« Christians as folk | Main | The elves are restless »
Monday, 26 November 2007
‘Health care reform?’ Hush! You’ll anger the Insurance Gods!
By BRAD WARTHEN
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR
EVERYWHERE YOU GO in South Carolina, if there is a presidential candidate nearby (and they do seem to be everywhere), you’ll see people in red T-shirts that say “Divided We Fail.”
That’s the AARP’s way of drawing the candidates’, and everyone else’s, attention to the organization’s belief that “All Americans should have access to affordable health care, including prescription drugs, and these costs should not burden future generations.”
You’ve heard about how one in seven Americans, or some such awful number, has no health insurance. But I’m not here to talk about that. Today, I’m talking about the other six of us who have coverage. If routine — not even catastrophic, but routine — health care is “affordable” for those of us with insurance, then somebody redefined the word while my brain was imploding from trying to figure out which health plan to pick for next year.
As AARP’s Web site notes, “Whether we have good health benefits or not, it seems that insurance premiums, deductibles, and co-payments always seem to rise faster than our paychecks.”
Not that I’m complaining! I love my benefits, and I love the job that provides me with them — love it love it love it. I’ll never, ever leave it, or even threaten to. I will pay no attention to that same AARP article when it moans that “Too many Americans are locked into jobs or stopped from opening their own businesses because of worries about affording or maintaining health insurance.” Hah! “Opening their own businesses?” I’ll let the saps who don’t have families and think they’ll never get sick engage in such crazy entrepreneurial tricks as that.
To complain about our health insurance is to risk offending the Insurance Gods, and their ways are mysterious and terrifying.
Just the other day I went to my allergist’s office to get the results of my first skin tests in 20 years. I’d been getting allergy shots based on the old tests all that time, and my allergist, being a highly trained professional, thought it might be a good idea to see if I was still allergic to the same stuff. Actually, I can’t tell you for sure that the shots ever helped. So why get them? Because my insurance pays for allergy shots, but won’t pay any more for me to take Zyrtec, which I know relieved my symptoms. The Insurance Gods say I don’t need Zyrtec.
Anyway, at the end of my visit I went to pay my $50 copay, and the lady at the counter — one of those ladies who is neither a doctor nor a nurse, but one of the army of priestesses every doctor employs to perform arcane rituals all day aimed at appeasing the Insurance Gods — told me that I had a credit on my account, so today I only had to pay $17.45 cents. Timidly, I asked why I had a credit when I hadn’t paid anything lately. She shrugged and said she and her colleagues never ask, because no one understands why insurance does what it does.
But ... come a little closer so I can say this softly... there are times when the Insurance Gods are not so kind. For instance:
Earlier this year, after surgery worked only briefly to relieve head-pounding sinus pain, my surgeon gave me a prescription for Allegra. I started to protest adding yet another drug to the 11 I was already taking, counting the prednisone he was putting me on, but then he said it was the generic version, so I said OK. My copay is only like $10 on generics; the Insurance Gods say generics are good.
Then my pharmacy said my copay for my 30 generic pills would be $81.95. Stunned, I asked why? They shrugged and said no one knew; the Insurance Gods just said so. I shut up and paid it, even though it meant delaying paying on my mortgage or my electricity bill or some other frill. I think the pills helped, but I certainly wasn’t going to get a refill.
I make more money than most people do here in the wealthiest country in the history of the world, and I live paycheck to paycheck, in large part because of the cost of being an extremely allergic asthmatic, and needing to do what it takes to keep enough oxygen pumping to my brain to enable me to work so I can keep paying my premiums and copays. My premiums in the coming year — we’re going to a new plan — will be $274.42 on every biweekly check, not counting dental or vision care. And I’m lucky to have it. I know that, compared to most, I’ve got a sweet deal!
I’m in the top income quintile in the U.S. population, and we can’t afford cable TV, we’ve never taken a European vacation or done anything crazy like that, we haven’t bought a new car since 1986, and aside from the 401(k) I can’t touch until I retire (if I can ever afford to retire), we have no savings.
Yet I will pay my $274.42 gladly, and I will thank the one true God in whom I actually do believe that I have that insurance, and that I am in an upper-income bracket so that I can just barely pay those premiums, and that neither my wife (a cancer survivor) nor I nor either of the two children (out of five) the gods still let me cover is nearly as unhealthy as the people I see whenever I visit a hospital.
Speaking of hospitals, I recently heard Mike Biediger, CEO of Lexington Medical Center, marveling that when he started in the business, health care soaked up 7 percent of the U.S. economy, and no one thought it could go higher. Now, he said, it’s 16 percent, and climbing.
That’s why so many physicians and corporate CEOs who once would have bellowed in rage at the sound of “socialized medicine” now believe we’ve got to do something as a nation to get this mess under control. So we’re going to do something, right? Don’t bet on it. What I’ve seen from presidential candidates thus far seems very timid, and disturbingly deferential toward the Insurance Gods (who once got very angry at one of them), and the Big Pharma Gods as well.
Mr. Biediger pointed me to a recent piece in the New England Journal of Medicine that explained that “no matter how much momentum it seems to have, no matter how many signs point to change, there is nothing inevitable about health care reform in the United States. In U.S. health policy, the status quo is deeply entrenched and, despite all its failings, the system is remarkably resistant to change, in part because many constituencies profit from it.”
And there’s not a lot we can do about it — except maybe get one of those red T-shirts, and show up every time a presidential candidate comes to town. They’ve got boxes full of them at AARP headquarters, and they’ll give you one for free.
Posted by Brad Warthen at 03:05 PM in Elections, Health, Personal, The Nation
Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/337487/23542310
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference ‘Health care reform?’ Hush! You’ll anger the Insurance Gods!:
Comments
Brad, this is probably your best editorial. It hit on all the right points. My family has been hit hard by the medical health care system this year. There is just no understanding it. I don't mind paying a significant portion of our medical bills. But there should be some limit on what you pay when you HAVE insurance.
As for the uninsured. Those folks have an almost insurmountable challenge whenever they get sick. They will receive care at someone's expense but it's unlikely to be the best and much of what they suffer might have been avoided with some preventive care. Yet all we hear from most of the political candidates, especially the Republicans, is that we cannot have socialized medicine. Wake up America. Big Insurance and Big Pharma have pulled off a huge marketing coop. They've sold Americans on a failed system that benefits only a few who have a financial stake in these two industries.
Posted by: bud | Nov 26, 2007 4:13:13 PM
The red shirts represent people who want even cheaper healthcare than the already heavily subsidized Medicare program provides (I believe a discount of 50-70% off what those of us with private insurance pay).
It's fine to complain about the insurance companies, but please offer some solutions.
Posted by: Doug Ross | Nov 26, 2007 4:20:26 PM
This article has been cited on the Health Care Reform Now! blog, a companion to the new book by George C. Halvorson. You can view the posting at this URL:
http://healthcarereformnow.blogspot.com/2007/11/health-care-reform-availability-vs.html
Posted by: George Williams | Nov 26, 2007 4:42:58 PM
Unfortunately, when health insurance reform is attempted, big pharmacy and big insurance team up together and blanket the media with advertisements that claim that the reform in question is worse than projectile plague. In reality both of these big businesses spend a lot of money advertising their wares, often in a misleading way. For all of the "regulation" that these two businesses supposedly have, there is very little that I know of that effectively protects the consumer.
Posted by: Karen McLeod | Nov 26, 2007 5:55:45 PM
Doug, we need to recognize that we already have a form of socialized medicine; it's just not very efficient or equitable. Once we accept that as a fact then we cope with the high costs as best we can with some type of European national health insurance plan. Most Europeans pay less for health care than we do and they live longer to boot. Sadly, all the presidential candidates seem to want to continue with some version of the status quo.
Posted by: bud | Nov 26, 2007 7:12:27 PM
Bud,
I can recognize the need for providing more equitable healthcare but I think it is a complex issue. Any solution that involves the government setting rates or establishing who has access to healthcare will be a recipe for disaster. The best surgeons, etc. will not go for it - a good friend who is one of the top ortho guys in the country told me he will quit before he allows the government to tell him what he can charge and who he can treat. He won't take Medicare patients because he ends up losing money on every surgery after factoring in the hospital costs and his overhead. What's the government going to do?
It's all a question of priorities. Was it necessary to spend over $100K on my father's healthcare in the final two weeks of his life when even the best outcome would have been a "life" spent blind, mute, and being fed through a tube?
The fix to healthcare should start with tort reform to reduce malpractice lawsuits; then look at fixing the drug patents so that generic drugs can be created sooner; then tax the heck out of cigarettes;
And just imagine the healthcare system we could provide to Americans if just 10% of the money spent on the War on Terror was diverted to a more useful cause like medical screening and insurance for all children. Priorities...
Posted by: Doug Ross | Nov 26, 2007 8:03:20 PM
There is something inherently wrong when health insurance is tied so closely to capitalism. Why should anyone profit when another person gets sick? Do we really value wealth over health?
I see nothing wrong with offering government-run health insurance and making it available to anyone who wants it. I used to live in Japan and they had national health insurance there. I paid 30% of all medical costs and the government paid the other 70%. I had to pay for my own medicine though. It was so simple to deal with and I didn't harbor any resentment towards "the government" at all. Heck, I'm sure a lot of us would rather have our taxpayer dollars involuntarily go towards supporting national health insurance that we can ALL use than have it involuntarily go to programs that offer no benefit to most Americans, such as Social Security and Medicare.
Posted by: The 7:10: Anthony Palmer | Nov 27, 2007 8:48:58 AM
Doug, you're correct, this is a very complicated issue. Medical treatment is difficult and it's often not even possible to diagnose what's wrong with you. But why does the financial aspect of it have to be so frustrating and expensive? I don't mind paying a reasonable amount out of pocket. In fact that is crucial to keep the system from getting abused.
But at some point, after I've paid my premiums and met my deductibles, and the doctors are still trying to figure out what's wrong with me I would just like a little financial relief. That would seem like a good place for the government to step in and help those most in need. The doctors could charge what they want up to a certain number of visits then if they haven't solved the problem they would have to accept the going government rate. The government would, in effect, serve to finance catastrophic health care. The sky should not be the limit whenever a patient clearly is not going to get better.
Posted by: bud | Nov 27, 2007 11:29:21 AM
Click here for another story (and heated discussion) about a middle-class family's trouble finding affordable health insurance.
Posted by: Martin Beck | Nov 27, 2007 2:21:19 PM
There are two sides to this coin. Yes, insurance companies are monsters, but medical providers charge way too much money. To those doctors who say they will quit before they allow government to regulate them in any way, I say let them quit. They need to work in the real world like the rest of us do. I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to make a lot of money (yeah, yeah, they went to school for a long time and worked really hard -- as though the rest of us didn't) but there needs to be some limits put on unmitigated greed.
While I'm posting, I want to relay my family's recent insurance company horror story. I know most everybody has their own horror story, but this just happened to my family a few weeks ago. My 38 year old niece was diagnosed with breast cancer and had both breasts removed. This was done on a Thursday morning and the surgery took nearly 8 hours. Friday morning she was dismissed from the hospital because insurance would only pay for one night! She absolutely was in no shape to take care of herself. Because of the muscle involvement of the surgery she couldn't even open a pill bottle. Cousins, aunts, uncles -- we all took turns staying with her for a few days at a time. What if she had had no family? This is just ridiculous.
Posted by: JimT | Nov 27, 2007 6:47:31 PM
Martin - the article (and the comments) are a perfect example of the issues related to healthcare costs.
Living in a $535,000 home with a fountain in the front yard and newly installed granite countertops on an income of $70K might be part of the reason they can't afford health insurance.
As I've said before, it's all about priorities. I work for a company that has excellent health insurance coverage. My rates went up by ONE DOLLAR for next year and I have reasonable deductibles and low co-pays. I could look for another job that might pay 10% more than I currently make, but the insurance (with three kids) is worth it for me to stay.
Perhaps one of the reasons Brad's insurance coverage is not so great is because he works for a company (McClatchey) which is facing serious financial challenges in an industry (newspapers) that is either going to go the way of the telegraph or else require serious overhauling to survive. Having to cater to Wall Street means that the bean counters will cut costs wherever they can. In that environment, a company has to decide between growing revenue, cutting people, or progressively cutting costs.
Posted by: Doug Ross | Nov 27, 2007 6:54:47 PM
Doug, you just made one of my points for me! Why should you stick with your present employer because of health insurance, of all things? Where is the logic in the quality of your health care being tied to where you work? Your pay, sure; your working conditions, why not; but your HEALTH INSURANCE? That keeps thousands, if not millions, of people working in jobs they hate (or at least, in which they're not doing the most they CAN do) for large corporations or (gasp!) state or federal government, when they could be giving the economy a huge boost taking risks with startup businesses. I personally know people -- people close to me -- who have good ideas for new businesses, but feel (quite rightly) a powerful obligation to their families not to leave their current jobs -- just because of health coverage.
This is insane!
Posted by: Brad Warthen | Nov 27, 2007 7:22:31 PM
It's not insane. It's reality. My family's health care is important to me, so I trade income for benefits. My company offers a cafeteria plan with a half dozen options ranging from minimal to premium. I can even choose to opt out and get the company's contribution deposited into my 401K. The choice is mine. As it should be.
There is no way for you to offer a system that gives every person the same access to all healthcare they ever want or need at no cost. The insanity is thinking that it is even possible.
Describe the system you think will be better than the current one. Tell me how much you are willing to pay (as a precentage of your income). Will we all pay the same percentage or will some people pay nothing and others a higher percentage of income (if so, explain why that should be the case)? Tell me how you will control access to services. Will there be co-pays? Will there be deductibles?
Will you force doctors to accept all patients and be paid what the government decides is reasonable? What if they decide not to participate? Will they not be allowed to practice medicine?
How will you compensate my friend the ortho surgeon who INVENTS new devices and techniques to help people get a hip replacement that lasts for decades and only requires a two inch incision thus cutting expensive hospital stays to a single day? By paying him Medicare rates that don't even cover the cost of Lexington Medical's operating room costs?
All I am asking is that instead of saying the system is insane, offer your version of how it will work and how it will be paid for.
Much of our healthcare system's problems are related to government intervention. How exactly do all the government HIPAA paperwork requirements improve healthcare? These are the rules that require my father-in-law to fill out a three page form for every doctor he goes to and separate forms so that my wife and her sister can even talk to the doctor about his healthcare. There's an example of overhead costs forced onto the system by the government.
Posted by: Doug Ross | Nov 27, 2007 8:02:25 PM
Brad, really, the more relevant question would be, "Why doesn't Brad find a job with better health-care benefits?"
Wouldn't Brad improving his situation make a lot more sense than retooling the health-care system to suit Brad?
Or does it take a village to raise a patient?
Posted by: weldon VII | Nov 28, 2007 1:25:41 AM
Doug, Brad makes a good point. Why should we be chained to a job that is not suited to our skills simply because it offers the best health care options? Shouldn't we be able to choose our health insurance plan without consideration of where we work? It would be like working for a company because you can buy the best car models only by virtue of working for that company. And what if you don't qualify to work at the company that has such a great plan? The you have to make career decisions in college based on health care considerations. It really shouldn't be that way.
Posted by: bud | Nov 28, 2007 9:21:27 AM
Bud,
I understand the frustration. But I'm asking what would the solution be? Who will pay, how much will they pay, and how will the access to services be controlled?
Rather than implementing a massive government run solution, my suggestion would be to tweak the government regulations that create the environment we have now.
Maybe start with legislation that prevents insurance companies from EVER dropping a customer and not being able to increase total cost of premiums/copays/deductibles by more than X% in any one year.
Or setting price bands that all insurance companies would have to offer to all citizens so individuals cannot be priced out of policies... i.e. for a single person, the range of lowest cost to highest cost insurance would be in a range of +/- 25% based on the person's health profile.
Adjust drug patent lengths to improve access to generics. Remove the HIPPA regulations that add zero value to the process and, in fact, are negative burdens.
And how about letting hospitals (like Lexington Medical) decide what services they want to offer rather than having that controlled by a government agency?
Posted by: Doug Ross | Nov 28, 2007 11:45:34 AM
All of today's problems with healthcare costs are the result of government meddling:
* Tax breaks to big business medical plans, but not for individuals.
* Medicare, Medicaid and other welfare programs which are 200 times the cost which they were projected to be at this date.
* Mandates for hospitals to treat everyone, crowding our emergency rooms with deadbeats who use if for their primary care.
* 30,000,000 illegal aliens
So why would anyone expect a giving the federal government total managed care control of every patient would suddenly make them capable of fixing the mess they made?
Posted by: Lee Muller | Nov 29, 2007 11:47:36 AM
Brad - still waiting to hear how your ideal healthcare system would work.
Who pays? How much? How is access to services managed? How do you handle elective surgery? Are all doctors required to participate by law?
Posted by: Doug Ross | Nov 29, 2007 12:58:12 PM
It's good to see Lee back. Yup, if we kick all the deadbeat sick folks out of the hospital the problem will be solved.
Posted by: bud | Nov 29, 2007 1:20:23 PM
Doug, your point is well taken that funding of our health care system is extremely complicated. I would suggest for starters a four tiered system. These tiers would have nothing to do with age (medicare) or income (medicaid). Instead they would focus on health care urgency and time.
Tier 1 would be for the funding of major 1-time events. These would include serious injuries from accidents and crime victims, heart attacks, strokes and other narrowly defined situations. These could be 100% funded by the federal government. The list of these events would be short and all hospitals would be required to accept the government rate for these services.
Tier 2 would be events that are chronic such as cancer treatments, diabetis and other longer-term illnesses. These events are more complicated to address and hence there is likely to be some guess work to define what ailments are included. Hospitals and doctors could charge whatever they want depending on where they practice. Patients could choose between the largely government-funded hospitals and those that are mostly private (perhaps with a voucher approach). This would allow some market incentives but would still allow everyone access to decent care.
Tier 3 is for the preventive issues. Everyone could visit a state clinic for shots, mammograms, colonoscopies and other screening programs. Individuals would be required to fund a small portion of visits beyond the basics each year. I don't think a 100% government funded program for tier 3 would work because some people would abuse it. Needy folks might still be unable to afford the basics, even if highly subsidized, but at least most people would could recieve care without an emergency room visit.
Tier 4 would be for elective medical treatment. I see no need for government involvement here. This would include plastic surgery, vasectomies and liposuction.
I suspect there is a large grey area between tiers 2-4. But tier 1 should be pretty straight-forward. Some sort of blue-ribbon committee, established by the government in a cabinet-level agency, could be formed to place medical care into the proper category. The onurous nature of th insurance companies profit motive would be greatly reduced by this system.
Posted by: bud | Nov 29, 2007 3:13:24 PM
From Doug: "Who will pay, how much will they pay, and how will the access to services be controlled? Who pays? How much? How is access to services managed? How do you handle elective surgery? Are all doctors required to participate by law?"
Doug, all of those questions are being answered now; I just don't like the way some of them are being answered.
How would I like them to be answered? By someone who does NOT make every decision according to how his company's profit is maximized.
We are, after all, talking about our health here.
Posted by: Brad Warthen | Nov 29, 2007 3:28:07 PM
Bud,
That's a well thought out plan. I can't disagree with the structure at all. My only "enhancement" would be to eliminate some of the regulations that force patients to see doctors directly and set up more flexible environments where highly trained nurses could provide a certain level of triage before passing patients on to doctors.
The next question is: how do you pay for it?
A national health sales tax? Increased taxes on cigarettes and alcohol? Offering the plan as an option to all employers at competitive market rates?
I'd prefer to see us cut useless government spending in other areas to fund this far more important need. For me, I think we can do without NASA if it means every kid in this country gets a free annual checkup and cheap prescription medicine. Or we could abolish the entire Department of Education and use the money instead to pay for mammograms and colonoscopies and other screening tests. (In today's paper, we find out what we already knew -- after years of No Child Left Behind testing, the results of American 4th grade student reading tests show ZERO improvement... should we be surprised?}
Before we spend MORE on government insurance, we should decide where we can spend LESS on lower priority programs.
Posted by: Doug Ross | Nov 29, 2007 4:18:36 PM
Brad - at least bud made an effort.
If you're going to advance the cause of changing the system, you're going to have to put some more thought into it.
Posted by: Doug Ross | Nov 29, 2007 4:20:58 PM
Doug, I very much appreciate bud's effort (which I had not seen when I was writing my last comment, since I approved them at the same time). I appreciate even more that you're willing to move in his direction on it.
But ... and I suppose I'll get castigated for this ... I made an effort, too. The answer I gave you is my real answer. Honestly, I have no preferences when it comes to details. There are probably a million ways to skin this cat. I'm open to pretty much anything that stresses care over profits, and which removes concern over how to pay for one's health care from among the things we worry about when we, or (and this is the hot button for me) our kids, go job-hunting.
That said, I'm not sure I understand bud's system. bud, you describe the tiers, but what is the overall concept behind the tiers? Are these stages in the implementation of the program, or are they different plans people can choose, or what?
I have to tell you, though, I'm suspicious of having plans to choose from. That encourages the healthy (which is for most of us a temporary condition) to pay into the system minimally, which would degrade the economies of scale you get if everyone is covered comprehensively. That way, when today's healthy person gets cancer next week, there's not enough money in the system to pay for it, unless the other folks in the system were paying more than their share would have been if everyone had been paying into it. Do you see what I'm saying?
Anyway, what I THINK bud was saying, now that I look at it a third time, is that our share of these things, in terms of copays or deductibles, would increase with each tier. Is that right? If so, it seems to make sense.
As for how to pay for it -- Doug, you offered three ways, and I could go for the first one over the two. I really don't think employers need to be involved in this. That's the model I want to get away from.
I've no objection to cigarette taxes being PART of the solution (just because raising cigarette taxes is a good idea in and of itself, regardless of the revenue), but I think the lion's share needs to be in something more broad-based than that. Everyone should have a share in paying for it.
Posted by: Brad Warthen | Nov 29, 2007 5:01:49 PM
The answer to the healthcare problems and how to solve the problems is a lot like the problem with illegal immigration and the 30,000,000 immigrants that are already here. There is a point of no return. When the health care was taken over by the government with Medicare and Medicaid instead of solving the problems in the private sector we started the road to no return. Anything from here on out will only increase the problem if the government is involved.
Posted by: slugger | Nov 30, 2007 10:17:27 AM


