OT: Anyone hear the NPR interview about the person getting dependant care coverage from parents

[Coronita]

Ok, fine. I guess if an employer’s plan says employee pays 100% of his/her 26+year “dependent” that is fully healthy and capable of working/earning independently, I guess I don’t have as much an issue with that because nobody else in that same group plan is being asked to bear the extra cost of insurance.

[SK in CV]

[quote=flu]Also, I wasn’t thinking of the the case in which someone is self-insured and is simply adding the grownup kid to his/her policy…. I believe the original article indicated that the young lady was being added to her parent’s employer plan (not her parent’s self-paid insurance). What the article didn’t mention is who pays for dependent care in her parent’s plan and how much.

Eh, never mind….[/quote]

The first part of your comment makes perfect sense to me. But I’ll tell you, the current trend in benefits is to pay for less, with fewer and fewer employers paying for any part of dependent coverage.

I guess my confusion is where you put in the part about rationing of health care. I don’t see how this particular situation fits.

As a side note, there is a loophole (or as the insurance companies see it, a feature, not a flaw) on the effective date of this portion of the law. For group policies, the part that requires allowing coverage of children through age 26 applies on the plan anniversary date first following September 23. I know that Aetna is strictly enforcing that on their small group plans. I tried to get my 24 year old son onto my policy (the marginal cost would have been zero, since I already was paying for family coverage) at the July 1 open enrollment date and was told that they won’t allow it until NEXT July 1. I didn’t watch the video, but it’s possible that this woman might be out of luck for the moment if she hasn’t already confirmed eligibility.

Another feature of this provision, which I don’t think has been mentioned yet, is that children are only eligible for tagging along on their parents policies if they are not eligible for group coverage through their own employers. So employed children under age 27 who are eligible for company plans can’t opt to get added on to their parents policy.

[SK in CV]

[quote=flu]Also, I wasn’t thinking of the the case in which someone is self-insured and is simply adding the grownup kid to his/her policy…. I believe the original article indicated that the young lady was being added to her parent’s employer plan (not her parent’s self-paid insurance). What the article didn’t mention is who pays for dependent care in her parent’s plan and how much.

Eh, never mind….[/quote]

The first part of your comment makes perfect sense to me. But I’ll tell you, the current trend in benefits is to pay for less, with fewer and fewer employers paying for any part of dependent coverage.

I guess my confusion is where you put in the part about rationing of health care. I don’t see how this particular situation fits.

As a side note, there is a loophole (or as the insurance companies see it, a feature, not a flaw) on the effective date of this portion of the law. For group policies, the part that requires allowing coverage of children through age 26 applies on the plan anniversary date first following September 23. I know that Aetna is strictly enforcing that on their small group plans. I tried to get my 24 year old son onto my policy (the marginal cost would have been zero, since I already was paying for family coverage) at the July 1 open enrollment date and was told that they won’t allow it until NEXT July 1. I didn’t watch the video, but it’s possible that this woman might be out of luck for the moment if she hasn’t already confirmed eligibility.

Another feature of this provision, which I don’t think has been mentioned yet, is that children are only eligible for tagging along on their parents policies if they are not eligible for group coverage through their own employers. So employed children under age 27 who are eligible for company plans can’t opt to get added on to their parents policy.

[SK in CV]

[quote=flu]Also, I wasn’t thinking of the the case in which someone is self-insured and is simply adding the grownup kid to his/her policy…. I believe the original article indicated that the young lady was being added to her parent’s employer plan (not her parent’s self-paid insurance). What the article didn’t mention is who pays for dependent care in her parent’s plan and how much.

Eh, never mind….[/quote]

The first part of your comment makes perfect sense to me. But I’ll tell you, the current trend in benefits is to pay for less, with fewer and fewer employers paying for any part of dependent coverage.

I guess my confusion is where you put in the part about rationing of health care. I don’t see how this particular situation fits.

As a side note, there is a loophole (or as the insurance companies see it, a feature, not a flaw) on the effective date of this portion of the law. For group policies, the part that requires allowing coverage of children through age 26 applies on the plan anniversary date first following September 23. I know that Aetna is strictly enforcing that on their small group plans. I tried to get my 24 year old son onto my policy (the marginal cost would have been zero, since I already was paying for family coverage) at the July 1 open enrollment date and was told that they won’t allow it until NEXT July 1. I didn’t watch the video, but it’s possible that this woman might be out of luck for the moment if she hasn’t already confirmed eligibility.

Another feature of this provision, which I don’t think has been mentioned yet, is that children are only eligible for tagging along on their parents policies if they are not eligible for group coverage through their own employers. So employed children under age 27 who are eligible for company plans can’t opt to get added on to their parents policy.

[SK in CV]

[quote=flu]Also, I wasn’t thinking of the the case in which someone is self-insured and is simply adding the grownup kid to his/her policy…. I believe the original article indicated that the young lady was being added to her parent’s employer plan (not her parent’s self-paid insurance). What the article didn’t mention is who pays for dependent care in her parent’s plan and how much.

Eh, never mind….[/quote]

The first part of your comment makes perfect sense to me. But I’ll tell you, the current trend in benefits is to pay for less, with fewer and fewer employers paying for any part of dependent coverage.

I guess my confusion is where you put in the part about rationing of health care. I don’t see how this particular situation fits.

As a side note, there is a loophole (or as the insurance companies see it, a feature, not a flaw) on the effective date of this portion of the law. For group policies, the part that requires allowing coverage of children through age 26 applies on the plan anniversary date first following September 23. I know that Aetna is strictly enforcing that on their small group plans. I tried to get my 24 year old son onto my policy (the marginal cost would have been zero, since I already was paying for family coverage) at the July 1 open enrollment date and was told that they won’t allow it until NEXT July 1. I didn’t watch the video, but it’s possible that this woman might be out of luck for the moment if she hasn’t already confirmed eligibility.

Another feature of this provision, which I don’t think has been mentioned yet, is that children are only eligible for tagging along on their parents policies if they are not eligible for group coverage through their own employers. So employed children under age 27 who are eligible for company plans can’t opt to get added on to their parents policy.

[SK in CV]

[quote=flu]Also, I wasn’t thinking of the the case in which someone is self-insured and is simply adding the grownup kid to his/her policy…. I believe the original article indicated that the young lady was being added to her parent’s employer plan (not her parent’s self-paid insurance). What the article didn’t mention is who pays for dependent care in her parent’s plan and how much.

Eh, never mind….[/quote]

The first part of your comment makes perfect sense to me. But I’ll tell you, the current trend in benefits is to pay for less, with fewer and fewer employers paying for any part of dependent coverage.

I guess my confusion is where you put in the part about rationing of health care. I don’t see how this particular situation fits.

As a side note, there is a loophole (or as the insurance companies see it, a feature, not a flaw) on the effective date of this portion of the law. For group policies, the part that requires allowing coverage of children through age 26 applies on the plan anniversary date first following September 23. I know that Aetna is strictly enforcing that on their small group plans. I tried to get my 24 year old son onto my policy (the marginal cost would have been zero, since I already was paying for family coverage) at the July 1 open enrollment date and was told that they won’t allow it until NEXT July 1. I didn’t watch the video, but it’s possible that this woman might be out of luck for the moment if she hasn’t already confirmed eligibility.

Another feature of this provision, which I don’t think has been mentioned yet, is that children are only eligible for tagging along on their parents policies if they are not eligible for group coverage through their own employers. So employed children under age 27 who are eligible for company plans can’t opt to get added on to their parents policy.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=briansd1][quote=bearishgurl]
I was referring to the same people to go to providers for repeat visits (2-4x mo) for themselves and/or their children and are usually just sent to the store to buy some ibuprofen or some other over-the-counter remedy. Since they have a very low co-pay, they just keep making appointments, even for just a hangnail. I’ve seen this phenomenon all my life, mostly with overprotective parents and hypochondriac adults.[/quote]

There have been empirical research showing that a significant co-pay (like $50) is very helpful in getting patient to use medical service judiciously.

I support higher copays.

Something like a flexible spending account combined with insurance wouldn’t be bad. Give people who use very little medical services something back at the end of the year. Something substantial like $500 or more. That might work for medicare/medicaid too.[/quote]

bearish, I am so with you on this one, girl! The healthcare problem in this country is extraordinarily complex (I speak as one who has worked in this arena for most of my life), and there is more than enough blame to go around for everyone concerned: insurance companies, hospitals/providers, government regulators, malpractice attorneys, pharmaceutical companies. However, nothing will improve until the public, across the board, is made aware of the high cost of healthcare. And nothing makes one more aware, as many of our less fortunate citizens know, than a direct hit to the wallet.

I remember listening to friends gripe about their high insurance premiums. This was the good old days, 25 years ago, when many of them were paying $600 or $800 per YEAR for family coverage. I’d ask them to pull out their hospital bill for the birth of their last child, and ask them who was going to be paying the $15,000 not covered by their premiums (don’t jump all over me – I am NOT defending the insurance companies. But you don’t want me to get started on them.)

There are people who spend hours clipping coupons each week so that they can get 20 cents off a $2.59 bottle of dish soap, who don’t think twice before going in to see their doctor. Very often, it’s something that medical intervention won’t help (common cold?), or something that they’ve already seen the doctor about but haven’t followed his/her advice, or sometimes it’s simply for the care and attention.

Until we get people to invest more of their own money in their healthcare, they won’t realize the true value of it, and how fortunate they are to have it. I agree with Brian: raise those co-pays on basic doctor visits, and reward patients who don’t abuse the system. I don’t mean to make this as simple as it sounds – it’s not simple at all. Medicine is far from an exact science. But there are high-maintenance patience who overutilize health services because they refuse to change their lifestyle choices and continue to engage in risky behavior. Think about it: if you continued to get into fender-benders month after month, year after year, would State Farm continue to be a good neighbor and pay the repair bills? Despite the sincerity of their commercials, I don’t think they would.

As for you, flu, once again you have chosen to start a thread with a topic that is both newsworthy and postworthy (two full pages of thought-provoking posts in less than 12 hours!). I commend you, sir. As for your original post, there are many of my betters on this board who have articulated their positions skillfully, and you have been gracious in acknowledging that you were ill-informed when you started the thread. It’s understandable that most people form opinions based on their own experiences; unfortunately, that’s been a major hurdle in health care reform. The problem isn’t that there are many people who simply don’t want to pay for insurance; it’s that they CAN’T get insurance, at any price. There’s also an assumption that all people receiving employer-sponsored health insurance are paying the same premiums and receiving the same coverage. Nothing could be further from the truth.

But the real problem is that health care has become very, very expensive. And this will become exponentially worse as the Baby Boomer generation ages. Health care delivery as it stands today, will be unsustainable in the future. If middle-class America wants to be able to access decent healthcare in the future, we need to adjust our expectations, and we need to take some personal responsibility.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=briansd1][quote=bearishgurl]
I was referring to the same people to go to providers for repeat visits (2-4x mo) for themselves and/or their children and are usually just sent to the store to buy some ibuprofen or some other over-the-counter remedy. Since they have a very low co-pay, they just keep making appointments, even for just a hangnail. I’ve seen this phenomenon all my life, mostly with overprotective parents and hypochondriac adults.[/quote]

There have been empirical research showing that a significant co-pay (like $50) is very helpful in getting patient to use medical service judiciously.

I support higher copays.

Something like a flexible spending account combined with insurance wouldn’t be bad. Give people who use very little medical services something back at the end of the year. Something substantial like $500 or more. That might work for medicare/medicaid too.[/quote]

bearish, I am so with you on this one, girl! The healthcare problem in this country is extraordinarily complex (I speak as one who has worked in this arena for most of my life), and there is more than enough blame to go around for everyone concerned: insurance companies, hospitals/providers, government regulators, malpractice attorneys, pharmaceutical companies. However, nothing will improve until the public, across the board, is made aware of the high cost of healthcare. And nothing makes one more aware, as many of our less fortunate citizens know, than a direct hit to the wallet.

I remember listening to friends gripe about their high insurance premiums. This was the good old days, 25 years ago, when many of them were paying $600 or $800 per YEAR for family coverage. I’d ask them to pull out their hospital bill for the birth of their last child, and ask them who was going to be paying the $15,000 not covered by their premiums (don’t jump all over me – I am NOT defending the insurance companies. But you don’t want me to get started on them.)

There are people who spend hours clipping coupons each week so that they can get 20 cents off a $2.59 bottle of dish soap, who don’t think twice before going in to see their doctor. Very often, it’s something that medical intervention won’t help (common cold?), or something that they’ve already seen the doctor about but haven’t followed his/her advice, or sometimes it’s simply for the care and attention.

Until we get people to invest more of their own money in their healthcare, they won’t realize the true value of it, and how fortunate they are to have it. I agree with Brian: raise those co-pays on basic doctor visits, and reward patients who don’t abuse the system. I don’t mean to make this as simple as it sounds – it’s not simple at all. Medicine is far from an exact science. But there are high-maintenance patience who overutilize health services because they refuse to change their lifestyle choices and continue to engage in risky behavior. Think about it: if you continued to get into fender-benders month after month, year after year, would State Farm continue to be a good neighbor and pay the repair bills? Despite the sincerity of their commercials, I don’t think they would.

As for you, flu, once again you have chosen to start a thread with a topic that is both newsworthy and postworthy (two full pages of thought-provoking posts in less than 12 hours!). I commend you, sir. As for your original post, there are many of my betters on this board who have articulated their positions skillfully, and you have been gracious in acknowledging that you were ill-informed when you started the thread. It’s understandable that most people form opinions based on their own experiences; unfortunately, that’s been a major hurdle in health care reform. The problem isn’t that there are many people who simply don’t want to pay for insurance; it’s that they CAN’T get insurance, at any price. There’s also an assumption that all people receiving employer-sponsored health insurance are paying the same premiums and receiving the same coverage. Nothing could be further from the truth.

But the real problem is that health care has become very, very expensive. And this will become exponentially worse as the Baby Boomer generation ages. Health care delivery as it stands today, will be unsustainable in the future. If middle-class America wants to be able to access decent healthcare in the future, we need to adjust our expectations, and we need to take some personal responsibility.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=briansd1][quote=bearishgurl]
I was referring to the same people to go to providers for repeat visits (2-4x mo) for themselves and/or their children and are usually just sent to the store to buy some ibuprofen or some other over-the-counter remedy. Since they have a very low co-pay, they just keep making appointments, even for just a hangnail. I’ve seen this phenomenon all my life, mostly with overprotective parents and hypochondriac adults.[/quote]

There have been empirical research showing that a significant co-pay (like $50) is very helpful in getting patient to use medical service judiciously.

I support higher copays.

Something like a flexible spending account combined with insurance wouldn’t be bad. Give people who use very little medical services something back at the end of the year. Something substantial like $500 or more. That might work for medicare/medicaid too.[/quote]

bearish, I am so with you on this one, girl! The healthcare problem in this country is extraordinarily complex (I speak as one who has worked in this arena for most of my life), and there is more than enough blame to go around for everyone concerned: insurance companies, hospitals/providers, government regulators, malpractice attorneys, pharmaceutical companies. However, nothing will improve until the public, across the board, is made aware of the high cost of healthcare. And nothing makes one more aware, as many of our less fortunate citizens know, than a direct hit to the wallet.

I remember listening to friends gripe about their high insurance premiums. This was the good old days, 25 years ago, when many of them were paying $600 or $800 per YEAR for family coverage. I’d ask them to pull out their hospital bill for the birth of their last child, and ask them who was going to be paying the $15,000 not covered by their premiums (don’t jump all over me – I am NOT defending the insurance companies. But you don’t want me to get started on them.)

There are people who spend hours clipping coupons each week so that they can get 20 cents off a $2.59 bottle of dish soap, who don’t think twice before going in to see their doctor. Very often, it’s something that medical intervention won’t help (common cold?), or something that they’ve already seen the doctor about but haven’t followed his/her advice, or sometimes it’s simply for the care and attention.

Until we get people to invest more of their own money in their healthcare, they won’t realize the true value of it, and how fortunate they are to have it. I agree with Brian: raise those co-pays on basic doctor visits, and reward patients who don’t abuse the system. I don’t mean to make this as simple as it sounds – it’s not simple at all. Medicine is far from an exact science. But there are high-maintenance patience who overutilize health services because they refuse to change their lifestyle choices and continue to engage in risky behavior. Think about it: if you continued to get into fender-benders month after month, year after year, would State Farm continue to be a good neighbor and pay the repair bills? Despite the sincerity of their commercials, I don’t think they would.

As for you, flu, once again you have chosen to start a thread with a topic that is both newsworthy and postworthy (two full pages of thought-provoking posts in less than 12 hours!). I commend you, sir. As for your original post, there are many of my betters on this board who have articulated their positions skillfully, and you have been gracious in acknowledging that you were ill-informed when you started the thread. It’s understandable that most people form opinions based on their own experiences; unfortunately, that’s been a major hurdle in health care reform. The problem isn’t that there are many people who simply don’t want to pay for insurance; it’s that they CAN’T get insurance, at any price. There’s also an assumption that all people receiving employer-sponsored health insurance are paying the same premiums and receiving the same coverage. Nothing could be further from the truth.

But the real problem is that health care has become very, very expensive. And this will become exponentially worse as the Baby Boomer generation ages. Health care delivery as it stands today, will be unsustainable in the future. If middle-class America wants to be able to access decent healthcare in the future, we need to adjust our expectations, and we need to take some personal responsibility.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=briansd1][quote=bearishgurl]
I was referring to the same people to go to providers for repeat visits (2-4x mo) for themselves and/or their children and are usually just sent to the store to buy some ibuprofen or some other over-the-counter remedy. Since they have a very low co-pay, they just keep making appointments, even for just a hangnail. I’ve seen this phenomenon all my life, mostly with overprotective parents and hypochondriac adults.[/quote]

There have been empirical research showing that a significant co-pay (like $50) is very helpful in getting patient to use medical service judiciously.

I support higher copays.

Something like a flexible spending account combined with insurance wouldn’t be bad. Give people who use very little medical services something back at the end of the year. Something substantial like $500 or more. That might work for medicare/medicaid too.[/quote]

bearish, I am so with you on this one, girl! The healthcare problem in this country is extraordinarily complex (I speak as one who has worked in this arena for most of my life), and there is more than enough blame to go around for everyone concerned: insurance companies, hospitals/providers, government regulators, malpractice attorneys, pharmaceutical companies. However, nothing will improve until the public, across the board, is made aware of the high cost of healthcare. And nothing makes one more aware, as many of our less fortunate citizens know, than a direct hit to the wallet.

I remember listening to friends gripe about their high insurance premiums. This was the good old days, 25 years ago, when many of them were paying $600 or $800 per YEAR for family coverage. I’d ask them to pull out their hospital bill for the birth of their last child, and ask them who was going to be paying the $15,000 not covered by their premiums (don’t jump all over me – I am NOT defending the insurance companies. But you don’t want me to get started on them.)

There are people who spend hours clipping coupons each week so that they can get 20 cents off a $2.59 bottle of dish soap, who don’t think twice before going in to see their doctor. Very often, it’s something that medical intervention won’t help (common cold?), or something that they’ve already seen the doctor about but haven’t followed his/her advice, or sometimes it’s simply for the care and attention.

Until we get people to invest more of their own money in their healthcare, they won’t realize the true value of it, and how fortunate they are to have it. I agree with Brian: raise those co-pays on basic doctor visits, and reward patients who don’t abuse the system. I don’t mean to make this as simple as it sounds – it’s not simple at all. Medicine is far from an exact science. But there are high-maintenance patience who overutilize health services because they refuse to change their lifestyle choices and continue to engage in risky behavior. Think about it: if you continued to get into fender-benders month after month, year after year, would State Farm continue to be a good neighbor and pay the repair bills? Despite the sincerity of their commercials, I don’t think they would.

As for you, flu, once again you have chosen to start a thread with a topic that is both newsworthy and postworthy (two full pages of thought-provoking posts in less than 12 hours!). I commend you, sir. As for your original post, there are many of my betters on this board who have articulated their positions skillfully, and you have been gracious in acknowledging that you were ill-informed when you started the thread. It’s understandable that most people form opinions based on their own experiences; unfortunately, that’s been a major hurdle in health care reform. The problem isn’t that there are many people who simply don’t want to pay for insurance; it’s that they CAN’T get insurance, at any price. There’s also an assumption that all people receiving employer-sponsored health insurance are paying the same premiums and receiving the same coverage. Nothing could be further from the truth.

But the real problem is that health care has become very, very expensive. And this will become exponentially worse as the Baby Boomer generation ages. Health care delivery as it stands today, will be unsustainable in the future. If middle-class America wants to be able to access decent healthcare in the future, we need to adjust our expectations, and we need to take some personal responsibility.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=briansd1][quote=bearishgurl]
I was referring to the same people to go to providers for repeat visits (2-4x mo) for themselves and/or their children and are usually just sent to the store to buy some ibuprofen or some other over-the-counter remedy. Since they have a very low co-pay, they just keep making appointments, even for just a hangnail. I’ve seen this phenomenon all my life, mostly with overprotective parents and hypochondriac adults.[/quote]

There have been empirical research showing that a significant co-pay (like $50) is very helpful in getting patient to use medical service judiciously.

I support higher copays.

Something like a flexible spending account combined with insurance wouldn’t be bad. Give people who use very little medical services something back at the end of the year. Something substantial like $500 or more. That might work for medicare/medicaid too.[/quote]

bearish, I am so with you on this one, girl! The healthcare problem in this country is extraordinarily complex (I speak as one who has worked in this arena for most of my life), and there is more than enough blame to go around for everyone concerned: insurance companies, hospitals/providers, government regulators, malpractice attorneys, pharmaceutical companies. However, nothing will improve until the public, across the board, is made aware of the high cost of healthcare. And nothing makes one more aware, as many of our less fortunate citizens know, than a direct hit to the wallet.

I remember listening to friends gripe about their high insurance premiums. This was the good old days, 25 years ago, when many of them were paying $600 or $800 per YEAR for family coverage. I’d ask them to pull out their hospital bill for the birth of their last child, and ask them who was going to be paying the $15,000 not covered by their premiums (don’t jump all over me – I am NOT defending the insurance companies. But you don’t want me to get started on them.)

There are people who spend hours clipping coupons each week so that they can get 20 cents off a $2.59 bottle of dish soap, who don’t think twice before going in to see their doctor. Very often, it’s something that medical intervention won’t help (common cold?), or something that they’ve already seen the doctor about but haven’t followed his/her advice, or sometimes it’s simply for the care and attention.

Until we get people to invest more of their own money in their healthcare, they won’t realize the true value of it, and how fortunate they are to have it. I agree with Brian: raise those co-pays on basic doctor visits, and reward patients who don’t abuse the system. I don’t mean to make this as simple as it sounds – it’s not simple at all. Medicine is far from an exact science. But there are high-maintenance patience who overutilize health services because they refuse to change their lifestyle choices and continue to engage in risky behavior. Think about it: if you continued to get into fender-benders month after month, year after year, would State Farm continue to be a good neighbor and pay the repair bills? Despite the sincerity of their commercials, I don’t think they would.

As for you, flu, once again you have chosen to start a thread with a topic that is both newsworthy and postworthy (two full pages of thought-provoking posts in less than 12 hours!). I commend you, sir. As for your original post, there are many of my betters on this board who have articulated their positions skillfully, and you have been gracious in acknowledging that you were ill-informed when you started the thread. It’s understandable that most people form opinions based on their own experiences; unfortunately, that’s been a major hurdle in health care reform. The problem isn’t that there are many people who simply don’t want to pay for insurance; it’s that they CAN’T get insurance, at any price. There’s also an assumption that all people receiving employer-sponsored health insurance are paying the same premiums and receiving the same coverage. Nothing could be further from the truth.

But the real problem is that health care has become very, very expensive. And this will become exponentially worse as the Baby Boomer generation ages. Health care delivery as it stands today, will be unsustainable in the future. If middle-class America wants to be able to access decent healthcare in the future, we need to adjust our expectations, and we need to take some personal responsibility.

[SK in CV]

Great comment eavesdropper.

I remember going to a medical financing conference, probably in the late 80’s. There was some sort of legislation pending, have no recollection of what it was. But there was a session, attended mostly by physicians, assailing unions for destroying healthcare. While I certainly didn’t agree with that conclusion, the point was that growth of 1st dollar coverage and the demise of annual deductibles and 20% co-pays greatly reduced consumers motivation to carefully consider their use of medical services. $10 they could always afford. 20% not so much.

(Ironically, it was the physicians who were the greatest beneficiary of that particular shift. But they got it all and more taken away from them with they began accepting risk with capitated payments. But that’s a whole different story. Confirming your conclusion that the problem is extraordinarily complex. Indeed it is. And irreparably broken.)

[SK in CV]

Great comment eavesdropper.

I remember going to a medical financing conference, probably in the late 80’s. There was some sort of legislation pending, have no recollection of what it was. But there was a session, attended mostly by physicians, assailing unions for destroying healthcare. While I certainly didn’t agree with that conclusion, the point was that growth of 1st dollar coverage and the demise of annual deductibles and 20% co-pays greatly reduced consumers motivation to carefully consider their use of medical services. $10 they could always afford. 20% not so much.

(Ironically, it was the physicians who were the greatest beneficiary of that particular shift. But they got it all and more taken away from them with they began accepting risk with capitated payments. But that’s a whole different story. Confirming your conclusion that the problem is extraordinarily complex. Indeed it is. And irreparably broken.)

[SK in CV]

Great comment eavesdropper.

I remember going to a medical financing conference, probably in the late 80’s. There was some sort of legislation pending, have no recollection of what it was. But there was a session, attended mostly by physicians, assailing unions for destroying healthcare. While I certainly didn’t agree with that conclusion, the point was that growth of 1st dollar coverage and the demise of annual deductibles and 20% co-pays greatly reduced consumers motivation to carefully consider their use of medical services. $10 they could always afford. 20% not so much.

(Ironically, it was the physicians who were the greatest beneficiary of that particular shift. But they got it all and more taken away from them with they began accepting risk with capitated payments. But that’s a whole different story. Confirming your conclusion that the problem is extraordinarily complex. Indeed it is. And irreparably broken.)

[SK in CV]

Great comment eavesdropper.

I remember going to a medical financing conference, probably in the late 80’s. There was some sort of legislation pending, have no recollection of what it was. But there was a session, attended mostly by physicians, assailing unions for destroying healthcare. While I certainly didn’t agree with that conclusion, the point was that growth of 1st dollar coverage and the demise of annual deductibles and 20% co-pays greatly reduced consumers motivation to carefully consider their use of medical services. $10 they could always afford. 20% not so much.

(Ironically, it was the physicians who were the greatest beneficiary of that particular shift. But they got it all and more taken away from them with they began accepting risk with capitated payments. But that’s a whole different story. Confirming your conclusion that the problem is extraordinarily complex. Indeed it is. And irreparably broken.)

[Author]

Posts