Gaming Mass. Health Care
This is from the Wall Street Journal:
Harvard-Pilgrim CEO Charlie Baker reports that his company has seen an "astonishing" uptick in people buying coverage for a few months at a time, running up high medical bills, and then dumping the policy after treatment is completed and paid for. Harvard-Pilgrim estimates that between April 2008 and March 2009, about 40% of its new enrollees stayed with it for fewer than five months and on average incurred about $2,400 per person in monthly medical expenses. That's about 600% higher than Harvard-Pilgrim would have otherwise expected. The individual mandate penalty for not having coverage is only about $900, so people seem to be gaming the Massachusetts system. "This is a problem," Mr. Baker writes on his blog, in the understatement of the year. "It is raising the prices paid by individuals and small businesses who are doing the right thing by purchasing twelve months of health insurance, and it's turning the whole notion of shared responsibility on its ear."
Mr. Baker has also announced that he is a candidate for the Republican nomination for governor of Massachusetts!
Gutsy move: He’s a leader in the industry (health insurance) that 4 of 10 people believe is most responsible for increasing health costs, and “enjoys” a reputation as low as tobacco and oil companies.
More importantly, he was a key player in Governor Romney’s reform that mandated universal health coverage, about which he was skeptical. The media and voters are going to expect him to have some solutions to the health crisis.
Because of the risk of a national coverage mandate, and Mitt Romney’s continuing presence as a presidential candidate, Baker the politician’s views on health reform will be at least as interesting as Baker the health-plan CEO’s.
The more we learn about Massachusetts, the less attractive it looks.
Baker would be a great governor.
Undoubtably part of the reason why health costs are going up so fast in Massachusetts and a harbinger of what is going to happen with Obama Care.
And yet is is a complaint that people are doing exactly the same thing to insurance companies that tyhose companies do on a regular basis every day, drop coverage for those paying premiums.
I understand that it drives up cost for everyone but it is still hypocritical for insurance to whine over be soaked like this when they soak MILLIONS of people everyday and increase the cost of living for insured and un-insured every day, and while they drive up costs in every facet of life.
America can change to fund health care for all if:
The US Health System includes getting our money’s worth.
Principles that must be included are:
1. The person with the most incentive, best motive to select the right facility or doctor is the person getting the care.
The system provides the information needed for the selection. No outside entity is required for the selection.
2. The best person to guard against fraud or misuse of our health dollars is the person getting the health care. This person knows who showed up or delivered a service.
3. A person watches the spending of their own money much better than approving any other payment!
4. Therefore: our health system must use a health fund made up of contributions, according to their ability to pay, from those who will receive health care. Those using their money from the fund would then be obligated to contribute more in following years. Two funds would provide competition.
ADVANTAGES
We will start getting our money’s worth.
People would be free to seek a better job, if not tied down by health insurance. This is the best portability.
Not having to know, pick or directly fund health insurance would lead business to grow and hire more people.
Doctors would lose the expense of a specialist in insurance requirements and forms. Doctors could spend more time practicing medicine.
Medicare problems are solved. Medicaid problems become manageable.
This arrangement would include everything great about insurance with no funds diverted to for-profit companies. Such companies restrict health care. Some people of high quality or a business will supplement a fund. Any profits would stay in the people’s health fund.
Most people in the US will assist in their health care.
More money would become available for other purposes.
All needed Technology exits!
PROBLEMS
This foundation for America’s Health System has problems that have very good solutions. Our present health “systems” do not have good solutions.
These health funds would require many rules, accounting, checks and balances. Good people exist who would solve these problems.
Care for the young, old, and handicapped need additional arrangements.
Many people would lose money they are taking from our health dollars and would try to block any efficient system.
Some people might not know this is only a system for paying for health care, not the care.
Kenneth Brooks Richardson Texas