|
 |
Health Insurance
Serving Individuals, Families,
Businesses & Groups Nationwide.
|
|
Health Insurance
|
Home
| Schwarzenegger Seeks to Curtail California Individ... »
| Affordable Health Insurance Has Pros and Cons »
| Affordable Health Insurance Still Hard to Find, bu... »
| Should Health Insurance Be Based on Lifestyle Choi... »
| Small Business Health Insurance in Maryland Gets B... »
| Massachusetts Health Insurance Plugs On »
| New Florida Health Insurance Plan Faces Challenges... »
| Lacking Government Insurance Assistance Hurts Cali... »
| Politics Getting Serious About Individual Health I... »
| Obama Proposes Tax Cuts for Small Business Health... »
A new trend in medical tourism is catching a lot of attention; more and more health insurance agencies are offering or planning to offer some coverage to those people who choose to have procedures done overseas. But this is the kind of health insurance "perk" that needs careful attention. While there are some very good doctors practicing abroad, there are also many who don't have the kind of credentials they really ought to, and combined with other dangerous factors, can lead unsuspecting patients to take risks with their health, and even their lives. At MSN Health the new medical tourism trend in health insurance coverage is addressed, and when people can save thousands of dollars for expensive treatments, it's easy to see why it's catching on. But as it says in the article, patients need to be careful, and do their homework. Long plane rides and vacation-type activities don't always mix well with complicated or even dangerous surgeries. Patients should only chose institutions approved by the "international arm of the Joint Commission," a key U.S. accreditation agency, or the International Society for Quality Health Care. Any time a doctor is chosen who isn't verifiable by one of the two agencies, a patient is risking their life. And then there's the need for follow-up care at home, including risk of infection. Certainly patients and health insurance agencies alike can save money by getting these treatments abroad, but it's still all too easy to make a major mistake with your health in a situation like this one.
The issue of individual health insurance and the need to cover those with pre-existing conditions has been in the news in for the last year. But now, Elizabeth Edwards' contribution to a popular blog spot has added a new dimension to the argument: gender. Elizabeth Edwards, Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund and wife of former Presidential candidate John Edwards, made news recently when she argued that under Presidential candidate John McCain's individual health insurance plan, neither she nor he would be able to get coverage. This is because Edwards is currently battling breast cancer, and John McCain has been previously diagnosed with skin cancer. According to the spot at thinkprogress.org, Edwards asserts that McCain's plan is "fundamentally at odds with the point of health insurance: that we share risks," and that by allowing the insurance market to govern itself those people who represent a costly risk (the sick), will fall by the wayside. Furthermore, she goes on to decry the now-common practice of many individual health insurance agencies to charge women more for their coverage, simply because they are women. The reason for the costlier premiums aren't too clearly defined, but it could have to do with anything from maternity costs, to the need for yearly exams and mammograms. As a result, women find it harder to enroll in affordable health insurance, which prompts Edwards to point this out as one more reason why the individual health insurance market is "fundamentally broken."
We know that a lack of quality health insurance for all Americans has lead to an imbalance in treatment and diagnosis for big diseases like cancer, heart disease, and stroke. But how about dengue fever? Or, perhaps schistosomiasis? These are exotic diseases found in far-away places like Africa, Asia and South America. But, thanks to a lack of adequate health insurance, they're fast becoming a problem here. The LA Times reports that "In the Los Angeles area, a pork tapeworm infection called cysticercosis which spreads in crowded, unsanitary conditions, accounts for 10% of seizures resulting in emergency room visits." And 24 exotic diseases known as "neglected infections of poverty" have infected between 300,000 and millions of Americans. The article cites doctors who suggest that the problem isn't that we don't have the ability to screen for and treat these diseases, but that "reporting is another issue." But in order for diseases such as these to be properly treated and controlled, people need health care. And, people who can't afford health insurance are already at a disadvantage in this arena. Too often the poor live in conditions that facilitate sickness, and lack the funds to get treatments when they do get sick. This is why something needs to be done to make access to health insurance affordable. Until we do so, diseases with complicated names like "brucellosis" will continue to effect people who could be protected by routine tests and treatment.
In 2003 Medicare law was supposed to provide more than 6 million people with extra help to get needed medications. Unfortunately, for hundreds of thousands of people that didn't happen. This is why those older Americans who have purchased Medicare supplemental health insurance are often so glad they did - when Medicare red tape stands between them and their health care needs they've got a backup plan to rely on. According to the New York Times the Bush administration promised this week to provide new protections for low-income Medicare beneficiaries to insure that they get those much-needed medications. But will it work? And, what about those who don't qualify as "low-income," but still can't afford medications that are highly expensive? The answer: Medicare supplemental health insurance. For low-income Americans the only option is to rely on Medicare, and to hope that the promises that get made are also kept in good faith. In regards to the 2003 law, many people couldn't get the assistance they needed, or experienced long (and therefore dangerous) delays in getting important medications. Some were overcharged by large sums of money, and others turned away without medications. Hopefully, these new promises will protect those people. But it's important to remember that the poverty-line for Medicare recipients is only $10,400 per year per individual - what if you have more money than that, but still can't afford pricey medications, or need extra care? This is where Medicare supplemental health insurance proves invaluable. For those who want the extra security of more health care coverage, it's nice to know that you have a plan B.
When Hillary Clinton conceded her loss in the Democratic national election, many people believed it would be the end of a pursuit for universal health care. But, as other legislators suggest various ideas and mandates for individual health insurance, it seems this might not be the case. And who would have thought that Clinton's one-time political nemesis, Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, would be the one to propose a mandate for more financially secure Americans who don't purchase individual health insurance? As it's reported at Kaiser's Daily Health Report, Gingrich outlined a health care proposal this week that would include a mandate for U.S. residents who make more than $75,000 a year to purchase individual health insurance, or have to post bonds to cover the cost of their care when they end up in the emergency room. While it's hard to believe that anyone who is financially secure would fail to purchase insurance, this does actually happen. And of course, when those people are sick or injured, their care costs us all. Gingrich also says that he supports federal tax credits for those low-income residents who purchase individual health insurance, though many critics of this plan argue that even with tax credit low-income Americans can't afford many of the out-of-pocket costs associated with health care.
As more and more baby boomers become eligible for Medicare, they're discovering that those who are unfortunately diagnosed with cancer had better have Medicare supplemental health insurance if they want to get good care. A recent article at MSN Health has found that treating Medicare patients with cancer has become substantially more expensive in the past 10 years. This means that those who are diagnosed with specific and common forms of cancer - mainly breast, lung, and colorectal cancer - will need Medicare supplemental health insurance if they want higher quality care, and will be relying on cutting edge medications. Much of the costs are linked to a larger population of older Americans and the increased use of chemotherapy and radiation to treat these cancers. However, a much larger portion of the cost increase is linked to the use of expensive medications that aren't covered by Medicare at all, or aren't covered very well. For example, in the article a drug used to fight breast cancer called "Avastin" is referred to as costing "about $55,000 a year for a Medicare patient." But with Medicare there's a 20% co-pay, and without Medicare supplemental health insurance that person would need to pay $11,000 a year for the drug. These costs, alongside fears for the overall integrity of Medicare in upcoming years, has led many Americans to lose hope that they will be able to rely on it should they be diagnosed with a major illness. Medicare supplemental health insurance can definitely help provide peace of mind for those older Americans who want to plan for the worst, and who don't have a lot of faith in Medicare to provide for their needs as the years go by.
Now that Hillary Clinton has officially conceded her loss to Democratic nominee Barack Obama, many health care organizations, doctors, and struggling Americans are wondering what will happen to their dreams of a universal health insurance plan. At the Washington Post, the argument takes on a moral tone, as the article suggests that class and racial divisions are the real barrier to change in the health insurance industry. In effect, until it begins to impact the lives of the middle class, health insurance is "their problem" and not "our problem." Furthermore, the piece focuses on the Republican party as avoiding the topic because it's "not our voters, not our kind of solution and not our priority." But today the crisis in coverage is effecting the middle class, as millions of Americans of all social and racial backgrounds struggle with rising costs for everything from health insurance, to food, to gas prices. Worse yet, there's another 50 million Americans out there who are underinsured, and only one serious accident or illness away from financial trouble. It's sad to think that we're the only industrialized nation in the world without a universal health care plan because we just don't care about poor and non-white people. Hopefully, after the elections of November we'll be able to demonstrate that this just isn't the case. The 47 million uninsured Americans out there certainly hope so too.
We've heard about it with cancer diagnosis, kidney disease, and even dental work, but now it seems that we can add diabetes and vascular disease to the list of disease impacted by individual access to affordable health insurance. According to a recent article at the New York Times, your race and the state that you live in have a "staggering impact" on the quality of health care you will receive. And, when it comes to race and place, we also know that this translates to access to affordable health insurance. States with larger communities of socio-economically challenged populations just don't get the same medical care as those with richer populations. The results of the study cited out of Dartmouth are disturbing. "Disparities in the rate of leg amputations were particularly stark. The rate for blacks was about 6 per 1,000 in Louisiana, Mississippi and South Carolina, but less than 2 per 1,000 in Colorado and Nevada. The rates for whites in the three Southern states were much lower, about 1.3 per 1,000, but were still more than double the rates for whites in the two Western states." Because of their limited access to affordable health insurance plans, these poorer populations of people are more likely to die of vascular disease or diabetes, or suffer long-term complications, such as amputation. Here again is why it's so important to address health care in America; it's not just about who does and doesn't get top quality care, it's about the quality of life, and making sure that everyone has access to life-saving treatment. One thing is certain - those people with some coverage are far better off than those who have none, so shopping around aggressively for the most affordable health insurance available is of prime importance to anyone who might suffer complications from diabetes and vascular disease.
We've heard about cancer patients and the negative ramifications they face when their disease is diagnosed too late, but now it seems that those who suffer from kidney disease, and don't have access to affordable health insurance, are also suffering dire circumstances. While the article at MSN Health is about racial disparities and medicine, and doesn't mention affordable health insurance but in passing, it's still obvious why it is that those who come from lower economic platforms are suffering more at the hands of kidney disease. According to the article, black and Hispanic kidney disease patients are more likely than white patients to develop kidney failure requiring dialysis or transplant. The list of factors that influence the progression of the disease on non-white populations included "genetic incompatibility; wait-list registration practices; donor kidney acceptance practices; patient interest in transplantation; attitudes and beliefs about organ donation; and differences in risk factors for kidney disease progression after transplantation." But disparities in health care are a top concern too, proving once again that by not offering affordable health insurance to everyone in this country, significant populations suffer unnecessary or preventable medical problems. One of the authors who presented the study in question responded to its release by saying that health providers and organizations need to be aware of these disparities, but the nation's health care policies as a whole must be changed too. And we couldn't agree more.
Kaiser Network examined an article by the Wall Street Journal this week, and in particular Republican presidential nominee John McCain's health plan. The major issue is the same one that's been haunting him all along - what would happen to those with pre-existing conditions under such a plan? The Journal concludes that while shifting the focus to individual health insurance could help some, there are too many Americans out there with these conditions to save us or them much in the way of money. McCain's plan would shift the focus away from employer provided health coverage to individual health insurance by replacing tax breaks for employers with a refundable tax credit for as much as $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families. But McCain's critics have been arguing all along that this doesn't leave an option for those who have pre-existing conditions. Historically, group and employer based plans could offer lower premiums because not all employees will get sick. But in terms of individual health insurance many people with pre-existing conditions must pay much more. McCain's answer are "high risk health insurance pools" that are subsidized by the government. The problem is that use of such pools in the past hasn't been very successful. Premiums can still be too high, and benefits too restricted. In all, the conclusion is that while the focus on individual health insurance could save money for many employers and consumers struggling to pay their premiums, those people who have a pre-existing condition would still find themselves struggling for the coverage they so desperately need.
|
|
