Helena Independent Record

By MIKE DENNISON - IR State Bureau - 09/26/2008

Democratic state auditor candidate Monica Lindeen says a health-insurance plan proposed by her Republican competitor, Duane Grimes, won’t help consumers and shows his inclination for harmful deregulation.

Lindeen also says while Grimes now presents himself as a consumer advocate who wants to shed more light on insurance practices, his voting record as a state legislator tells a different story.

“This is a regulatory office, and putting someone in charge who doesn’t believe in regulation would be a disaster for Montanans,” she said.

Grimes and Lindeen, both former state legislators, are vying for state auditor, who acts as state insurance commissioner.

Incumbent Democrat John Morrison cannot run for re-election because of term limits.

Earlier this week, Grimes released a five-point plan to address “skyrocketing health-insurance costs” in Montana.

Among other things, Grimes said he wants to post health insurers’ financial and consumer-complaint information on the Internet, lead efforts to publicly post charges by hospitals and other health-care providers, and review state health-insurance mandates, to see if they’re too costly.

Reducing unnecessary mandates would allow insurers to offer consumers lower-cost alternatives, and not force consumers to buy coverage they don’t want or need, he said.

“She obviously hasn’t read or doesn’t understand my plan, because I believe we need good, smart regulation,” Grimes said Thursday.

A story on Grimes’ proposal earlier this week said incorrectly that Lindeen did not respond to a request for comment. Her e-mailed response on Tuesday did not show up in the reporter’s in-box until Wednesday, the day the story was first published.

Lindeen said state requirements that health insurers cover items like mammograms, cancer screenings and well-child care are necessary, and shouldn’t be removed.

“Grimes wants more ‘choice’ for consumers, but his definition of choice means deregulation,” she said. “The bottom line is this: Who can the public trust more to protect their interests and advocate for them?

“Someone like me who has a strong and proven record of advocating for Montanans or someone like my opponent who has a long history of opposing regulation and voting against the public interest?”

Lindeen also pointed to a pair of Grimes’s votes in 2001: He was the only legislator to vote against a bill increasing policy disclosure requirements for health insurers, and he was one of only a few senators opposing a bill allowing lower premiums for poor people covered by the Montana Comprehensive Health Association (MCHA), a plan for consumers with high health risks.

Grimes said he voted against the disclosure bill because most health insurers already were doing what the bill required. He also said he’s a strong supporter of MCHA, and that he probably opposed the lower-premium bill because he didn’t want to do anything to jeopardize the plan’s financial viability.

“I’ve never wavered on (my support) for it,” he said. “It’s a great program.”