Who Needs Health Insurance?
Throughout the nation, in response to shifts in health care, many small direct health care providers are opening shop. These direct providers are able to combat many concerns through price transparency, easy access and lower costs as they establish what is basically a menu of cash only services. Further, these one-on-one scenarios improve decision-making between patient and physician and take out the need for insurance and proof of citizenship…
Although not all medical care can be preventative or primary, Dr. Forrest contends that “only about 1% of the population gets hospitalized annually. Only about 5-10% of patients that seek care at a physician office cannot get the services they need in the outpatient setting.”
More on the consequences of employers dropping ESI in Forbes.
This is some very scary news for those families who depend on their husband’s/wife’s health insurance. With all the current policies and regulations controlling the health care system, many families just can’t afford to have health insurance. Most especially those families with more than 1 or 2 kids. What’s going to be of these people? It’s already hard enough to support a big family these days, and now on top of that this government is making it hard for everyone to stay healthy and have a relatively easy access to care when needed. Great.
Excellent post! Many people need to be informed of the flip side of this decision by employers to drop employer-sponsored health insurance. It certainly offers great benefits and possibilities for the individual market to develop and improve. However, as this article explains it, the negative consequences seem to outweigh the benefits. Not only is it going to be more difficult for families to see a doctor when the situation arises, but they are constantly going to have to worry about whether or not they can afford it, and this may become a reason why they decide not do it at all…even if they really really need it.
I welcome this change. Surely this brings in more transparency. I do feel that having health insurance coming in between the consumers and doctors really fragments the market. There is no price information. Just the past week, I set up a doctor’s appointment, and when I asked about what it would cost, they receptionist couldn’t provide me a straight answer.
“only about 1% of the population gets hospitalized annually”
– Im surprised that this number is as low as it is. Every time I’ve been to the hospital, the emergency room is always filled to copacity.
“These direct providers are able to combat many concerns through price transparency, easy access and lower costs as they establish what is basically a menu of cash only services.” Man I have been waiting for this change for a long time. Why should a patient with minimum health concerns have to muddle through so much insurance policy complication. I think the process of grouping us with the same people who have diabetes and cancer doesn’t recognize the diversity of the consumer pool. By extension, effective treatments cannot be targeted towards the necessary groups.
I don’t know. I feel this won’t be bad and may bring positive results but it is in no way a substitute yet for insurance. The moment a person relies on these services and drops health insurance and then is facing more severe health problems is the moment that person will be in lots of trouble. Insurance is not a bad idea if the system wouldn’t completely corrupt it.
“Only about 5-10% of patients that seek care at a physician office cannot get the services they need in the outpatient setting.”
– I never knew outpatient services were so comprehensive.
Yeah, I don’t know about the accuracy of the stats mentioned on this blog post. Sure, the majority of the population doesn’t rely on hospitalization but most people at some point will require hospital care or some form of intensive care that cannot be addressed by a primary doctor. The whole system is just so messy that it makes me want to leave and live in a far away island.
“Only about 1% of the population gets hospitalized annually. Only about 5-10% of patients that seek care at a physician office cannot get the services they need in the outpatient setting.” If this has been the case for most of the time, why has the emergence of independent health care providers taken this long. This issue should have been better publicized during the whole health care debate madness.
The closing statement seems to be a great piece of advise for everyone, whether you are an ObamaCare supporter or not. These changes are taking place, and one way or another we just have to accept them and do what’s best for our families under these circumstances. Everyone should just remain open to new ideas and new approaches as all these changes happen. At the end of the day, we ought to live by these policies, end of the story.
I could make a pretty good argument that employer-sponsored insurance is the root of the runaway health care cost problem. Before ESI, Medicare for seniors was not that big an issue. Physician visits were just something you expected to spend money and time on when you got older. The cost of care was marginal because the technology was primitive. Health coverage was never intended to spawn an industry that consumed one dollar in five. The medical industrial complex began to grow once the funds were available. Nobody held them in check because employers passed on the cost; but workers didn’t know they were paying the bill.
Studebaker, it sounds likes you’re discussing bureaucratic spending in general.
If 50 percent of direct health care patients have insurance and still use these services, because it’s cheaper than co-pays.. that would certainly explain why I’ve seen so many of these things popping up lately.
“a patient who normally has an 80/20 plan (like Medicare Part B) might end up having to pay 20% of their fee to see a specialist for a stress echo. If the cardiologist I use gives them an 85% discount to just pay cash up front, then the patient actually spends less out of pocket by not using their insurance.”
This makes sense to me. I would be willing to accept 20% of my listed price right now, rather than taking 100% of my listed price after 3000 sheets of insurance paperwork and a whole year.
This is a very good discussion, but the 1% hospitalization number seems way off to me also.
According to the Statistical Abstract of US, there were about 30 million admissions to hospitals in 2010.
Abut 13 million were for seniors on Medicare.
That leaves 17 million for the 250 million Americans who are not on Medicare.
Even if some of the admissions were just for 4 hours in an ER, this is NOT 1%.
Paying directly for primary care is indeed better than paying an enormous insurance premium for a zero-deductible policy.
We could support this trend by allowing any citizen of any age to pay about 2 per cent extra payroll tax in exchange for a high deductible version of Medicare Part A.
Then they could feel secure about not having employer insurance.
This is documented in my Health Care Crusade publications.