Meet Jeremy Devor, a technician with an associate degree in engineering, who lives in Salem, Illinois, a town of about 8,000 people 254 miles south of Chicago. It’s a land of corn fields, few jobs, and an unemployment rate of twelve percent. In a good year, Devor’s job at a ten-person engineering firm gives him an income of about $46,000. This year, though, he figures he will pull in about $44,000, what with the recession taking its toll on overtime pay. That’s 32 percent above the poverty line for his family of seven.
Devor is the kind of person reformers must have had in mind as they’ve pushed toward changing the health system—a middle class, middle American. But if the bills were to take effect now, Devor wouldn’t get much help. “I already had doubts the legislation would do anything,” he said. “The legislation, it seems, is not going to help me. It’s more of the same.”
Devor and his family, including his five kids, have health insurance from his employer, a branch of a Fortune 500 engineering consulting company which provides coverage—good coverage—for its employees. It was the kind of coverage the president told the electorate they could keep if they were happy with it. In his speech to the nation in September, Obama reassured millions of Americans with employer-provided coverage that reform would “make the insurance you have work better for you,” and drove home the point they would not have to change coverage or doctors.
But changing coverage or doctors isn’t Devor’s problem. By today’s standards, his insurance is generous and more or less comprehensive—unless his carrier, Blue Cross Blue Shield, decides to reject one of the family’s claims. “They reject everything the first time around,” he says. The deductible is $500 for each family member and $1,000 for the family—low compared to the enormous deductibles of $3000, $5000, and even $10,000 families face today as employers shift costs to their workers. Copays are light, too—$15 for doctor visits; $30 for specialists; $75 for the ER, and only ten percent of any doctor or hospital bill if he stays in network. The out-of-pocket maximum is $2,000, and he always tops out on it.
For this coverage, his share of the premium is $5,443 a year—more than 12 percent of his income—or $209 every two weeks, deducted before he gets his take-home pay of about $1300. Last week, his monthly premium increased $60; without overtime or any raises this year, that’s effectively a cut in his income. Devor sometimes works a second job shoveling manure, and his wife doubles as a bartender, earning four dollars an hour, plus tips. He could lower the premium by upping the deductible to $1000 per person, but says he can’t swing the out-of-pocket expenses a higher deductible would require. In fact, he adds, “I don’t make enough money now to cover the deductibles, and we don’t always have the money for the copayments.”
Nobody in his family has had any serious illnesses, but they have plenty of everyday medical expenses that are the result of common accidents and ailments that need medical attention. “The regular stuff kids get,” he says. “One or two go to the emergency room every year.” His daughter fell and needed stitches in her lip; his son had a high fever and couldn’t stop vomiting; another daughter stepped on some broken glass that wedged between her toes. When Devor couldn’t pull it out with a pliers, he realized she needed immediate care to stop the bleeding.
You go because the doctor isn’t available for two or three days, or it’s the weekend, he says. Once his face swelled up on a Saturday morning—an allergic reaction—and he couldn’t breathe. If the ER visit is $3000, as it was when the hospital did lab tests and imaging procedures on his son who was vomiting, the ten percent coinsurance—$300—quickly becomes unaffordable. A couple of visits like that one, and bingo: Devor has $600 of debt that he can’t pay off.
- 1
- 2
Aren't his kids eligible for CHIP in Illinois?
#1 Posted by Pat, CJR on Tue 1 Dec 2009 at 11:41 AM
Hi, I am the Jeremy in the article, and I want to respond to Pat. My wife and I attempted to get our kids into the CHIP program and were informed that my income level was too high to qualify.
#2 Posted by Jeremy, CJR on Wed 2 Dec 2009 at 11:29 AM
Trudy, correct me if I'm wrong, but at least under HR 3962, a 10-person engineering firm would be Exchange-eligible as soon as the Exchange goes into effect -- which unfortunately would not be until 2013 or 2014. So I'm not sure you can state categorically that Jeremy would be ineligible for the public plan, at least if the provisions of the House bill survive in Conference.
Not that employer Exchange eligibility would itself make Jeremy's life or finances more bearable. For one thing, there's the gap before the Exchange gets rolling.
Then there's the issue -- hardly ever addressed in news coverage -- of what precisely it means for an employer, as opposed to an individual, to be Exchange eligible. Would Jeremy be free to choose the public plan? Or would he still be locked into whatever plan, public or private, the employer chose from the Exchange?
I put that question to an HCAN spokesperson, who essentially answered that the employer could either dictate the choice of plan from the Exchange or release the employee to make his individual choice from the Exchange. So, at least if the HCAN guy is right (a big caveat), Jeremy's freedom or lack thereof to "shop" on the Exchange would still be in the hands of his employer.
Which still begs the question of whether an Exchange plan -- public or not, subsidized or not -- would protect someone like Jeremy from the claim-by-claim, expense-by-expense obstructions that make the actual difference between real-life "affordability" and hardship.
The true scandal of Obamacare has always been the glib conflation of "affordable" insurance with real-life medical financial security. Thanks for hammering on that theme so often, and with so little company among journalists.
#3 Posted by ralphbon, CJR on Thu 3 Dec 2009 at 01:28 AM
Meanwhile, a note to the CJR copy editor: the phrase "for awhile" does not exist. You need to either separate "a while" or, if appropriate in context, lose the "for" and let "awhile" stand alone as an adverb.
#4 Posted by ralphbon, CJR on Thu 3 Dec 2009 at 01:34 AM