Kaiser reports more than 20,000 enrolled in non-traditional insurance plans
November 26, 2013
The number of Oregonians with traditional health insurance grew by more than 16,000 in the 12 months before Cover Oregon’s official go-live date. And Regence BlueCross BlueShield of Oregon gets the lion’s share of the credit.
According to a Lund Report review of regulatory paperwork filed by the state’s seven largest insurance companies, Regence enrolled 27,648 new members in the year ending Sept. 30. Over the same period, Moda Health Plan – which made a big splash in August when it bought naming rights to the arena formerly known as the Rose Garden – added 9,992 members to its rolls. And Kaiser signed up 6,462 members for traditional insurance.
The state’s four other major health insurance companies all reported declining membership rolls, but thanks to the gains at Regence, Moda and Kaiser, enrollment in traditional health insurance plans climbed 1 percent, to about 1.57 million Oregonians.
As of Sept. 30, here’s how the state’s seven major health insurers ranked:

- Regence BlueCross BlueShield of Oregon, 502,434 members, up 5.8 percent from a year earlier.
- Kaiser Permanente, 469,258 members, up 1.4 percent.
- PacificSource Health Plans, 213,829 members, down 2.6 percent.
- Providence Health Plan, 184, 658 members, down 0.5 percent.
- Moda Health Plan, 82,844 members, up 13.7 percent.
- Health Net Health Plan of Oregon, 67,759 members, down 22.6 percent.
- LifeWise Health Plan of Oregon, 51,206 members, down 3.1 percent.
Comments
Submitted by Donald Thieman on Tue, 11/26/2013 - 19:10
Permalink
Looking a membership growth
Looking a membership growth and profitability, it would be interesting to sort those results according to benefit structures. For example we know Regence has emphasized "skinny benefit" employer group policies in recent years at least since about 2002 following Mr. Ganz's thinking (personal observation first-hand and unlikely to have changed much), as have others to one degree or another; but who (in J. Kitzhaber's dichotomy) has been "managing the risk" better with good administration and case management of benefits that don't lead to personal bankruptcies for the unlucky, versus more of "avoiding the risk" by either declining more individuals, selling predominantly skinny benefits by preference, or simply non-renewing or prohibitively up-rating more costly employer groups? What public data might be available to The Lund Report?