Friday, September 22, 2006

Insurance Horror Stories - New York Times

Insurance Horror Stories - New York Times
September 22, 2006
Op-Ed Columnist
Insurance Horror Stories

By PAUL KRUGMAN
“When Steve and Leslie Shaeffer’s daughter, Selah, was diagnosed at age 4 with a potentially fatal tumor in her jaw, they figured their health insurance would cover the bulk of her treatment costs.” But “shortly after Selah’s medical bills hit $20,000, Blue Cross stopped covering them and eventually canceled her coverage retroactively.”

So begins a recent report in The Los Angeles Times titled “Sick but Insured? Think Again,” which offers a series of similar horror stories, and suggests that these stories represent a growing trend: more and more health insurers are finding ways to yank your insurance when you get sick.

This trend helps explain something that has been puzzling me: why is the health insurance industry growing rapidly, even as it covers fewer Americans?

Between 2000 and 2005, the number of Americans with private health insurance coverage fell by 1 percent. But over the same period, employment at health insurance companies rose a remarkable 32 percent. What are all those extra employees doing?

Now we know at least part of the answer: they’re working harder than ever at identifying people who really need medical care, and ensuring that they don’t get it. In the past, they mainly concentrated on screening out applicants likely to get sick. Now, it seems, they’re also devoting a lot of effort to finding pretexts for revoking insurance after they’ve already granted it. They typically do this by claiming that they weren’t notified about some pre-existing condition, even if the insured wasn’t aware of that condition when he or she bought the policy.

Welcome to the ugly world of American health care economics.

Health care is poised to become America’s largest industry. Employment in manufacturing, which once dominated the economy, has fallen 18 percent since 2000, to 14.2 million. Meanwhile, employment in the private health services industry has risen 16 percent, to 12.6 million. Another 1.3 million people are employed at government hospitals. So we’re quickly approaching the point at which more Americans will be employed delivering health care than are employed producing manufactured goods.

Yet even as health care becomes the core of the American economy, our system of paying for health care remains sick, and is getting sicker.

Because everyone faces some risk of incurring huge medical costs, only the superrich can afford to be without health insurance. Yet private insurers try to refuse coverage to those most likely to need it, and deny payment whenever they can get away with it.

The point isn’t that they’re evil or greedy (although you do wonder how the people who cut off the Schaeffers can look themselves in the mirror). The fact is that cruelty and injustice are the inevitable result of the current rules of the game. Blue Shield of California is a nonprofit insurance provider, yet as a spokesman put it, if his organization doesn’t follow the for-profit practice of selectively covering only the healthiest people, “we will end up with all the high-risk people.”

Now, before you panic about the state of your own coverage, you should know that the horror stories in The Los Angeles Times article all involve individual insurance; if your coverage comes via your employer, you’re reasonably secure against sudden cancellation.

But employment-based insurance is in rapid decline, as employers balk at the cost and more and more companies adopt Wal-Mart-style minimal-benefit policies. That’s why many people are turning to individual insurance — only to find out, in some cases, that they didn’t get what they thought they paid for.

And here’s the thing: it’s all unnecessary.

Every other wealthy nation manages to provide almost all its citizens with guaranteed health insurance, while spending less on health care than we do. And there’s no mystery why: we’re paying the price for pointless, destructive reliance on private insurers. Medicare, which is a universal health insurance program for older Americans, spends less than 2 cents of every dollar on administrative costs, leaving 98 cents to pay for medical care. By contrast, private insurance companies spend only around 80 cents of each dollar in premiums on medical care; much of the remaining 20 cents is spent denying insurance to those who need it.

If we had a universal system — Medicare for everyone — there would be no more horror stories like those reported by The Los Angeles Times. And we’d almost certainly spend less on health care than we do now.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

While much of this is absolutely true...the insurance companies are greedy, their actions reprehensible, and our government's empathy with the plight of its citizen's is, well, pathetic...we should not kid ourselves about the reality of what is referred to here as "Medicare for everyone." Medicare works in this country to some degree because it is being provided as part of a privatized healthcare system. In Canada, where such a supposed Utopia of "free" medical care currently exists, individuals and families wait months, and sometimes a year or more, for the priviledge of seeing a doctor for free. A friend of mine, who's son may be autistic, has been advised by friends to start trying to get an appointment for a specifc kind of testing he will need at the age of 4. This test is intended to get him properly placed in the school system. Her son is now 2 and a half, but give that the specialist with whom she needs to meet has an 18-month wait, she's already working on getting an appointment! If her friends hadn't advised her of this longer-than-usual lag time, and urged her to start the process now, she might have waited until he was 3 and a half, and her son would have spent a year or more in the wrong educational environment before being officially diagnosed. Further, Canadians in need of emergency medical treatments and surgeries are coming across our borders by the hundreds each year, and paying out of pocket for life-saving procedures because they will die waiting for what the government will provide. All of this, of course, is "free" which is good, right?

Wrong. When something, anything, is "free," there are people who will use services and get tests that they truly don't need, causing a shortage for everyone else. This is true today of insured people within our own system. The logic goes something like this. "Sure, run the test. I'm not paying for it, so what do I care?" Or, "I pay my insurance premiums each month, I think I WILL ask my doctor about the 'purple pill!'" For many people, once they're not paying for something, it becomes a disincentive to be att all judiciuos in thier use of that thing. Imagine the mayhem of a country of 200 million+ people with "free" healthcare!

Not to mention that "free" provision of services mandated by the government is a form of socialism, and that doctors and other healthcare providers are professionals deserve to operate thier businesses in our free-market economy along with the rest of us.

So, is the solution asking the government to provide a free service to ALL citizens regardless of their actual need for that service? We can do better than that. The solution lies in reducing the waste that is caused by lack of incentive about preserving our health resources and about improving one's own health. Why not give tax credits to people who pay into health insurance but who stay healthy and therefore don't use it? Would you excercise more and eat better if you could not only drop a few pounds but get a $500 tax rebate. I would. Or how about an incentive to employers who provide preventative healthcare measures and wellness seminars to employees? They would realize the triple benefit of higher employee moral, less lost time due to staff illness, plus whatever monies or tax benefits might be devised. Where does money for these programs come from? Why not impose additional taxes on products that contribute the most to health problems...10 cents of the purchase price of every Triple Whopper with cheese goes to sustaining the previously mentioned programs.

Now of course, none of this addresses those health issues that are out of control of the individual. Leukemia, Breast Cancer or even Mental Illness. How do we attain the ideals of our society and help those who can't help themselves? Well, there's the beauty. Under a smarter system, the resources of doctors, hospitals and insuance companies alike would be available for these individuals who are truly in need, becuase they would not be over-taxed by those who use the system gratuitously. In a "free" healthcare system, serioiusly ill individuals would wait in line behind many who just wanted care because it was free.

We are a nation built on the creativity and hard work of entrepreneurs and trail blazers, not of takers with their hands out. Free federally-sponsored healthcare is a step down the path toward dependence, rather than a boon for independence, and will only lead to a greater sense of expecancy and entitlement regarding government assistance.