New Health Dialogue - logo
 

HEALTH REFORM: Help For Older Americans

June 30, 2009 - 10:36am

A new message coming from the anti-health reform chorus is telling older Americans that they have a lot to lose under comprehensive health reform. For instance, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell took to the airwaves on Sunday to proclaim, “When you get to the question of paying for [health reform], it appears as if they want to pay for it on the backs of seniors through Medicare cuts.” It’s not surprising, then, that recent polls have found some seniors more nervous about health care reform.

Older Americans, age 65 and up, are the only segment of the U.S. population that has coverage for all under Medicare. Nobody is talking about taking it away from them; some of the changes to Medicare contemplated in reform plans are actually designed to change incentives so that they get more appropriate care for their multiple chronic diseases. The status quo is also failing millions of older Americans, age 50-64, and reform proposals would lend an urgently needed hand to that segment of the population, which is vulnerable, often-overlooked, and growing. “They are uninsured people ages 50 to 64 who are caught in a frightening twilight zone of health care—old enough to be facing more medical problems but too young for Medicare,” Patricia Barry wrote recently in AARP Bulletin Today. “And this is the age when chronic health conditions such as diabetes and heart problems most often begin to show up.”

Because insurance companies often refuse to cover individuals with pre-existing conditions—and charge much higher premiums to those they do accept—Americans in this age bracket without employer-sponsored insurance often have tremendous difficulty obtaining affordable coverage. The problem is only getting worse as the economic downtown forces many middle-aged workers into early retirement.

More than 7 million adults aged 50 to 64 were uninsured in 2007, a 36 percent increase over 2000 levels, according to an AARP analysis. Nearly one in six individuals applying for individual insurance are rejected at age 50. The number rises to one in four at age 60.

Insurance market reforms that require insurers to take all comers regardless of preexisting conditions and ban them from setting premiums based on personal medical history will help Americans 50 to 64 years old get the health care they need. These changes will also save the federal government money down the road since patients will be healthier when they become eligible for Medicare.

AARP The Magazine has an instructive piece in its current issue debunking eight other health care reform myths that might be particularly scary for older people. First and foremost: “Health reform won't benefit people like me, who have insurance.”

Just because you have health insurance today doesn't mean you'll have it tomorrow. According to the National Coalition on Healthcare, nearly 266,000 companies dropped their employees' health care coverage from 2000 to 2005. "People with insurance have a tremendous stake, because their insurance is at risk," says Judy Feder, a professor of public policy at Georgetown University and a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress…

Comparing health reform to buying an Energy Star appliance—pay a little now to save a lot later—the article also cites a recent Commonwealth Fund study that estimated that “health care reform will cost roughly $600 billion to implement but by 2020 could save us approximately $3 trillion.”

What’s more, the recent deal the White House brokered with the pharmaceutical industry will save America’s seniors billions in out-of-pocket payments for prescription drugs.

The truth is that all of us—young and old—stand to gain a great deal as Congress moves to overhaul our nation’s ailing health care system. Failing to act is what should worry us the most.

HEALTH INSURANCE DISCRIMINATION

The product of health insurance is to provide you with medical coverage when you need it.
Unlike other businesses that need to provide you with their product in order to make any money, health insurance companies actually make more money for themselves when they restrict and do not pay claims.
In other words, they make more money when they do NOT provide the product that you have paid them for.

Read the 50 to 70 pages of your health insurance contract.
Pay particular attention to the section entitled “limitations and exclusions”.
People’s health is not a product that needs to be left to the whims of money motivated CEO’s and stockholders.
If that is your thinking, you might as well have your police and fire department protection based on insurance premiums you pay.
Then you can go to the police and fire protection insurance page for ‘limitations and exclusions’ on whether or not the police or fire department would come out to your house in the event of an emergency.

The point is, you would never think of discriminating against another citizen if he was the victim of a fire or crime.
So why would you be ok with health insurance companies discriminating against fellow citizens who have pre-existing medical conditions?

health care reform vs tort reform

I advise on several health insurance boards such as http://www.benefitsmanager.net , http://www.bcbstx.info , and http://www.healthinsurancesource.net. I often quote the Switzerland health care system as an example of tough questions that we as a nation will have to answer someday, if we go down the path of nationalized government health care plan. We’ll have to at some point draw the line in the sand and refuse further care for patients receiving critical illness treatments, intensive care unit, trauma care, acute management services, disease management, neonatal intensive-care unit for newborns and seniors in extended care treatment nearing hospice stage . Did you know that premature babies are not resuscitated upon birth if they cannot draw breath in Switzerland? Did you also know that holds true with “senior care” experiencing system failure or multiple organ failures requiring support? Another example, they don't extend the life of a senior via medical equipment such as intubation or respiration for multiple organ failures. Not to be morbid….they are unplugged and allowed to pass. Anyone in the business of paying claims knows that the single most expensive bill in what carriers call “shock loss” is within NICU for newborns and seniors in acute / intensive care / hospital in the last three months of life.
The Swiss apparently made decisions made based upon cost vs. quality outcome. Are we as a nation prepared to make that type of decision or to define when to incubate, resuscitate a newborn or a senior? Are we ready to define the conditions and rules of medical procedures with organ failure? With a litigious society I think not. This is why we need TORT REFORM. Without TORT REFORM medical provider costs will never drop. Liability costs with medical providers are nearly half of operating expenses. Humana health plans state that their costs of medical liability and defensive medicine accounts for nearly 10 cents out of every premium dollar collected. Compare that to Humana’s reported pharmaceutical claims of 15 cents out of every premium dollar collected. Or better yet, 21 cents out of every premium dollar collected is paid back to physicians for physician treatments. The cost of litigation is only obvious with Humana health plans. I sit on the board with several other health insurance carriers. Their books all show similar costs. They basically insure a shrinking populace that is mostly made up of people that only buy insurance because they need it. So is mandatory participation such a bad idea?
I don't think we are hearing about TORT REFORM because most of the house and senate on the federal level are lawyers and have practicing law firm interest’s. In the healthcare system there is no total innocence. We hear about insurance executives with bonuses, doctors overbilling, hospitals overbilling because the street gang thug got dropped at their ER door with no insurance. The lawyers are there to stir the pot and promise lavish fortune at the end of the PERCEIVED misery chain. Am I saying we don’t need them? No, but I am saying there is clear and documented abuse of the legal system that awards outlandish claims in the millions for a questionable mistake. Are ambulance chasers not sociably recognized as being the most abusive? What about those that educate their clients on defraud and then use the legal system to pirate insurers?
I sure wouldn’t want to be on the receiving end of these serious decisions that we will have to make. My senator claims that the government would be held blameless but what about the medical provider that has to make the call? What about the insurance payer that has to deny continued care for an infant that will not survive? Without serious TORT REFORM we aren’t going to get costs down or have good people make headway.

Post new comment

Please note that comments are reviewed by an editor prior to publication. We welcome all relevant critiques, feedback and counterarguments, but comments that are profane, offensive, off-topic or blatantly commercial will not be published.
The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
CAPTCHA
This question is for weeding out automated spam submissions.