|
 |
Health Insurance
Serving Individuals, Families,
Businesses & Groups Nationwide.
|
|
Health Insurance
|
Home
| Micro-Businesses Weigh In on the November Election... »
| McCain & Obama's Small Business Health Insurance P... »
| Group Health Insurance in Alabama Faces Obesity Pe... »
| Medicare Part D Not Well Regulated »
| 79 Million Struggling With Health Insurance and Me... »
| Individual and Group Health Insurance Costs Up 100... »
| Many Americans Forgoing Treatment to Save Money on... »
| Health Insurance Premiums Go Up, But More Slowly »
| Schwarzenegger Seeks to Curtail California Individ... »
| Affordable Health Insurance Has Pros and Cons »
Regina E. Herzlinger, professor of business administration at Harvard Business School and the author of "Who Killed Health Care?" has written an interesting article about portable health insurance published by the Washington Post. Herzlinger's point is that universal mandates aside, neither Clinton nor Obama's health care plans is the most beneficial to the public. Instead, she argues, portable health insurance would change the health care market as a whole, forcing insurers to lower prices in the name of luring consumers with more options. After all, we purchase our own life insurance independent of where we live and who we work for, why not health insurance too? Other aspects of her plan would include offering insurance companies more money to insure those with pre-existing conditions. This would mean that those who need insurance the most would be certain to get it. She would also offer tax incentives to individuals who purchase their own health insurance, and offer subsidies to those who can't afford the new, lower health insurance premiums. She ends by referencing how such a plan has been working for Switzerland, where health care is both mandated and consumer-driven. And, with the Swiss enjoying some of the best health care in the world at a fraction of what we pay, it's easy to see why portable health insurance might just be the answer to our health care woes.
A new survey released by the AFL-CIO revealed this week that people in the U.S. workforce are very concerned with the rising costs of health insurance and struggle regularly with other health care costs. The study, as it's reported by eFluxMedia.com, reveals that even those people who do enjoy insurance benefits are afraid of what will happen if they can't pay for their health care. "Although most of the respondents were employed, college graduates, union members and had health insurance, they were not satisfied about the U.S.'s health-care system." Of the survey respondents 95% thought it cost too much, and 62% were unhappy with the quality of their care. Worse yet, 76% of people surveyed who lacked health insurance themselves said someone in their family had to skip a visit to the doctor due to health care costs, even though that family member was truly sick. And missing doctor's appointments is one of the most dangerous practices of all, since those appointments help doctors to spot serious problems before they can get out of hand. This is why even those with minimal health care coverage should take advantage of it, and those who don't should search for health insurance that offers basic checkups and a certain number of emergency visits.
In a strange twist, a study released this week by the University of Chicago Medical Center found that those patients who receive free drug samples from their doctors end up having significantly higher health insurance costs than those who do not, specifically in terms of out-of-pocket costs. According to MSN Health, patients who received free samples spent about $166 in out-of-pocket costs on prescription drugs in the six months before receiving the samples, $244 for the six months in which they received samples, and $212 for the six months following receipt of the free drugs. Meanwhile, patients who didn't get free samples spent about $178 on prescription drugs over six months, saving considerably on their overall health insurance costs. What's going on here? One theory is that those who are given free samples are sicker people, but the other theory makes just as much sense; that is, people who don't have good health insurance aren't given samples, while those who do are not only given the free drugs, but go on to use those same, more expensive drugs exclusively. This fact serves as yet another reminder that whenever possible, it's best to use the generic drugs that are available to American consumers. These drugs often cost a fraction of what newer drugs can cost, have been on the market longer and are therefore often safer, and are just as effective. Furthermore, it's often easier to find a decent health insurance plan that only covers generics in the first place. And having some drug coverage is always better than having none and then being forced to pay too much for designer medications.
Following in the footsteps of states like Vermont, Massachusetts, and Maine, a bi-partisan group of legislators unveiled a proposal this week aimed at converting New Jersey health insurance to a universal health care model. The New York Times reports that the proposal would require all residents to have health care coverage within three years. Due to the state's own budgetary concerns, alongside what some call an impending recession, the universal New Jersey health insurance plan would avoid adding to the budget, and would instead try to redistribute federal and state dollars in a more efficient way. With almost 1.4 million uninsured state residents in New Jersey - about 20% of the population - there is clearly the need for some kind of health care reform throughout the state. However, not everyone has greeted the plan with open arms. Some fear that by making New Jersey health insurance mandatory, without lowering actual health care costs, employers will be forced to drop coverage for their employees completely. But even if the legislation makes the July 1st deadline for the new state budget, it won't be until 2011 that the full impact of such a move can be ascertained. Until then, state residents need to keep shopping around for the best insurance they can afford.
The Heritage Foundation released an article this week regarding individual health insurance that suggests a more portable health care system that wouldn't leave people uninsured when they move, switch jobs, or try to get off subsidized health care. The plan would need some major changes to make it possible: like employer sponsored coverage, individual health insurance would need to be partially subsidized through tax breaks. Plans would need to be flexible enough to move from state to state, and affordable enough for people to purchase. And, it would need to be made easier to move away from public assisted health care to private coverage. The goal is for American citizens to own their own individual health insurance policies, much as they own other insurance policies today. It would also minimize the unstable phenomenon known as "churning," where people repeatedly gain and lose their health insurance, resulting in frequent spells of uninsurance. In fact, 89.5 million people were uninsured for at least one month during 2005 and 2006, which is a lot more than is reflected in the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey estimate of 47 million. Much of these suggestions for individual health insurance have been made by upcoming presidential nominees, especially the notion of price controls and tax breaks. Whether such a plan could work remains to be seen, but the truth is that while "churning" is a dangerous phenomenon, the issue of being chronically uninsured for those 47 million is even worse.
While studies have recently found that a lack of medical coverage is more likely to lead to health problems and earlier mortality rates, the one released today is the first to pinpoint a state, and a specific rate of illness and death, finding that a lack of Michigan health insurance kills two state residents each day. Reported at Freep.com, Families USA addresses the studies that have found that "premature deaths among the uninsured nationwide are twice the rates of people who are killed by homicide." In terms of Michigan health insurance, that adds up to 650 Michiganders a year, nearly two a day. The problem in Michigan is the same as everywhere else; the high costs of health care leads more employers to drop health coverage, and people are finding insurance premiums too costly to purchase a plan their own. For those who can't afford Michigan health insurance there are state subsidized plans available for doctor's appointments and screenings. They can be found online or information will be available at your local hospital. But for those who haven't shopped around much, it's best to look online and to compare several plans. Opt for one that offers yearly checkups, since it's this important time with medical professionals that makes the biggest impact on health.
According to the American Cancer Society and the American College of Gastroenterology, for the first time, more than half of the U.S. population - 54% - is covered by state laws that require insurance providers to cover the cost of colon cancer screening tests. Here again is another reason why affordable health insurance can save lives, and money. According to the article at MSN Health, if all Americans aged 50 and older had regular colon cancer screenings, colorectal cancer deaths could be reduced by as much as 60%; but only half of people at risk for colon cancer get screened for the disease because they don't have access to affordable health insurance. Those who do have medical coverage and get their screenings are more likely to survive if the disease is found. About 90% of people diagnosed with early-stage colon cancer survive five years, compared with only 10% of patients diagnosed with late-stage colon cancer. For those people who couldn't or didn't find an affordable health insurance plan, their medical costs will also be higher when it comes time to treat the disease. This is why those who do have medical coverage should always take advantage of that coverage and get as many screenings as their doctor recommends. Those who don't enjoy the benefits of insurance should shop around aggressively for a plan that offers yearly checkups with doctors, including screenings to catch cancer while it is easiest to treat.
The Anchorage Daily News is right to support Rep. Don Young, who co-sponsored and voted for a bill requiring equal coverage for mental illnesses under health insurance. Such a move could certainly work to de-stigmatize mental illness, and to offer treatment to millions of Americans whose lives could be vastly improved by such a service. The bill specifically requires that when an insurance policy covers both mental and physical illness, the coverage must be equal. And, it would no longer be legal to cover just a few mental conditions, or to require higher co-payments for mental health benefits. Unfortunately, by not mandating that health insurance agencies offer mental health provisions, this same bill could easily do more damage than good. After all, why would insurance companies choose to lose money, as will invariably happen if they add mental health coverage under the new bill? Without forcing companies to offer the coverage, many of them just won't, leaving those with mental illnesses to struggle without what little help they've already had. Perhaps a mandate will soon follow, especially if agencies should suddenly stop offering mental health services. In the mean time, those who do enjoy mental health coverage with their health insurance should take advantage of it, and enjoy the benefits of body and mind that a good insurance policy can offer.
Even as more prescription drugs become available in generic form, the costs for those medications most often prescribed to older Americans and those who are ill go up, placing an undue burden on people who can't afford health insurance. As it's reported by MSN Health, "the wholesale prices of brand name medicines most commonly prescribed to elderly Americans increased an average of 7.4% last year, an increase about 2.5 times greater than general inflation." And as these prices go up, those without health insurance are forced to go without potentially life saving medications. A national telephone survey found that 16% said they have a "serious" problem paying for prescription drugs; 29% said they haven't filled a prescription in the past two years because of the cost; and 23% said they've cut pills in half or skipped doses in order to make medications last longer. The best thing for those who are looking for health insurance is to make sure your plan covers generic drugs, and specifically ask for them when prescribed by your doctor. Sometimes doctors aren't aware of the costs of a brand name drug, and in many cases, going with the generic version is just as good for your health, and a whole lot better for your pocketbook.
With all of the debate regarding health care from presidential hopefuls, it seems strange that the elephant in the room should be Medicare. But according to Kaiser's Daily Health Report, that's exactly the case. As it's reported in the article, Clinton and Obama have highlighted their proposals to expand health insurance to more U.S. residents, but they have said "little" about the "more immediate challenge" of "how to tame the soaring costs of Medicare and Medicaid." With record numbers of baby boomers set to become eligible for Medicare in the next 10 years, the costs of providing them with the health plan they've been prepared to depend upon could put a serious wrench in either of the universal health care plans proposed by Clinton and Obama. And Republic nominee John McCain has called Medicare a "fiscal train wreck" insinuating that his approach to nationwide subsidized health care would be to cut costs. Regardless of who wins, it would be smart for all seniors who can afford Medicare supplemental insurance to have some on hand. Whether it's a new universal health plan, or health care budget cuts, Medicare is likely in for some changes in the coming years.
|
|
