U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

45–007 PDF 2008

S. HRG. 110–582 

CONSOLIDATION IN THE PENNSYLVANIA HEALTH 

INSURANCE INDUSTRY: THE RIGHT PRESCRIPTION? 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ANTITRUST, 

COMPETITION POLICY AND CONSUMER RIGHTS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JULY 31, 2008 

Serial No. J–110–115 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts 

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

JON KYL, Arizona 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

STEPHANIE A. MIDDLETON, Republican Staff Director 

NICHOLAS A. ROSSI, Republican Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ANTITRUST, COMPETITION POLICY AND CONSUMER RIGHTS

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin, Chairman 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

JEFFREY MILLER, Chief Counsel 

WILLIAM CASTLE, Republican Chief Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page 

Kohl, Hon. Herb, a U.S. Senator from the State of Wisconsin ............................ 1 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 139 

Specter, Hon. Arlen, a U.S. Senator from the State of Pennsylvania ................. 2 

WITNESSES 

Allen, Henry S., Jr., Counsel, Private Sector Advcacy Department, American 

Medical Association, Chicago, Illinois ................................................................ 17 

Balto, David, Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress, Washington, D.C . 15 

Frick, Joseph A., President and Chief Executive Officer, Independence Blue 

Cross, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania ..................................................................... 8 

Harris, Barry D., Board Chairman, Economists, Inc., Washington, D.C. ........... 19 

Laign, Michael B., President and Chief Executive Officer, Holy Redeemer 

Health System, Huntington Valley, Pennsylvania ............................................ 14 

Marshall, Samuel, President, Insurance Federation of Pennsylvania, Inc., 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania ................................................................................. 12 

Melani, Kenneth R., M.D., President and Chief Executive Officer, Highmark 

Inc., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania ............................................................................ 4 

Miller, Henry, Managing Director, Navigant Consulting, Inc., Washington, 

D.C., on behalf of UPMC Health Plan ................................................................ 20 

Scanlan, Carolyn F., President and Chief Executive Officer, the Hospital 

and Healthsystem Association of Pennsylvania, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania .. 10 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

Responses of Henry S. Allen to questions submitted by Senator Specter .......... 35 

Responses of David Balto to questions submitted by Senator Specter ............... 51 

Responses of Joseph Frick to questions submitted by Senator Specter .............. 53 

Responses of Barry C. Harris to questions submitted by Senator Specter ......... 58 

Responses of Samuel R. Marshall to questions submitted by Senator Specter .. 69 

Responses of Kenneth R. Melani, M.D., to questions submitted by Senator 

Specter .................................................................................................................. 72 

Responses of Carolyn F. Scanlan to questions submitted by Senator Specter ... 79 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Allen, Henry S., Jr., Counsel, Private Sector Advcacy Department, American 

Medical Association, Chicago, Illinois, statement and attachments ................ 86 

Balto, David, Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress, Washington, D.C, 

statement .............................................................................................................. 109 

Frick, Joseph A., President and Chief Executive Officer, Independence Blue 

Cross, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, statement .................................................. 122 

Harris, Barry D., Board Chairman, Economists, Inc., Washington, D.C., statement ...................................................................................................................... 130 

Holder, Diane, President and CEO, UPMC Health Plan and Insurance Services Division, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, statement .......................................... 140 

Laign, Michael B., President and Chief Executive Officer, Holy Redeemer 

Health System, Huntington Valley, Pennsylvania, statement ......................... 152 

Marshall, Samuel, President, Insurance Federation of Pennsylvania, Inc., 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, statement and attachment .................................. 157 

Melani, Kenneth R., M.D., President and Chief Executive Officer, Highmark 

Inc., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, statement ......................................................... 181 

Page

IV 

Miller, Henry, Managing Director, Navigant Consulting, Inc., Washington, 

D.C., statement .................................................................................................... 189 

Scanlan, Carolyn F., President and Chief Executive Officer, the Hospital 

and Healthsystem Association of Pennsylvania, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 

statement and attachment .................................................................................. 194 

WellNet Healthcare, Harry Kovar, CEO, Southampton, Pennsylvania, statement ...................................................................................................................... 210 

(1) 

CONSOLIDATION IN THE PENNSYLVANIA 

HEALTH INSURANCE INDUSTRY: THE RIGHT 

PRESCRIPTION? 

THURSDAY, JULY 31, 2008 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ANTITRUST, COMPETITION POLICY AND

CONSUMER RIGHTS, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:17 p.m., in room 

SD–226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Herb Kohl, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Kohl and Specter. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HERB KOHL, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN 

Chairman KOHL. Good afternoon to one and all. Today we will 

be examining the consolidation in the health insurance market 

with the proposed merger of the two largest health insurers in 

Pennsylvania—Highmark and Independence Blue Cross. We are 

holding this hearing at the specific request of my colleague for 

whom I have the very highest regard, Senator Arlen Specter. As 

this merger most directly impacts Pennsylvania residents, I have 

asked him to preside over today’s hearing, and he will. 

After the merger, these two insurers’ combined market share in 

Pennsylvania is estimated to be more than 70 percent. Allowing a 

single health insurer to gain such a high market share in Pennsylvania obviously raises significant competition concerns for the citizens of that Commonwealth, especially since these two companies 

apparently agreed not to compete a year ago. 

But it is also important that we consider competition in health 

insurance across the country. As health insurance costs continue to 

rise, consumers face ever increasing premiums. At the same time, 

we hear complaints from physicians and hospitals of declining reimbursements and take-it-or-leave-it contracts that negatively affect patient care. New competitors face high barriers to entry, so 

allowing high levels of concentration can have serious and lasting 

effects for many years to come as the stats point to substantial evidence of rising consolidation in an already high concentrated health 

insurance market. 

In 299 of the 313 metropolitan areas studied by the American 

Medical Association last year, health insurance was a highly concentrated insurance under Justice Department guidelines. The 

2 

number of health insurers nationwide has fallen by 20 percent 

since the year 2000, and this has clearly contributed to rising insurance rates. The AMA study found insurance rates were 12 percent lower in States with more competitive choices. 

The burden of ever rising insurance rates is borne particularly 

heavily by small businesses who find it increasingly difficult to 

offer health insurance for their own employees. And the problem of 

increasing concentration is compounded by the failure of the Justice Department to enforce the antitrust law in this insurance. 

According to the 2007 AMA study, in the last 12 years, out of 400 

health insurance mergers, the Justice Department challenged only 

two. Vigorous competition in health insurance is essential to lowering health insurance premiums for consumers, for businesses, 

and to assuring adequate payments to health care providers. 

We on the Antitrust Subcommittee will pay close attention to 

competition in health insurance markets in the months ahead. We 

will consider holding hearings on health insurance competition at 

the national level. We plan to ask the GAO to study the impact of 

consolidation on rising health insurance prices. 

For all these reasons, today’s hearing is a particularly relevant 

one for our Subcommittee, and I thank Senator Specter for his 

work on this very important issue. And so we now turn the gavel 

over to Senator Arlen Specter to preside at this hearing. 

Senator Specter. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ARLEN SPECTER, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Senator SPECTER. [Presiding.] Well, thank you very much, Mr. 

Chairman. I appreciate the outstanding work you have done on the 

Antitrust Subcommittee of Judiciary and the outstanding work you 

have done as the senior Senator from Wisconsin now for 20 years. 

It has been quite a responsibility, and you and I have worked together generally and on the Judiciary Committee, and this is a 

very important hearing, and I very much appreciate your authorizing it and turning the gavel over to me. 

Last year, I was Chairman of the Committee. I was about to say 

I ‘‘owned the gavel,’’ but you do not own anything in the U.S. Senate. It is all leased, 6 years at a time. And now I have it for part 

of the afternoon. So it is nice to have, and I will use it sparingly, 

and I hope effectively. 

As Senator Kohl has outlined, this is a very important hearing. 

The issue of health care in America is a dominant factor. Estimates 

nationally run as high as $1.7 trillion in health care expenses, and 

we have a situation where it is estimated that some 47 million 

Americans do not have health insurance. And no one knows better 

than I about the importance of good health. 

As you can tell, a Pennsylvania cable network is carrying this. 

People within the room can see it better, how pale and bald and 

thin I am compared to the way I used to be. I am just finished a 

bout of chemotherapy for Hodgkin’s, and my slogan is: ‘‘It is tough, 

but tolerable.’’ But it is a rugged process. And I have had more 

comments about my hair style than I have about my positions on 

public policy. I have had some suggestions that I should wear a 

3 

toupee, and I have rejected that. Some people say I should shave 

my head and become a sex symbol like Joe Frick or Henry Miller. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SPECTER. And I have rejected that also on the ground 

that—two grounds: number 1, my wife is opposed to it; and, number 2, I am not qualified. So I will let nature take its course. I was 

very deferential to Senator Kohl in not bringing him into Mr. Frick 

and Dr. Miller’s categories here. 

But in a very, very serious vein, it is a major matter. I note that 

the Department of Justice has given approval to the merger. I 

know that it is under consideration by the Insurance Department 

in Pennsylvania. And Congress has a keen interest with the Judiciary Committee and the Antitrust Subcommittee. 

We are aware of the considerations of economies which have 

been represented about what can be saved if there is a merger of 

Highmark and Independence Blue Cross. We are concerned at the 

same time about the market share. The projection has been made 

that Independence Blue Cross has about 30 percent of the market 

in the East, principally, and the estimate as to Highmark ranges 

from 27 to 42 percent of the market, so that competitors have a hill 

to climb, and perhaps a steep hill, and we will talk about that. 

Some of the competitors in the West have thought that the combination between UPMC and Highmark made it difficult for entry, 

and UPMC has taken a position in opposition. I have been interested to see that Temple University Medical System and the University of Pennsylvania have not taken a position. The Hospital Association has and the doctors’ associations have. So there are a lot 

of competing interests. 

We had a hearing on this matter in Philadelphia last year, and 

we thought it would be a good idea to convene another hearing and 

to explore these very important issues. 

Senator Casey could not make the hearing today. He has been 

invited to attend, and I know he will be following it very closely 

because it is a big, big matter for Pennsylvania. 

You see the lights we have here. Green means you are within the 

first 4 minutes, and yellow means you are within the last minute; 

and when the red sign goes on, it means you are supposed to stop 

talking. We have a big panel today, and we had started with six 

witnesses, and I wanted to add two more besides Dr. Melani and 

Mr. Frick, who were in favor of the merger, to have a balanced 

presentation. 

So with my red light about to go on, 5 seconds left, I would ask 

all of you to stand and raise your right hands. Do you affirm or 

swear that the testimony you are about to give before this Committee, this Subcommittee, will be the truth, the whole truth, and 

nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

Dr. MELANI. I do. 

Mr. FRICK. I do. 

Ms. SCANLAN. I do. 

Mr. MARSHALL. I do. 

Mr. LAIGN. I do. 

Mr. BALTO. I do. 

Mr. ALLEN. I do. 

Mr. HARRIS. I do. 

4 

Senator SPECTER. May the record show that each of the witnesses has answers in the affirmative. 

Our first witness today is Dr. Kenneth Melani, who is the Chief 

Executive Officer of Highmark. He began his career with the company in 1989 as a corporate medical director in the Medical Affairs 

Department, graduated summa cum laude from Washington and 

Jefferson College with a bachelor’s degree in chemistry and biology, 

and received his M.D. from Wake Forest University. 

Thank you for joining us today, Dr. Melani, and we look forward 

to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF KENNETH R. MELANI, M.D., PRESIDENT AND 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, HIGHMARK INC., PITTSBURGH, 

PENNSYLVANIA 

Dr. MELANI. Thank you, Senator, and good afternoon. My name 

is Dr. Ken Melani, and I am the President and Chief Executive Officer of Highmark. With me is Joe Frick, the President and Chief 

Executive Officer of Independence Blue Cross. We want to thank 

the Committee for the opportunity to speak to you today about why 

the proposed combination of Highmark and Independence Blue 

Cross into a new company is good for Pennsylvania and how it will 

create value for the communities in which we operate, for our customers, for health care providers, and, most of all, for the people 

of Pennsylvania. 

Since we spoke to the Senate Judiciary Committee in April 2007, 

we have been engaged in an extensive review process involving 

State and Federal regulatory agencies, with input from State and 

Federal public officials. This is an important, cooperative, and open 

process. Today, we continue this open dialog about how this combination will better serve the needs of the people of Pennsylvania. 

Our companies have a proud tradition of serving Pennsylvania as 

not-for-profit companies. For 70 years, IBC and Highmark have 

had a common mission: to help ensure that health care is available, 

affordable, and of high quality for all Pennsylvanians. 

Throughout our history, we have made health insurance programs available to everyone, regardless of age, gender, and health 

status. We have provided assistance to people in financial need, by 

subsidizing health insurance programs for children, lower-income 

individuals and families, and older adults. Moreover, we have provided financial support for health education and community health 

programs. 

At the same time, according to a study performed by a market 

research firm, Tripp-Umbach, Highmark and IBC have had a significant, positive impact on Pennsylvania, with a total annual economic impact of $4.2 billion on the State’s economy. The companies 

employ approximately 18,000 people in high-quality jobs in the 

State and purchase a significant amount of goods and services from 

Pennsylvania-based companies. 

This transaction, however, is not about the past or the present. 

It is about the future and about preserving our nonprofit status. 

And it is about laying the foundation for positive change in the way 

health care is delivered and paid for in Pennsylvania. Coming together, our two companies can remain a financially vibrant Pennsylvania-based company and achieve tangible savings and growth 

5 

opportunities of more than $1 billion that will be used to address 

health care costs, quality, and access to medical care in Pennsylvania. 

This combination will also allow us to strengthen our contribution to the Pennsylvania economy—by the way we employ people, 

by creating new businesses opportunities for Pennsylvania-based 

businesses, and by supporting the community through programs 

and services that we have historically embraced. 

The proposed combination is important given the challenging 

health environment that exists today. Health care costs are rising 

dramatically. We know that the cost of health care is making 

health insurance less affordable for businesses today. As a result, 

fewer businesses are able to maintain health care coverage, and 

more people are going to the ranks of the uninsured. We are also 

seeing more people moving to public health insurance programs, 

which means more health care coverage is being financed through 

Federal and State government programs. 

The demographics of Pennsylvania also present challenges. The 

State has an aging population that is creating more demand for 

health care services. We also have an aging workforce in many industries, including health care. This places an added strain on the 

health care system as the aging population uses more medical services. Questions are also being raised about the quality of health 

care today and the variation in medical care from community to 

community for people with the same medical conditions. 

With these critical issues facing us across Pennsylvania and nationally, rapid change is occurring in health care. Consumers are 

taking a greater responsibility for their personal health care decisions and their costs. This change is creating the need for investments in technology so people can access their own personal health 

information and have programs available to better manage their 

own health. 

As these forces shape health care, two points have become very 

critical to business success. First, scale has become increasingly important to achieve greater efficiency and lower administrative 

costs. The scale of competition has shifted from a local to a regional 

and now a national basis. We have a growing need to be a multiproduct, multi-market company to compete in the future, to spread 

our risks, and to better serve our customers. Second, there is a 

growing need for capital for investments to meet the marketplace 

demands that I outlined earlier. 

The health insurance industry is responding by consolidating. In 

the past 15 years, the top 20 insurers have substantially increased 

their share of subscribers in the commercial health insurance market. Even more significant, during the same period, large, well-capitalized for-profit insurers have gained a much larger share of commercial health insurance subscribers compared to not-for-profit 

health insurance companies. 

The largest players in health care today are WellPoint, United 

HealthCare, Aetna, and CIGNA, and anywhere from 13 million up 

to 35 million subscribers reside in each of these companies. They 

have the scale, the product diversity, and the geographic diversity 

to spread their operating costs over more subscribers. They also 

can leverage their large subscriber base to obtain better pricing 

6 

from national suppliers of laboratory services, durable medical 

equipment, radiology services, and pharmaceuticals—in contrast to 

Highmark and IBC who have, combined, 8 million members. 

Consolidation is not unique to the for-profit health insurance 

companies. It is happening in the Blue Cross/Blue Shield system 

in the United States as well. 

Today, there are 39 independent Blue Cross and Blue Shield 

companies. That is a third the number since 1980, when there were 

115 such companies. In fact, Blue Cross/Blue Shield companies operate in multiple States. These companies have gained operating 

efficiencies and can better serve their customers. 

And Pennsylvania stands alone in that we have four independent 

Blue Cross/Blue Shield companies. It is problematic because we are 

operating less efficiently than we could be by investing in redundant technologies and capabilities that add more cost to the health 

care system. 

As the two companies have looked at the changing health care 

environment and the need for greater scale and more capital, it has 

become clear that the combination of IBC and Highmark is a natural fit that would bring significant benefits to the people of Pennsylvania. The two companies have almost identical missions and 

have worked together for over 50 years to better serve the community, through programs like the Caring Foundation. We also have 

complementary products. Highmark’s vision, dental, and stop loss 

lines of business complement IBC’s pharmacy benefit management— 

Senator SPECTER. Dr. Melani, how much longer will you require? 

Dr. MELANI. About 30 seconds. 

Senator SPECTER. Go ahead. 

Dr. MELANI. Complement IBC’s pharmacy benefit management, 

third-party administration, and workers’ compensation programs. 

Together, our two companies can offer a core blend of products to 

better serve our customers on a common platform. 

What is most important is that bringing our companies together 

will not lessen competition in the commercial health insurance 

market or reduce choice in any market in Pennsylvania in the future. Our subscribers will continue to have the same wide variety 

of choice from a competitive health insurance market as they have 

today. 

Although over 100 witnesses appeared at the recent Pennsylvania Insurance Department hearings—and many others have filed 

comments with the Insurance Department—we are not aware that 

any of our over 50,000 commercial customers have complained that 

they will have less choice for insurance the day after the transaction than they have today. 

And, last, as you both well know and have articulated, the 

United States Department of Justice has twice reviewed this transaction for consolidation of the two companies and both times 

cleared the transaction under the Federal antitrust laws. 

I thank you very much. I am going to turn it over to Joe to talk 

about the benefits of the consolidation. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Melani appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

7 

Senator SPECTER. I am going to ask everybody who testifies to 

stay within the time limit. Nine witnesses and a question-and-answer session, which is very important, is going to run us very late. 

So please stay within the time limit. 

Dr. Melani, I do not intend to pursue questions after each witness, but I have listened to your testimony, and some of the generalizations you have made might be relevant to a concern on my 

mind. But I do not hear you addressing the fundamental question 

as to whether this merger, which purports to have economies of 

scale, has the potential to lower the premiums for health insurance, it will cost less for people to buy health insurance. How about 

that? That is what the consumers are interested in. How much is 

it going to cost them? Did you address that in your opening statement? 

Dr. MELANI. Senator, I did not get into the detail, but Joe has 

some of that in his comments. 

Senator SPECTER. Never mind the detail. Is it going to result in 

lower cost to the consumer? 

Dr. MELANI. It will result in lower administrative cost to the consumer. We are guaranteeing that we will fix our administrative 

fees flat for 2 years. The difficulty with the remaining part of 

health care costs is the variables; 90 percent of the health care 

costs are really in the provider side of the equation in units used 

and units paid, and it is very difficult to put a cap on what happens in the cost of health care on that side of the equation with 

so many unknown variables in that side. But the part we do control, which is administrative cost, we absolutely will guarantee a 

benefit in lower premium from that perspective. 

Other things that we will do we hope will help with the other 

part of the health care cost equation, like investments in new technology, disease management, and other capabilities. 

Senator SPECTER. Dr. Melani, candidly, I do not understand 

much of what you just said. Talking about variables, talking about 

administrative costs, I heard you say the administrative costs will 

be reduced and that will have an impact on premiums. Well, administrative costs are only one aspect of a very, very big picture. 

I would like to see you tell this Subcommittee—if not this afternoon, later—what is the impact going to be to the consumer. I am 

going to come to—I do not consider that a detail. But we will listen 

to what Mr. Frick has to say about it. But I think we need something a lot more specific on that point because that is the whole 

issue. The generalization of administrative costs being reduced and 

that being passed on to the consumer is not the big-ticket item. 

We turn now to Mr. Joseph Frick, elected President and CEO of 

Independence Blue Cross in January of 2005, previously was Senior Vice President. Prior to joining IBC, he was Vice President of 

Human Resources at Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc.; received his 

undergraduate degree from the University of Notre Dame and an 

MBA from Loyola College. 

The floor is yours, Mr. Frick, for 5 minutes. 

8 

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH A. FRICK, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, INDEPENDENCE BLUE CROSS, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. FRICK. Thank you, Senator, and I appreciate the opportunity 

to be before the Committee as well. As Ken said, our two organization have a proud tradition of serving our subscribers and our local 

communities as Blue plans, and we know we have a responsibility 

to promote the value and enhance the trust of the Blue brand, 

which serves more than one in three Americans. 

So while coming together is a logical extension of our historical 

partnership, we believe that the growth opportunities, the efficiencies, and the savings will enable us to achieve several real and 

important goals. And as you just articulated, first and foremost, we 

are committed to help make health insurance more affordable. It 

is the number 1 issue with our subscribers; we have a responsibility to do better on that issue. 

At the same time that our subscribers are demanding that we 

control costs, they also want us to invest in products and in services to help improve quality and health and health care outcomes 

and expand our efforts in promotion and wellness programs. 

Physicians, hospitals, and health care providers, who we pay 88 

cents back for every dollar of premium that we take in from our 

customers, they are valued partners in our companies’ mission of 

assuring access to high-quality networks of providers. And we are 

committed to maintaining these well-established relationships and 

enhancing incentives to ensure the delivery of high-quality care 

and keeping costs manageable. 

We will continue to be a viable and successful leader in our communities, and we expect to generate new business, which can bring 

more jobs to Pennsylvania and stimulate additional business opportunities for Pennsylvania-based business. 

Finally, we need to be more effective and use technology, and 

this combination will enable us to be a company that is easier for 

our subscribers and providers to do business with. 

And by combining our two companies—and only by combining our two companies—will we be able to generate over $1 billion in 

additional economic benefits over 6 years. And this is new money 

beyond any commitments that our two companies have today. 

These dollars will be generated by business efficiencies and 

growth opportunities that our companies could not produce individually. And unlike with consolidations of for-profit, publicly held 

companies, we pledge that every dollar of these economic benefits 

will go back to improving health care in Pennsylvania. In addition to this $1 billion, we voluntarily agreed to extend the 

Community Health Reinvestment Agreement with the Commonwealth for an additional 3 years, an estimated $350 million that 

can be used to help more Pennsylvanians obtain health care coverage. 

So for our subscribers, as Ken said, we pledge to freeze the ad- ministrative fees for 2 years. This represents $295 million in tangible savings. 

With our new pharmacy business, we believe we can save an- other $285 million on prescription drug costs which goes directly 

back to our customers. 

9 

We expect that an estimated $100 million of the efficiencies will 

be used to fund expanded health care quality programs— 

ePrescribing, personal health records, electronic medical records. 

Use of these tools leads to higher-quality care, fewer medication errors, and that does result in greater savings to subscribers in the 

long run. 

We will expand the best of the health promotion and wellness 

programs offered by our two companies, which will enable a 

healthier workforce to be more productive, consume fewer health 

services. 

We are proud of our longstanding relationships with physicians, 

hospitals, and providers. The value of our brand is based on the 

fact that we offer our customers high-quality provider networks, 

and they will remain important partners with us in the future. 

In the past few years, IBC and Highmark have invested in technology and pioneered a tool called NaviNet to simplify administrative transactions with physicians and hospitals. We will build on 

this capability so that physician offices and hospitals can spend 

more time to improve patient outcomes, patient safety, the health 

and wellness of their patients, and worry less about administrative 

tasks. 

And here is one very important point about providers. Not one dollar of the $1 billion in net economic benefits will result in any 

reductions in provider reimbursements. 

Over the past few years, Highmark and IBC have developed close 

working relationships with hospitals and physicians, partnerships 

focused on improving safety and reducing prescribing errors. The 

new company will expand these partnerships. 

Last, let me talk about how the consolidation will benefit our 

local communities. Last year, our two companies committed over 

$200 million in programs in the community, funding clinics and 

nurse scholarships, programs to reduce childhood obesity. And the 

new company intends to take all of these initiatives statewide. So 

together these commitments total $1 billion in new money, plus 

$350 million, in the Community Health Reinvestment Agreement. 

The consolidation is important for us to remain a viable, not-forprofit company to strengthen our commitment to the community 

and the economy of Pennsylvania. Do we expect to grow our business? Absolutely. And this business growth will be beneficial to 

Pennsylvania. 

No one company can solve the health care problems of this country alone, but we believe together this consolidation does lead to a 

pathway for positive change for 10 Pennsylvania and all of our 

Pennsylvania communities. 

Thank you both very much for your time and attention. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Frick appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Senator SPECTER. Well, thank you, Mr. Frick. 

You list a large number of innovations which you propose, and 

you say that they will be savings to subscribers in the long run. 

But I am still looking for something specific on savings now in the 

short run or within a year or two. 

You talk about $1 million in economic benefits over a 6-year period. But the question in my mind is: Where is that going to go? 

10 

When we talk in the question-and-answer session later, we will get 

into the $4 billion in reserves which Highmark has and the $2 billion in reserves which Independence Blue Cross has. And the question on my mind is: How much of this $1 billion that you are going 

to save over 6 years is going to go into reserves and how much is 

going to go to reduce premiums? I think if you talk about reduced 

premiums, you have a much more attractive proposition. When you 

have savings, economies of scale, that is really the money that 

comes out of the pocket of people, and reduced premiums allow 

more people to be covered. And you have a great many programs 

where you decide on the allocations of money, and you give the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania some money. But the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has many sources of funds. 

You talk about people who pay your premiums. This Subcommittee is interested to know what savings there would be for 

them and what lower premiums would enable more people to have 

health insurance, would not have to go looking for it someplace 

else. 

Well, those are matters which I would like you to address, Mr. 

Frick, and we will come back to it in the question-and-answer session. Our next witness is Ms. Carolyn Scanlan, the President and 

CEO of The Hospital and Healthsystem Association of Pennsylvania since 1995; undergraduate degree from Skidmore College and 

a master’s degree in health services administration from Russell 

Sage College. Thank you for joining us, Ms. Scanlan, and we look 

forward to your testimony within 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF CAROLYN F. SCANLAN, PRESIDENT AND 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, THE HOSPITAL AND 

HEALTHSYSTEM ASSOCIATION OF PENNSYLVANIA, HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 

Ms. SCANLAN. Thank you, Senator Specter, and thank you, 

Chairman Kohl, for allowing us the opportunity to speak today. As 

you know, Senator, the association represents and advocates for 

the more than 250 hospitals in Pennsylvania, and we appreciate 

the opportunity to present our views in regard to the proposed 

merger. 

Over the past year, the association has raised questions and concerns with both Federal and State officials regarding the proposed 

merger of these two plans and has called for a thorough review by 

Government. Most recently, in hearings before the Pennsylvania 

Commissioner of Insurance, we have taken the position of opposition as this merger is currently proposed. We think it is important 

for the regulators to review the current health insurance marketplace in Pennsylvania, which we believe is already skewed toward 

Highmark and Independence Blue Cross’ advantage, and a merger 

would create a health plan with an overwhelming presence or ‘‘footprint’’ across the Commonwealth. 

We have expressed four areas of concern, two of which are germane to this hearing. The four areas are the issues around competition, provider contracting, social and community mission, and 

health insurer accountability. 

The first two—competition and provider contractingwould fall under the auspices of the Federal agencies, and we were 

11 

disappointed that another early termination of review was granted 

to the plans by the Department of Justice. 

With the amount of penetration of already insured people contained within these two plans—and Chairman Kohl and you both 

referenced those numbers—we have continued concern about the 

consolidation. 

Market competition in health insurance is important, we believe, 

in achieving competitive premiums—I think as you have pointed 

out, Senator Specter—for employed groups and, from the perspective of hospitals, competitive payments to health care providers. 

Both Highmark and Independence Blue Cross already enjoy dominant positions, which make it difficult for that kind of competitive 

payment. 

I am going to leave it to others on this panel to discuss the underlying legal issues of competition, monopoly, and monopsony, 

which I know that their testimonies will cover. But it is the concern of hospitals and physicians regarding the monopsony power 

that it has not been properly analyzed and evaluated and serve as 

a center of HAP’s concerns regarding the impact this merger will 

have. And so at the State level—and we would have, before the Department of Justice, also asked for very specific issues in regard to 

provider contracting, most-favored-nation issues, all product 

clauses. We are asking for the ability for providers to jointly negotiate, concerns about the development of an arbitration process, 

and, last, issues around allowing clinically and financially integrated organizations to negotiate as a unit with the merged plan. 

There are three things that we think that this Subcommittee, 

that you, Senator, could address in the near future. 

The first is that we would request a briefing from the Antitrust 

Division as to why the Division failed to thoroughly investigate the 

merger. As you know, they do not have to issue any kind of detail 

on their review, and that would be helpful. 

Second, the line of case law that permits the type of market allocation the Blues are involved in is still an unsettled law of antitrust law. And we would ask, in addition to Chairman Kohl’s request of the GAO to look at rising health insurance prices, that the 

GAO also do a study looking at the state of the law in this area 

and whether Congress needs to ensure that joint ventures that undermine competition, such as the Blues’ process of licensure, would 

be also reviewed from the perspective of competition in the marketplace. 

And then, third, as you, along with Chairman Kohl, your colleague on the Subcommittee Senator Grassley, as well as other colleagues in the Senate, Senator Durbin and Senator Whitehouse, 

said to the FTC, we would ask that both the Department of Justice 

and the FTC take immediate action to approve the hospitals’ request for more guidance on clinical integration by approving in 

some manner the working paper that was recently developed by a 

group of antitrust luminaries on behalf of the AHA. 

The rest is clearly contained in my testimony, and so I thank you 

for the opportunity to ask for these three items today. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Scanlan appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

12 

Senator SPECTER. Ms. Scanlan, I note that neither the Hospital 

of the University of Pennsylvania nor Temple has taken a position 

here, and when the times comes for Q&A, I would like you to comment on the solidity of the Hospital Association and the opposition 

which you have articulated. 

Our next witness is Mr. Samuel Marshall, President and CEO of 

the Insurance Federation of Pennsylvania. He has served as counsel to the Insurance Commissioner, previously chief counsel to the 

Medical Catastrophic Loss Trust Fund; bachelor’s degree from Haverford and law degree from Villanova. 

Thank you for coming in today, Mr. Marshall, and we look forward to your testimony, 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF SAMUEL MARSHALL, PRESIDENT, INSURANCE 

FEDERATION OF PENNSYLVANIA, INC., PHILADELPHIA, 

PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. MARSHALL. Thank you. Sam Marshall with the Insurance 

Federation of Pennsylvania. We represent the commercial carriers 

that we have been talking about obliquely. We represent them in 

all lines of coverage. 

I do not think consolidations are inherently good or bad, whether 

for competition or consumers. I do think that this one, absent the 

conditions that we and others have recommended, will be bad on 

both counts. 

The underlying question is whether competition, even more so 

than consolidation, is good or bad. And I do think that this consolidation will impact competition First off, it gets rid of the potential 

for Highmark and IBC to compete with each other. They may not 

intend to do that now under current management, but managements change. 

Second, it is going to make it more difficult for other insurers to 

compete. There is a lot of talk about the ability of other carriers 

to raise capital. Capital only goes into markets that are open and 

viable. As you have a dominant, an increasingly dominant market 

in Pennsylvania, that does not attract capital for the smaller players. 

But going to the question of is competition good or bad, it is a 

legitimate question in the world of health reform. I think that competition is a hallmark of any viable insurance marketplace. I think 

it makes sure that consumers have choices. I also think it makes 

sure that insurers, no matter how big or small, face both the opportunities and the penalties that come from either answering or failing to answer consumer demands. 

I am a Pennsylvania-centric person, so I will talk about it in 

terms of examples that we have seen in Pennsylvania over the last 

20 years. 

In our Commonwealth, veritably every line of insurance has 

faced the same problems that you see in health insurance now, 

namely, consumers not getting the coverage they want at a price 

they can afford. The only answer that has worked in all other lines 

has been to foster competition. The most prominent example, especially for those from Philadelphia, is our auto marketplace. Back in 

the 1980s, it was a very limited and expensive market. A number 

of reforms were tried. The only one that worked was a law in 1990 

13 

that was spearheaded by the late Governor Robert Casey, hardly 

an ally of the insurance industry. But he recognized the need to encourage and reward new carriers, new ideas, and more competition. 

As a result, over the past 18 years, the rates have been flat, and 

there has been broad availability of coverage for all drivers. Would 

that we had the same result in health insurance. 

It has worked in other lines, too. The second more prominent example in Pennsylvania would be workers’ compensation insurance. 

Again, it faced many of the same problems you see in health insurance now. They enacted reforms that brought in new carriers, new 

ideas and more competition. And that has worked well in that market. 

What we have not seen in Pennsylvania are reforms that have 

encouraged competition in health insurance, and I think that is one 

of the main reasons we have not seen anywhere near the progress 

that consumers need. 

I do recognize that competition alone is not the only answer, but 

I would say that if you do not have a strongly competitive health 

insurance market, all the best intentions, whether they come from 

Highmark and Independence Blue Cross or from smaller carriers, 

you simply do not have the cattle prod of the consumers choice 

making sure that they come to fruition. 

Again, I do not think that means that consolidations, even those 

of this magnitude, are inherently flawed or fatal to the prospect of 

competition; but I do think that consolidations, especially of this 

magnitude, have to be scrutinized and only approved if they come 

with the types of conditions that we and others have recommended 

in the proceedings before the Insurance Department. 

One note in closing: There was an op-ed piece in Sunday’s New 

York Times by William Poole of the Cato Institute on Fannie Mae 

and Freddie Mac, and I do not get down to Washington much, but 

I know that is a great debate here. What he talked about was the 

danger that we are all seeing across the country in allowing a crucial market to have only two operators. And he pointed out that 

‘‘markets work best when numerous firms compete against each 

other.’’ I think that is worth remembering here: Any market that 

becomes a private monopoly is in danger of becoming a hostage to 

that monopoly, no matter how extensive or well intentioned the 

regulatory oversight. It is not just that competition gets stifled, and 

with it the pressure to do better. It is that consumers can be 

harmed by the absence of the checks, balances, and safety valves 

that come from a competitive market. 

Thank you for the chance to be here. I am happy to answer any 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Marshall appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator SPECTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Marshall. 

Our next witness is Mr. Michael Laign, President and CEO of 

the Holy Redeemer Health System, located in Huntingdon Valley, 

Pennsylvania; previously served as Executive Vice President of the 

Frankford Health Care System; bachelor’s degree from the University of Pittsburgh and an MBA in hospital and health care administration from Temple. 

14 

Thank you for coming in today, Mr. Laign, and we look forward 

to your testimony, 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL B. LAIGN, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF 

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, HOLY REDEEMER HEALTH SYSTEM, 

HUNTINGDON VALLEY, PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. LAIGN. Thanks for having me here. Holy Redeemer Health 

System is a nonprofit organization which provides a wide range of 

health care and health-related services, including an acute care 

hospital, home health and hospice services in Pennsylvania and 

New Jersey, two skilled nursing facilities, assisted living, a retirement community, low-income housing, an active living community, 

and a transitional housing and resocialization program for homeless women and children in North Philadelphia. 

We employ over 4,000 people. Every day, we touch 20,000 individuals. Twenty-five percent of our revenue is derived from IBC 

and/or IBC family of products. We offer IBC to our employees as 

one of their health insurance offerings. We also offer a competitor 

to our employees as well. I appreciate the opportunity to share our 

views with the Subcommittee on the proposed merger and consolidation of IBC and Highmark. 

While I share some of the fears and concerns expressed by some 

of the other witnesses here today or that will be expressed, on balance I see this merger as an opportunity to address needed change 

to the health care delivery and financing system in Pennsylvania. 

I believe a Blues plan whose core business and interests are focused on Pennsylvania is in our collective long-term interest. Holy 

Redeemer Health System would rather deal with a plan and a plan 

leadership with a vested interest in making Pennsylvania a better 

place to live and work. 

I know arguments have been made on both sides of the issue 

about the competition or lack of competition between Highmark 

and IBC in southeastern Pennsylvania and other parts of the 

State. 

In a sense both arguments are ‘‘right,’’ but both miss the underlying long-term challenge we face in making our health care system 

better for all stakeholders. 

From my perspective, our health care system has and will continue to suffer from an abundance of short-term thinking, everyone, 

including Government, is out to cut the best deal for themselves at 

the expense of creating an affordable, sustainable system that 

serves all of our interests. 

I think we all recognize both in Pennsylvania and across the Nation that the rate of increase in health insurance costs is not sustainable over the long run. Employers, consumers, State and the 

Federal Government are all struggling to maintain coverage not to 

mention the continuing growth of under- and uninsured citizens. 

In short, for us in Pennsylvania I think the merger between 

Highmark and IBC represents an opportunity to begin to rationalize and transform the health care system in the Commonwealth 

for the future. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to help reform and shape the health care system through an insurance enterprise that by all estimates would be responsible for over 50 percent 

of the health care lives and revenues in our State. 

15 

The merger done properly, with the right leadership, appropriate 

safeguards and appropriate, sustained Government oversight, could 

help to, as it has been mentioned: reduce administrative costs; improve quality; achieve greater uniformity in our patient safety and 

process improvement efforts; improve access to coverage; enhance 

the affordability of coverage; and, very importantly, create a more 

transparent system. 

If coordinated with complementary and consistent Government 

health programs and policies, it should be possible to help drive 

many needed reforms of Pennsylvania’s health care system. In 

making this case, I fully understand how difficult it will be to 

achieve these kinds of objectives. But not seizing this opportunity 

will result in business as usual. 

A couple of examples of how we have seen glimpses of what the 

future could be. 

IBC has engaged the provider community in a series of partnerships. One is with the Health Care Improvement Foundation, an 

organization that I chair. That organization formed the Partnership for Patient Care to coordinate patient safety and clinical process improvement efforts. Its focus is to accelerate the effective 

adoption of evidence-based clinical practices by pooling resources, 

knowledge, and efforts for all health care providers in our region. 

Every acute care hospital in the Delaware Valley has participated 

in the partnership, and it has now been expanded to long-term care 

providers and other stakeholders. 

On another level, my system and IBC and Cardone Industries, 

a major manufacturer of auto parts with over 4,000 employees in 

the Philadelphia market, have collaborated to create a virtual partnership for the provision of high-quality, cost-effective health care, 

wellness screenings, and illness prevention and education services 

for Cardone and their employees—clearly an effort not only to improve care, but to reduce costs so those employees and those jobs 

would stay in Pennsylvania. 

As I indicated previously, any merger of Highmark and IBC 

must include some important safeguards or conditions built into 

the approval process. I have outlined a number of those in my testimony that was written, so I am not going to go into those today. 

But I would be happy to discuss those—I am looking at the time— 

during the question-and-answer time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Laign appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Senator SPECTER. Thank you, Mr. Laign. 

We turn now to Mr. David Balto, Senior Fellow, Center for 

American Progress, focusing on competition and health care; previously served at the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice and at the Federal Trade Commission; received his undergraduate degree from the University of Minnesota and his law degree from Northeastern University School of Law. The floor is 

yours, Mr. Balto, for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID BALTO, SENIOR FELLOW, CENTER FOR 

AMERICAN PROGRESS, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. BALTO. Thank you, Senator Specter. CAP wants to applaud 

the Chairman and appreciate the Chairman and the Ranking 

16 

Member for all of their hard work and the recent hearings on many 

antitrust issues which deserve a lot of scrutiny. 

I am here representing CAP, several consumer groups, and the 

National Association of Self-Employed. My testimony outlines at 

the beginning the alarming trend of consolidation that the Chairman spoke of. The groups I represent feel that every day. The National Association of Self-Employed find it increasingly difficult to 

provide insurance coverage for their members and their employees, 

as consolidation has led to increasing premiums. 

On the consumer side, this increasing consolidation has led to a 

dramatic increase in the number of uninsured which have increased by 17 million to one out of every seven Americans over the 

past several years. 

The Highmark-IBC merger may seem complex, but is really relatively simple. Let’s go back to Justice Potter Stewart and see what 

he had to say about the antitrust laws. Thirty-five years ago, he 

instructed us, ‘‘The central message of the Sherman Act is that a 

business entity must find new customers and higher profits 

through internal expansion—that is, by competing successfully 

rather than by arranging treaties with its competitors.’’ 

These two companies had a treaty. It was a non-compete agreement. And when that agreement expired, they decided to make 

that treaty not to compete permanent. And that treaty should be 

stopped because it will prevent competition in southeast Pennsylvania. 

What are the simple facts? 

First, IBC and Highmark used to compete in southeast Pennsylvania. 

Second, in 1996, they entered into an agreement not to compete. 

It expired in 2006, and a few weeks later, they entered into this 

agreement. They could compete right now today. The consumers in 

southeast Pennsylvania could receive the benefits of that competition. 

Third, Highmark’s CEO has been explicit about the company’s 

desire to be a statewide provider of Blue Cross/Blue Shield services. Their incentive to expand to the rest of the State is clear. 

Finally, we know what the impact of that expansion would be. 

Highmark entered into central Pennsylvania 6 years ago, and within that 6-year period, because they rolled up their sleeves and they 

competed, they have acquired a 33-percent market share. And because of that, Senator, CBC rolled up its sleeves, and it is competing more aggressively. And because of all of that competition, 

employers of all sizes, consumers, and providers are doing better. 

Now, imagine, Senator Specter, if it is 2001 and instead of 

Highmark-IBC, it is Highmark-CBC, and they came in before you 

and they said, ‘‘Please let us merge. We have no desire to enter 

into central Pennsylvania.’’ And if the antitrust authorities had 

permitted that merger, all of that competition that has occurred 

over the past 6 years would be lost. 

Now, one of the things that the parties say is we have no intent 

to enter, but decades of Supreme Court and lower court decisions 

have said that when you look at the evidence of entry in a potential 

competition case, you do not accept their assertions at face value. 

You do not rely on subjective evidence. You look at objective eviVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:36 Nov 08, 2008 Jkt 045007 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45007.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
17 

dence, in part because subjective evidence is just basically the party’s statement. And the objective evidence here tells a compelling 

story that Highmark has the incentive and ability to enter, and 

that entry would improve competition in southeastern Pennsylvania. 

In this regard, I have to say as a former official and antitrust 

enforcer for over 15 years, it is particularly disturbing that the Justice Department cleared this investigation in less than 60 days on 

over two occasions. If you did an investigation in less than 60 days, 

you would not have the time to actually test propositions and seek 

objective evidence. 

Now, let me touch on efficiencies. These parties have made a 

scale argument: We need this merger because we need to compete 

better against big guys. That reminded me of the same argument 

that was made in Philadelphia National Bank, when Philadelphia 

National Bank wanted to acquire another bank in Philadelphia so 

it could compete better against the banks in New York. And Justice 

Brennan said, no, that is not kosher. You cannot go and deprive 

the consumers of Philadelphia of competition just because you want 

to compete more aggressively elsewhere. 

The law makes it clear that efficiencies have to be merger specific, that there is no less anticompetitive way to achieve these efficiencies. These are two successful, extremely profitable, extremely 

talented companies, and I would venture to say that on their own 

they would be able to achieve most of the efficiencies they seek 

through this merger. Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and 

I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Balto appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Senator SPECTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Balto. 

Our next witness is Mr. Henry Allen, Senior Attorney at the 

American Medical Association, working primarily on antitrust 

issues. Prior to joining AMA, he practiced in health care law and 

litigated cases in forums ranging from the Superior Court of Alaska 

to the U.S. Supreme Court. Graduated magna cum laude from 

Washington University, bachelor’s degree in economics, and a J.D. 

master’s in public administration. 

Thank you for coming in today, Mr. Allen, and the floor is yours 

for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HENRY S. ALLEN, JR., COUNSEL, PRIVATE 

SECTOR ADVOCACY DEPARTMENT, AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 

Mr. ALLEN. Thank you, Senator Specter. The American Medical 

Association commends this Subcommittee for leadership in recognizing the threats that unchecked health insurer consolidations 

pose to the delivery of health care in Pennsylvania and across the 

country. We appreciate the opportunity to present testimony on 

consolidation in the Pennsylvania health insurance industry. 

In Pennsylvania, where health insurer entry from outside the 

State has been difficult and little incumbent competition exists, the 

potential competition that Highmark poses to IBC is the only market mechanism that protects patients from higher premiums. 

18 

This potential competition also offers the prospect that physicians practicing in IBC’s territories will have somewhere else to 

sell their services. A merger would foreclose this alternative and 

deprive physicians of the ability to negotiate competitive health insurer contract terms that touch on every aspect of patient care. Accordingly, the AMA opposes the proposed merger of Highmark and 

IBC. 

The market shares of Highmark and IBC are more than sufficient for the merger to be found presumptively illegal. The merger 

would result in a combined entity with more than 70 percent of the 

fully and self-insured commercial health insurance market in the 

Commonwealth. In short, this proposed merger is so anticompetitive that it results in a statewide monopoly. This monopoly characterization is buttressed by the substantial barriers to market entry. 

Health insurers that have successfully competed in other parts of 

the Nation have barely any presence in Pennsylvania. Because 

there has been little to no entry in either of Highmark’s or IBC’s 

dominant market areas, this merger would permanently eliminate 

each firm’s biggest potential rival. 

Highmark and IBC assert that they do not compete in the same 

market, that they operate in different regional markets. Even assuming the insurance market in Pennsylvania is regional, the 

merger will substantially reduce competition. IBC is dominant in 

its alleged regionalized market. In the absence of a merger, 

Highmark’s entry as a competitor would result in a substantial 

deconcentration of IBC’s regional market. 

IBC has the means, other than through merger, to enter IBC’s 

territory. In the past, Highmark would have marketed its Blue 

Shield Plan in IBC’s territory but for Highmark’s agreement with 

IBC to exit that territory for 10 years. That market division agreement expired around the time this consolidation was proposed. 

Today, Highmark is free, capable, and desirous of offering its services in the southeastern Pennsylvania territory where IBC presently sells. 

There is no meaningful difference between this potential competition and actual competition. As Areeda and Hovenkamp observed 

in the leading treatise on antitrust law, once a firm like Highmark 

is recognized as a factor ‘‘in future predictions about the market, 

that firm must be counted as a competitor even though that firm 

has not yet won its first bid or indeed has not made any bid at all.’’ 

To reason otherwise understates the competitive significant of 

mergers that, like here, occur in highly concentrated, noncompetitive markets. Indeed, where the merger results in a market share 

of monopoly proportions, the merger should constitute a Section 2 

offense of maintaining a monopoly because it eliminates either actual or potential competition. 

DOJ’s clearance of this merger greatly concerns the AMA. The 

Government has challenged only three of more than 400 mergers 

involving health insurers and managed care organizations over the 

past 12 years. As a result, markets for third-party payers, especially commercial insurance plans, have grown increasingly concentrated. Studies show overwhelmingly that in this market environment, physicians across the country have virtually no bargaining power with dominant health insurers. 

19 

Competition is essential to the health of the free market. Competition among insurers forces them to hold the line on premiums 

and provide improved service. Accordingly, the AMA respectfully 

requests that this Committee urge the Federal antitrust enforcement agencies to more rigorously enforce the antitrust laws with 

respect to proposed health insurer consolidations. 

Thank you, Senator. I would be happy to answer questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Allen appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Senator SPECTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Allen. 

We now turn to Dr. Barry Harris, Principal and Board Chairman 

of Economists, Incorporated, former Deputy Attorney General for 

Economics in the Department of Justice Antitrust Division; bachelor’s degree in mathematics from Lehigh University and Ph.D. in 

economics from the University of Pennsylvania. 

We welcome you here, Dr. Harris, and the floor is yours for 5 

minutes. 

STATEMENT OF BARRY C. HARRIS, BOARD CHAIRMAN, 

ECONOMISTS, INC., WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you, Senator. As you said, my name is Barry 

Harris, and I am an economist. I have been doing work in antitrust 

and competition issues for more than 30 years. And as you pointed 

out, I was at the Department of Justice. I was the chief economist 

there. My official title was Deputy Assistant Attorney General. I 

hope to be brief today. 

My full testimony was presented to the Pennsylvania Insurance 

Department, and it is part of the public record. The analysis considered relevant markets; it considered competition within these 

relevant markets; it considered potential competition; and it considered other issues as well. 

The overall conclusion I reached is that there is no basis to conclude that the proposed consolidation of Highmark and IBC would 

reduce competition. The reason for this is simple. Highmark and 

IBC do not compete with each other in the sale of commercial insurance for any customer. That is—and this is important—no customer will have fewer choices after the transaction than they do 

today. 

Now, as you have heard, there is a lot of speculation about issues 

of potential competition, and at least what I have seen is it is just 

speculation. I agree with Mr. Allen and Mr. Balto that it should be 

based on objective criteria. And perhaps you may want to ask Dr. 

Melani later, but he laid out at the PID hearings a list of reasons 

why Highmark does not believe it is in its interest to enter southeast Pennsylvania in the absence of this transaction. 

Now I would like to turn to my overall conclusion, which is that 

the transaction will not harm competition. Again, as other people 

have said, the Department of Justice has reviewed this transaction 

twice. My understanding of that process is a bit different than has 

been presented. 

Thousands of documents were presented to the Department of 

Justice. The parties gave the Department of Justice additional time 

so that it could complete its investigation. The Department looked 

at direct competition; it looked at potential competition; it considVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:36 Nov 08, 2008 Jkt 045007 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45007.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
20 

ered sales of both commercial and non-commercial products. And 

twice the Department of Justice provided clearance. 

My take on that is that the Department of Justice reached the 

same conclusions that I have reached, and that is that the proposed consolidation of Highmark and IBC will not lessen competition in any insurance market in Pennsylvania. 

One last point. There have been several claims that there is a 

State market here and that the shares are very high. And it is a 

basic tenet of antitrust law and competitive analysis that shares 

only make sense in a properly defined market. And there is no 

State market for health insurance products in Pennsylvania. If you 

are a consumer in Philadelphia, you have no ability to access the 

same products that are offered consumers in Pittsburgh. The prices 

may differ; the products themselves may differ. 

Basically, the product in Philadelphia is not a substitute for 

Pittsburgh and vice versa. And it is true throughout the State. So, 

consequently, any shares or conclusions drawn on the whole State 

do not provide you with the basis for appropriate economic and 

competition analysis. 

Thank you, and I, too, would welcome questions during the question-and-answer period. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Harris appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Senator SPECTER. Thank you, Mr. Harris. 

Our final witness is Dr. Henry Miller, Managing Director of 

Navigant Consulting, Inc. More than 35 years’ experience in the 

field of health care practice, a CPA, Dr. Miller developed research 

costing as a method for measuring costs of health services; a bachelor’s degree and an MBA from the City College of New York, 

Ph.D. from the University of Illinois. 

Thank you for joining us, Dr. Miller, and we look forward to your 

testimony for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HENRY MILLER, MANAGING DIRECTOR, 

NAVIGANT CONSULTING, INC., WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Senator Specter. As you indicated, I 

have worked on health insurance and health finance issues for 

more than 30 years, including work for clients based in Pennsylvania, in other States, and for the Federal Government. 

I was asked by UPMC Health Plan to analyze the impact of the 

proposed consolidation of Highmark and Independence Blue Cross 

and to testify today on my findings. UPMC is an integrated delivery and financing system and the second largest nongovernmental 

employer in Pennsylvania. UPMC Health Plan provides commercial 

group coverage to over 6,000 employers with approximately 

330,000 members, Medicare and Medicaid coverage to another 

185,000 beneficiaries, and services an additional 700,000 members 

through a variety of other benefit programs such as behavioral 

health, CHIP, short-term disability, employee assistance, and 

wellness programs. 

I have prepared a detailed report for UPMC Health Plan on the 

impact of the proposed Highmark and IBC consolidation, and I 

would be happy to provide a copy of this report to the Committee 

21 

if it is requested. Today, in my testimony I want to concentrate on 

four issues: 

First, briefly identify the markets that are going to affected by 

the consolidation; 

Second, cite evidence that previous health insurer consolidations 

have not led to administrative savings; 

Third, that Pennsylvania’s hospitals will be adversely affected by 

the increased financial pressure that will result from the combined 

entity’s leverage during hospital contract negotiations; 

And, finally, that the proposed consolidation will adversely 

change the market for health insurance in Pennsylvania to the detriment of health care consumers and providers. 

There was just some recent discussion on the issue of whether 

the market was a statewide market or a regional market. My point 

would be that the commercial health insurance market is a complex market that includes markets that are separate for individuals 

who are purchasing coverage for small groups and for large groups. 

And at least some of those customers operate in a statewide market. 

Understanding that the health insurance market operates on a 

statewide basis for some customers is important because the consolidation of Highmark and Independence Blue Cross will create a 

single entity that will obviously have a dominant market share in 

the State. In testimony that I provided to the Pennsylvania Insurance Department, I carefully calculated market share for 

Highmark and IBC in Pennsylvania and determined, based upon 

the 12 million people who live in Pennsylvania and the 7,649,000 

who have commercial health insurance, that approximately these 

two—not approximately, but these two entities combined will cover 

68.8 percent of the population. 

When considering a merger or a consolidation, it is important to 

determine who will benefit. Reduced administrative costs are commonly cited as a benefit of consolidation. Despite the fact that this 

benefit is cited frequently, it is important to understand that few, 

if any, health insurance company mergers in the past 10 years 

have resulted in lower administrative costs. The complexity of 

health insurer operations and their reliance on information technology has meant that administrative savings have been elusive. 

Last year, I served as the financial consultant to the New Jersey 

Commission on Rationalizing Health Care Resources. The commission was established by Governor Corzine to address concerns 

about the financial instability of many of the State’s hospitals. My 

review of hospital finances in Pennsylvania raises similar questions 

about hospitals’ ability to withstand increased financial pressure. 

Pennsylvania hospitals have lower margins, less liquidity, and are 

less able to cover their existing debt than the average U.S. hospital. More importantly, Pennsylvania hospitals have physical 

plants that are more than 14 percent older than the plant of the 

average U.S. hospital. The consolidated Highmark/IBC entity will 

have extraordinary leverage in hospital contracting at a time when 

hospitals are considerably less able to withstand that leverage. 

Analyses that I have completed indicate that reimbursement rates 

are lower and premiums are higher in States that have health 

plans with large market shares. 

22 

Because of their size, Highmark and IBC already have significant competitive advantages in the Pennsylvania market. Their advantages are evidenced by the difficulty other health insurers have 

in competing in Pennsylvania as compared to other States. If the 

consolidation is approved, the combined entity will provide coverage to at least two-thirds of Pennsylvania’s residents and have 

substantial financial resources that can be used to further increase 

their market share. Consolidation will certainly not make it easier 

for other health insurers to compete in Pennsylvania and likely will 

make such competition more difficult than it is today. Furthermore, 

no meaningful benefits will accrue to the residents of Pennsylvania 

that offset the impact of the resulting decline in competition. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Miller appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Senator SPECTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Miller. 

Beginning with you, Mr. Laign, you testified that this merger 

would enhance affordability. Would you amplify that? Do you believe that this merger will make health insurance more affordable? 

Mr. LAIGN. I believe that this will give us an opportunity to experiment and try sort of innovative solutions, just as I mentioned 

with the Cardone organization. 

Senator SPECTER. Experiment? 

Mr. LAIGN. Or pilots, however you want to look at it, that we will 

be able to, in fact, work collaboratively not only within the Philadelphia market but across the State. 

Senator SPECTER. Well, when you talk about experimentation, it 

is speculative as to what the result will be. If you— 

Mr. LAIGN. Well, I can tell you in a very— 

Senator SPECTER. If you have a merger, you have got scrambled 

eggs. If it does not work out, then what? But your statement was 

that you concluded it would enhance affordability. 

Mr. LAIGN. I did in my testimony talk about a catastrophic plan 

that I suggested that both health insurers may want to look at that 

I think would be one potential way that we could make health care 

affordable. What I was just alluding to, though, was the relationship that we have developed with Cardone, and I can tell you that 

is a partnership between IBC and industry and a health care provider all geared to providing excellent health care; also, by the way, 

reducing cost, and a big part of that is through the reduction in utilization of services and the more efficient utilization of services. 

For example, we are now looking at ways together to make sure 

that their employees and their dependents receive all the pharmaceuticals that are prescribed for them. People do not always take 

their prescriptions according to the way the doctor has ordered. By 

working together, we think we can create, again, innovative models 

to address those types of issues. Improving care, reducing cost. 

Senator SPECTER. Ms. Scanlan, you cite in your testimony that 

in central Pennsylvania where Highmark competes with Capital 

Blue Cross, reimbursement rates for doctors and hospitals are 

higher. Could you amplify that? Does that competition result in 

more compensation for doctors and hospitals, as your statement 

specifies? 

23 

Ms. SCANLAN. What I can adequately say—and we have some 

charts attached to the testimony that we submitted—is that the operating margins of the hospitals in the middle of the State are 

higher than the operating margins in the rest of the State. Because 

of the way these agreements are entered into between the plans 

and the individual hospitals, I am not privy to the absolute numbers of what those payments are. But when we look at the financial 

stability or status of the hospitals in the central part of the State— 

Senator SPECTER. You say their operating margins are higher, 

but that is not really responsive on the issue as you state in your 

written testimony, that reimbursement rates for hospitals are higher. Is that so? 

Ms. SCANLAN. I cannot, as I said before, speak to the absolute 

amount of what those reimbursement rates are. The assumption is 

that it is causative, that the rates are higher, which leads to higher 

operating margins. 

Senator SPECTER. I noted earlier that Temple University Health 

System and the University of Pennsylvania Health System have 

not taken stands on this proposed merger. Can you tell us why? 

Ms. SCANLAN. I do not know why the individual systems have 

not taken—or have spoken in a more neutral fashion. Both of those 

entities are represented on the Hospital Association Board. The 

process that we went through in the association was to hold regional hearings amongst our members, have a special task force, 

and then the board evaluated and deliberated about this at numerous meetings. Both the CEO of Temple and the COO of the University of Pennsylvania Health System sit on both the HAP Board and 

the HAP Executive Committee, and I can tell you that it was a 

unanimous decision on the part of the board to oppose the merger 

as proposed. 

Senator SPECTER. Did Temple or Penn oppose the merger in your 

deliberations on the board? 

Ms. SCANLAN. No. 

Senator SPECTER. They took no position? 

Ms. SCANLAN. They, along with the rest of the board, unanimously took the position to oppose the merger as proposed. 

Senator SPECTER. So they did oppose the merger. 

Ms. SCANLAN. Within the association. 

Senator SPECTER. Mr. Harris, are you representing UPMC here 

today? 

Dr. Harris. 

Mr. HARRIS. No. I have testified on behalf— 

Senator SPECTER. Dr. Miller, you are representing UPMC? 

Mr. MILLER. Yes. 

Senator SPECTER. Dr. Harris, you have testified that you believe 

the merger would be beneficial to the health care systems and ultimately helpful to the consumer? 

Mr. HARRIS. I believe it will be, but let me just parse out two different parts. I did not work on the calculation of cost savings and 

efficiencies. I only look at the competitive aspects, and my conclusion with regard to the competitive aspects is there will be no harm 

to competition, no reduction to competition. And the process of competition causes cost savings ultimately to be passed on to conVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:36 Nov 08, 2008 Jkt 045007 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45007.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
24 

sumers. So, in that regard, yes, I do believe it will be beneficial to 

consumers. 

Senator SPECTER. And that is the basis for your favoring the 

merger? 

Mr. HARRIS. Well, again, I do not want to parse words, but I had 

a narrow assignment, and that was to look at the process of competition. And I strongly believe that it will have no impact on competition. If— 

Senator SPECTER. Well, are you saying that you are not taking 

a position on the desirability of the merger? 

Mr. HARRIS. I mean, I have no specific position. I have only done 

a competitive analysis. But the process of competition does cause 

cost savings to be passed on to consumers. So, to the extent these 

cost savings will be realized, it will be a merger that is beneficial 

to consumers. 

Senator SPECTER. Well, you are talking about cost savings as a 

result of efficiencies, economy, and size? 

Mr. HARRIS. Correct, as an example. 

Senator SPECTER. I am just trying to figure out whether you are 

for it or against it, Dr. Harris. 

Mr. HARRIS. I mean, I am not sure how to be clearer. I had— 

Senator SPECTER. Well, yes or on. 

Mr. HARRIS. My experience is that these kinds of mergers are 

good for consumers, but I did not do the analysis with regard to 

the cost savings. 

Senator SPECTER. Your experience is they are good for consumers, so you are for the merger. 

Mr. HARRIS. Well, in that regard, yes. 

Senator SPECTER. Well, is there some other regard? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SPECTER. I am just trying to find out your position. I am 

trying very hard not to lead you. I know how to lead a witness, but 

I am trying very hard not to lead you. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. HARRIS. My analysis of the merger focused on the competitive process, and I see no reason to believe that this competition 

will cause a competitive harm. 

Accepting the calculations of cost savings, that is an important 

part of the competitive process, so— 

Senator SPECTER. No reason to believe that it would not, with 

the possibility of an exception. 

Mr. HARRIS. If you accept it, then I do believe it will be a beneficial merger. 

Senator SPECTER. OK. Dr. Miller, there had always been a sense 

that UPMC, whom you represent, and Highmark had a very close 

working relationship in the Pittsburgh area. Why is UPMC opposed to this merger? 

Mr. MILLER. In my experience, in my experience as a consultant 

to UPMC, I have not seen the evidence of that close working relationship. What I have seen is that UPMC as a health plan, not 

UPMC as a hospital provider but UPMC as a health plan, vigorously competes with Highmark and is concerned about the potential impact of Highmark growing larger and with greater surpluses 

25 

and having a greater sense of competitive leverage as a result of 

this merger. 

Senator SPECTER. Well, UPMC has some lines of insurance coverage of its own, right? 

Mr. MILLER. Yes. 

Senator SPECTER. Describe to what extent UPMC has those lines 

which would put them in a possible competitive situation with 

Highmark on providing insurance. 

Mr. MILLER. Very definitely competitive. UPMC offers coverage 

in a number of different categories, including what we would normally describe as health coverage, managed care coverage, to about 

330,000 people, all of whom are in western Pennsylvania, which 

means that they are competing directly with Highmark for business. UPMC has 6,000 employers who have currently purchased 

coverage from UPMC Health Plan. In addition to that, UPMC 

Health Plan provides behavioral health coverage and other types of 

coverage as well. But the experience of UPMC Health Plan, the 

health plan itself, which is a part of UPMC, the experience of the 

health plan is that it vigorously competes for business in western 

Pennsylvania with Highmark right now. 

Senator SPECTER. Mr. Allen, you have contended that Highmark 

could easily re-enter the Philadelphia area market because it already has a network of providers there. If Highmark does not compete in southeastern Pennsylvania, what does it mean that they 

have a network of providers there? Is that activated, operative? 

Mr. ALLEN. In prior years, they were the Blue Shield Plan, and 

it continued to be operating as Blue Shield. And they, therefore— 

they do have connections with physician groups there. My understanding is that they have the network—I do not know whether 

those physicians are actually actively contracted. But the Blue 

Shield Plan is statewide plan, and they are Blue Shield. They have, 

through Blue Shield, physicians everywhere in Pennsylvania. They 

are under contract. 

Senator SPECTER. So Highmark is operating under Blue Shield 

in eastern Pennsylvania, southeastern Pennsylvania? 

Mr. ALLEN. They had an agreement not to do that. That covenant 

not to compete with IBC has expired, and with the expiration of 

that covenant not to compete, they are ready and able, by virtue 

of their physician relationships, to compete there in southeastern 

Pennsylvania. That is my understanding. 

Senator SPECTER. Mr. Marshall, in your testimony, you contend 

that the proposed merger between Highmark and IBC would reduce potential competition. Potential competition is obviously a factor. What indicators are that, absent this merger, Highmark would 

compete with IBC in eastern or southeastern Pennsylvania? 

Mr. MARSHALL. First, Senator, I would like to think that at some 

point the regulatory oversight of the insurance industry would ask 

that question and perhaps force some competition in that end. I 

think if State Farm and Allstate were to say let’s divide up the 

State and not compete with one another, there would probably be 

some pretty extensive regulatory review, and that should happen 

there. 

I think, second, the practice of Highmark itself, it has gone into 

central Pennsylvania. There is no reason it cannot go east, further 

26 

east. I do appreciate that—and I guess, third, they both have— 

Highmark and IBC must have been somewhat tempted to compete 

or else they would not have felt a need to have a 10-year covenant 

against it. 

And I guess, fourth, I would like to think that businesses generally want to expand and grow, and businesses generally want to 

enter into new markets and new territories. Certainly that is the 

hallmark of all of the companies we represent. And so while current management at Highmark may not have any intention of 

going east, I would think that there would be future management 

that very well might. 

Senator SPECTER. Mr. Frick, do you have any intentions of going 

west? 

Mr. FRICK. No, Senator. The infrastructure that would be required to build a statewide brand would prohibitive, and it would 

divert resources and needed funds from serving our customers in 

southeastern Pennsylvania in the way that they require it. No, sir. 

Senator SPECTER. Dr. Melani, do you have any intention of going 

east? 

Dr. MELANI. No, Senator, we do not. 

Senator SPECTER. Dr. Melani, how has it worked out in central 

Pennsylvania where Highmark competes with Capital? 

Dr. MELANI. Senator, that is a great question. It has not worked 

out well. We entered that marketplace in 2002, and the reason we 

entered that marketplace was at that time we had a substantial 

amount of business in that marketplace that we shared with Capital Blue Cross. In addition, we had a large number of employees 

housed in that marketplace. There were 4,000 employees. And we 

had relationships in that marketplace that had been developed and 

sustained over 60 years. 

At that time, Capital Blue Cross was threatening to talk all the 

business that we shared into a downstream company owned solely 

by them, and we were faced with the situation where we were 

going to lose significant amounts of revenue profitability if that 

would happen by being forced out the marketplace. So we elected 

to compete. We went in that marketplace using our brand, Pennsylvania Blue Shield, and established a hospital network to match up 

with our physician network. Our experience over the last 5 years, 

although each of the plans—Capital Blue Cross and Pennsylvania 

Blue Shield—basically took what market we had and split it 50/50, 

the financial experience has been dismal. Over the 5 years on that 

book of business, we have a minus 1-percent operating margin on 

that book of business. 

In addition, I think Ms. Scanlan outlined exactly what the problem is. As we have entered that market, the hospitals and physicians have used their market power and the divisiveness that is 

created by way of having more health plans to raise costs. They 

have raised the cost of accessing physician services and hospital 

services, and margins of the hospitals in that region have gone up 

substantially. 

Senator SPECTER. Well, is Highmark competing now with Capital 

in that market? 

27 

Dr. MELANI. We are, and our premiums in that market have 

risen faster in that market than the other markets we operate in. 

So it has been a disaster for customers and for us as a corporation. 

Senator SPECTER. Dr. Melani, why do you think the Hospital Association is opposed to the merger? 

Dr. MELANI. Because they represent hospitals that would like to 

get paid more money. 

Senator SPECTER. And will they be paid less money if the merger 

occurs? 

Dr. MELANI. No, because we will not gain any more market share 

in the markets we operate in. We will have no more market power 

in any single market today, so there is no more leverage today than 

there will be after the merger, so we would be able to— 

Senator SPECTER. But you say they are opposed to the merger because they would like to be paid more money. 

Dr. MELANI. Yes, they would like to decrease our market position 

in the marketplace. 

Senator SPECTER. Well, you said because they would— 

Dr. MELANI. I am sorry. They would oppose the merger 

-I am not sure why they would oppose the merger, frankly, because 

it does not change the market dynamics that exist today. We do not 

compete. We are in different markets, and it does not change the 

market dynamic between Highmark or IBC and its providers—hospitals and physicians. It just gives us some additional scale to 

lower our operating costs, get administrative efficiencies, and leverage other kinds of services in the health care cost equation, like 

pharmaceuticals, durable medical equipment, laboratory services. 

It would have no impact on physicians and hospitals. 

Senator SPECTER. Mr. Marshall, it is my understanding that—or 

let me just ask you the question. Have premiums gone down due 

to competition in central Pennsylvania? 

Mr. MARSHALL. Have premiums gone down over the last 6 years? 

No, Senator. Have they gone up by less of a margin than they have 

gone up in the more concentrated markets? I believe there they 

have. I also think the one thing that gets left out of all of this, 

frankly, when an insurer faces competition and, therefore, does not 

make as much money as it used to, I think that is a good thing 

for consumers. I think that is a good thing for the marketplace. 

Senator SPECTER. Would you repeat what is a good thing for consumers? That is what I have been looking for in this entire hearing. 

Mr. MARSHALL. I think if an insurer says that because it faced 

competition it is not making as much money as it wishes it were, 

I think that is a good thing for consumers. That is what competition is meant to do for consumers. It I meant to hold down just how 

much money— 

Senator SPECTER. You say premiums have not gone down in central Pennsylvania, but they have not gone up as much as they did 

in areas where there was not the competition like between Capital 

and Highmark? 

Mr. MARSHALL. That is my understanding. That is my understanding about a year ago, and I cannot speak for what their rates 

have done in the past year. I also— 

28 

Senator SPECTER. Would you find out and let the Subcommittee 

know? 

Mr. MARSHALL. Yes, Senator. I also think the one point that gets 

left out, it is not just what providers get paid or even what the premiums are. It is also what the quality of the service and the innovations of the service are. You look in the health insurance marketplace in central Pennsylvania and throughout, the innovations that 

have happened with health savings accounts, transparency, and 

even a lot of the managed care and utilization controls only came 

about from competition. That is where the genesis was. It was actually not even among our larger members. It was among some of 

the very small health insurance members that those ideas came 

about. You lose that when you do not have a competitive marketplace. 

Senator SPECTER. Mr. Frick, I am advised that the Independence 

Blue Cross reserves are $1.7 billion and the Highmark reserves are 

$4 billion. Is Independence Blue Cross in a position where you have 

insufficient reserves? 

Mr. FRICK. You are correct, Senator; our surplus is approximately $1.7 billion. That represents only 63 days of claims payments. And in Pennsylvania, the Insurance Department did an exhaustive review in 2005 of the Blues’ surplus and came to the conclusion that none of the Blues had excessive surplus. The legislature did a review and came to the same conclusion. 

Senator SPECTER. What conclusion was that? 

Mr. FRICK. That none of the surplus amounts of the four Blue 

Plans were excessive. 

Senator SPECTER. Who concluded that? 

Mr. FRICK. The Pennsylvania Insurance Department, as well as 

an independent study that was subsequently done by the legislature. And, Senator, we use—the question about using the surplus 

to benefit subscribers, we do that on an ongoing basis when we do 

our financial planning, when we set rates, when we plan for investment income. And it enables us to operate at lower margins than 

our for-profit, publicly traded competitors. 

Senator SPECTER. When you say that it is only 63 days of claims 

payments, but during those 63 days you are also getting more premiums. 

Mr. FRICK. Well, our surplus represents—we pay about $850 million a month in claims for services to hospitals and physicians on 

behalf of our members. 

Senator SPECTER. And how much do you get in premiums? 

Mr. FRICK. Our premium last year was in excess of $10 billion. 

Senator SPECTER. So $850 million in— 

Mr. FRICK. $850 million in claims payments per month out of a 

monthly premium of less than $1.5 billion. 

Senator SPECTER. It looks like at $10 billion annual premiums 

and 850 paid out— 

Mr. FRICK. Million a month. To put it another way, Senator, as 

I said, about 88 cents of our revenue or premium dollars— 

Senator SPECTER. Well, the figures you have just given me, you have a deficit. Twelve times $850 million in payments comes to 

$1.2 billion. So you are losing—are you losing money? 

Mr. FRICK. Eighty-eight cents of every— 

29 

Senator SPECTER. Do not go back to 88 cents. You told me that you have payments of $850 million a month. Isn’t that right? 

Mr. FRICK. Did I say 850 or 650? 

Senator SPECTER. Well, which is it? I believe you said 850. 

Mr. FRICK. Let me check my notes, Senator. I know— 

Senator SPECTER. It is only $200 million, Mr. Frick. That is not 

much among friends. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. FRICK. It is significant, Senator. 

Senator SPECTER. How much? 

Mr. FRICK. It is significant, when you said 

Senator SPECTER. Is it 850 or 650? 

Mr. FRICK. Let me check my notes. 

Senator SPECTER. Take your time. Mr. Frick. Absolutely. It is 

$850 million a month, yes. 

Senator SPECTER. OK. Well, when I multiply 12 times 850, I get 

$10.2 billion. If your premiums are $10 billion, which you just said, 

you are losing money. 

Did you know he was losing money, Dr. Melani, when you 

agreed— 

[Laughter.] 

Dr. MELANI. That is why we need to merge. 

Senator SPECTER. That is why he needs to merge, but how about 

you? 

Mr. FRICK. Our operating margin last year was 1 percent. Our 

investment income was 0.6 percent. We operated. 

Senator SPECTER. Now, come on, Mr. Frick, don’t start giving me 

figures— 

Mr. FRICK. We are not losing money. 

Senator SPECTER. I want to deal with 12 times 850 million, 

which is $10.2 billion, as composed with—well, take a look at the 

transcript, Mr. Frick. Your figures, I think, do not add up, and take 

a look at it and provide the Committee with the information. 

Mr. FRICK. Absolutely, Senator. 

Senator SPECTER. Dr. Melani, how can a company run as efficiently as Independence Blue Cross with Mr. Frick, although his 

math may not be too good, how could they get along with only $1.7 

billion in surplus whereas you have to have $4 billion in surplus? 

Dr. MELANI. Yes, it is a difference in the kind of risk that we 

each bear. Each of our companies has a different make-up of the 

book of business that we have in different types of risk that we 

carry. Certain types of— 

Senator SPECTER. Sufficient to have more than twice the amount 

of reserves? 

Dr. MELANI. Yes, Senator. 

Senator SPECTER. Why? 

Dr. MELANI. Our reserves are also—have also been deemed to be 

below the excessive level, and although our reservesSenator SPECTER. Need to be below the excessive level? 

Dr. MELANI. Yes. 

Senator SPECTER. What does that mean? 

Dr. MELANI. They are at a sufficient level. The Insurance Department has determined that our reserves are in the sufficient level. 

Senator SPECTER. Would you repeat that? 

30 

Dr. MELANI. They have determined that our reserves are sufficient to cover the risk that we have and not excessive. 

Senator SPECTER. Who made that determination? 

Dr. MELANI. The Insurance Department, the Pennsylvania Insurance Department. 

Senator SPECTER. Would they approve even higher reserves? 

Dr. MELANI. Yes, sir. 

Senator SPECTER. Is there any limit to what they would approve? 

Dr. MELANI. Yes, there is, sir. 

Senator SPECTER. What is it? 

Dr. MELANI. What they do, Senator, is they look at the risk that 

you have in your business, because all of us carry different lines 

of business. Some of us are in Medicare. Some of us are in Medicaid. Some are in commercial business. We have other lines of 

business, too—workers’ compensation, we have vision insurance, 

dental insurance, all types of businesses that we have. And each 

of those have different levels of risk. 

So the NAIC, the National Association of Insurance Carriers, has 

established a methodology to do an apples-to-apples comparison, 

and they take your surplus and they look at the relative risk you 

have, and they come up with an equation and a number called riskbased capital, and it is a percentage number. And that is how you 

can compare all of us to see how we are in relative solvency. And 

then they set up guidelines with that risk-based capital to determine whether or not your organization is solvent or not based on 

that ratio. 

In the State of Pennsylvania, they have capped that ratio at 750 

percent. Above that, they consider it excessive, and they begin to 

do things to bring that level of surplus down. 

Senator SPECTER. Let me ask everybody on the panel the same 

question, starting with you, Dr. Miller. Is there any basis for doctors and hospitals being concerned about this proposed merger on 

the grounds that there may be too much power in a combined entity which would give them undue power in negotiating payments to 

doctors and hospitals? 

Mr. MILLER. I definitely believe that there is. One of the points 

that you were just making was that, combined, the surplus—I am 

familiar with somewhat different numbers, but in the vicinity, a 

combined surplus of $6 to $7 billion, which is not only high in itself 

but so much higher than any other insurer would have in the State 

that it gives them the capability to exert substantial leverage 

through a number of different approaches. And one of the approaches would be in terms of increased pressure on physicians. 

Right now, they exert a considerable amount of pressure on physicians and on hospitals, if for no other reason than because of 

their size and what that represents of the physician’s or hospital’s 

patients. In a typical situation, either IBC or Highmark probably 

provides coverage to 25, perhaps even 30 percent—about 25 percent of the patients of any one particular hospital, and perhaps 

even more for some physicians. And when you are in that kind of 

a position, and now in a position of being even larger and being 

able to exert greater pressure, then you can obtain substantial discounts. And the evidence is there. One of the points I made in my 

testimony was that I studied States where Blues Plans had very 

31 

substantial market shares of the type that the Highmark/IBC consolidation would create. And in almost every instance, the payment 

levels, the reimbursement levels to physicians and hospitals are 

lower than they are in States where there is more competition. 

Senator SPECTER. Mr. Frick, do you think that hospitals and doctors have any basis at all for concern about this proposed merger 

in giving undue leverage and bargaining power to a merged entity? 

The question Dr. Miller answers in the affirmative, do you think— 

I know your answer is no, but tell me why. 

Mr. FRICK. Well, as you highlighted, Senator—and I was pleased 

that Temple and University of Pennsylvania and Holy Redeemer 

and also Children’s Hospital of Pennsylvania, Dr. Steve Altschuler, 

testified in Philadelphia about the importance of our relationship 

and our partnership. We are all worried about health care costs— 

Senator SPECTER. But did Penn and Temple think—did they testify in favor of the merger? 

Mr. FRICK. They testified— 

Senator SPECTER. They liked your relationship. 

Mr. FRICK.—about the relationship. 

Senator SPECTER. But did they testify in favor of the merger? 

Mr. FRICK. They testified about our partnership and its importance to their institutions and its importance to their patients and 

our customers. 

Senator SPECTER. Mr. Frick, do you think there is any concern 

that if they testify against you, you could retaliate in some way? 

Mr. FRICK. Not at all, Senator. Our products are dependent on 

access to high-quality hospital and physician networks. 

Senator SPECTER. Well, why didn’t Temple and Penn testify in 

favor of the merger then? You are being coached by Dr. Melani— 

Mr. FRICK. No, no— 

Senator SPECTER.—and that is perfectly—that is perfectly appropriate. You cannot hinder a witness, but you can coach him a little. 

Go ahead, Dr. Melani. You answer the question. Or is it outside 

your jurisdiction since— 

Dr. MELANI. You would have to ask them because we do not have 

any idea why they would not testify pro or con. 

Senator SPECTER. You do not know why? Do you adopt that answer, Mr. Frick? 

Mr. FRICK. I want to explain that in Pennsylvania, I think the 

hospitals, as well as we are, are concerned about health care costs. 

But I think the institutions that we deal with in southeastern 

Pennsylvania are proud of our working relationships. And do I believe they are worried about retaliation or leverage? The market 

dynamics in southeastern Pennsylvania does not change after the 

merger, Senator. Our relationships, our products and services, remain the same. We are in two separate markets. 

Senator SPECTER. Well, Mr. Frick, it is different as to whether 

they like the relationship contrasted with whether they favor the 

merger. That is different. 

Mr. FRICK. Yes. 

Senator SPECTER. Are you a volunteer, Mr. Balto? Let the record 

show someone raised his hand. 

Mr. BALTO. Yes, I want to reply on a couple things. 

32 

First, as a former Government antitrust official for 20 years, I 

would not rely too much on who complains and who does not complain. I burnt a lot of shoe leather trying to get people to complain 

about activities by firms that were monopolist, and the problem is, 

before this merger or after this merger, they are going to have to 

live with the monopolist so they are going to be reluctant about 

complaining. Should they— 

Senator SPECTER. So you think there is a reluctance about complaining? 

Mr. BALTO. Sure. I mean, my experience in mergers, you can ask 

people at either antitrust agency, they will tell you that that is 

very common. 

Senator SPECTER. Do you think retaliation is not totally out of 

the picture? 

Mr. BALTO. You are going to have to live with these people— 

whether the merger occurs, you are going to live with a firm with 

a 70-percent market share one way or another. But what I wanted 

to do is try to reformulate the question a bit, because what Mr. 

Harris is suggesting is that all you are doing is changing the name 

tag on the firm you are dealing with. This is not the operative 

question here. The operative question here is not whether or not 

you will have less choices. It is, But for this merger, wouldn’t you 

possibly have more choices? You would have Highmark on the edge 

of the market, either poised to enter or perhaps entering, and that 

would improve choices for consumers and for— 

Senator SPECTER. Do you think there is a significant likelihood 

that Highmark would enter Independence Blue Cross’ territory? 

Mr. BALTO. I think that consistent with the CEO’s statements, 

it is consistent with their past history, and work now theSenator SPECTER. Highmark’s? 

Mr. BALTO. Highmark’s past history. 

Senator SPECTER. Would anybody—now I have got a lot of hands 

going up. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SPECTER. We are going to have to conclude in a few minutes, but go ahead, Mr. Laign. 

Mr. LAIGN. I guess since I am the lone provider, I would like to 

answer the question, too. I do not feel that this merger will affect 

their leverage on rates whatsoever. I think the reserves are important. A number of us in the health care industry have been through 

the failures of insurance companies and the impact that has had 

on us, negatively. We have ended up getting 50 cents or less on the 

dollar from those failures. 

As a health care provider, I believe cash reserves are extremely 

important, too. We have 151 days in cash at Holy Redeemer Health 

System, and I do not believe that is enough, nor do the rating 

agencies believe that is enough. 

I guess what I am hopeful is that the regulators—and I believe 

they will; I have been extremely impressed with our new insurance 

commissioner—will do their job and they will provide the necessary 

oversight of both Highmark and IBC to assure that providers are 

paid fairly. There are appropriate appeal processes, and we do create— 

33 

Senator SPECTER. We have two more hands that are up. I will 

hear two more responses. Dr. Harris, then Mr. Allen. 

Mr. HARRIS. I have known Dave Balto for a long time. We 

worked together, I guess, in the Government and in private practice. But I have to disagree with him for two different reasons. 

One, reading newspaper articles and, in my mind, misinterpreting what is said in those newspaper articles is not how you do 

an entry analysis. You look at the specific reasons open to that 

firm. You look at the specific market, and you ask: Will that entry 

likely be profitable? Moreover—and I just wrote a chapter in an 

ABA book on this topic. Sitting on the edge of a market does not 

affect things in that market if entry takes a long time and if a market is difficult to enter. All the testimony here is that this is a difficult market to enter, and he is basically confusing two things. He 

is confusing what is called a market with no sunk costs, where it 

is easy to enter, and one where it is more difficult. And in a market 

like this, having someone at the edge does not have much of an impact on competition. And, moreover, Highmark’s analysis says they 

are not going to enter. 

Senator SPECTER. Mr. Allen, you can have— 

Mr. ALLEN. Sure. Just to echo a bit on Mr. Balto’s point, in 

southeastern Pennsylvania where IBC now has a 70-percent market share, that is overwhelmingly more than what is required to 

force physicians to take fees that are anticompetitive, below competitive levels, and compromise their practices. It only takes about 

a 20-percent market share before physicians basically are over a 

barrel in their negotiations. So it is a sad day when here Highmark 

would be, we would say, entering the market, giving physicians an 

opportunity to—giving physicians an opportunity to have some 

competition for the contract. 

And then, Senator, on the question that you asked me earlier 

about the ability of Highmark to utilize the physician network in 

southeast Pennsylvania, their ability to actually come in and give 

some relief to the marketplace, including the physician market, 

that information, the information that I have on that came from 

Monica Noether’s report. She has said that, ‘‘Highmark already has 

an existing presence in southeastern Pennsylvania through its professional provider network and its participation in products jointly 

marketed with IBC in that region. Since Highmark is a professional services plan with providers in southeastern Pennsylvania, 

Highmark already has an existing physician network under contract in southeastern Pennsylvania.’’ And that comes from a page 

of Monica Noether’s expert report. 

Senator SPECTER. Dr. Melani, you have your hand up? 

Dr. MELANI. Yes, Senator, thank you. I think a lot of discussion 

at the table has been about competition, and I think we have clearly stated—and I think it is factual—that we do not compete today 

and this merger will not change the market dynamics that exist 

today. Most of the speculations are on potential competition, and 

it is truly speculation. And a lot of that has been based on statements that are attributed to me, and those statements are correct. 

I have said that Highmark does have a desire to be a statewide organization. What I also did in those statements was to go on and 

say I believe there should be one Blue Cross/Blue Shield in the 

34 

State of Pennsylvania. And at the time that those statements were 

made, we were in discussion with IBC about the consolidation, and 

that was our intended way to become a statewide organization. 

We have never, ever stated that we intended to compete in the 

Philadelphia marketplace, and we do not intend to compete in the 

Philadelphia marketplace. 

Senator SPECTER. Mr. Frick, would you like to have another comment? You and Dr. Melani have the laboring oar here, so I will give 

you another chance to comment, if you want to. 

Mr. FRICK. Well, I view Highmark as a partner. They are not a 

competitor. We have jointly offered products throughout our history. We have made shared investments for the benefit of our communities. We are both Blue Plans. And we want to continue this 

relationship in a new and different way, and the $1 billion in net 

economic benefit to the Commonwealth as a result of this combination is a progressive step forward to address the issues that you 

have articulated today: affordability, access, and quality. It is what 

we work to achieve every day, and this combination will certainly 

improve that for Pennsylvania. And I think our history speaks to 

that in working together. 

Senator SPECTER. Mr. Frick and Dr. Melani, this Subcommittee 

would be interested in a short statement as to how the merger 

would impact compensation to physicians, to hospitals—and having 

extended that request to you, I would extend it to everyone—Ms. 

Scanlan, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Laign, Mr. Balto, Mr. Allen, Dr. Harris, 

Dr. Miller—what would the impact be likely on compensation to 

physicians, number 1; compensation to hospitals, number 2, the impact on premiums which are paid, significantly by employers but 

sometimes by the individuals; and what impact would it have on 

the consumers in terms of reducing the number of uninsured consumers and how it would impact on the consumers. 

This is going to be an ongoing matter, and I think it would be 

useful. It has been a very good hearing, and I wanted to be sure 

it was balanced and asked Highmark and Independence Blue Cross 

for additional witnesses, and they suggested Dr. Harris and Mr. 

Laign. We appreciate your coming in. We appreciate all of your 

coming in. We do not often have nine witnesses at that green-felt 

table. 

That concludes the hearing. Thank you all very much. 

[Whereupon, at 4:06 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Questions and answers and submissions for the record follow.] 

35 


45007.001
36 


45007.002
37 


45007.003
38 


45007.004
39 


45007.005
40 


45007.006
41 


45007.007
42 


45007.008
43 


45007.009
44 


45007.010
45 


45007.011
46 


45007.012
47 


45007.013
48 


45007.014
49 


45007.015
50 


45007.016
51 


45007.017
52 


45007.018
53 


45007.019
54 


45007.020
55 


45007.021
56 


45007.022
57 


45007.023
58 


45007.024
59 


45007.025
60 


45007.026
61 


45007.027
62 


45007.028
63 


45007.029
64 


45007.030
65 


45007.031
66 


45007.032
67 


45007.033
68 


45007.034
69 


45007.035
70 


45007.036
71 


45007.037
72 


45007.038
73 


45007.039
74 


45007.040
75 


45007.041
76 


45007.042
77 


45007.043
78 


45007.044
79 


45007.045
80 


45007.046
81 


45007.047
82 


45007.048
83 


45007.049
84 


45007.050
85 


45007.051
86 


45007.052
87 


45007.053
88 


45007.054
89 


45007.055
90 


45007.056
91 


45007.057
92 


45007.058
93 


45007.059
94 


45007.060
95 


45007.061
96 


45007.062
97 


45007.063
98 


45007.064
99 


45007.065
100 


45007.066
101 


45007.067
102 


45007.068
103 


45007.069
104 


45007.070
105 


45007.071
106 


45007.072
107 


45007.073
108 


45007.074
109 


45007.075
110 


45007.076
111 


45007.077
112 


45007.078
113 


45007.079
114 


45007.080
115 


45007.081
116 


45007.082
117 


45007.083
118 


45007.084
119 


45007.085
120 


45007.086
121 


45007.087
122 


45007.088
123 


45007.089
124 


45007.090
125 


45007.091
126 


45007.092
127 


45007.093
128 


45007.094
129 


45007.095
130 


45007.096
131 


45007.097
132 


45007.098
133 


45007.099
134 


45007.100
135 


45007.101
136 


45007.102
137 


45007.103
138 


45007.104
139 


45007.105
140 


45007.106
141 


45007.107
142 


45007.108
143 


45007.109
144 


45007.110
145 


45007.111
146 


45007.112
147 


45007.113
148 


45007.114
149 


45007.115
150 


45007.116
151 


45007.117
152 


45007.118
153 


45007.119
154 


45007.120
155 


45007.121
156 


45007.122
157 


45007.123
158 


45007.124
159 


45007.125
160 


45007.126
161 


45007.127
162 


45007.128
163 


45007.129
164 


45007.130
165 


45007.131
166 


45007.132
167 


45007.133
168 


45007.134
169 


45007.135
170 


45007.136
171 


45007.137
172 


45007.138
173 


45007.139
174 


45007.140
175 


45007.141
176 


45007.142
177 


45007.143
178 


45007.144
179 


45007.145
180 


45007.146
181 


45007.147
182 


45007.148
183 


45007.149
184 


45007.150
185 


45007.151
186 


45007.152
187 


45007.153
188 


45007.154
189 


45007.155
190 


45007.156
191 


45007.157
192 


45007.158
193 


45007.159
194 


45007.160
195 


45007.161
196 


45007.162
197 


45007.163
198 


45007.164
199 


45007.165
200 


45007.166
201 


45007.167
202 


45007.168
203 


45007.169
204 


45007.170
205 


45007.171
206 


45007.172
207 


45007.173
208 


45007.174
209 


45007.175
210 


45007.176
211 


45007.177
212 


45007.178
213 


45007.179
214 


45007.180
215 


45007.181
216 


45007.182
217 


45007.183
218 


45007.184
219 


45007.185
220 


45007.186
221 


45007.187
222 

Æ 


45007.188