I have heard some say that healthcare is a right while others respond that they disagree. No matter how passionately both sides state their points, the other side is not convinced. Perhaps, both sides are focusing on the wrong question.
Perhaps, we should ask: Does society have a moral obligation to provide healthcare for those who need it, and if so, what is the nature of the coverage?
Most would agree that it would be immoral to simply pass by someone who is dying without at least calling 911. Pretending not to notice does not relieve one of the moral obligation to assist. In terms of healthcare, there are many good people who get sick through no fault of their own. For example, if someone develops a curable cancer, can we agree that it is wrong to let this person simply die? We are our brother's keeper, and we have a moral obligation not to pretend otherwise.
In addition, if someone has a preventable condition, does society really need to wait for the person to get sick before offering support? Not only is preventive care usually more effective and likely less costly, but it also seems immoral to knowingly watch people fall into a preventable situation.
On the other hand, if someone wants a non-essential treatment such as nose job, I feel no moral obligation to pay. Whoever wants a nose job can pay for it themselves.
Most of healthcare exists between these two extremes. The question we need to debate is not if healthcare is a right, but instead, what is the extent of our moral obligation. Where should we draw the line between rightfully helping someone in need and inappropriately paying for something the individual should pay for himself? I do not have the answers, but I do believe society has a moral obligation to provide some sort of health insurance for all its citizens who can not afford it. That should be the starting point of the healthcare debate before arguing about how it should be done and what is and is not covered. Even if individuals do not have a right to healthcare, we as a society have a moral obligations that should not be ignored.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Friday, February 19, 2010
You're Not As Covered As you Think
If you have health insurance, are you covered for all catastrophic illnesses? If you are like most working Americans, you are covered for many conditions, but you likely have a gaping hole in your coverage that could find you sick and uninsured. Do you know what it is? Here is a hint, you will never find it documented as an excluded illness by your insurance company.
In "The Healing of America," T.R.Reid writes about Nikki White whose lack of insurance lead to her death, but at the time of her diagnosis, she had insurance. The problem with her insurance was that it did not cover her after she had to stop working. Once her employment ended, so did her health insurance, but her chronic life-threatening condition continued.
Would you be any better off if you became ill with a life-long chronic condition that required you to stop working? Disability insurance might replace much of your lost income, but your employer-based health insurance would eventually end.
If you can afford it, you will have a right to purchase health coverage through your employer for 18 months. After that, you will be on your own. Perhaps, you will be lucky enough to qualify for a limited safety net program, but as in Nikki White's case, you may at some point be told you are not needy enough. Once your insurance has been terminated, you will have a preexisting condition so it will be extremely unlikely that you will be able to buy insurance on the individual market.
How common is this problem? Good data on this issue is not easily available. However, according to a recent article in the American Journal of Medicine, most bankruptcies in the U.S. are related to healthcare costs, and 78% of people with these medically related bankruptcies had insurance at the time they first got sick. This would imply that Nikki While was not alone in her misfortune.
Proposed federal legislation will make this situation less of a problem by making it illegal for companies to discriminate against patients with pre-existing conditions. For those of you who live in Massachusetts, you may already be protected by laws that promote universal coverage. If you lose your current coverage, at least you will be able to find an alternative. If you live in the US outside of Massachusetts and you lose your insurance, you have a problem. Until legislation is signed and implemented for the rest of the country, most Americans will unknowingly be at risk.
In "The Healing of America," T.R.Reid writes about Nikki White whose lack of insurance lead to her death, but at the time of her diagnosis, she had insurance. The problem with her insurance was that it did not cover her after she had to stop working. Once her employment ended, so did her health insurance, but her chronic life-threatening condition continued.
Would you be any better off if you became ill with a life-long chronic condition that required you to stop working? Disability insurance might replace much of your lost income, but your employer-based health insurance would eventually end.
If you can afford it, you will have a right to purchase health coverage through your employer for 18 months. After that, you will be on your own. Perhaps, you will be lucky enough to qualify for a limited safety net program, but as in Nikki White's case, you may at some point be told you are not needy enough. Once your insurance has been terminated, you will have a preexisting condition so it will be extremely unlikely that you will be able to buy insurance on the individual market.
How common is this problem? Good data on this issue is not easily available. However, according to a recent article in the American Journal of Medicine, most bankruptcies in the U.S. are related to healthcare costs, and 78% of people with these medically related bankruptcies had insurance at the time they first got sick. This would imply that Nikki While was not alone in her misfortune.
Proposed federal legislation will make this situation less of a problem by making it illegal for companies to discriminate against patients with pre-existing conditions. For those of you who live in Massachusetts, you may already be protected by laws that promote universal coverage. If you lose your current coverage, at least you will be able to find an alternative. If you live in the US outside of Massachusetts and you lose your insurance, you have a problem. Until legislation is signed and implemented for the rest of the country, most Americans will unknowingly be at risk.
Health Insurance does not earn its profits
I believe in the free market; companies that provide value are rewarded by customers and earn profits.
With that premise, I began to wonder how, year after year, health insurance companies in the U.S. can be so incredibly profitable ?
Health insurance companies do not appear to improve the health of the patients they serve. Even if they did, there is no evidence that the more profitable health insurance companies do a better job of improving the health of their patients.
Unlike companies that provide other types of insurance, they are not at risk. Most health insurance is through employers, and the employer bears the financial risk. The insurance companies just administer the plans.
The insurance companies do not appear to pay claims efficiently. It is not unusual for more than 20% of every dollar spent on health claims dollars to go to the insurance company's administrative overhead, and this figure does not include the administrative costs doctors and hospitals incur in having to deal with insurance companies.
Why are these companies being rewarded so well when they do so little to help patient care? What am I missing?
I now believe that I have been mistaken in thinking of patients as the customer. Patients do not choose their insurance plans. If they do, they often only get to choose among the one or two plans offered by their employers. The employers are the ones making the real purchasing decision, and they are therefore the real customer. Their primary marketing efforts therefore need to be toward employers.
Patients are not even secondary customers. Most employers choose plans based on cost and range of doctors and hospitals that are available through the different health plan options. It is therefore a critical job of the insurance company to get doctors and hospitals to accept their insurance at the rate the insurance company pays. The insurance company's secondary customers are these providers and they therefore need to focus resources on their provider relationships.
I would say patients and their families are third in the list of priority. If patients are dissatisfied, perhaps their needs are prioritized to a lesser extent.
And yet, if employers are the customers, don't they still want high quality cost effective care? Why are employers rewarding insurance companies with such large profits? Couldn't they simply bypass the insurance companies and pay providers directly? Large employers are already assuming the financial risk. Cutting out the insurance company seems like the next logical step.
The reality is that in the current system, employers need the insurance companies since only insurance companies are large enough to negotiate the best prices with providers. The discounts that large insurance companies get more than justifies their profit. A patient with insurance who does not have a contract with a given hospital may be obligated to pay double or triple what they would otherwise have to pay. This more than justifies the insurance company profits. Without the insurance companies, employers would have to drastically overpay for each claim. Health insurance companies are really contracting machines. Everything else they do is secondary.
But how does this contracting effort help patients? It doesn't. The current health system allows insurance companies to compete in something that is of no value to patients or society. The system rewards local monopolies with the best contracts; healthcare quality and efficiency are a lesser concern. Those who generally expect the free market system to improve healthcare often do not appreciate this dysfunctional dynamic.
Just as those who implemented the antitrust laws 100 years ago discovered, I now realize that Adam Smith's invisible hand sometimes needs help.
With that premise, I began to wonder how, year after year, health insurance companies in the U.S. can be so incredibly profitable ?
Health insurance companies do not appear to improve the health of the patients they serve. Even if they did, there is no evidence that the more profitable health insurance companies do a better job of improving the health of their patients.
Unlike companies that provide other types of insurance, they are not at risk. Most health insurance is through employers, and the employer bears the financial risk. The insurance companies just administer the plans.
The insurance companies do not appear to pay claims efficiently. It is not unusual for more than 20% of every dollar spent on health claims dollars to go to the insurance company's administrative overhead, and this figure does not include the administrative costs doctors and hospitals incur in having to deal with insurance companies.
Why are these companies being rewarded so well when they do so little to help patient care? What am I missing?
I now believe that I have been mistaken in thinking of patients as the customer. Patients do not choose their insurance plans. If they do, they often only get to choose among the one or two plans offered by their employers. The employers are the ones making the real purchasing decision, and they are therefore the real customer. Their primary marketing efforts therefore need to be toward employers.
Patients are not even secondary customers. Most employers choose plans based on cost and range of doctors and hospitals that are available through the different health plan options. It is therefore a critical job of the insurance company to get doctors and hospitals to accept their insurance at the rate the insurance company pays. The insurance company's secondary customers are these providers and they therefore need to focus resources on their provider relationships.
I would say patients and their families are third in the list of priority. If patients are dissatisfied, perhaps their needs are prioritized to a lesser extent.
And yet, if employers are the customers, don't they still want high quality cost effective care? Why are employers rewarding insurance companies with such large profits? Couldn't they simply bypass the insurance companies and pay providers directly? Large employers are already assuming the financial risk. Cutting out the insurance company seems like the next logical step.
The reality is that in the current system, employers need the insurance companies since only insurance companies are large enough to negotiate the best prices with providers. The discounts that large insurance companies get more than justifies their profit. A patient with insurance who does not have a contract with a given hospital may be obligated to pay double or triple what they would otherwise have to pay. This more than justifies the insurance company profits. Without the insurance companies, employers would have to drastically overpay for each claim. Health insurance companies are really contracting machines. Everything else they do is secondary.
But how does this contracting effort help patients? It doesn't. The current health system allows insurance companies to compete in something that is of no value to patients or society. The system rewards local monopolies with the best contracts; healthcare quality and efficiency are a lesser concern. Those who generally expect the free market system to improve healthcare often do not appreciate this dysfunctional dynamic.
Just as those who implemented the antitrust laws 100 years ago discovered, I now realize that Adam Smith's invisible hand sometimes needs help.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)