Welcome to Brazen Careerist!
Emily Ma is using Brazen Careerist to share ideas. Join now to become a member and start networking with Emily Ma and other professionals just like you. Learn more.
Emily Ma is using Brazen Careerist to share ideas. Join now to become a member and start networking with Emily Ma and other professionals just like you. Learn more.
In my last health care post, I was pretty excited about health reform. Our current health insurance has not working for some time and reform offered some initial improvements. Also, I thought that I would haven't to worry about any of the changes until 2014. However, there are some seemingly minor changes that need to be implemented by October 2010 that have me worried. They hit me out of nowhere like the feeling you get when you see your ex-girlfriend for the first time in a while and see that she got even hotter since you dated. Like that ex-girlfriend, I'm no longer loving health reform and there's no quickie involved.
One would think that a 2,400 page document would provide pretty extensive instructions. However, it's really a lot of broad principles. Other agencies like Health and Human Services will have to provide specific guidance to health plans for the implementation. These principles are primarily for the small employer group and individual insurance markets. These are the most dysfunctional insurance markets and in greatest need of change so they are well targeted. Health plans will have to decide how to implement these very gray shades of principles. Now, there are some black and white principles, like children under 18 will no longer be denied health insurance which I think makes us a somewhat more humane country. Adults will have to wait until 2014 for this option primarily because they're not as cute as children.
Some of the grayer shades is that health plans can no longer apply a lifetime or annual maximum benefit to different classes of "essential" benefits. These essential benefits include hospitalization, surgery, doctor visits, drugs, lab work, preventive services, maternity, and mental health. That pretty much covers 99% of what an average health plan covers. However, health plans generally place benefit limits on durable medical equipment (like crutches or wheel chairs), ambulance rides, or the mysterious and hard to pronounce temporalmandibular jaw disorder (TMJ). It's unclear what will be considered essential and what will not. That answer will probably be determined by how strong the TMJ lobby is.
Another shade of gray is that preventive services must be free or health plans must cover them in full. As one can guess, there is no clear list of preventive services. A measles vaccines is probably obviously a preventive service but what about a travel vaccines for purple fever in Mongolia? Health plans could argue that the easiest way to prevent catching purple fever is not go to Mongolia so it's not as clear. Most health plans cover preventive services for $10 or $20 so I would question if these services really need to be free in order to be more effective. Great in theory but that means individuals and small businesses will be paying more upfront in the form of higher prices so they can pay less when they use the services.
The game theory for health plans is to not be the only plan covering TMJ or Mongolian purple fever vaccines in full. If that happens, that health plan will get more people who want to use those services, incur higher costs, and need to charge more for their plans. This will drive out people with perfectly health jaws and no interest in traveling to Mongolia and is known in the industry as "adverse risk selection" or "death spiral." Some readers might be completely unsympathetic to the insurance companies in their efforts to figure out how to figure out ways to do the minimum required or exploit loopholes. Or they're thinking about their friend who's life was changed by Mongolian purple fever and how their insurance company who wouldn't cover it.
These reforms make insurance more straight forward and move it to a product where someone can just say, "I'll take 2 insurances please." The purchaser will know that preventive services are covered, loopholes closed, and they will be covered. Insurance companies will learn to compete based on service, smarter provider contracting that pays on quality of care, and value adds like gym discounts and magazine subscriptions.
The primary drawback is that insurance will get even more expensive. Other bloggers have put forth such dire predictions of the cost of insurance that it's getting hard to take these claims seriously. However, prices will be greater than than the price increases that are incurred from higher medical costs. This could easily result in annual insurance price increases of 15% (compared to today's 9%). None of these reforms will make insurance any cheaper nor address affordability. With limited ability to make adjustments with benefit designs and the insurance plans will become more commodities, and the price will continue to rise. Consumers will realize that the cost of medical care, doctor visits, drugs, hospitals, and other services were the main driver behind the rising cost of insurance. Profits, CEO salaries, and administration were a very small factor in the annual 9% premium increase. As a result, our country (meaning politicians) will have to make hard decisions about health care costs and providers will have to change their practices.
Which is not a bad outcome either and I'll go back to loving health reform. Change is easy as long as someone else is doing it first. People are going to get hurt and it's going to look like this health care reform wasn't such a great idea. However, people are getting hurt today and at least this will put us farther down the path of making hard decisions and addressing health care reform.
You bring up a good point about loopholes, but one thing you didn't address was pricey medical treatment that the government may deem necessary for insurance companies to include in their coverage but that all consumers might not necessarily want coverage for (e.g., invitro fertilization, homeopathic/holistic/alternative medicine, etc.). Once again, we've taken the consumer out of the process of health insurance and instead allowed the government to determine what coverage is "appropriate." Advocating for consumers to use High Deductible Health Plans/Health Savings Accounts would have been much more effective in remedying the current fiasco, and would have forced consumers to educate themselves about the costs of, say, going to the Emergency Room for a sore throat because they don't want to wait to schedule an appointment.
Health care reform was misguided from the get-go. What we needed was health INSURANCE reform...not 2,400 pages that made it through Congress with a lot of arm twisting and back-room deals. The penalty for not having health insurance is less than the estimated cost for an individual to buy a policy under the new government plan - so what's their incentive to comply? Now they'll be able to buy insurance in the nick of time should they get sick, and then promptly drop their coverage after they've received treatment.
The 2.3% exise tax on medical devices will discourage innovation and progress in the field of medical technology/engineering. Medtronic has already estimated that they'll lay off 1,000 engineers because of the tax. Innovation and new treatments are expensive - and the government will slowly but surely begin discouraging such approaches to health care as they will focus on controlling costs.
When you look at other government "insurance" programs (e.g., Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid) it's obvious that people view them not as insurance, but as a substitute for their own personal responsibility. Look at the retirement savings rate among baby boomers - it's laughable. We already have 2 such programs in place that we're not going to be able to pay for in 30-50 years - how on earth did we manage to pass another one?
You raise some good points and I agree with them in varying forms.
1. The government mandate of what must be covered or "essential" benefits will not come into effect until 2014. Some of these mandated coverage is subsidizing of certain fields like alternative care (although the cost increase will be less than $15 per year for a plan) or fertility. Some mandates help with gaps in consumer choice like my state recently mandated coverage for hearing aids for children. There's no market opportunity and the spreading the costs of something that is key to a child's ability to learn and develop is a good government role. Cost is small and gain is large. I see your point but I think there is a time and place for mandated benefits that we need to be much more disciplined about using.
2. High deductible and consumerism is a good idea but really needs provider input to become effective
3. The bill really is health insurance reform as that is it's main focus. But you are absolutely correct that the individual mandate is too low to be effective. That is a big problem that I hope will be addressed by 2014.
4. With medical devices, Medtronic has rode the health care gravey train with its 15% margins and health care has become 16% of GDP. It's a bubble that was due to burst and that pop will be painful. Innovation will leave the health care gravy train and look for other areas which it probably should. There will still be an opportunity Medtronic to innovate in health care but it will be in the form of devices to improve care coordination and prevent expensive procedures to be cost effective. Electronic medical records will continue to grow as an innovation opportunity. Medtronic should have known their business model was not sustainable and I would argue they are using the tax as an excuse for cost cutting as they switch business models.
5. I agree that insurance is not viewed as insurance anymore but as health care financing. I would not call it personal responsibility because one's person's responsibility is another person's judgement. For example, we call the provision that people can now stay on their parent's plan until they are 26, the "slacker mandate." However, the mostly 20's crowd here could answer with "Hey you try to get a job with health insurance in this economy or try to pursue your entrepreneurial dreams with the dsyfuncational individual market."