Today’s WSJ has a rather negative article on the state of our state’s universal health insurance program.
Before everyone at BMG has a cow just because it was the WSJ that leveled this criticism, perhaps you can read the (free) op ed piece and comment on some of the metrics reported.
Yes, yes, I know it’s on the Op Ed page, but I’m hoping you’ll address the facts. Are they accurate? Here are some important ones:
The WSJ further reports that Patrick may consider capping premiums? Did I read that right? Insurers already pay $1.12 in benefits for every $1.00 in premium collected.
How will capping premiums not create health care service shortages? At what point do insurers simply fold up shop?
Is not having 15% higher relative costs for health care than other states, after adjusting for the higher wages and salaries and other cost of living factors, a disincentive for employers to expand or relocate to MA?
I’m not adverse to our state’s universal health coverage, from a practical point of view (though certainly I am philosophically,) but if the WSJ report is true, how is any of this sustainable?
I don’t know. You’re the one posting the diary.
Source: DemConWatch, January 17, 2010:
<
p>The Massachusetts Division of Health Care Finance and Policy performed a study. You can read it in its entirety after the jump (they made a nice PowerPoint.) A few highlights from the sole state with 96% insurance coverage:
<
p>Non-elderly adults were the most likely to report difficulty obtaining health care, at 28%. 17% of children and 24% of the total population had difficulty obtaining health care in Massachusetts in 2008 despite the fact that the official (and inflated) estimates claim that about 97% of the populace now has health insurance.
————–
Non-elderly adults in fair or poor health were more likely to report difficulty obtaining health care than those in better health (40% versus 27%).
————–
The principle reason care is difficult to obtain is that re-imbursements under subsidized plans is extremely low, resulting in many doctors freezing their practices and refusing to admit new patients. Thus the pressure on Emergency Rooms continues. 26% of the Massachusetts residents report an ER visit in the past 12 months.
—————
16% of residents with medical problems report difficulty paying medical bills. Remember, these numbers do not even include the 21% who reported going without needed healthcare because they could not afford it.
—————-
Unmet need for care because of cost was highest among non-elderly adults with family income between 150% and 299% FPL (Federal Poverty Line). Some 40% of residents in this income group skipped needed health care in the past 12 months, compared with 15% of those with family income at or above 500% FPL.
—————–
Non-elderly adults in fair or poor health were more likely than those in better health to have gone without needed health care because of cost (43% versus 24%).
———————–
Non-elderly adults with a disability were more likely than those without a disability to have gone without needed health care because of cost (38% versus 23%).
<
p>Link to the Imaged MDHCFP Presentation:
… on the idea that the coverage estimates are inflated?
…therefore unusable on-line. When I do posts and comments on policy, I prefer to use credible sources accessible to third-party footnoting.
<
p>The sources used above, for example, indicate the Patrick Administration’s own in-house assessment. That assessment is also in the public domain, with other assessments and studies .
<
p>It’s not my appraisal; it’s that of the Governor’s own experts within the executive agencies responsible for monitoring the program.
<
p>Hence the link to the image file.
Have seen 30% + increases.
because it was a retarded idea in the first place, setting up Massachusetts as the pilot state for UnConstitutional mandated insurance. Far above who pays for what just about every health related topic is a complete disaster. From toxic food additives to GMOs,forced vaccines and hypocondriac inducing 24/7 “ask your doctor for” ads.
Oh, yeah, I could go on and on.