Associated Health Plans, for better or worse
http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=2292
The above link is a blog of a July 25 Wall Street Journal editorial arguing in favor of associated health plan (AHP) legislation that would allow individuals and small groups to band together for health insurance coverage.
The other side of this argument might be demonstrated in a Georgetown University Health Policy Institute analysis linked here:
http://www.georgetown.edu/research/ihcrp/ahp.html
"Conclusion. The proposed legislation would “exacerbate the current problem of health insurance fraud” and “leave small businesses and their workers unprotected...The consequences are predictable: bankruptcy, delayed or foregone medical care, and loss of coverage for America’s small businesses and workers.”"
I bet even the "self-interested" BC BS Association plans would long to be free from some the expensive and often ludicrous State mandates imposed on policies underwritten in the state. And, even if there are upstart companies eager for an emerging AHP business market, don't you think the likes of United, Aetna, and BC BS plans could easily compete in such a market?
So, why are traditionally republican, conservative, big health insurers against AHP's? Probably has much to do with the findings of the GU analysis.
Here's a scenario. Bob's employer sponsored health benefits costs $585/mo/family. A new AHP comes to town and offers coverage for $400/mo/family. It lacks some benefits versus those offered through Bob's employer, but Bob's family is low risk for needing those benefits anyway. So, Bob and 35 of his co-workers drop employer-sponsored coverage and take the AHP.
Hal, who is Bob's co-worker, has a child with a chronic health condition. He doesn't qualify for the new AHP, or otherwise needs the extra benefits. Because 36 of Hal's healthier co-workers no longer contribute to the employer benefits pool, how much do you think Hal's premiums will rise?
Bob later disputes some medical bills not paid by his new AHP. He complains to the State Insurance Commission. Guess what he's told? Still frustrated, he's about to call Human Resources at work, but then remembers...
Sometime later, maybe Bob needs a bone marrow transplant and, guess what, his AHP plan coverage is limited. (Bob never thought he'd need this coverage.) Who do think now becomes burdened with Bob's medical bills?
The above link is a blog of a July 25 Wall Street Journal editorial arguing in favor of associated health plan (AHP) legislation that would allow individuals and small groups to band together for health insurance coverage.
The other side of this argument might be demonstrated in a Georgetown University Health Policy Institute analysis linked here:
http://www.georgetown.edu/research/ihcrp/ahp.html
"Conclusion. The proposed legislation would “exacerbate the current problem of health insurance fraud” and “leave small businesses and their workers unprotected...The consequences are predictable: bankruptcy, delayed or foregone medical care, and loss of coverage for America’s small businesses and workers.”"
I bet even the "self-interested" BC BS Association plans would long to be free from some the expensive and often ludicrous State mandates imposed on policies underwritten in the state. And, even if there are upstart companies eager for an emerging AHP business market, don't you think the likes of United, Aetna, and BC BS plans could easily compete in such a market?
So, why are traditionally republican, conservative, big health insurers against AHP's? Probably has much to do with the findings of the GU analysis.
Here's a scenario. Bob's employer sponsored health benefits costs $585/mo/family. A new AHP comes to town and offers coverage for $400/mo/family. It lacks some benefits versus those offered through Bob's employer, but Bob's family is low risk for needing those benefits anyway. So, Bob and 35 of his co-workers drop employer-sponsored coverage and take the AHP.
Hal, who is Bob's co-worker, has a child with a chronic health condition. He doesn't qualify for the new AHP, or otherwise needs the extra benefits. Because 36 of Hal's healthier co-workers no longer contribute to the employer benefits pool, how much do you think Hal's premiums will rise?
Bob later disputes some medical bills not paid by his new AHP. He complains to the State Insurance Commission. Guess what he's told? Still frustrated, he's about to call Human Resources at work, but then remembers...
Sometime later, maybe Bob needs a bone marrow transplant and, guess what, his AHP plan coverage is limited. (Bob never thought he'd need this coverage.) Who do think now becomes burdened with Bob's medical bills?
posted by nawledge at
9:13 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home