Home
| Medicare Supplemental Health Insurance Saves Those... »
| New Ideas for Individual Health Insurance Laws »
| Medicare Supplemental Health Insurance May Be Need... »
| Will Health Insurance Ever Become Universal Now? »
| Lack of Affordable Health Insurance Widening Racia... »
| Access to Affordable Health Insurance Impacting Ki... »
| Focus on Individual Health Insurance Good for Some... »
| Wisconsin Health Insurance Needs Major Improvement... »
| Prescription Drug Companies Pay Big to Keep Shady ... »
| Health Insurance Companies and Hospitals Make Pati... »
While Democrats have made health insurance one of their central platforms in the upcoming presidential elections, John McCain is just beginning to tour the country with health care in mind. As it's summed up at Reuters, McCain's plan is to cut costs and boost competition, theoretically lowering health care costs. Buyers would be able to skip employer based health insurance and purchase coverage anywhere. There would also be a tax incentive, with $2500 for individuals and $5000 for families who pay for coverage. He plans to spend two days in Florida and later hit Pennsylvania, Ohio, Iowa and Colorado on his health care tour. McCain argues that by choosing a national or universal health insurance plan - as endorsed to some extent by both Clinton and Obama - Americans will sacrifice quality of care. Democrats argue that too many people, especially those with pre-existing conditions, would be excluded from McCain's health insurance plan.
In the back-and-forth political argument over how to insure America's children, it appears that the importance of family health insurance still hasn't been recognized. The New York Times addressed this week the struggle to expand SCHIP (the State children's health insurance program) to cover many middle income children, instead of limiting it to the low income children that have traditionally been covered. Many states, for example, want to extend coverage to children in families that make up to 250% of the federal poverty level, or about $53,000 for a family of four. Unfortunately in late August, the administration imposed new rules that would make it difficult, if not impossible, for many states to expand SCHIP. But what we ought to be asking is this - where has family health insurance gone? The issue of providing coverage to children has become what it is based on the fact that the days of family health insurance seem to have disappeared. No longer can American workers rely on their employment to provide necessary medical insurance for their families. Of course, protecting the health of children is, and should be, a top priority in this country. But parents need to stay healthy too, so they can provide and properly care for their families. And for this reason, we need to find a way to bring family health insurance back.
The article released VOA News makes several good but disturbing points regarding life expectancy in America, but one point it misses is that in those same parts of the country where life expectancy is falling, there is very limited access to health insurance. The main point is that while we as a country have generally enjoyed rising life spans from generation to generation, that trend has come to a halt. Not only will many young people today live shorter lives than their parents, but in some parts of the country life span has already declined. This decline has been linked to poverty, to smoking, to obesity, and rather vaguely, to "health care." But let's be honest, these people can't afford good health insurance, and it's contributing to their early demise. Already we know that a lack of health insurance means that the consumer is more likely to receive a late-stage cancer diagnosis, to suffer from illnesses that can be treated, and to miss important checkups that can lead to early diagnosis and even prevention of many different diseases. So in essence, in those places where affordable health insurance is out of reach, life spans are shorter. Here's yet another reason why those searching for coverage should find a plan that includes those checkups. And for those who can't afford a plan, they should look into state subsidized health care that will provide at least a minimum of screenings for the sick.
At The New York Times the high costs of prescription drugs are recognized as another burden that could eventually drive Medicare into the ground. As benefits shrink and deductibles grow more expensive, will everyone soon be relying on Medicare supplemental health insurance to get by? The article mentions that the prices of prescription drugs most heavily used by the elderly have risen more than 24% since 2006. This means that while older Americans struggle to make ends meet, and Medicare is buried under drug costs, pharmaceutical companies are still raking in the profits. Nowadays, those older Americans who don't have Medicare supplemental health insurance have to worry about what will happen if they get sick - or sicker - and have more medical debt to pay. Already the standard Medicare enrollee pays 25% to 33% of "specialty" (meaning new and important) prescription drugs. And after they meet their $5,726 cap on out-of-pocket spending? That's where the struggling Medicare takes over. As the article makes clear, this doesn't bode well for Medicare. And soon, as the economy continues to struggle and more baby boomers come to rely on it for their health care, everyone will need Medicare supplemental health insurance just to cover the basics.
Just yesterday we posted commentary on the Merck and Schering-Plough scandal, in which those with medical insurance were duped into paying for Vytorin instead of a low-cost generic that is just as effective. Now it looks like Merck is at it again, as Bloomberg.com reveals that Merck & Co. "conducted its own studies on the pain pill Vioxx, then hired companies to ghostwrite reports for medical journals that appeared under the names of scientists who didn't do the majority of the research." By fixing the results of their own prescription drug studies, Merck was able to keep Vioxx on the market, at expensive prices that those with or without medical insurance had to pay out of pocket, while data revealing increased risk of death from Vioxx in patients with Alzheimer's disease was downplayed. Of course, Merck says it isn't so, but the data seems to be pretty clear. And, as we've also seen recently with their concurrent Vytorin scandal, the health of the consumer matters a lot less to these companies than access to their pocketbook. This is why we've said it before, and we'll say it again - make sure your medical insurance policy offers generics, and ask for them whenever possible. If you're in the market for medical insurance, ask about generic drug plans. These drugs have been on the market for a much longer time, and are far less likely to cause negative health problems for the general public.
Forbes.com asks this week, why was it that Merck and Schering-Plough took 20 months to analyze a key study in which their cholesterol blockbuster Vytorin failed to beat a cheaper generic? Simple answer: so those people whose health insurance covered generic drugs would still have to pay big bucks for a medication they thought was helping them. It's not a big shock, after all. Prescription drug companies have been under fire lately for spending billions on advertising new drugs to consumers, for trying to lure doctors to their products with pricey gifts and dinners, and for failing to understand the full ramifications of their medications before they release them to an unsuspecting public. The generic equivalent to Vytorin is now Zocor, and is available to those with health insurance for 1/3 or less than the cost of the newer drug. And, in considering that the companies in question make $5 billion per year in the cholesterol industry, they likely made quite a lot of money by cheating sick people out of cheaper and equally effective prescription drugs. Of course, those who can't afford health insurance at all are stuck paying too much for any of their medications. But, those who do pay for health insurance every month deserve to enjoy the benefits of cheaper medications when their failing health requires it.
Kaiser's Daily Health Policy Report recently addressed the issues created out of the new "Tier 4" insurance systems, in which sick people who already have health insurance are not only paying their premiums, but paying for their expensive prescription drugs as well. Tier 4 plans are plans in which members typically pay "between 20% and 33% of the price of the medications," which can amount to thousands of dollars per month. Worse yet, the drugs that cost consumers the most - for everything from MS to cancer to hemophilia - usually don't have generic alternatives, so members either pay the high costs, or do without medications that could save their lives. Kaiser remarks that such practices mean that "the burden of expensive health care can now affect insured people, too." As if insured people aren't struggling to deal with expensive health care through high health insurance premiums already. The goal behind Tier 4 plans is that it can keep premiums down for employers, and for healthy people who purchase individual health insurance, since the more expensive costs are filtered down to the sickest people. But isn't the point of health insurance that it should protect the sick, not punish them? This is why it's best that consumers shop around aggressively for their coverage, especially online, and avoid any policies that include the Tier 4 plan.
In the wake of a major economic downturn, falling housing prices, and rising insurance costs, American workers have become fearful that they won't be able to pay for their own medical health insurance in the future. According to Kaiser's Daily Health Policy Report, the Employee Benefit Research Institute's annual survey found that 22% of respondents currently working said they are "concerned about not having enough savings to cover medical expenses during retirement," while 27% are concerned about long-term care costs. And those who are already retired are also afraid of potential medical health insurance costs, with 15% of them saying they are worried they did not have enough savings to cover medical expenses, and 28% saying they are concerned they did not have enough savings to pay for long-term care. And it's no surprise they're so nervous, especially since today's retirees are spending around $250,000 per couple for health care alone. Only 12% of workers claim to have saved that much. Ways to lower your costs include making healthy lifestyle decisions, like keeping cholesterol down, eating right, not smoking, and getting exercise. It's also important to have good medical health insurance, or Medicare supplemental health insurance, in order to offset some of the costs of sickness or long term care.
Wisconsin health insurance is in the midst of a tremendous change that may, if all goes as planned by state lawmakers, cover up to 98% of all state citizens by 2010. According to WUWM News, record numbers of children and pregnant women have been enrolling in Badger Care Plus, the state's consolidated Wisconsin health insurance plan made up of the previous plans Badger Care, Medicaid and Healthy Start. The goal is to provide medical coverage for all children in Wisconsin. Low income families may enroll at no charge, while middle income families pay for their premiums, $10 to $68 per month, depending on family income. Since February 1st, more than 66,000 people have signed up in person or online for their coverage. And already the state is looking to expand the initiative in 2009 to adults who don't have children, potentially leaving only 2% of the state population without coverage. Of course, until such a plan is approved those searching for good Wisconsin health insurance need to keep it up, especially looking online. There's no way to know whether or not the state can afford to extend the program at all at this point. But by seeking to offer better coverage to children, Wisconsin has taken a big step towards the health and wellbeing of its most vulnerable state citizens.
A study by the Massachusetts Health Quality Partners has found that while Massachusetts doctors score above average in patient care, there is still room for improvement when it comes to long term outcomes and better health care spending. Could an improved Massachusetts health insurance system solve the problem? According to the Boston Business Journal, Bay State physicians do better than the national average on 24 out of 25 quality-of-care measures, and better than the 90th percentile on 12 out of 25 measures. Furthermore, the state's physicians scored "well above the 50th percentile in managing chronic diseases like diabetes and adult asthma, and above the 90 percentile in areas including children's asthma care." So why the problems with long term solutions and spending? Historically, such issues have been related to medical insurance, and in this case, specifically Massachusetts health insurance. Long term care, like managing cholesterol and diabetes, requires time spent with doctors and sometimes the need for expensive medications. Too many Americans simply can't afford all of this. Will things change now that Massachusetts health insurance is mandated? There's no way to tell just yet. But one thing is certain - those individuals with better insurance can spend more time with doctors learning to manage their health in the long term, and that has less to do with the quality of medical professionals, and more to do with the availability of medical insurance.
|
