FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Health Care as Political Theater

by JEFF SHER

Reading into President Barack Obama’s health care summit on Thursday, the massive rate increases recently announced by Anthem/Blue Cross of California shine like a neon marquee over this episode of political theatre.

The magnitude of these rate increases – which are extreme but not unrepresentative of what is happening throughout the for profit insurance industry – expose the viability of all the watered down proposals that have survived the legislative gauntlet of special interest corruption and manufactured public outrage.

The message blinking bright and clear on the marquee: should any one of the extant proposals actually emerge from the summit (unlikely), or be passed by Democrats alone through reconciliation, it will be obsolete and ineffective by the time most of the provisions go into effect in 2014.

The Obama administration is trying to capitalize on Anthem/Blue Cross’s colossal timing blunder. The administration proposed Monday that any health reform plan should be enhanced to empower the federal government to regulate health care premium rate increases. With the government holding the power to deny rate increases that are unjustified, insurance companies would become like regulated utilities.

But this measure will do little to control rate increases. Such a regulatory board may trim a few points off an increase here and there. But after-the-fact review of rate increases will do nothing to alter the forces of technology, inefficiency, misplaced incentives and demographics that are driving the rate increases. Costs will go up. Big rate increases will be justified and approved by the regulators.

By 2014, health insurance costs will be so much higher (and continuing to rise every year) that the mandate to buy insurance will be experienced by tens of millions of Americans as an unaffordable burden. The subsidies intended to render this burden tolerable will be inadequate. People will avoid buying insurance in droves and opt to pay the penalties instead.

Or, at best, they will be forced to buy the only thing that they can afford: plans with high deductibles and co-payments, which in effect will leave them underinsured. Yes, if they ever need to go in the hospital, at least they will have coverage after they pay a very high deductible. But since they won’t be able to afford routine preventive care or properly managed care for chronic conditions, they will end up in the hospital more often and bankrupted anyway by the high deductibles and other costs not covered by their insurance.

Thus the two main goals of the health insurance reform effort will remain unfulfilled: coverage will not be effectively extended (even though many will nominally possess insurance); and because of the rampant under-insurance, health insurance costs will continue to soar out of control.

It is well documented that the greater the barriers to care (i.e. deductibles and high co-pays), the more likely it becomes that patients forego necessary care in order to save money. When that happens, the long-term costs for those individuals goes up. The short-term savings to the system of making the patient pay more up-front for care are more than offset by the lack of prevention and additional costs for people who become ill more frequently and seriously than they should.

The Blue Cross rate increases, up to 39 percent for its 800,000 individual policy holders in California clearly signal that entire segments of the for-profit insurance market are disintegrating at an alarming rate.

Blue Cross’s individual California insurance pool has slipped into what the insurance industry calls a death spiral. Large rate increases will be the norm going forward. The higher the price of insurance becomes, the more people will drop their insurance altogether, leaving fewer people in the insurance pool and requiring even greater rate increases to cover the cost of care, causing more to drop out, and so on.

Numerous states besides California are reporting double digit increases in individual markets as well. In 2008 there were some 13 million people covered by individual policies nationwide. These people are not all grouped into one pool but are divided into much smaller state pools.

The problem is not limited to the individual marketplace. The media has yet to latch onto rate increases in the premiums corporations pay to provide health insurance to their employees, but the same process is in play. Any corporation not large enough to create its own insurance pool and insure itself can testify that it has been years since it has expected annual health insurance premium increase to be less than 10 percent. 10 percent is a good year. Many employers have seen 20 percent-plus increases in the last several years, and some have seen increases that large more than once.

In order to cope, employers raise co-payments and deductibles and increase the amount employees contribute toward the cost of coverage. This trend will continue. Over time we will see more under-insurance posing as “good” insurance in the corporate world. The cost implications are the same. Short-term premium savings for the employers and long-term increases in the cost of providing care. And the more the corporations cut coverage and premiums, while health costs remain the same or increase, the greater future rate increases must be to cover the shortfall. It’s a game of constant catch-up.

None of this is addressed by the health reform bills still considered viable in Congress. The bills are designed as an attempt to maintain the current employer-based, insurance-industry-financed system, which is a major contributor to the cost problem.

Following Blue Cross’s announcement, there has been an uproar about health insurance industry profits. The 5 largest health insurers had record profits of $12.2 billion in 2009.

Democrats have expressed shock and outrage at such huge profits, especially at a time when millions have lost jobs and insurance due to the economic crisis. But there is no excuse for profits in the system at any time, since insurance companies do not add one iota of value to the delivery of health care from doctors and hospitals to patients, and since an estimated 45,000 people a year die in this country because we allegedly cannot afford to extend coverage to them.

It’s not primarily the amount of the profit that is the problem. The $12.2 billion profit is a miniscule fraction of the $2.5 trillion annual cost of the U.S. healthcare system. The real problem, rather, is the layers of inefficiency built into the structure of the system in order to create an opportunity for profit.

Rather than just allowing people to visit health care providers and paying the costs, the for-profit system requires the creation of competing plans, alternative levels of benefits, extensive marketing systems, and legions of underwriters to determine who can and cannot buy insurance depending on their risk profile.

While the average insurance company profit margin is in the range of 4 percent, the share of premium dollars actually spent on health care ranges from 70 to 85 percent. The rest, 15 to 30 percent of the total, is overhead, including profit as a component.

Compare that to Medicare’s 6 percent overhead costs. If we replaced the for-profit insurance companies with Medicare, we’d shave 15-20 percent off the cost of health care for all those now covered by private insurance due to overhead savings alone.

And that’s not counting the savings that would result from being able to eliminate the bureaucracy that is required for doctors and hospitals by the for-profit system. Doctors and hospitals hire legions of employees simply to navigate the complexities of eligibility and payment in the for-profit system.

The savings from eliminating for-profit insurance companies could amount to hundreds of billions of dollars per year. This will not be considered at the health insurance summit.

JEFF SHER lives in the Bay Area. He can be reached at: jeffsher@sbcglobal.net

 

Jeff Sher is a journalist specializing in the health care industry. He lives in San Francisco.

More articles by:
June 27, 2016
Robin Hahnel
Brexit: Establishment Freak Out
James Bradley
Omar’s Motive
Gregory Wilpert – Michael Hudson
How Western Military Interventions Shaped the Brexit Vote
Leonard Peltier
41 Years Since Jumping Bull, 500 Years of Trauma
Rev. William Alberts
Orlando: the Latest Victim of Radicalizing American Imperialism
Patrick Cockburn
Brexiteers Have Much in Common With Arab Spring Protesters
Franklin Lamb
How 100 Syrians, 200 Russians and 11 Dogs Out-Witted ISIS and Saved Palmyra
John Grant
Omar Mateen: The Answers are All Around Us
Dean Baker
In the Wake of Brexit Will the EU Finally Turn Away From Austerity?
Ralph Nader
The IRS and the Self-Minimization of Congressman Jason Chaffetz
Gordon Smith
Goodbye UK, Goodbye Great Britain: What Next?
Martha Pskowski
Detained in Dilley: Deportation and Asylum in Texas
stclair
Headaches of Empire: Brexit’s Effect on the United States
Dave Lindorff
Honest Election System Needed to Defeat Ruling Elite
Louisa Willcox
Delisting Grizzly Bears to Save the Endangered Species Act?
Jason Holland
The Tragedy of Nothing
Jeffrey St. Clair
Revolution Reconsidered, Guest Starring Bernard Sanders in the Role of Robespierre
Weekend Edition
June 24, 2016
Friday - Sunday
John Pilger
A Blow for Peace and Democracy: Why the British Said No to Europe
Pepe Escobar
Goodbye to All That: Why the UK Left the EU
Michael Hudson
Revolts of the Debtors: From Socrates to Ibn Khaldun
Andrew Levine
Summer Spectaculars: Prelude to a Tea Party?
Kshama Sawant
Beyond Bernie: Still Not With Her
Mike Whitney
¡Basta Ya, Brussels! British Voters Reject EU Corporate Slavestate
Tariq Ali
Panic in the House: Brexit as Revolt Against the Political Establishment
Paul Street
Miranda, Obama, and Hamilton: an Orwellian Ménage à Trois for the Neoliberal Age
Ellen Brown
The War on Weed is Winding Down, But Will Monsanto Emerge the Winner?
Gary Leupp
Why God Created the Two-Party System
Conn Hallinan
Brexit Vote: a Very British Affair (But Spain May Rock the Continent)
Ruth Fowler
England, My England
Jeffrey St. Clair
Lines Written on the Occasion of Bernie Sanders’ Announcement of His Intention to Vote for Hillary Clinton
Norman Pollack
Fissures in World Capitalism: the British Vote
Paul Bentley
Mercenary Logic: 12 Dead in Kabul
Binoy Kampmark
Parting Is Such Sweet Joy: Brexit Prevails!
Elliot Sperber
Show Me Your Papers: Supreme Court Legalizes Arbitrary Searches
Jan Oberg
The Brexit Shock: Now It’s All Up in the Air
Nauman Sadiq
Brexit: a Victory for Britain’s Working Class
Brian Cloughley
Murder by Drone: Killing Taxi Drivers in the Name of Freedom
Ramzy Baroud
How Israel Uses Water as a Weapon of War
Brad Evans – Henry Giroux
The Violence of Forgetting
Ben Debney
Homophobia and the Conservative Victim Complex
Margaret Kimberley
The Orlando Massacre and US Foreign Policy
David Rosen
Americans Work Too Long for Too Little
Murray Dobbin
Do We Really Want a War With Russia?
Kathy Kelly
What’s at Stake
Louis Yako
I Have Nothing “Newsworthy” to Report this Week
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail