BOSTON—Democratic Lt. Gov. Timothy Murray accused Republican gubernatorial candidate Charles Baker of a lack of leadership Wednesday, complaining that the former health care executive refused to comment on a lawsuit insurers have filed over the state's efforts to limit their premium increases.
The case was headed to court Thursday, and Murray said Baker was tacitly endorsing the legal action through his silence. Baker was president of Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, the state's second-largest private insurer and a plaintiff in the case, before quitting last year to run for governor.
"People should be acting like adults, getting in the room and solving this problem, rather than running off to court. And, apparently, Charlie Baker supports that," Murray said in a telephone call to The Associated Press.
The lieutenant governor, who relishes his role as Gov. Deval Patrick's pit bull, added: "I guess that's another example of Charlie Baker saying one thing and doing another. He says he's been screaming about health care cost for 10 years, and now we have a chance to get serious ... and, No. 1, he's not supportive of that, and No. 2, now he's not willing to take on the insurers."
Patrick and Murray are seeking re-election this year in a field that not only includes Baker, but Treasurer Timothy Cahill, convenience store magnate Christy Mihos, community activist Grace Ross and Green-Rainbow Party member Jill Stein.
A Baker aide said the candidate does not want to comment on pending litigation.
But Baker previously accused Murray and the governor of engaging in an "election-year gimmick" by rejecting the insurers' proposed small business premiums amid their re-election campaign.
During a news conference an hour before the lawsuit was announced Monday, Baker reiterated he favored controlling double-digit premium growth but said it had to be included in a comprehensive health care solution.
And he noted that, while president of Harvard Pilgrim, he repeatedly called for transparency in health care costs, so subscribers will have a better sense of the costs driving premium growth. Patrick himself made a similar call during his 2007 inaugural address.
But beyond that, Baker has said little recently about how to control growth.
Patrick says many small businessmen are deciding against adding jobs because they can't afford rising health premium costs, which slow the state's economic recovery.
"I think everybody who hasn't been trying to reform the system, and being pretty aggressive about supporting reform of the system, owns a piece of it," said Baker, lumping Harvard Pilgrim and its fellow insurers into that category.
He said he has supported public hearings to promote scrutiny of the underlying reasons for premium growth, and had written publicly about the need for it.
"I know a lot of people are nervous about public hearings, especially people who are in the business, but we have got to get serious about this, we've got to create some focus and attention to it, and let's get going," said Baker.
In their lawsuit, the state's leading insurers -- including Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts and Harvard Pilgrim -- say that limiting their premiums without controlling the costs charged them by doctors and providers will cause them to lose hundreds of millions of dollars.
They filed the action after the state Division of Insurance rejected 235 of the companies' 274 proposed rate increases for a category including small businesses with up to 50 employees.
The six providers had proposed base price hikes averaging 8 percent to 32 percent. The Patrick administration argues any increase should be closer to the medical consumer price index, which has a 4.8 percent inflation rate.
The division issued its decision little more than a month after Patrick, in a speech to area business leaders, announced he was instructing the state insurance commissioner to consider rejecting any increase exceeding that index.
The timing of the order, and the fact that the administration had never before rejected a proposed premium increase, prompted charges that Patrick was using his official powers to create a political issue for his campaign.
In their litigation, insurers asked for the hearing Thursday on a temporary injunction to suspend the cap, as well as a speedy trial in Suffolk Superior Court by June 15.
An administration official termed the lawsuit "an outrageous response" to the premium cap.
