SCHIP and the Rigged Health Insurance Game

Posted October 26, 2007 | 03:52 PM (EST)



stumbleupon :SCHIP and the Rigged Health Insurance Game   digg: SCHIP and the Rigged Health Insurance Game   reddit: SCHIP and the Rigged Health Insurance Game   del.icio.us: SCHIP and the Rigged Health Insurance Game


The House on Thursday passed a modified version of the SCHIP bill, with a vote that was seven votes shy of a veto-proof majority. There were 142 members of Congress who voted against extending health care to more poor children. Behind their rhetoric, their intentions are clear: they want to protect the health insurance market and the huge profits that go with it.

But the huge profits are killing health care. We all know that now. Profit-maximizing insurance companies are bad economics. They make money by denying care, which is a terrible way to try to keep us healthy. (The Rockridge Institute's white paper on health care security has details.)

And, profit-maximizing health insurance does more harm than that. It is also killing our sense of community. It pits us one against another to get the limited number of insurance policies, strangling the trust and cooperation we need to thrive. If we can't come together when we need each other most--when we're sick, injured or dying--without our vulnerability being used as an opportunity to maximize profits, then the U.S. is a hollow shell. The community that makes our nation a family is dead.

Huge health insurance profits are killing community because they are killing Americans. This is obvious. We know that over 100 million Americans are under- or un-insured. They can't get the insurance necessary to receive adequate medical care. So, millions of Americans remain sick unnecessarily and die prematurely.

But there is a second, more subtle impact of the profit imperative of health insurance that is destroying our communities.

In our current health insurance system, companies can't maximize their profits unless they turn people away. According to Princeton economist Paul Krugman, in any given year about 80% of us need very little medical care. Some aspirin and cough syrup, more or less. But 20% of us have an accident or illness that requires major medical treatment. That's expensive.

If everyone in the U.S. were covered by the same insurance company or were part of a nationally organized universal health care plan, then this would all balance out. In any given year, the large number of healthy people would pay for the small number of really sick people. And, the years when you are part of the 20% with large medical expenses, the others will pay for you. Spread out the risk, share the costs, and we all get good health care. We thrive. This is what every other industrialized country in the world does. Except the United States.

Currently, we don't spread the risk and costs evenly. Instead, we have lots of insurance companies all competing against each other to maximize their profits. Which they have--to the tune of billions of dollars a year. But they make their billions by not getting "stuck" with the people needing expensive medical treatment--sort of like avoiding the Old Maid in the children's card game. The more sick people an insurance company ends up with, the lower their profits. "Stuck" with too many people needing medical care at any one time and an insurance company loses some of their profits. So, insurance companies avoid people needing medical care--the Old Maids--at all costs. And we know the result: over 100 million Americans who are un- or under-insured, pushed into the health care cracks between insurance companies by the companies themselves.

And those of us with insurance have been dragged into this sick game. Those of us who have health insurance get it in a system that works by excluding some of our neighbors. With the present profit imperative of our competitive health insurance system, we have created a national Sophie's Choice: millions of people must be denied care so that the rest of us--healthier, wealthier, or fortunate enough to have employer-based insurance--can get it.

Health insurance companies are playing us in a lose-lose game, where we are the exploited and the exploiter together. They exploit our family responsibilities. I know that I couldn't live with myself, if I didn't provide my wife and daughter the insurance they need to get health care. But, having aided them (and me), I participate in the national Sophie's Choice. How do I face my uninsured neighbors now? Damned if I do, damned if I don't.

Insurance companies have dragged us into this rigged game and millions are losing. We can look the other way and pretend our neighbors and neighborhoods aren't needlessly suffering and dying. We can hope that our luck holds and that we will continue to have insurance. It might be self-denial, but if we're lucky we just might beat the house and survive. But we know some of our neighbors will lose. Whatever happens to us individually, our community is lost.

Health care doesn't have to be this way. It could actually empower community. But first we must stopping playing the insurance company game. As long as health insurance companies control health care, these problems will continue.

We already know that we can have better health care for everyone for less money, if we remove the competition and distrust that insurance company profits have injected into the process. SCHIP is a prime example of just this approach. It demonstrates what we can accomplish when we put lives before profit. Those who voted against expanding SCHIP, know that. That's their fear. And, that SCHIP might become a powerful rallying point toward rebuilding a thriving American community through health care for all.

Comments for this post are now closed

 
 

Comments
21
Pending Comments
0

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:

Multiple competitive insurance companies duplicate services, confuse the public and add about 30 % more cost to the Health care system than a single payor would due to marketing, authorization, billing, disparate forms and time costs. All things that do not directly deliver HEALTH to people.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:28 PM on 10/26/2007

For those wondering how we will pay for Universal Health Care - elimination of paperwork will go a long way for starters. When C Everett Koop was the Surgeon General (30 or more years ago???) he said at that time that making all the insurance companies accept the Medicare SuperBill as a standardized claim form would have saved over $145 billion EVERY YEAR! And that is just one thing.

Every doctor I know spends 2-3 hours per day arguing with insurance company bean-counters trying to get paid for services already rendered. Gee - and then the doctor could actually see more patients!

And as for health care rationing - you think we don't have rationing here? Tried to get an appointment to see your primary care doc lately? How about a neurologist (I have to see one due to a rare condition). Appointments must be made 6 months in advance. My daughter was having severe pain that was not a bladder infection, and she was told she could be seen in 2 weeks! Rationing happens - the only thing about it here is that it is not fair and is based on your ability to pay.

Bush says if you don't have insurance you still have health care - just go to the emergency room. Who does he think is paying the bill on that? The taxpayer, that's who. Anyone think that is the best use of our dollars?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:43 PM on 10/26/2007

This article speaks the truth. The profit motive must be removed from healthcare. The problem is that the insurance industry controls our government through campaign donations. Publicly funded political campaigns would take the power of the purse away from the insurance industry and free legislators from obligation to the industry.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:21 PM on 10/26/2007

Things are not going to change in the US. Your politicians get some of the best free health care in the world, and if I understand things right, after five years those benefits are vested. Your politicians have no interest in changing the status quo. They have nothing to gain by bringing in a single payer system. In other words your interests are not their interests. You people are screwed.
Another thing, we do not ration health services in Canada, that lie is really getting boring. If you want the truth about Canadian health care, go to Michael Moore's website and check out the real Canadian story.
Sabelotodo

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:27 PM on 10/26/2007

And you did not even mention how the USA subsidizes the entire world in drug company R&D.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:06 PM on 10/26/2007

Eric,

Your argument makes no economic sense. How in the world does competition between insurance companies raise costs? Please explain.

The concept that an insurance company has an economic incentive to deny medical procedures has some credence and it does happen but not to the extent that you seem to insinuate here.

Whether you have health care run by the government or run by the the private sector medical services will obey the basic laws of economics. Particuarly the law of supply and demand. Universal health care has several flaws but the biggest one is the issue of demand for services. When something appears to be "free" there tends to be a much higher demand for the good or service. Problem is even in a government run system supply is still going to be limited but there is no limit on demand. Price competition brings these 2 realities into balance. In a government run system the only tool they have to achieve this balance is to ration.

So you are back to the same problem: who gets the medical service?

Also, proponents of UHC infer that my increase in taxes will be offset by the fact that I would not have to pay for my own insurance any longer (and amny say it would be lower). I think the full cost (including the portion the typical employer picks up) of the average policy is around $1500/mo. That's $18k/yr. That's alot but forgive me for still being very skeptical that it would not have go even higher than that since even less folks would care about the price of the service. And my employer pays the bulk of that cost. So my costs would dramatically increase in a UHC system. Only $150 of that at most is ins co profit.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:42 PM on 10/26/2007

PART TWO
(4) Problem is even in a government run system supply is still going to be limited but there is no limit on demand.

Not really. No one in their right mind wants to be staying in a hosptal. As far as allocating care, emergencies and real illnesses get priority and Botox injections go to the back of the line (and shouldn't be covered at all. Ditto boob jobs and other nonsense.)

(5) who gets the medical service?

The people who need it to stay alive and to stay able to work. Or don't you have a problem with 18,000 people dying from treatable illnesses every year because they can't afford coverage and can't pay tens of thousands out of pocket?


(6) That's $18k/yr. That's a lot but forgive me for still being very skeptical that it would not have go even higher than that since even less folks would care about the price of the service. And my employer pays the bulk of that cost. So my costs would dramatically increase in a UHC system.

Uh huh... you are paying what, $200-400 a month for your family with your little copays of $30-50? And you think YOU care about cost? Oh please!

Charging more for healthcare does not keep the clerk at the grocery from developing cancer. It does not discourage need - it only discourages consumption.

Further, the employer can stop paying the premiums, and pay the money as wages.

Medicare spends 3-5 cents out of every premium dollar on administration and 95-97 cents medical care.

Private insurers spend 22 -30 cents of every dollar on administration (have to deny claims) and take another 10-15 cents in profit leaving only 55 -68 cents spend on medical care.

Adding up the premiums for Medicare (A,B D and Medigap), it is about $700 a month - for the most costly population to cover.

You are endlessly reciting economic cliches that are on page 1 of an micro-econ introductory textbook. Try reading the rest of the book and beyond that.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:34 PM on 10/26/2007

PART ONE

(1) How in the world does competition between insurance companies raise costs?

Insurers compete to offer the lowest premiums and the most benefits to attract the most enrollees. Problem is to keep profits up, they have to attract the largest number of healthy people who will NOT use the coverage or at least use less of it than they pay in premiums.

The companies compete for the healthy - not for the sick or disabled or those who they think will be sick or disabled (like someone who has lots of close relatives with cancer.) They compete for the young - less likely to get sick.

The rest they acively discourage and, in 46 states, can refuse to cover if they think the person is a risk (get sick, file claim, cost them money.)

(2) The concept that an insurance company has an economic incentive to deny medical procedures has some credence and it does happen but not to the extent that you seem to insinuate here.

What planet are you on???!!! Insurers refer to the payment of medical bills for the insureds as "profit loss."

All those rules about "only using doctors or hospitals in their network" and about "prior approval" are so that staff whose job is to find a reason not to approve a test, a procedure or a prescription and to make the patient get by with a test, a procedure or prescription that is less costly and may or may not work rather than the one selected by the attending physician which he believes will work best can say no

Before you say something is not true, go read all the studies.

(3) When something appears to be "free" there tends to be a much higher demand

May be with chocolate candy but it is hardly a case where a patient will say "please doctor, that colonoscopy was some much fun can I have another one?" Are you going to go have blood drawn and xrays done just because the cost is low? (If so I suggest a psychiatrist.)

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:31 PM on 10/26/2007

Bladernr1001,

Thanks for your questions.

What I point out in my article is that the health insurance marketplace operates differently than the prototypical market. There is the initial difference in the profits made by insurance companies by denying care, rather than providing more care. This is the opposite of hospitals and doctors directly, which makes more money each time they provide medical care.

Second, and the focus of the article, is that competition among insurance companies can actually result in less care for the people who need it because competition makes it harder for an individual company to apportion their risk in a profitable manner. So to maximize their profitability, each individual insurance company goes out of its way to avoid the people most in need of medical care--or in financial terms, the ones who will cost the most. If one company refused to act this way--were too "generous" in who they covered, so to speak--they would likely end up with a greater proportion of the more expensive people and they would lose lots of profit. So, they don't do this and millions get avoided completely.

A unitary health care system avoids this problem as the entire population shares the costs so the probabilities of 80/20 "healthy-low cost" to "needing medical care-high cost" balances out. This system is more economically sound and more importantly, no one is left out.

Eric Haas

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:57 PM on 10/26/2007

The reason capitalists are so confused as to why prices are going up instead of down through competition is because of medicare. We have the worst of both worlds: a mixed system. Medicare patients are a doctor's best friend because they are a blank check. If I can charge an average of $50 a patient using traditional insurance or cash or charge the govt $500 for a medicare patient...I'm probably going to start seeing only medicare patients. If my doctor doesnt want to see me for $50 anymore I have to start paying him $150-$500 so that he WILL see me. How do I charge an average of $500 per patient? By running all sorts of tests and scans that are unnecessary. Head cold? Lets get a sinus cavity xray to make sure it's not a tumor or something...could be a blood borne illness, lets do some blood work, etc, etc, etc. Is traditional insurance to blame for the rising cost of health care? Also, because they started playing the game to their own benefit by denying services and paying for tort reform so that patients couldn't sue them while raising their own rates using the excuse of rising medical costs and law suits. But don't worry, soon we will have a national medical plan that will be run by insurance companies. We will get to choose the company that refuses to pay for our treatment. To top it all off, we will still be required to make up the difference between what they pay for (if they pay), our deductibles and the contractors (doctors and nurses) that don't work for the hospital and that they weren't required to pay. In the near future we will be paying for health care through our taxes, while paying for insurance and we will be making payments on our payment plan that the hospital was so nice to arrange for us. Yes, it's morning in America!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:24 PM on 10/26/2007

So you're saying that if health care is "free" more Americans will get sick to take advantage of it?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:49 PM on 10/26/2007

starboymikey, you've added another layer to the "sophie's choices" that we have to make against each other throughout this system--the employer who wants to do the right thing by his/her employees through health care, but can't afford the rising premiums; it's either the business or the employees which is absurd on its face.

It's divide and conquer throughout the system.

Thanks for the insight.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:08 PM on 10/26/2007

first, it not 1/3 for medicare. Its around .03/$1.00.

Second, come on, we gotta keep those insurance companies healthy! How else are they supposed to compete with the oil companies, and the electric companies, and the manufacturing that moved overseas!

One thing that sticks in my mind is the first story in Robert A Heinlein's Past Through Tommorow. In it, a man invented a machine that could predict death. The life insurance companies sued him, claiming that he was costing them too much money, since the people he predicted would die soon were getting policies, and those who weren't going to die for a long time were dropping their policies.

The judge who heard the case, in deciding against the insurance companies, pointed out that the companies had been making a lot of money for a long time, that didn't mean that they were entitled to continue to recieve those profits forever if new technology emerged.

That's what I thought of when gwb vetoed the SCHIP bill, because he pointed out that the insurance companies needed to be protected. That and he was protecting us from "dangerous" socialized medicine.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:04 PM on 10/26/2007

Why would/should a company try to keep you healthy? I'm frustrated that profit maximizing companies are selling houses. Shelter way too expensive and is a basic human right and should be provided by a single payer universal housing program. Ditto for food.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:02 PM on 10/26/2007

They aren't, and they never will, and that was the point. Do you really want the fox in charge of the henhouse?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:29 PM on 10/26/2007

The article failed to mention that many people who think they're insured will find out the shocking truth when they try and _use_ their insurance. That's when the ugly truth that they're paying in to a system that only guarantees one thing: profits for the insurance companies. There's no guarantee of coverage! At least, not for anything expensive!

At the very least, we need _meaningful_ health care insurance oversight, if we can't manage to get single-payer health care.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:53 PM on 10/26/2007

RTIII,
The article failed to mention that many people who think they're insured will find out the shocking truth when they try and _use_ their insurance. That's when the ugly truth that they're paying in to a system that only guarantees one thing: profits for the insurance companies. There's no guarantee of coverage! At least, not for anything expensive!

Also, when the denials for coverage start coming in, good luck. If you are not well educated, persistent and have lots of time to spend on the phone, you will often not collect your rightful benefits.
Insurance companies count on people being too confused and timid to fight for their rights.
Seniors on Medicare sponsored HMO's fall for the switch and bait premiums only to find out their coverage comes up short when they start having serious expensive medical problems. For example, many HMO's have dreadful Home Health Care coverage. The sort of thing you need toward the end of your life. It is estimated that you spend as much on medical care during the last six months of your life as you did on all your previous life. Not a good time to be fighting with an insurance company.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:51 PM on 10/26/2007

bait and switch

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:53 PM on 10/26/2007

You are correct on all counts. Not only is the ideological right wing babble morally bankrupt, it is simply bad economics while seeking to maximize human output. Labor is not an expendable resource in the long term, anymore that secure lines of capital and natural resources are to your productivity.

Community is central to economic output and even more so to the qaulity of life that a society can achieve.

To continue on the right wing path, doom is certain. As every seagoer knows the last call of "every man for himself" doesn't mean freedom, it means the likelihood of death.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:49 PM on 10/26/2007

Eric, you've nailed it. However, it's even worse, because part of the game insurance companies are playing involves yearly premium increases that far exceed the rate of inflation.

This forces companies (my own included) to drastically reduce benefits for their employees, so that all employees are left with is "catesprophic" insurance that doesn't even begin to kick in until the employee has essentially emptied out his/her savings account. This can play havoc with retirement plans, impoverishing people who might otherwise have had reasonably secure retirements. We regularly hear the figures for uninsured Americans, but if you add the number of severely underinsured, it may amount to as much as 1/3 of the American population, and the numbers continue to grow ever more alarming.

When anywhere from .60 to .80 cents on the dollar insurance companies spend on administrative costs (as to around 1/3 of that with Medicare) it gives lie to the ridiculous notion that the "private sector" can deliver better health care that the public sector.

I am all for free markets in almost every area of commerce, but not when it comes to health care. Private industry should not be able to enrich itself on the backs of sick people.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:40 PM on 10/26/2007

Eric: Great article. Finally people are beginning to see the real reason behind the veto of SCHIP, and the Republican's agenda with screaming "socialized medicine."

I find it completely immoral for insurance companies to profit off of the health industry. I read 31% of every health dollar spent, is due to insurance paperwork and bureaucracy.

"The issue of universal health coverage, is not a matter of economics. Little more than 1% of the GDP assigned to health could cover all. It is a matter of soul."
- Uwe Reinhardt

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:07 PM on 10/26/2007
Comments are closed for this entry

You must be logged in to reply to this comment. Log in


Bloggers Index›
Read All Posts by
Eric Haas›
 

 Site  Web ask.com