Comments

Health Affairs encourages readers to engage in discussion via comments on our Web site.

• To RESPOND to a particular article: Click on the link "Submit a response to this article" in the box at the top right-hand corner of the article.
• To READ responses to a particular article: Click on the link "View responses" in the box at the top right-hand corner of the article.

Comments to:

John K. Iglehart Improving Tomorrow’s Health Care With Today’s Tools: A Conversation With Larry C. Glasscock Health Affairs, January/February 2007; 26(1): w13-w21. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [Reprints & Permissions]

Comments:Submit a response to this article

Comments published:

Was That Really The Best John Iglehart Could Do??

Matthew Holt   ( 6 December 2006 )

Was That Really The Best John Iglehart Could Do?? 6 December 2006
Matthew Holt, Consutlant and Author The Health Care Blog Send comment to journal: Re: Was That Really The Best John Iglehart Could Do?? matthew{at}matthewholt.net Matthew Holt	An e-mail tells me that John Iglehart, veteran health care reporter and Health Affairs editor, has secured an interview with the CEO of WellPoint. I could barely contain my excitement. I particularly enjoyed the question asking Glasscock to justify his company's increased profits, decreased medical loss ratio, and his personal $25m annual salary, in the light of double-digit health care cost increases in the past five years. I really enjoyed Iglehart's challenge to Glasscock's false attribution of the reason for "unaffordable" health care premiums in Massachusetts to "mandated benefits." Well, I guess compared to Wellpoint's "Tonik" products they are "unaffordable," but it's just as well that Iglehart pointed out the underwriting which ensures that's the case. And finally I felt that Iglehart's demand that Glasscock justify his company's recent retroactive cancellation of policies in California was very appropriate. After all, Iglehart felt that Glasscock should be advising the President on expanding health insurance coverage. And we wouldn't want someone running a company with such dubious ethics advising the President without being challenged, would we?