Denying Care Till Profitability: How Insurance Companies Can Force Sick People Onto the Public Plan

by: Ian Welsh

Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 17:50


One of the biggest concerns with having a public option is the possibility that the sickest people will wind up on it, while the healthiest will be in private insurance.  The House plan does what it can to make sure this doesn't happen: companies can't refuse to take people because of their medical history, and they can't rescind policies because of medical history.  

But that still leaves a simple way to reduce the amount of money you have to pay out as an insurer.  Deny care when you can.  Drag your feet when you can't.  Make it hard for sick people to get the money they need.  

This sort of behavior is already common amongst insurers, and it's very hard to fight.  

So what happens if there's a public option which doesn't engage in this type of behavior?  People sign up, on the exchanges, for private plans.  When they get sick, the insurance company starts giving them the runaround.  Pretty soon they get sick of it, and they cancel that plan and go on the public plan, which they know won't give them the runaround.  

Voila!  Mission accomplished.  Sick, expensive person, now that they cost more than they bring in, shifted from private plan to public plan!

Anyone who thinks that private insurers won't do this systematically if they think they can get away with it hasn't been paying attention.  And odds are pretty high they'll think they can get away with it.

Ian Welsh :: Denying Care Till Profitability: How Insurance Companies Can Force Sick People Onto the Public Plan

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
They'll still have to improve service for healthy people. (0.00 / 0)
Which I'm sure they can, but giving healthy people the runaround for ordinary stuff won't do. The other thing they'll have to get right is just when to force people out. Actual healthy people who have a sickness issue but then return to health will have to be kept or they'll go to the public plan where their return to health will help the public plan.  

Jeff Wegerson

it gets better (not) (0.00 / 0)
Sick, expensive person, now that they cost more than they bring in, shifted from private plan to public plan!

which means that private insurance companies can charge lower premiums (or lower premiums for plans with high deductibles and copays/coinsurance).

which means that the young and healthy will choose the less-expensive-but-crappy-if you-get-sick plan from  a private insurance company.

and migrate to public plan only if they get sick.

and the public plan ends up costing a lot more than planed. and the private insurance companies rake even more $$$ because of the mandate.

people will hate the mandate and the bat shit crazy republicans will say, "see we told you gov run healthcare would cost too much. the problem is big gov."

and healthcare reform is set back a generation.


Exactly. (0.00 / 0)
Both you and Ian have nailed exactly what is going to happen with this public option.

[ Parent ]
i hope not... (0.00 / 0)
i hope not... but i've been asking public-plan-in-a-multi-payer-system advocates about this for months and all i've gotten is either 1) crickets 2) substance free talking points or 3) some version of "we can't talk about single payer because there aren't enough votes"

so for the time being, i'm thinking they don't have a solution.

.... my guess is that it would come down to the risk adjustment regulations and enforcement. which would mean the really important battles would involve complicated regulatory details and take place behind closed doors -- where lobbyists are strongest. and these battles would be NEVER ending. while i don't trust the current administration's financial regulators, i don't want to even think about what would happen with another bush-type administration.

i have no idea why anyone thinks the mandate plus regulatory/enforcement path is more politically feasible than single payer (especially when cost is taken into account). but then i'm not a dc insider, so what do i know?


[ Parent ]
Follow the money... (0.00 / 0)
"i have no idea why anyone thinks the mandate plus regulatory/enforcement path is more politically feasible than single payer (especially when cost is taken into account). but then i'm not a dc insider, so what do i know?"

Single payer was taken off the table deliberately, upfront, because that option does not pay politicians millions of dollars in campaign contributions or cushy jobs when politicians "retire" to the private sector.

Single payer might happen if this round of reform fails. Or if the public revolts. But the current politicians in DC won't make it happen. They're addicted to the money from insurance companies, drug companies, and the rest of the healthcare industry. Those companies love the mandate plus regulation path because they know the next Republican administration and/or Congress will water down or eliminate the regulation part.


[ Parent ]
wait! there's a solution! (0.00 / 0)
from mcclatchy: Health legislation might bar some from public insurance

President Barack Obama and leading Democrats have stressed that people who like their employer-sponsored insurance would be able to keep it under a health care overhaul. They haven't emphasized the flip side, however: that people who don't like their coverage might have to keep it.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251...


[ Parent ]
Yeah (0.00 / 0)
Under the main Democratic health bills that are being debated in Congress, many people with job-based insurance could find it difficult to impossible to switch to health plans on a new insurance exchange, even if those plans were cheaper or offered better coverage. The restrictions would extend to any government-run plan.

But, for people who are on the exchanges, I think what I suggested would occur, would occur.

The more I find out about these plans, the more I am disinclined to support them.  I want to see the final bill out of reconciliation, but right now I'm wondering if the negatives outweigh the positives.  Being forced to buy bad insurance without sufficient subsidies and not being allowed to choose the public option is not a win.


[ Parent ]
agree completely (0.00 / 0)
my "solution" was meant as snark.

[ Parent ]
p.s. (0.00 / 0)
also, not sure how to read this (from the tri-committee bill info for year 2013 and my bold):

HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGE: Opens the Health Insurance Exchange to individuals without other coverage and to small employers under 10. This new venue with enable people to comparison shop for standarized health packages. It facilitates enrollment and administers affordability credits so that people of all incomes can obtain affordable coverage.

PUBLIC HEALTH INSURANCE OPTION: Creates a new public health insurance plan that is available only within the Health Insurance Exchange. It competes on a level playing field against private health plans...

http://seminal.firedoglake.com...


[ Parent ]
it's a compelling argument and there's some truth to it (0.00 / 0)
I guess I am just holding out hope that the combination of hubris by insurance companies and the continuing political pressure that will exist for far more substantive health care reform will help force additional pieces to this plan over time until it can become near universal.  

but it sounds overly optimistic when i read what I've written and maybe it would be better to kill all the plans in the absence of real reform.


hope (0.00 / 0)
i was hoping that the Ds were smart enough not to eff this up  as it could actually hurt them at the voting booth.

but then i saw the 2013 date for the start of implementation and realized they were planning on punting until after the next pres election. at that point my hopes were.. um... greatly diminished.


[ Parent ]
that's actually very good (0.00 / 0)
it gives the appearance of action without anything being put into place, which could lead to more agitation.  on the other hand, it starts setting out the bureaucratic / administrative structure of what will get created which is admittedly $hit in the current grouping of bills.  

I hope states are still able to experiment, so that some state might create a single payer programme as a pilot / demonstration.


[ Parent ]
...All of which creates a MASSIVE constituency for Democrats and progressive health care reforms. (0.00 / 0)
If the insurance companies want to kill off their customer base and push this country even further in the direction of single payer, that's just fine with me.  

It will backfire (0.00 / 0)
Ian, I actually hope that the private insurance industry attempts just what you propose.  If they do, within a decade there will be no private insurance industry that covers individuals or small businesses, because they all will have left.  Word will get out, and even those who temporarily qualify as healthy and sought-after will be suspicious.

Yes (0.00 / 0)
it could push in that direction.  I see your glass is half full :)

[ Parent ]
I hadnt read that comment.. (0.00 / 0)
Yes, it could implode in on itself, and the middle class will get the same crappy care we do now and demand better, but many will die in the process. Many wil not return to work and cost more money. Many will suffer.

[ Parent ]
Its crap, folks (0.00 / 0)
The Dems can go right where 20-80,000 USAns will go this year, while they fly with insurance industry execs on corporate jets...f'em.

USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox