It is not just that time of year to begin thinking about sugar plum fairies. It is also the dreaded time of benefits open enrollment for most people who have employer-sponsored health care. Unsealing the open enrollment package each year is always a bit scary; there is that anxious moment when I have to face how much the expense of my premiums will increase for the upcoming year (this year, it was about 5%, less than the past few years). But I am lucky. There are lots of people with no health insurance, or, as in our household, a person (Tim) with no employer-sponsored plan, who has to go out into the marketplace solo and negotiate for the best plan he can afford (usually one with an extremely high deductible and costly prescription coverage). For someone like Tim, who often has to visit the doctor for his chronic condition, health care is no fun.
So, what is to be done? I read two articles in the New York Times that discussed the high cost of health care. In The High Cost of Health Care, there is a discussion about why health care in America costs so much, and a delineation of possible solutions to help keep prices down. The health care problem affects all sides of our economy - consumers, businesses, and governments:
Workers complain that they cannot afford high premiums for health insurance. Patients forgo recommended care rather than pay the out-of-pocket costs. Employers are cutting back or eliminating health benefits, forcing millions more people into the ranks of the uninsured. And state and federal governments strain to meet the expanding costs of public programs like Medicaid and Medicare.
Health care costs are far higher in the United States than in any other advanced nation, whether measured in total dollars spent, as a percentage of the economy, or on a per capita basis. And health costs here have been rising significantly faster than the overall economy or personal incomes for more than 40 years, a trend that cannot continue forever.
It is the worst long-term fiscal crisis facing the nation, and it demands a solution, but finding one will not be easy or palatable.
As the cost of health care increases and eats up more of the government’s budget, as well as personal disposable income and corporations’ profits, there will be less money for other important issues and projects (for example, curbing greenhouse gases, inspecting meat-packing plants, schools, levees in New Orleans, etc.). So what to do? In the above article, the author discusses practical solutions within the existing framweork of the American insurance industry (things like managed care, preventive medecine, and technology upgrades). I, for one, think we need to dispose of the entire existing system, and I feel that now is the time to have the discussion. We have a presidential election going on where health care coverage is being debated. We also have a state, Massachusetts, that is experimenting with requiring health care for all of its residents. Will the Massachusetts plan work? Could its parameters be expanded to the nation? The second article I read, Massachusetts Faces a Test on Health Care, describes how the mandatory Masachusetts health plan works and how successful it looks to be. Basically, residents are required to sign-up for health insurance or face penalties. In the first year, the punishment is not much – those who do not enroll will not receive a personal tax exemption on their state taxes. However, in subsequent years, the penalties will increase. There is also a state-sponsored plan for low income residents to enroll in, if they choose. Has the Massachusetts plan worked? Have all people enrolled? Will it save money?
More than 200,000 previously uninsured residents have enrolled, but state officials estimate that at least that number, and perhaps twice as many, have not.
Those managing the enrollment effort say it has exceeded expectations. In particular, state-subsidized insurance packages offered to low-income residents have been so popular that the program’s spending may exceed its budget by nearly $150 million.
But the reluctance of so many to enroll, along with the possible exemption of 60,000 residents who cannot afford premiums, has raised questions about whether even a mandate can guarantee truly universal coverage.
Additional concerns have been generated by projections that the state’s insurers plan to raise rates 10 percent to 12 percent next year, twice this year’s national average. That would undercut the plan’s secondary goal of slowing the increase in health costs.
Perhaps not. I think it is too early to tell - I do think there will be additional savings over time as people who were once uninsured take advantage of their coverage and preventive medicine helps curb costs of preventable illnesses.
Frankly, I feel that we should have a two-tiered system in America. One tier which caters to all Americans and provides basic health care – a regular check-up once a year, and care for those with chronic illnesses. Doctors on this level will mostly be primary care physicians and provide basic care for anyone. On a second level would be specialists. Anyone could buy into this second tier which would be run by health insurance companies and provide specialized coverage. This way, those who complain that universal health care stymies innovation and leads to worse health coverage, can opt for the higher level.
But, as Massachusetts is discovering, can we require people to be covered? Even if we do require it, can we force all people to visit the doctor? If someone doesn’t want to have insurance and does not visit the doctor regularly, for whatever reason, then that person could create additional expenses (when he/she becomes chronically ill, shows up in an emergency room, and becomes a problem of the state). The system sucks; it needs to change; but I don’t really know how. As much as I want revolutionary change in the system, I think the current batch of candidates is being naive if they think it will be possible to change to a universal health care system, or to get the health insurance industry out of the picture. The industry, and the myriad of politicians they support, will not leave without a long and expensive fight. What are your ideas for the American health care system? Should it change dramatically? Should we expel the insurance industry?

















