[…] it may not be what you’d guess. The study he references looked at inpatient costs from 2001 to 2006 (admittedly a bit out of date now, but still relevant and interesting data) and found that the biggest increases were in “supplies and devices”, ICU, and hospital room and board – all three of those areas had double digit percentage increases in costs from 2001 to 2006. I would be very curious to see another column on that chart with 2012 numbers and the corresponding percentage increases… are those three areas still the culprits, or have others (like pharmacy?) surpassed them?
Archives for December 2012
Medicare Part D Needs Price Negotiating Power
[…] very clearly how we could save $20 billion per year if the feds could negotiate drug prices with pharmaceutical manufacturers. That’s forbidden by the language of the original legislation that created Medicare Part D (I know, it’s ridiculous, but that’s how it is), so it would require some legislation at this point to change things. Nobody in power seems to want to address this issue, probably because pharmaceutical companies make such large campaign contributions. But as I’ve pointed out several times, they also earn huge profits (far more than any health insurance company, although health insurance companies are the ones that are repeatedly targeted by the media as having excessive profits). Maybe it’s time for a change.[…]
Health Insurance And Genetic Testing
[…] Is it fair to say that health insurance carriers shouldn’t be able to use genetic testing information during underwriting, but that they should have to pay for preventive healthcare that results from genetic testing? I don’t think there’s an easy answer there. It’s hard to put a price tag on health and life, and it’s difficult to say that a person who is making such a hard decision should also be faced with a potentially very large medical bill at the same time. But if we’re going to categorically state that genetic testing cannot be used to the advantage of health insurance carriers, it’s hard to turn around and say that the carriers should also be required to pay for treatment that comes about as a result of that same testing.
What do you think? As technology moves forward, I have no doubt that genetic testing will become more routine, and various preventive measures based on those tests will likely become fairly commonplace. If they become a larger part of our general healthcare process, I would say that it’s reasonable to assume they will also be covered more frequently by health insurance carriers. And as of 2014, some of the issues addressed by GINA will become moot points too, as health insurance will all be guaranteed issue. So this is a subject that might just work itself out naturally over the next decade or so. But for now, it does leave plenty of room for debate.
What Should Health Insurance Cover?
The reason we have health insurance is to protect against the things we don’t expect to happen. The things we can’t foresee. The things that would blow though most households’ life savings very quickly. Doctor visits, routine medications, even the occasional trip to urgent care – these are relatively predictable. And relatively inexpensive, compared with the cost of care for a serious illness or injury.
If health insurance did cover everything, without any additional out-of-pocket costs for the insured, health insurance premiums would go up by about as much as people currently spend on out-of-pocket costs. Health insurance carriers would have to start generating enough revenue to cover those claims, and that would translate directly into higher premiums for everyone.
I know that the comparisons between health insurance and auto or home insurance have been made many times, but I’ll bring it up again here. When you buy car insurance, you don’t expect it to cover oil changes, new tires, or even a whole new engine if your car ends up needing one. When you buy home insurance, you don’t expect it to pay for home maintenance or repairs. In both cases, we expect the insurance to cover the unexpected. We know that if we have a car or a house, they’re going to need maintenance. And we know that we’ll have to budget for those things, however much we might dislike that fact. We hope that we never have to use our car insurance or our homeowner’s insurance. The same should be true of our health insurance. It’s there in case something unforeseen and expensive occurs (and it’s useful to remember that “expensive” is a relative term… although $1000 is “expensive” as far as most family budgets, it’s a tiny fraction of the total medical bill that would be incurred in the event of a major illness or injury). When you take that view of health insurance, it becomes a more realistic product. With most policies, the money you’re paying in premiums is not intended to cover routine, minor healthcare (with the exception of preventive care). But it will cover the potentially enormous claims that could result from a serious illness or injury.
Should Dental Insurance Be Included On Health Insurance Policies?
[…] One possible solution would be for dental insurance to get wrapped in to health insurance policies, both private coverage and Medicare (the majority of seniors in Colorado have no dental insurance, because it’s not part of Medicare). If dental insurance were absorbed into health policies, the premium increases might not be significant. Maternity coverage is a good example of how this could work. In the past, maternity coverage was only available on a few individual health insurance policies in Colorado, as a separate rider that had to be added to the basic coverage. The cost for this rider was prohibitive, because the only people who were adding it were the ones who were planning to use it. But for almost two years now, all new individual policies in Colorado have included maternity coverage, and premiums have definitely not increased by as much as maternity riders used to cost (premiums have gone up, as they had done for years prior to the maternity mandate, but there are many factors involved). If dental coverage were included in health insurance policies, the administrative overhead for these plans could be rolled in with the administration of the health plans, and there would be more people who had coverage and weren’t using it often – their premiums could offset the cost of dental care for people with significant claims. […]
Downsides To Raising The Medicare Eligibility Age
[…] The wealthiest older Americans can probably easily wait until 67 for Medicare. In 2014, individual health insurance will be guaranteed issue, and if paying the premiums is not a problem, that’s a viable alternative for some people. But most Americans are not wealthy enough for those premiums to be easily affordable, even with premium subsidies. More than a few 65 and 66 year olds would likely opt to go uninsured until they reached the new Medicare age, and that brings it’s own host of problems – for the individuals and for taxpayers, hospitals and the entire healthcare system. For people struggling to make ends meet, an extra two years of either being uninsured or stretching to pay health insurance premiums could be a very big deal indeed. And as Maggie points out, it doesn’t even end up saving money.
The proposal to raise Medicare eligibility to 67 is short-sighted and based on the premise that Medicare is an “entitlement” (what about the fact that recipients have been paying into it for decades, to cover the cost of previous retirees’ care?). I suppose it makes sense – at first glance – that we can reduce the amount spent by Medicare if we make people wait an extra two years to enroll. But the practical realities would be a different story: people putting off medical care until age 67 (at which point illnesses might be more progressed and more expensive to treat), people going uninsured, higher premiums within the Medicare system without the younger members enrolled, higher costs borne by employers who cover the cost of healthcare for workers and retirees, and the list goes on. […]
Health Insurance Premiums Mirror Healthcare Costs
[…] Colorado has taken a much more proactive and transparent position in terms of the rate review process, and we’ve written about it several times. Although rate increases on health insurance policies are frustrating when they continue to far outpace inflation, they’re being driven largely by the increases in the cost of healthcare. But most of us are very insulated from the cost of our healthcare. Since the bills go to our health insurance carriers, many people don’t really know how much it costs to have any sort of significant medical treatment. We know how much our health insurance costs though, and when the price goes up, we feel it. Even though the price increase is directly linked to the increases in healthcare spending, we’re much more likely to focus on the health insurance premiums, since those are the bills we pay ourselves (this is especially true for people who buy their own individual health insurance, without assistance from an employer). […]
Rocky Mountain Health Plans 2013 Rate Increase Announced
Rocky Mountain Health Plans announces the 2013 new business rate increase for the “SOLO” individual/family health insurance plans in Colorado is 18%. As with all carriers, for existing clients on open plans, rate changes may be different due to age attainment and trend. Carriers may adjust rates differently for closed plans effective January 1, 2013.
RMHP posted the disclosure of the increase for new and renewing business on healthcare.gov.
For clients who pay monthly:
- January renewals were mailed Friday, November 30, 2012.
- February renewals will be mailed the end of December.
- March renewals will be mailed the end of January.