Blue Cross pays for health care robocalls
1 month ago | 366 views | 0 0 comments | 5 5 recommendations | email to a friend | print
By Ray Gronberg

gronberg@heraldsun.com; 419-6648

DURHAM -- Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina has agreed to pay the state $95,000 in civil penalties to settle complaints about the robocalls it orchestrated last fall to stir up opposition to federal health-care reform.

N.C. Attorney General Roy Cooper's staff announced the settlement on Thursday.

It stipulated that Cooper believed the company had violated the state's law against automated phone messages -- and that Blue Cross had admitted no wrongdoing.

In a written statement, Blue Cross General Counsel Maureen O'Connor acknowledged that the company and the political consultants it had worked with had made an error in how they handled the calls.

That, she said, was the failure to have live operators introduce them and ask each recipient's permission to play the company's message. Such an introduction would have invoked an exemption to state restrictions on robocalls.

"We apologize for the error made in how these calls were placed," O'Connor said. "We continue to believe that it is important for [Blue Cross] to take an active role in the health reform debate."

The two-day series of calls had angered some residents, and a number of state legislators tied to the Democratic Party. Several of the legislators complained to Cooper, a Democrat, who launched an investigation and on Nov. 9 asked the company to stop the calls.

Among the lawmakers who complained were state Reps. Paul Luebke, D-Durham, and Verla Insko, D-Orange, and state Sen. Ellie Kinnaird, D-Orange.

Insko and Kinnaird both said they were pleased by Thursday's announcement.

"It was a just settlement," said Insko, co-chair of the N.C. House's Health Committee. "I'm concerned about corporate interests managing our public process. I always thought this was a government of the people, by the people and for the people. It's troubling when a lot of money goes from corporations right to influencing politicians."

Kinnaird echoed that sentiment. "This was an improper exertion of influence in something that affects their customers and the taxpayers of the state," she said.
comments (0)
no comments yet