Here are some sobering
statistics from Drew Altman at the Kaiser Family Foundation. In 2009 average healthcare premiums for family coverage will hit $13,375. I already knew that since that's what I would pay if my daughter hadn't graduated to a separate policy. (Come to think of it, that is what I pay since she can't afford to pay her own premiums.) But here's something I didn't know. If premiums continue to rise at only the relatively modest rates they have over the last five years, by 2019, the average family premium will reach $24, 180. If prices rise at the average rate they have over the last 10 years, family premiums will average $30,803.
Let's add some perspective in addition to what Mr. Altman notes. According to the
US Census Bureau the real median household income for 2008 was
$50, 303. So let's say in 2008 the average family premium was $12,500, since that's what I was paying. That amounts to nearly 1/4 of the median family income. What is even more frightening in terms of healthcare costs is that between 2007 and 2008 real household median income declined by 3.6%.
These are household statistics, not individual income statistics. So what this says is that by 2019, healthcare costs for employers could amount to more than the cost of hiring another employee. Is it any wonder that, already, many companies that provide medical benefits are hiring more part-time, and consequently ineligible, employees?
In my second post on this blog, "
It's Your Problem Too" I noted the many ways the currently insured can find themselves unexpectedly uninsured. So what do you think will happen to your employer provided healthcare when costs go that high?
Under most of the current bills, employers will be penalized for dropping coverage, but with costs like that it may be worth it to just pay the tax. That's why we need cost containment as well as universal coverage, and that's where the hard part comes in.
As Altman points out, cost containment has been cut back or eliminated from most bills. This same issue has arisen every time any attempt has been made toward healthcare reform since the '80s. Somewhere along the line we, as consumers, bought into the idea––as we did with housing and cars––that more has to be better and side-effects be damned. But the side-effects of too much healthcare, like the side-effects of too much oil consumption, can be detrimental to your health as well as your wallet.
Statistics show there is no correlation between the greater number of tests and procedures Americans undergo as opposed to other nations, and better health. As I've pointed out in more than one post, our overall health outcomes are not the same as countries with more streamlined healthcare delivery, they are actually worse.
Opponents of healthcare reform since the first Clinton attempt have used the word "rationing" as a scare tactic. Rationing in today's political lexicon connotes something necessary being withheld. In reality we are talking about elimination of wasteful spending on
unnecessary services that could harm your overall health.
Let's take as an example the proliferation of CT scans and MRIs. In this
blog post by Judith Graham of the Chicago Tribune on the need for data sharing to cut down on unnecessary testing, a physician points out how too many of these imaging tests can be harmful.
There’s the rub. If the physician had access to the [original] MRI, he wouldn’t need to order three CT scans that expose the young woman to radiation and potential complications associated with the chemicals used to produce color contrast in the scans, Anastos said. The MRI would have been enough to determine whether the tumor was benign.
Another
post at
KevinMD points out:
The problem is that these scans are so sensitive, incidental findings are often found. In many cases, they may not be the true cause of the symptoms, and worse, can necessitate more invasive testing that can have serious side effects.
I can personally attest to the back pain issue he mentions later in the article. The first time I experienced a pain down my right thigh, I went to my PCP who sent me for an MRI and then to an orthopedist, who had me return regularly for appointments where he'd do no more than ask me to bend this way and that. One day, I noticed the pain subsiding and canceled my next appointment. Two years ago, suffering from more severe pain that I traced to a new exercise I had added to my regimen, I considered seeing my PCP again. Treatment had changed by then, and I figured he'd send me for physical therapy. Instead I went online first and read exactly what Dr. Kevin said, wait six weeks and, in the meantime, stretch your hamstrings whenever possible. I continued my exercise regimen but eliminated anything I could feel in the back area. In six weeks it was gone, and I had saved my insurance company thousands of dollars while saving myself the dangers of another MRI.
This isn't rationing. It's good practice that benefits everyone. Changing healthcare delivery is also the only way we can make healthcare affordable to all, but it will never happen if opponents whip up a frenzy of fear and politicians continue to pander to the uninformed.
Posts
