General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNYT : Insurance premiums could spike as much as 40 percent next year
Coronavirus May Add Billions to U.S. Health Care BillInsurance premiums could spike as much as 40 percent next year, a new analysis warns, as employers and insurers confront the projected tens of billions of dollars in additional costs of treating coronavirus patients.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/28/health/coronavirus-insurance-premium-increases.html
With so much still uncertain about how widespread hospitalizations for coronavirus patients will be around the United States, a new analysis says premiums could increase as much as 40 percent next year if the pandemic results in millions of Americans needing hospital stays.
Health plans went into 2020 with no hint of coronavirus on the horizon, said Peter V. Lee, the executive director of Covered California, the state insurance marketplace created under the Affordable Care Act, which conducted the analysis. To protect businesses and individuals from sharply higher rates, he supports a temporary federal program that would cover some of these costs. No insurer, no state, planned and put money away for something of this significance, Mr. Lee said.
So far, some 94,000 people have become infected in the United States, according to official counts, and at least 1,400 have died. In New York state alone, nearly 1,600 patients were in intensive-care units as of Friday morning and the numbers have been rising all week. Mr. Lees organization estimated the total cost to the commercial insurance market, which represents the coverage currently offered to 170 million workers and individuals through private health plans. The analysis does not include costs for people enrolled in government programs like Medicare and Medicaid.
Depending on how many people need care, insurers, employers and individuals could face anywhere from $34 billion to $251 billion in additional expenses from the testing and treatment of Covid-19. according to the analysis. At the high end, the virus would add 20 percent or more to current costs of roughly $1.2 trillion a year. Theres a lot we dont know, Mr. Lee said. These are ranges. While the bill before Congress would provide hospitals some financial relief, it may not result in any change to how much hospitals charge private insurers and employers for care, he said.
snip
updated numbers on the US
https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6
duforsure
(11,885 posts)Because of money issues from this, and trump and Republicans woefully inadequate bill passed not getting nearly enough money into the people's hand and by dragging their feet will prove to be another cause for this economy to fail us. trump and the GOP's lack of funding to the American people directly is causing greater failures. trump will try slashing all social programs gutting them if he could , also making this get much worse , and last much longer. Can you imagine how bad it would have gotten if he had entered office after W Bush damaged the economy? Even hard core trump supporters will run from trump and the gop from allowing this to happen, and for not stopping trump now. Facing a pandemic, and deaths because of incompetence , and losing ones job and insurance will make many to turn on trump and the gop pretty quickly.
ProfessorGAC
(65,010 posts)They had nothing in their actuarial models including a pandemic? I can't believe the actuaries were all that sloppy.
This was high level execs ignoring worst case models to set premiums at a "competitive" level. Unwillingness to lose volume, kept their premiums low.
An extra $2 a month to all policy holders since 2011 would leave them with investments & cash to handle this easily.
Boards should clean house!
Voltaire2
(13,023 posts)provide healthcare.
Celerity
(43,341 posts)motive simply has to be removed damn near completely. As it stands the US healthcare system is a giant wealth extraction scheme. Paying for a Porsche and tens of millions end up getting a Hyundai, with a 6 (or even 7) figure balloon payment due at the end if you suffer a catastrophic illness. Plus 30 million or so are left behind to walk.
Autumn
(45,066 posts)He's laid off and can't keep his insurance, and COBRA is almost twice his house payment.
George II
(67,782 posts)....if you like your insurance, the government wasn't going to take it away and replace it with the ACA.
However, now that people are losing their employment insurance, if they're in a state that has the ACA (some don't due to reasons I won't mention) they can sign up for that now.
Under the proposed "m4a", whether you like your employment insurance or not, it's going to be taken away from you and replaced by something that we're not sure will even be implemented properly or work.
Autumn
(45,066 posts)doesn't fucking work. Ask everyone who is laid off and has lost their HEALTH INSURANCE from their employer.
What up George?
George II
(67,782 posts)...as I stated - if you like your insurance through your employer (or whatever insurance you had, it didn't just apply to insurance through employment) you would not be forced to give it up due to the ACA.
If one loses his/her insurance after being laid off (that's not always the case, by the way) he/she can sign up for the ACA. Like it or not, it DOES "fucking work".
Now, as I also said and you avoided addressing, according to the proposed "m4a", if you like your insurance too bad, EVERYONE will lose it and have it replaced with "m4a".
It is the intention of the person who proposed that to take away ALL private insurance and do away with private insurance companies. Do you care to comment on that?
Autumn
(45,066 posts)Obamas not the only one who has said that. I've already addressed what you want me to comment on previously, as you well know. Don't have any desire to do it again George. I made a comment about people losing their insurance through their jobs. I stand by that. You lose your job you lose your insurance. Insurance tied to a fucking job does not work. As has been proved this last month.
Tribetime
(4,692 posts)You're not taking away anything. It's getting upgraded to cover everything. It can't be cancelled by your employer.
Until the greed of the insurance companies is completely taken out of the equation...we all will suffer and pay more. You can't mix and match.......just my opinion
George II
(67,782 posts)....what republicans said in 2010 and for the next several years - claiming that "if you like your insurance you can keep it" was false. That was what republicans wanted people to believe so they wouldn't back the ACA. But it's NOT false.
I've already explained twice here what Obama and the ACA advocates intended by that statement. Twisting it now 10 years later doesn't change the reality at that time and the truth in that statement.
But I'll try one more time - what he meant by that statement was that if the ACA was passed, and you liked your existing insurance, YOU COULD KEEP IT! The ACA would not force you to give it up.
That's not the case with "m4a". If you like your existing insurance you're out of luck, you HAVE to give it up. Period!
Tribetime
(4,692 posts)Laelth
(32,017 posts)-Laelth
crickets
(25,969 posts)Perhaps we should all be suggesting that this issue be addressed somehow in the next round of Congressional legislation, before insurance companies have a chance to make already sky high premiums even worse.
https://www.house.gov/representatives
https://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
JCMach1
(27,556 posts)Let us forget this lesson
TexasTowelie
(112,160 posts)I wasn't convinced that any of the proposals offered were affordable and the studies that tried to say otherwise had plenty of flaws themselves so there is no need to reproduce that information for me again. If it didn't convince me over the last five years, reciting those studies again will have no effect. I think that most of the voters came to the same conclusion.
Bettie
(16,095 posts)we can too. What we can't afford is the for-profit system we have...which is actually little more than a system to ensure that money gets moved to some already-very-wealthy people from a whole lot of not-at-all wealthy people.
TexasTowelie
(112,160 posts)Very few countries pay 100% of all medical expenses as Bernie proposed and as Democrats we should not perpetuate that fallacy since it is dishonest.
Bettie
(16,095 posts)continue to make billionaires richer through insurance that works very hard on one thing: finding ways to avoid paying for anything.
TexasTowelie
(112,160 posts)There are a lot of people that work for corporations and Bernie's constant attacks on corporations was seen as a negative.
I'm not in favor of excessive greed that makes people billionaires, but I sure the hell don't want government involved with my health care anymore than it has to be. If I'm dissatisfied with my health insurance I at least have the choice of moving to a different company. If I'm dissatisfied with my health insurance coverage from the government, then I'm screwed because I have no other options.
Have a nice day!
Bettie
(16,095 posts)but I also detest the fact that we pay huge amounts annually into (supposedly "good" insurance that ends up costing us a great deal more than it ever pays.
Between out of pocket maximums, copays, and premiums plus the stuff they decide they don't want to cover...I'd rather pay taxes to ensure that EVERYONE can see a doctor if they want to. I know a whole lot of people who can't go to the doctor because they aren't fortunate enough to be able to pay those out of pockets and co pays.
All of the companies are about the same: make the employer (if there is one) pay, make the person/family pay...rake in the cash and make sure to pay the executives and MBAs for ensuring that the system doesn't actually help anyone.
TexasTowelie
(112,160 posts)In the past month there were three times that I would have gone to the doctor/hospital if I was a hypochondriac. How can M4A come up with a budget if there were 330 million hypochondriacs? The fact that people do have to pay something to receive care keeps the system sustainable for people that have a legitimate need rather than for someone like me who needed some Pepto-Bismol because I ate something that disagreed with my digestive tract. Government (and M4A) is not our Savior.
If I am bleeding, was in severe pain, or had a severe infection, then yes I will seek medical care. If the cure for my "ailment" can be found by opening the medicine cabinet to take some Tylenol or ibuprofen, or by bandaging my own wounds then I've been saving the health care system tremendously for over five decades. Despite all the studies that were made about the cost for M4A, none of them could really account for the increased utilization that would occur if people could get something "for free." Since nobody can really project how much the increased utilization is, any budgetary figures are meaningless. While you might be willing to pay more taxes for health care (with unlimited services), most of the population isn't.
Bettie
(16,095 posts)I'd like to see everyone covered. I'd like to see people not go bankrupt because they had the misfortune to become ill or had an accident.
I don't go to the doctor unless I know what is wrong with me (usually strep or a sinus infection) because we pay in full for everything until we hit out out of pocket maximum. Which makes me wonder why we pay multiple thousands of dollars per year to a company whose profit model is "don't pay for care".
Whatever, I'm betting you'll get your wish and bankruptcy will continue to follow serious illness and some people will cheer because the insurance industry continues to rake in the cash for the benefit of a very few.
TexasTowelie
(112,160 posts)Yes, you may have to pay premiums, co-pays, and deductibles and it appears the fact that you also have to pay them has lead you not to visit the doctor on frivolous occasions. I consider that to be a very good thing that many people benefit from. It means that we keep the staffing levels at hospitals at reasonable ratios instead of being over-staffed--I know that for a fact because my brother is a respiratory therapist who used to sleep on the job when he worked at a hospital.
Do we really want to double or triple the number of hospital workers when they aren't actually doing any work or caring for patients? Do we spend more money educating physicians that aren't actually needed? That seems like a tremendous waste of resources that offers little to no benefit to society. I've personally worked in positions where I was no longer needed and there is nothing more psychologically depressing than to go to a job where the only thing to do was busy work or writing procedure manuals.
Griping about an insurance company making a profit seems very petty in my opinion--we don't condemn other businesses that make profits at rates that far exceed the profit levels of health insurance companies. All of the current policyholders benefit (not the "very few" whether or not they meet their annual deductibles because the insurance companies verify the credentials of the providers and adjust their networks to ensure quality care--that is something not likely to occur in a government run system where the incentive is to find the lowest cost provider (which already occurs in practices that no longer accept Medicare and Medicaid patients because of the low reimbursement rates). The current insurance system also allows for adjustments much more rapidly to changing conditions versus a system where every health care worker is a government employee who are essentially given jobs for life with the possibility that they may never be needed. What a drain on society! I think that pain would extend much farther than the pain because some people file bankruptcies.
I've been on private insurance (gold-level plans) and government health care plans (barely enough to sustain my life, but I'm five years overdue for a colonoscopy). The difference in quality of care was evident and I would certainly enjoy having the private insurance again so you will definitely not find me complaining about private health insurance even if it isn't perfect.
JCMach1
(27,556 posts)our population.
M4A, Hybrid Single-payer/private, Whatever!!!...
JUST COVER ALL THE PEOPLE
We CAN'T afford sticking with the disaster we have!
TexasTowelie
(112,160 posts)when they voted. Apparently most voters don't want to make a commitment without knowing the price tag. Without providing information about the costs and how it will be financed, people will remain reluctant.
JCMach1
(27,556 posts)Elections are rarely about one thing especially in a black swan event...
But one thing I know for sure is that this crisis is about to burst open a lot of problems
TexasTowelie
(112,160 posts)the results of a poll depends on how the question is asked so I'm not influenced by the results reported. The poll will have vastly different results if you ask "do you want universal healthcare?" vs. "do you want universal healthcare if $500 is deducted every two weeks from your paycheck?" Once the costs become a factor the support of universal healthcare declines significantly.
One of the things about being young is that there is an aura of invincibility. That is why some people won't pay for health insurance even when it is affordable.
Alex4Martinez
(2,193 posts)Takket
(21,563 posts)million of people are putting off doctor's visits and elective surgeries to save the hospitals for covid patients. not to mention how many fewer day to day injuries there are right now with everyone staying home. workplace and driving accidents have basically fallen to zero.
insurance companies need to produce receipts and congress needs to hold them accountable.
Indykatie
(3,696 posts)This will mitigate some of the CV-19 related charges. Some analysts expect this split trend scenario to continue throughout 2020. We'll see..