that premiums would have gone up substantially next year had the rule remained in place.

At stake in the lawsuit was the question: What is driving the sky-high cost of health care in Alaska? Premera and the state contended that the answer, in part, was that Alaska’s health care providers were charging ever-higher prices because of the 80th percentile rule, thus driving up costs for consumers. Health care providers said that it is insurance companies like Premera that are driving up costs while providers themselves struggle to afford to keep their doors open.

Advertisement

A study from the Medical Group Management Association released last year found that primary care providers in Alaska are the lowest-paid in the country. Advanced specialists, meanwhile, are among the highest paid, the study found.

Court filings indicated that Premera did, in fact, save millions of dollars in 2024, after the rule was repealed. But it was not immediately clear whether the savings for the insurance company were passed along to consumers through lower health care bills.

The end result of the repeal of the rule may be that more Alaska providers join and remain in-network with Premera and other large insurance companies. In 2024, 1,000 providers moved in-network in Alaska, according to testimony from Wing-Heier. No providers reported to the Division of Insurance needing to close their doors due to the repeal, Wing-Heier testified.





Source link

Advertisement

Alaska

Alaska Supreme Court to take up case on Dan J. Sullivan, decision expected by Tuesday

Published

on

Alaska Supreme Court to take up case on Dan J. Sullivan, decision expected by Tuesday


JUNEAU, Alaska (KTUU) – The Supreme Court of Alaska will be taking up the case of the State of Alaska, Division of Elections v. Daniel J. Sullivan, Jr.

The oral arguments will be held Monday at 10 a.m. via Zoom, according to an order and opening notice.

The document also specifies that a decision is expected to be made before noon on Tuesday.

According to documents from the Division of Elections, the state must start printing ballots at noon on the same day.

Advertisement

This comes after an Anchorage Superior Court Judge ordered Dan J. Sullivan on to the ballot Friday.

See a spelling or grammar error? Report it to web@ktuu.com

Copyright 2026 KTUU. All rights reserved.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Alaska

Mat-Su Initial Attack Responding to Fire in Flat Lake

Published

on

Mat-Su Initial Attack Responding to Fire in Flat Lake


An engine and firefighters from the Division of Forestry & Fire Protection’s Mat-Su Area are responding to a fire near Flat Lake.

A caller reported a fire on an island in Flat Lake, with 2 foot flame lengths and structures near by.

The engine crew responding will be shuttled by boat to the fire. The fire is currently reported as .1 acre, creeping and smoldering.

Advertisement

Additional updates will be shared as they become available.

‹ Pioneer Peak Hotshots, Gannett Glacier Crew Join Fight Against 2 Fires Near Ruby

Categories: Active Wildland Fire

Tags: #FireYear2026 #2026AKFIRESEASON, 2026 Alaska Fire Season



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Alaska

Opinion: Alaska’s $10,000 question: Leave or stay?

Published

on

Opinion: Alaska’s ,000 question: Leave or stay?


A new home under construction in Potter Valley in Anchorage. (Loren Holmes / ADN)

This June, two very different offers reach Alaska families, and both amount to the same thing: $10,000. The difference is everything.

Bill Walker, running for governor, would hand every eligible Alaskan a one-time $10,000 check and then end the Permanent Fund dividend for good. Ask one question: Where does his $10,000 come from?

It comes from the Permanent Fund, the people’s own money and the savings Alaskans built for their children. Walker would spend that endowment once to pay Alaskans to give up the yearly dividend forever.

Think about what that does. It cancels the annual check that gives a family a reason to keep an Alaska address and replaces it with a single payout. You hand people their own savings, call it a gift and cut the tie that held them here in the same motion. It is the oldest mistake in governing money: raid what you have saved to buy a moment’s applause and call the spending generosity.

Advertisement

A plan that spends the people’s savings to send the people away is not bold. It is foolish.

Now consider the other $10,000. Through Alaska Housing Finance Corp., the state offers families up to $10,000 to build a new, energy-efficient home. AHFC raids nothing. It earns its own way. Over the years, it has returned more than $2 billion to the state treasury, and it spends some of that income the way any good business does: to win a customer.

Here, the customer is an Alaskan who wants to own a home, put down roots and stay.

That is the oldest sound move in business: Invest a little of what you earn to bring in someone who stays. The homeowner remains, the community gains a family and the corporation keeps earning. The money spent comes back. A plan that puts earnings to work to bring people home is not charity. It is clever.

Same amount. Opposite source. Opposite wisdom. One spends savings; the other spends earnings. One pays Alaskans to leave; the other pays them to stay. One empties the state; the other fills it.

Advertisement

This Homeownership Month, the choice is the size of a single check, and the whole question is where the check comes from and what it asks of you. Ten thousand dollars of your own fund, to wave you goodbye. Or $10,000, earned and reinvested, to help you stay and build.

Evan Swensen is the publisher of Publication Consultants in Anchorage and the author of “What’s the Money For: A Permanent Fund Mortgage Proposal.”

• • •

The Anchorage Daily News welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)adn.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Read our full guidelines for letters and commentaries here.





Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending