It was good to see Amy Goldstein’s fine piece on high-risk insurance pools in The Washington Post. It’s an example of the kind of reporting that has been far too lacking in the coverage of health reform—a welcome departure from the cheerleading kind of stuff we saw most of last year. Goldstein gave us a substantial rundown on what’s happening with those so-called “Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plans” that were part of the Obama administration’s early roll-out of benefits designed to soften up the public before the hard-to-swallow provisions like the individual mandate take effect in 2014. Think of them as sort of a down payment to Americans who need coverage but are too ill to qualify for it in the private market.
Goldstein’s piece documents what many experts were saying during the debate, and what some have known all along. High-risk pools are no way to take care of the uninsured. Most states have offered them for years, and because the premiums are too high and coverage too limited, they’ve never caught on as a source of meaningful help. It looks like the new and supposedly improved versions are not helpful, either.
Goldstein reports that, last spring, Medicare’s chief actuary estimated that 375,000 people would sign up for the pool plans by the end of the year. The Department of Health and Human Services said that in early November only 8,000 people had enrolled, but it refused to update those statistics for the Post. “Like the rest of the country, we thought we’d have pretty much a stampede. That obviously hasn’t materialized,” said Michael Keough, executive director of North Carolina’s plan. North Carolina’s plan is one of the largest, with 700 participants—one-third of the expected amount.
Federal officials contend that the plans are experiencing growing pains. They need more time to spread the word and tweak the premiums and benefits to spruce up the plans’ appeal. But the real problem is that coverage is too expensive. The health reform law was supposed to make premiums more affordable by saying that the newer versions of the pools cannot charge more in premiums than the average premium for other individual insurance in a particular state. But, as we know, premiums for individual coverage are expensive, so the base is high to begin with. “From my perspective, it is not a good match for people who have expensive conditions,” University of Kansas researcher Jean Hall told Goldstein.
The claims for the sick people who have used pool coverage are “proving very costly” in a few states, Goldstein noted, and she questioned whether the $5 billion Congress allotted to the program is sufficient to cover the medical costs of those needing care. During the debate, a few news outlets did examine that amount; the Associated Press, for one, questioned whether $5 billion was enough. But the pols and the advocates had other agendas and weren’t listening. For the public, the chatter about risk pools did not sink in.
For one person in Chicago, however, it did. The reform message reached fifty-seven year-old Will Wilson, whose story Goldstein relates. After an AIDS diagnosis in 2002, he ended up in bankruptcy because his insurance didn’t cover all of his monthly drug expenses. He said he remembers tears streaming down his face that night in 2009 when Obama told Congress that “health reform cannot wait.” Wilson became an activist, circulating petitions and going to demonstrations in support of reform.
After Obama signed the health reform law in March, Wilson told the Chicago Sun-Times, he had a grin on his face all day at the prospect of joining a high-risk plan. But in July, when he tried to get coverage through the Illinois high-risk pool, he discovered the monthly premium was nearly $600—almost as much as his rent. “It was like no way! I was floored, “ he said.
- 1
- 2
As a former insurance executive and developer of group insurance products, I was quite surprized when Big insurance let Congress delete the public Option. I had always thought that they planned to keep a trimmed version of it as a repository for the pre-existings, and I was confused by why they would drop that from their plans. And that's when it occurred to me: They weren't done with the legislation. They planned to come back later to modify it, telling people they would all pay through their noses if the pre-existings had to be included in regular plans. The publics response could be counted on: Move them to high-risk pools, where their costs could be kept out of everyone else's premiums.
Do you like your auto insurance? Do you like the high risk pools there that every ends up picking up the tab for? Well, that's what they plan for healthcare: Treating your body just like they treat your car. Skimming the cream off the top. Picking the best cherries. Sorry, you pay for the rest, except they hide it in your taxes.
Now if anyone in the government was smart, they would think, since i'm going to be in the health (auto) insurance business anyways, what the heck do I need the insurers for? There really isn't much difference operationally between having (the lousiest) 10% of the market and 100%, so why am I subsidizing the profits of insurers who aren't willing to handle any risk anymore? But of course, that won't happen, and we'll just add one more industry to the growing list of industries that refuse to compete in their marketplaces anymore, preferring instead to roll in the profits guarenteed by government assisted tax extractions from the plebes.
#1 Posted by Benedict@Large, CJR on Tue 4 Jan 2011 at 03:29 PM
The nations that have national healthcare baed on the Canadian model tend to have the best measures of healthcare affordability and satisfaction. The big problem in the US is that healthcare wastes at least half of every dollar on insurers who take it and give absolutely nothing in return, except for indeminifying politicians from responsibility.
The insurance companies pretend to hate the "public option" because they dreamed it up. Really, they should get a big hand for their skillful management of this situation, a situation that would not be allowed to exist anywhere in the civilized world. In the US the corporations basically own the government, and the people are increasingly seen as irrelevant or worse, a burden. The masses were needed during the 20th century to man the factories but no more. So, the fake, intentionally terrible "Health care" that in reality shortens their lives here is seen as a feature, not a bug.
Any Americans who have a serious illness and are not VERY rich would do better almost anywhere other than here. They will pay over a quarter million dollars more each than a similarly situated Canadian for healthcare and will most likely get "healthcare" that for them, is not as good as that in many Third World nations. US Doctors must see 30 patients a day, how could it be? Caveat Emptor.
Poor Britons and Canadians get better healthcare than middle class Americans who pay a third of their income for fake "insurance". The WTO's GATS agreement made things like buying drugs in a state pool to save money WTO-illegal. Long before Obama's backroom deals with PHARMA and a-hip gave away the store, GATS gave away the store. And the US, as the original WTO proponent and a main backer of GATS, couldn't exactly give their own people a better deal, other nations we forced to pay for US drugs, for example, would cry foul. The welfare and indeed survival of 90% of the American people must be subservient to US corporate owners interests in expanding their operations in the still-profitable developing economies.
The rights to you have already been sold.
I want to see a light at the end of this tunnel, but I don't. Where is it? Trudy?
#2 Posted by Franklin D, CJR on Wed 5 Jan 2011 at 01:50 PM
I have reason to believe that a significant number of "sick" Americans are actually misdiagnosed because of criminally overworked doctors and capitated payment plans. Doctors would rather a patient remain, sick than spend a few minutes more to actually figure out their illness and god forbid, cure them.
In the tight economy, with healthcare the last remaining (literally) expenditure of many formerly working Americans, at least until they no longer can pay, patient retention is the name of the game.
The original purpose of health insurance was to keep Americans working during the postwar boom years. Many Americans chose to work rather than go to school. Meanwhile, other nations invested in their people. Now the US is faced with an aging infrastructure and a dearth of innovation because the worst aspects of corporate greed have been given free reign in Washington.
The solution to every problem seems to be less regulation. What's the point of healthy cancer-free families in the future if a dollar can be saved now by using toxic chemicals, for example. Whats the point of food safety if money can be saved by factory farms, in the Third World. See no evil.
The US is already the dumping ground for thousands of chemicals and toxic products banned elsewhere. Even China has lower limits on many chemicals than the US does now, formaldehyde is a good example, used everywhere in fake-wood. (although they are rarely enforced, just like here)
That policy seems geared to keep the fake healthcare industry healthy for at least a few decades to come. God help us.
#3 Posted by Franklin D, CJR on Wed 5 Jan 2011 at 02:07 PM
Will Wilson in Chicago, a 57 year old man with an AIDS diagnosis, is complaining about a monthly premium of $600??? If the Illinois high-risk pool coverage is good and comprehensive, he's not going to get a better deal than that. He's almost certainly uninsurable in the private market. And relatively healthy people in their 50s are paying comparable premiums. Sorry to say but I think he's got unrealistic expectations.
#4 Posted by Harris Meyer, CJR on Wed 5 Jan 2011 at 07:38 PM