Health Care Co-Sharing: The New Goalpost
Monique Chartier
A heads up to our elected officials as public sector contracts come up for renewal or must be reopened: twenty percent no longer cuts it.
A new national report shows U.S. residents enrolled in employer-sponsored health plans will cover an average of 41 percent of their families’ health care costs this year, the largest share to date, with increased premium contributions rising by 14.7 percent from 2008.
The report, the fifth annual Milliman Medical Index, measures average annual medical spending for a typical American family of four covered by an employer-sponsored preferred provider organization (PPO) plan – the most common type nationally and in Rhode Island.
[Source: Providence Business News, May 22, 2009]
Healthcare is a catastrophy. I take people who live two blocks from the hospital in my rescue so they can have their flu-like symptoms looked at by an ER doctor who orders thousands of dollars of tests to cover his hide should the vomiting actually be caused by a tumor or somethinq equally malovent, the tests are done, the hospital bills medicare, the state pays the bill, the deficit grows and the patient returns home with some Malox that he could have bought at CVS.
Repeat hundreds of times a day, more or less.
And that is just the proverbial tip of the iceberg.
But let's focus on increasing co-pays to public sector unions. It's easier.
People need to start focusing on how to fix the broken system as Michael mentioned. Also, the part-time politicans in this state need to give up their practically free family health benefits. Taxpayers spend over 1.2 million dollars per year to provide members of the General Assembly family health benefits.
In Warwick, local taxpayers spend approximately $130,000 per year to give the part-time city council health benefits. That is in addition to the $10,000 annual salary and lifetime pension and health benefits they receive after only 6 years. But the full-time public sector employees that pick-up your garbage, collect your taxes, maintain local ball fields and answer your 911 calls are the problem. Yeah, that's it. Please.
The East Providence School Committee gave up their health, dental, and life insurance last year. It would be nice to see the rest of the state follow suit.
The Woonsocket City Council and School Committee gave up health benefits in the early 1990's.
As people pay more for insurance, they're going to be even more apt to use it. If you're paying a crapload of money for something, you're going to want to get your money's worth. That's going to drive even more people to the hospitals and doctors' offices. Further needing to increase the cost of healthcare and insurance. Until one day when insurance costs 100%, aka, no coverage. Maybe at that point, the whole system will break down and be started all over.
I think there is a critical problem with this post. Ms. Chartier is indicating that a 20 percent copay is no longer enough; and is backing that up with the article stating that employees will pay 41 percent of thier families costs. When you copay 20 percent and then add in all of the other costs (doctor, er, scrip copays and whatever else the study is including in the 41 number), then the number probably comes up closer to the 41 percent, in which case the 20 percent premium copay is probably not far off the average. We can debate copay amounts, employee benefits, etc,etc, all day, but lets make sure we are comparing like items.
I think there is a critical problem with this post. Ms. Chartier is indicating that a 20 percent copay is no longer enough; and is backing that up with the article stating that employees will pay 41 percent of thier families costs. When you copay 20 percent and then add in all of the other costs (doctor, er, scrip copays and whatever else the study is including in the 41 number), then the number probably comes up closer to the 41 percent, in which case the 20 percent premium copay is probably not far off the average. We can debate copay amounts, employee benefits, etc,etc, all day, but lets make sure we are comparing like items.
Michael: This post in no way pertains to reducing health care costs, only to equity/parity between the private and public sectors.
On a slightly tangential issue, studies have shown that insurance coverage that does not require co-shares and co-pays increases medical costs (because patients use the service more and for less serious ailments). This has been the case - probably more in the past - for many public sector contracts and shame on our elected officials for allowing it.
You are correct, however, that raising all public sector co-shares and co-premiums to 41% would not have a significant impact on the cost of our health care system. And I agree fervently with all of your other points. How much are all of those tests performed solely out of ligitation paranoia adding to the cost of the system?
Jeff: Certainly, the study indicates that the 41% is comprised of both co-sharing of premium and as co-payments on services and meds. My point was, whatever is happening in the private sector should be reflected in the public sector contracts which our elected officials negotiate.
Click here for the new Anchor Rising & Ocean State Current page
About Community Crier
About Engaged Citizen
Administrator
Healthcare is a catastrophy. I take people who live two blocks from the hospital in my rescue so they can have their flu-like symptoms looked at by an ER doctor who orders thousands of dollars of tests to cover his hide should the vomiting actually be caused by a tumor or somethinq equally malovent, the tests are done, the hospital bills medicare, the state pays the bill, the deficit grows and the patient returns home with some Malox that he could have bought at CVS.
Repeat hundreds of times a day, more or less.
And that is just the proverbial tip of the iceberg.
But let's focus on increasing co-pays to public sector unions. It's easier.
Posted by: michael at May 31, 2009 1:42 PMPeople need to start focusing on how to fix the broken system as Michael mentioned. Also, the part-time politicans in this state need to give up their practically free family health benefits. Taxpayers spend over 1.2 million dollars per year to provide members of the General Assembly family health benefits.
In Warwick, local taxpayers spend approximately $130,000 per year to give the part-time city council health benefits. That is in addition to the $10,000 annual salary and lifetime pension and health benefits they receive after only 6 years. But the full-time public sector employees that pick-up your garbage, collect your taxes, maintain local ball fields and answer your 911 calls are the problem. Yeah, that's it. Please.
Posted by: Todd at May 31, 2009 4:22 PMThe East Providence School Committee gave up their health, dental, and life insurance last year. It would be nice to see the rest of the state follow suit.
Posted by: kathy at May 31, 2009 8:43 PMThe Woonsocket City Council and School Committee gave up health benefits in the early 1990's.
Posted by: John at May 31, 2009 10:06 PMAs people pay more for insurance, they're going to be even more apt to use it. If you're paying a crapload of money for something, you're going to want to get your money's worth. That's going to drive even more people to the hospitals and doctors' offices. Further needing to increase the cost of healthcare and insurance. Until one day when insurance costs 100%, aka, no coverage. Maybe at that point, the whole system will break down and be started all over.
Posted by: Patrick at May 31, 2009 10:37 PMI think there is a critical problem with this post. Ms. Chartier is indicating that a 20 percent copay is no longer enough; and is backing that up with the article stating that employees will pay 41 percent of thier families costs. When you copay 20 percent and then add in all of the other costs (doctor, er, scrip copays and whatever else the study is including in the 41 number), then the number probably comes up closer to the 41 percent, in which case the 20 percent premium copay is probably not far off the average. We can debate copay amounts, employee benefits, etc,etc, all day, but lets make sure we are comparing like items.
Posted by: Jeff at June 1, 2009 8:04 AMI think there is a critical problem with this post. Ms. Chartier is indicating that a 20 percent copay is no longer enough; and is backing that up with the article stating that employees will pay 41 percent of thier families costs. When you copay 20 percent and then add in all of the other costs (doctor, er, scrip copays and whatever else the study is including in the 41 number), then the number probably comes up closer to the 41 percent, in which case the 20 percent premium copay is probably not far off the average. We can debate copay amounts, employee benefits, etc,etc, all day, but lets make sure we are comparing like items.
Posted by: Jeff at June 1, 2009 8:04 AMMichael: This post in no way pertains to reducing health care costs, only to equity/parity between the private and public sectors.
On a slightly tangential issue, studies have shown that insurance coverage that does not require co-shares and co-pays increases medical costs (because patients use the service more and for less serious ailments). This has been the case - probably more in the past - for many public sector contracts and shame on our elected officials for allowing it.
You are correct, however, that raising all public sector co-shares and co-premiums to 41% would not have a significant impact on the cost of our health care system. And I agree fervently with all of your other points. How much are all of those tests performed solely out of ligitation paranoia adding to the cost of the system?
Posted by: Monique at June 1, 2009 9:50 PMJeff: Certainly, the study indicates that the 41% is comprised of both co-sharing of premium and as co-payments on services and meds. My point was, whatever is happening in the private sector should be reflected in the public sector contracts which our elected officials negotiate.