Auditor general threatens UPMC over dispute with Highmark
The pressure on hospital giant UPMC to extend contracts with competitor Highmark ratcheted up Wednesday when the state auditor general threatened UPMC with an audit if it doesn't let Highmark insurance customers into its hospitals after 2014.
Eugene DePasquale, a Democrat elected to statewide office in November, said taxpayer money supports UPMC, giving him authority to examine the hospital network's books.
“Pittsburgh has world-class hospitals that have been supported with public funds through grants and tax exemptions,” he said at a news conference Downtown. “Therefore, not a single person should be denied access to the care they need because of the health insurance they carry.”
He said UPMC receives a large portion of more than $1 billion in Medicaid funding that the state distributes in Western Pennsylvania and has received $64 million in state grants to support expansion of its facilities.
UPMC, which owns 19 hospitals in the region, has said it will not offer contracts to Highmark because it is a direct competitor now that it has completed its purchase of West Penn Allegheny Health System.
UPMC spokesman Paul Wood declined to respond directly to DePasquale's threat. But he said Highmark members who want to keep in-network access to UPMC should switch insurers to UPMC Health Plan, Aetna Inc., Cigna Corp. or United Healthcare.
“Highmark's plans will be built on steering substantial numbers of their policyholders away from their preferred world-class UPMC doctors and hospitals, instead forcing them into a less-than-desired WPAHS,” Wood said.
UPMC is facing criticism from some Harrisburg lawmakers for its stance — although most have been Democrats so far. Republicans control the state House and Senate.
Gov. Tom Corbett, a Republican who mediated an 18-month extension of the UPMC-Highmark relationship last year, hasn't taken a position on whether contracts should be extended further.
Christine Cronkright, a Corbett spokeswoman, said the governor is monitoring the situation. She declined to comment further and referred questions to the state Insurance Department.
Melissa Fox, an Insurance Department spokeswoman, said there is little the department can do under state law to force the two health care titans to work together.
Last year, a majority of House lawmakers, led by Republican representatives from Western Pennsylvania, passed an amendment to state law giving the insurance commissioner power to force health insurers and hospital systems into contracts. Although the bill never became law, the action was credited with forcing UPMC to grant the contract extension that gives Highmark members access through the end of 2014.
Highmark, which owns the state's largest health insurance company, completed its $1.1 billion acquisition of West Penn Allegheny last week, giving it five hospitals for its new health system, which is called Allegheny Health Network. The new system, which also owns Jefferson Regional Medical Center and St. Vincent Health System in Erie, plans to compete with UPMC for patients in Western Pennsylvania.
Highmark spokesman Aaron Billger said all of its Allegheny Health Network hospitals will be open to all health insurers, and UPMC should do the same.
“After all, our local hospitals were built for the community with support from tax dollars, corporate contributions and generous community donors,” he said.
Alex Nixon is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-320-7928 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
Add Alex Nixon to your Google+ circles.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Pittsburgh Brewing tries to reconnect with region, return to glory days
- Hotels, restaurants lead job additions in Pittsburgh region
- EPA hearings to bring coal debate to Pittsburgh streets
- Consol Energy posts $25 million loss despite gas gains
- Hiring in shale industry shifts to engineering, construction workers
- Engine that quits a mystery
- Construction of $500M power plant in South Huntingdon stalled
- Central Blood Bank parent in merger talks with Florida system
- FAA proposes $12M safety fine against Southwest
- Stocks end with little change as investors await Fed moves, jobs report
- Chrysler recalls up to 792K Jeep SUVs for ignition switch defect