Economists like to say that there is no such thing as a free lunch, or TANSTAAFL, and this phenomenon is showing up in the rates to be charged for new health insurance products that will be offered by exchanges across the US. Harris Meyer at Modern Healthcare reports:
An eagerly awaited report by HHS released Wednesday on health plan premiums and participation in the 36 states where the federal government is fully or partly running the new insurance exchanges shows that consumers in most of those states will have many plans to choose from and that premiums will be significantly lower than expected in 2014.
The new HHS report, combined with previous reports from states running their own exchanges that showed similar results, bolsters the Obama administration's case that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is achieving its goal of fostering competition in the health insurance marketplace and producing affordable premiums for consumers.
But now look at a report by Robert Pear in the New York Times:
Federal officials often say that health insurance will cost consumers less than expected under President Obama’s health care law. But they rarely mention one big reason: many insurers are significantly limiting the choices of doctors and hospitals available to consumers.
From California to Illinois to New Hampshire, and in many states in between, insurers are driving down premiums by restricting the number of providers who will treat patients in their new health plans.
To hold down costs, insurers say, they have created smaller networks of doctors and hospitals than are typically found in commercial insurance. And those health care providers will, in many cases, be paid less than what they have been receiving from commercial insurers.
An eagerly awaited report by HHS released Wednesday on health plan premiums and participation in the 36 states where the federal government is fully or partly running the new insurance exchanges shows that consumers in most of those states will have many plans to choose from and that premiums will be significantly lower than expected in 2014.
The new HHS report, combined with previous reports from states running their own exchanges that showed similar results, bolsters the Obama administration's case that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is achieving its goal of fostering competition in the health insurance marketplace and producing affordable premiums for consumers.
But now look at a report by Robert Pear in the New York Times:
Federal officials often say that health insurance will cost consumers less than expected under President Obama’s health care law. But they rarely mention one big reason: many insurers are significantly limiting the choices of doctors and hospitals available to consumers.
From California to Illinois to New Hampshire, and in many states in between, insurers are driving down premiums by restricting the number of providers who will treat patients in their new health plans.
To hold down costs, insurers say, they have created smaller networks of doctors and hospitals than are typically found in commercial insurance. And those health care providers will, in many cases, be paid less than what they have been receiving from commercial insurers.
Consumers should be prepared for “much tighter, narrower networks” of doctors and hospitals, said Adam M. Linker, a health policy analyst at the North Carolina Justice Center, a statewide advocacy group.
“That can be positive for consumers if it holds down premiums and drives people to higher-quality providers,” Mr. Linker said. “But there is also a risk because, under some health plans, consumers can end up with astronomical costs if they go to providers outside the network.”
None of this should be surprising. As I have mentioned many times:
The logic and need for universal coverage of the population is incontrovertible, and it needs to proceed. But as I said many, many months ago, when the President promised the nation access, choice, and lower costs, he was misleading us. You get two out of three, not all three.
But the President's decision to hedge this issue during the legislative battle on the act is nothing compared to the cruelty and stupidity of those governors who have decided to deprive their Medicaid-eligible residents of the opportunity to participate in the federally funded health care insurance subsidies under the new law. And those in Congress who are holding up the national budget and debt ceiling by trying to defund the act are likewise cruelly rolling the dice on the national and world economy by their sore-loser approach to what is supposed to be the approach to compromise in a republican form of government.
But the President's decision to hedge this issue during the legislative battle on the act is nothing compared to the cruelty and stupidity of those governors who have decided to deprive their Medicaid-eligible residents of the opportunity to participate in the federally funded health care insurance subsidies under the new law. And those in Congress who are holding up the national budget and debt ceiling by trying to defund the act are likewise cruelly rolling the dice on the national and world economy by their sore-loser approach to what is supposed to be the approach to compromise in a republican form of government.
0 comments:
Post a Comment