BOSTON (State House News Service) — A proposed ballot question seeking apply a spending limit on dental insurance companies survived a legal challenge, as the state’s high court said Wednesday that its spending and transparency components serve a common purpose.
The initiative, endorsed this week by the Massachusetts Dental Society, would require dental insurers to spend at least 83 percent of their dollars on “dental expenses and quality improvements, as opposed to administrative expenses.” Those posting medical loss ratios of less than 83 percent would be required to refund excess premiums, and insurers would also have to submit to state regulators detailed annual financial statements that include information on lines of business besides their dental plans.
Plaintiffs in Clark v. Attorney General had argued that AG Maura Healey erred in certifying the question for the ballot, saying it improperly mixes unrelated subjects by proposing both new spending requirements and extensive reporting mandates. Under the state Constitution, ballot questions can only include measures that are related or mutually dependent.
The Supreme Judicial Court found the disclosure requirements “further the regulatory goals” of the proposal and would provide “a comprehensive body of information on which to assess a carrier’s compliance with the goals of reducing the cost of dental benefit plans or of improving the quality of care, patient safety, or efforts at cost containment.”
Read Full Article Here