|
 |
Health Insurance
Serving Individuals, Families,
Businesses & Groups Nationwide.
|
|
Health Insurance
|
Home
| Will Health Insurance Plans be Taxed? »
| Will Medicare Expansion, Cuts, Lead to More Medica... »
| Loss of Cobra Leaves Unemployed in Search of Indiv... »
| Michigan Health Insurance and Obama's Plan »
| "Botax" for Affordable Health Insurance »
| Trauma Patients Dying for Affordable Health Insura... »
| Savings Billions on Health Care? Try Making Indivi... »
| Affordable Health Insurance Key to Diabetes Treatm... »
| Health Coverage Legislation: How Will it Impact Me... »
| Senators Ask Key Questions About Small Business He... »
The online Michigan news blog Freep.com remarks today that in preparation for the upcoming debate over the final health care bill, the Obama administration sent legislators home with new estimates on how many millions of state residents will be helped by a newer, more affordable version of Michigan health insurance. According to the article, this translates to 1.3 million people who are uninsured, and 459,000 state residents with overpriced individual insurance policies who get "guaranteed coverage for less" on a national insurance exchange. Michigan's health insurance market has been particularly difficult to navigate in recent years, as the economic downturn in the US has created an environment of joblessness and created a large population of uninsured state residents. The bill itself still faces a lot of criticism - from Republicans who claim it will cost too much, to Democrats worried about cuts to Medicare. However, whether it's Michigan health insurance, or a nationwide plan for all Americans, it appears that some form of new health care will emerge from the Senate by the end of this year. And that's good news to the 47 million Americans who currently cannot afford coverage for themselves or their families.
There have been many different arguments against the ongoing health care overhaul, many of which involve finding the means to pay for an affordable health insurance plan for everyone. But Senate Democrats think that the "Botax" could be the answer. According to the LA Times, The senate is thinking of adding a 5% tax on elective cosmetic procedures to finance affordable health insurance - no such tax would be applied to reconstructive surgery for those who have suffered disfigurement. Opponents argue that it's really not fair. Cosmetic surgery isn't covered by insurance, nor does it contribute to the current health care crisis. It's just an easy way to make another $54 billion dollars for the country. It's also another easy means of taxing the wealthier citizens of our country, since it takes a "fair amount" of disposable income to pay for cosmetic surgery. There will certainly be some lobbying against the botax in coming months, since cosmetic surgeons could lose money based on patients getting fewer procedures. However, when weighed against an affordable health insurance plan for those who need it the most, it doesn't seem that the cosmetic surgery industry has a lot of room to maneuver.
In recent years it's become clear that the lack of affordable health insurance is bad for the health of those Americans who can't get coverage. Study after study has found that they're more likely to die of preventable diseases like heart disease, and certain cancers. However, now it seems that even trauma patients are suffering from the lack of insurance. A study conducted for the Archives of Surgery, and cited in the LA Times, finds that patients who don't have access to affordable health insurance are far more likely to die from car accidents and other traumatic injuries than those who have coverage. Far more likely meaning as much as 80% more likely in some cases. This finding surprised a lot of people, since it's been illegal to deny medical treatment to anyone brought into an emergency room since 1986. Some theories to explain the findings include the likelihood that the uninsured are more likely to be suffering from underlying illnesses that make recovery from trauma more difficult. Or, that those without coverage are less likely to receive more expensive yet lifesaving treatments like MRIs and CAT scans. Finally, one factor could include the type of injury. Those who suffer from gunshots and knife wounds are more likely to be lower income individuals, who are similarly unlikely to have health coverage. However, while these findings themselves surprised the medical community, the fact that the lack of affordable health insurance is bad for people isn't surprising at all - we've all known that for awhile. It's only now that we're seeing how that lack is impacting those who can't get coverage.
The title of CBS News' article is "How to Save Billions on Health Care Now." And while the points made in the article are good ones, it doesn't address the very real fact that the lack of affordable individual health insurance is costing us a great deal more than unnecessary surgeries. It makes sense that, as it says in the article, 30% to 40% of elective procedures are unnecessary, often performed at the bequest of those individuals who are hoping to extend their lives. However, out of the $2.5 trillion a year that we pay in health care costs each year, billions of it could be reduced by simply making individual health insurance more affordable. How so? Since 1986 it has been illegal for hospitals to refuse treatment to the uninsured. However, in order to offset the costs of treating them, hospitals routinely overcharge for medical procedures performed on those who do have health coverage. And those costs are passed on through the premiums paid for group health insurance and individual health insurance. If you have either of these, you are already helping to subsidize the health care of the uninsured. However, as most economists agree, if individual health insurance were both affordable and legally required, the costs accrued by treating the uninsured would decrease dramatically, saving us all billions a year. Now, if we could only combine low-cost and yet effective health coverage with a reduction in unnecessary treatments, we might actually save $2.5 trillion a year, and be healthier for it too.
CNN's Health.com reveals to us that nearly 24 million Americans have diabetes, with another 57 million likely to get it in their lifetime. But what they don't reveal is how affordable health insurance could play a part in lowering those numbers. In their segment titled "8 common diabetes questions answered" they address a common concern among those at risk for this life threatening disease: how will I know if I have diabetes? The answer is deceptively simple - you ask a doctor. But what do you do if the lack of affordable health insurance in America makes that an impossibility? Of the 47 million uninsured Americans, how many of them will die from diabetes complications because they couldn't afford coverage? Diabetes and its treatments cost us billions of dollars a year, but by making affordable health insurance available to citizens, those costs, and diabetes-related deaths, could be drastically reduced.
With health coverage legislation in the news every day, many seniors are stuck trying to filter through all the information out there to understand how potential change could impact their Medicare Part C plans, and whether or not supplemental insurance will be an important factor. According to The Examiner, the major change that seniors could see would be higher premiums for Medicare Part C, also known as Medicare Advantage. This is based on the claim that insurers are able to lower premiums for Medicare Advantage because they are being subsidized by taxpayers when they overcharge for Medicare A and B. But, if Medicare Advantage will cost more, will supplemental insurance be affected? Will it be more useful? Medicare supplemental insurance - also known as Medigap - is health coverage offered by private companies that works in conjunction with Medicare to supplement its coverage. Supplemental insurance doesn't always offer drug coverage, but it has almost no co-pays. Since supplemental insurance is offered by insurance companies, it will be impacted by health coverage legislation. But, since it isn't an alternative to Medicare, it isn't going to face the same legislation as Part C. If Part C premiums will go up based on insurance companies no longer being able to overcharge for Medicare A and B, supplemental insurance could become more popular as a means of getting better coverage to compensate for Medicare gaps. This means that unless insurance companies are regulated to prevent overcharging, supplemental insurance prices could go up based on demand. However, if supplemental insurance is offered by the non-profit cooperatives that are part of current health coverage legislation, it could mean that Medigap plans won't see a price change. Either way, there is talk in congress of NOT raising costs for those who already have Medicare plans of any kind, so those who rely on Part C or on supplemental insurance for now may be in the clear.
Following disturbing news that small business health insurance costs would be going up as much as 15% next year, the chairman of the Senate health committee sent letters to major insurers asking for key information. The main points in the letters basically point out that small business health insurance is, according to the article at Reuters, "dysfunctional" and simultaneously "lacking in transparency." And then there's the little issue of how many insurance CEOs are making more than $5 million a year. U.S. lawmakers have been putting pressure on insurance companies in the last year, threatening to reinstate anti-trust laws that had been waived for them, and of course, working to offer Americans a public insurance option in order to create competition among insurance agencies. Small business health insurance is often more expensive than that offered to large corporations, since larger numbers of enrollees lower the cost ratio for insurance agencies. In any large group, most people will stay healthy, and their premiums pay for the unhealthy. But is it fair that small businesses, which struggle to provide insurance based on tighter budgets and suffer more sensitivity to economic downturns, should also be saddled with higher insurance costs? Most say no. Insurance companies are swearing that it's the rising cost of health care that leads to inflated premiums, not them. However, as one senator put it very succintly: "they're just lying."
Most people are aware that the inability to find affordable health insurance has a negative impact on adults - if you get sick and you don't have coverage, you're more likely to die. Period. However, few realized how the lack of family health insurance was affecting kids. At least, we weren't all that aware until just recently, when a study published by John's Hopkins made it all too clear. Released at WebMD's children's page, the study finds that "nearly 17,000 deaths of hospitalized children might have been prevented" if they had access to a good family health insurance plan throughout their youth. While the specifics of how and why these kids are more likely to die aren't laid out in the article, the doctors behind the study make it clear that this finding mirrors that related to adults. In other words, it's a very sad finding, but not one that is very surprising. With fewer and fewer employers able to offer individual coverage, let alone family health insurance, parents are finding it more difficult today to get coverage for their kids. And kids without medical coverage don't get important checkups, or necessary vaccinations. So while the debate rages on regarding how to make affordable health insurance a reality for sick adults, it's probably even more important to remember the littlest victims of a health care system that has become too expensive and too unwieldy to protect 7 million uninsured children throughout the U.S.
|
|
