Pondering the "Problem" of America's 301 Million Under Insured
Senator Ted Kennedy's cancer diagnosis resonates with me because it is the same malignant 'glioma' that ended my father's life in 1970 at age 49. Yes, just 49! As I 'celebrate' today one of those milestone birthday's that puts even more years between my own age and Dad's early death, I find myself in a particularly pensive mood.
To wit, it is interesting to recall that Dad's major medical policy had a $250 deductible and a lifetime limit of just $50,000. Remarkably, a team of neurosurgeons and a 110 day hospital stay did not exhaust that modest policy limit!
Roll the clock forward 38 years and now you are hearing many lament the "cost shift" burden of high deductibles and even modest co-pays. (See my blog of June 4th.) Some speak of the growing underinsured problem - never mind the fact that a $250 deductible from 1970 inflated using regular CPI should today be around $1500; using medical CPI well over $3000.
In truth, the underinsured problem is not with front end deductibles and co-pays but instead the back end insurance policy limits of between $ 2 million and $ 5 million. In this vein, Regina Herzlinger (again) speaks of cancer drug therapies alone (e.g. Erbitux or Zevalin to name just two) that can cost $24,000 a month! With evolving ever more expensive treatments, the real debate on health care may need to focus on how much is a life worth? And, should an HMO or government bureaucrat make that call? We might also ponder this: with identical cancers, should 'Joe Lunchbucket' get any less care than Senator Kennedy?
These are tough questions that do not allow for sound bite answers. My birthday wish is that more folks who really care would step forward and publicly address the gravity of the matter.
Labels: Access
posted by Jon Rauser @ 9:31 AM
3 Comments
As President & Owner of a successful health insurance brokerage in downtown Milwaukee - 
3 Comments:
Jon,
Well thought and well stated. There is some advantage to age in that it enables reflection vs. reaction.
Curmudgeon
Jon --- Rationing is not an acceptable form of controlling health care costs in America. It is, however, practiced daily in many other countries. It does also help in controlling costs. The Kavorkian method of terminating life is probably acceptable to the majority of Americans and it would be interesting if a nationwide referendum were in place to answer this simple question. Religion will answer for many, but even then the button pushed behind a curtain tells much more than you might expect.
Personal status should not be an indicator of life saving measures. No. Senator Kennedy should receive no different treatment than any other American might wish. The gimic of today is the "selling" of health and wellness programs assuring that costs will be contained if everyone buys into them. Rubbish. Much of human behavior has been changed with technology advances causing more sedentary type of work and therefore, obesity. I am unsure of any "fix" to cost control at this point but I do want to say that we are finally paying more of what the healthcare costs should be. It is a wonderful thing to have the access to the meds that we now have. Price doesn't matter if you are afflicted with a devastating disease ........ as long as it is covered by insurance. If the population does not have the insurance, they have made that democratic decision in many cases not to have it and that is their right. Then, don't whine when the bills come in.
Kent
Jon,
It's interesting that your writing went to a two tierd system. It's very idealistic to think that Senator Kennedy would not get more or better care, but let's face it, he will. In this case it's probably because 1- he is ultra rich and 2- he is a high profile senator. I think everyone that lives in the real world understands and can deal with that. I have great insurance but I can't reasonably say that I think I'd get "Kennedy care".
Here's the real point. Rationing does occur in all government programs, even healthcare and not just in countries where socialized medicine is practiced. Medicare patients have limited access to new technologies here. As the list of emerging technologies increases parallel to our aging population you can bet every dollar you have that Medicare will lag years behind private insurance in accepting these life saving advancements.
Move forward into a future with socialized medicine and ask yourself if you want some bureaucrat to decide wether a genetically engineered kidney is either finacially or morally acceptable to save your 20 year old grandchild from chronic kidney disease. Those with the means to subsidize their govenment plan probably can make that decision themselves, but for the rest of us maybe the Kevorkian option Kent mentioined will be all that Uncle Sam will pay for.
Post a Comment
<< Home