The corporate chieftains at Blue Shield of California have a special surprise for workers this Labor Day—a furlough.
The information I dug up about Blue Shield and gave to regulators last month is now the basis of a class action lawsuit.
In response to criticism over its conduct as a nonprofit, Blue Shield is holding its first “annual stakeholder meeting." The meeting is closed to all but a handful of handpicked guests.
A California regulator ruled that nonprofit Blue Shield has no public benefit duty, potentially costing Californians billions of dollars. She refuses to explain her decision.
The ruling by California’s health plan regulator that Blue Shield has no charitable trust obligation frees the nonprofit insurer to disregard the public good and privatizes its billions in assets.
In this LA Times interview, Blue Shield CEO Paul Markovich couldn't contain his disdain for anyone who thinks the nonprofit has a duty to fully disclose how much its top executives are paid.
In a stunning decision delivered last week with no explanation, California’s Department of Managed Health Care agreed with Blue Shield of California that the nonprofit has no duty to operate for the benefit of the community.
Leon Panetta said he joined the board of Blue Shield because it is nonprofit and serves the “welfare of the entire community.” If he meant what he said, he needs to bring management into line.
Blue Shield, which made headlines yesterday with its lavish and secretive compensation of top executives, is accused in a class action lawsuit of failing to pay its lowest-paid workers their full wages.
In 2013, while working for Blue Shield of California, I learned that Bruce Bodaken, who’d resigned the previous year as CEO, was paid $20 million when he left.
In a message to employees, Blue Shield CEO Paul Markovich laughed off a front-page LA Times article detailing blistering criticism of the nonprofit by California authorities who revoked its tax exemption.
The disclosures in yesterday’s front-page Los Angeles Times article on the tax audit of Blue Shield make clear the need for a full-scale investigation by health plan regulators of Blue Shield’s conduct as a nonprofit.
Blue Shield should either act like a nonprofit and provide benefits to the public worth 5% of its assets or formally convert to for-profit status and relinquish its nonprofit assets to a public benefit foundation.
The Department of Managed Health Care announced yesterday that it would conduct an examination of Blue Shield’s "charitable trust" obligation, or duty to work for public benefit.
In statements to health plan regulators that it has no legal duty to operate for public benefit, Blue Shield contradicted what it had told state tax authorities during an audit of its tax exemption.
California regulators announced that they'll hold a public hearing on Blue Shield’s proposed acquisition of Care 1st Health Plan. A coalition of consumer groups and I had requested the hearing.
The revocation of Blue Shield's tax exemption made big news. But even more important is what happens with the $10 billion in nonprofit assets that the insurer will continue to hold.
Since Blue Shield is a nonprofit, which means it is effectively owned by the public, regulators should hold a public hearing before approving management's use of nonprofit assets to acquire another health plan.
State tax authorities revoked Blue Shield’s tax exemption last August, but it's been kept secret until now.
After 12 years with Blue Shield of California, I resigned last week as Director of Public Policy. I’d raised concerns internally that Blue Shield wasn’t doing nearly enough to meet its duties to the public as a tax-exempt nonprofit, but senior management dismissed them.