Sebelius Lists 'Secret Costs' of Private Health Insurance
Apparently trying to boost support for a government-run national health insurance plan, as proposed by the Obama administration, Secretary of Health Kathleen Sebelius has released a report listing what she calls the “hidden costs” of employer-provided private health care plans.
The report Hidden Costs of Health Care: Why Americans are Paying More but Getting Less, prepared by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), documents the rising cost of deductibles, co-payments and out-of-pocket expenses that Sebelius says are making it more difficult for families with employer-provided or private insurance to receive the health care they need.
“It doesn’t matter if you have insurance or not: when Americans go to the hospital or the doctor’s office, they are paying more and getting less,” Said Sec. Sebelius in a press release. “Every year, co-pays, deductibles and other expenses are taking a bigger bite out of the family budget and the American people are demanding reform.”
A few highlights from the report include:
- A person with employer-based coverage paid an average of $1,522 on health care (not including premiums) in 2006, compared with $1,260 in 2001. When including the added burden of higher premiums, out-of-pocket costs rose even more sharply, with a 30 percent increase from an average of $2,827 in 2001 to $3,744 in 2006.
- Employer-sponsored health insurance premiums have nearly doubled since 2000, a rate three times faster than wages. In 2008, the average premium for a family plan purchased through an employer was $12,680, nearly the annual earnings of a full-time minimum wage job.
- In 2004, only one in five people with health insurance through an employer had a co-payment of more than $25, but by 2008 the number jumped to one in three.
“Millions of Americans don’t have insurance, and millions more are still struggling to afford the care they need,” added Sebelius. “We need to pass health reform this year to give these families the relief they need.”
Also See:
Obama’s National Health Insurance Plan
Is Nationalized Health Care Right for U.S.?
Conservative Perspectives on Health Care Reform (Conservative Politics)
Comments
I think, given the fact that health insurance premiums have doubled over the last decade at an unsustainable rate three times faster than wages, the status more than 97% of all Massachusetts residents,the highest in the U.S., are now covered could be touted as success model, which features ‘mandating insurance’ and an option to purchase coverage through the “Connector,” a program in which private insurers are required to offer coverage to those who can’t get other insurance, regardless of age or health status.
But the Massachusetts model has a problem with costs control, because it relies exclusively on private insurers as Massachusetts’ insurers implemented average premium increases of 8% to 12% only in 2008. And it highlights the necessity of having a publicly financed insurance option
To be sure, in case the president’s proposal with respect to the strong public option, medical IT, increased efforts in prevention, and a broader array of cost-saving plans and beyond adds to the Massachusetts Plan with the provision of employer mandate and an individual mandate, the cost containment does not matter at all. And most importantly, the promising stem cell research is making its way.
Human health, in a sense, may precede all the other basic human rights as everything means nothing for someone without it. As far as my common sense goes, the major role of government will be to protect basic rights of the public from any threat. That is why all of the industrialized countries have public policy in place, I guess.
Under this premise, the strong public option needs to be cited as a part of ‘PROTECTION’ like anti-trust law rather than intervention.
The intention to introduce the public choice would be to protect the uninsured, economy and keep the medical industry honest, not be to drive it out.
Hopefully, the health industry can provide reasonable,fair, competitive prices and quality service via tireless innovations like most of the EUROPE, instead of concerning about its monopoly prices, otherwise the forthcoming health start-ups will likely fill in the blanks with competitive terms over time.