Home | Policy & Trends | Massachusetts mandatory insurance law resulted in higher costs

Massachusetts mandatory insurance law resulted in higher costs

email Email to a friend
Font size: Decrease font Enlarge font

A study published in Health Affairs finds that a Massachusetts law requiring all to show proof of health insurance has resulted in higher costs.

A study May 28 in Health Affairs finds that a Massachusetts law requiring all to show proof of health insurance has resulted in higher costs.  This predictable result confirms that President Obama's promised "public option" to private insurance must be a part of national health reform, said Consumer Watchdog.

Consumer Watchdog said that Massachusetts' experience shows that reform is unaffordable without a public option like Medicare in competition with for-profit insurance companies.  Unlike Massachusetts which is dominated by non-profit insurers, the mandatory purchase approach would be much more damaging if applied nationally, where most HMOs and insurance companies are for-profit, and take 25% or more of premium charges for overhead and profit.

The Massachusetts law, similar to proposals pushed by health insurers at the national level, requires every person to either buy an insurance policy or show proof that an employer provides one, but does not regulate what insurers can charge.  The state does not limit health insurance overhead and profit, and does not limit how much people have to pay out-of-pocket when they get sick.  As result, the study released today found that the number of adults "who reported that they did not get care that they thought they needed" has increased due to the proliferation of high-deductible health insurance policies that require patients to pay up to thousands of dollars out-of-pocket before accessing care.

"Under the mandatory purchase approach, particularly one that does not provide a public option to for-profit insurance companies, patients might be technically 'insured' but will not receive the coverage they need when they get sick," said Jerry Flanagan, Health Care Policy Director for Consumer Watchdog.  "National health reform must provide the American public an option to buy coverage through Medicare whose low-overhead costs provide the most health care for our dollar.  Competition with a low-cost alternative will help keep the likes of WellPoint, United Health, and Humana in check."

According to Consumer Watchdog, the biggest advantage of a voluntary public option is that it is inexpensive to administer.  Medicare's low administrative overhead costs (2  percent) are well below the overhead costs charged to large companies that are self-insured (5 to 10  percent of premiums), companies in the small group market (25 to 27 percent of premiums),  and individual insurance (40 percent of premiums).

* Read about a recent national poll that found that 65% of voters support giving every American of any age the option of joining Medicare; 60% are willing to pay more in payroll deductions for this option.

* Read about a national poll that found, by contrast, that only 16% of U.S. voters support, and 53% oppose, the insurance industries' plan of requiring every American to provide proof of private health insurance or face tax penalties or other fines.

 

Subscribe to comments feed Comments (4 posted):

Evan on 04/06/2009 03:04:08
avatar
Ya wow, if we're forced to buy insurance it will be more expensive! Wow! Damn! Who besides just about everyone with a brain, could have predicted that????

Oh, I know, the insurance companies did predict that when they bribed the politicians like Romney to implement it!

How the fark is this even on the radar. This is just as bad as "privatizing" social security in the stock market.

Ya lets take away peoples freedom to choose so that we can give to those bribing our politicians whenever some ridiculous excuse for a "solution" pops up.

The media drops the ball intentionally on this crap all the farking time. It is an obvious scam. Why would forcing people to buy insurance help? BECAUSE NOT EVERYONE NEEDS INSURANCE, AND NOT EVERYONE NEEDS THE SAME INSURANCE IF THEY WANT TO GET IT.

BUT THAT IS JUST FREAKIN OBVIOUS.

Obviously the only people it would help are old people who would get government guarentees on health service at the expense of the healthy people who are forced to buy insurance they don't need, or pay more for their insurance in order to keep the insurance companies solvent with the government's mandates.
Thumbs Up Thumbs Down
0
jaxon on 04/06/2009 21:45:43
avatar
Isn't the answer that the only companies who will be allowed to write business are those who keep their admin costs at a certain level? Why the heck is it that admin on Medicare is 2% but on private insurance, it's 27% or more. Admin is NOT profit -- so why can't self insured companies, and private insurers get it down? Regulate the profit and admin margins, and they WILL have to come down or they will not write any business. Those that can keep the margins low, will have the least expensive premiums and get the most business -- so why isn't that happening in Mass? Collusion? The government sure as heck is regulating doctor's profit margins when Medicare pays 32 cents on the dollar.
I totally support mandatory coverage --I am tired of picking up the costs via cost shifting for those who don't have insurance. I've known a number of people who have refused the company offered benefit because they wanted more in their check, while buying two cartons a week, and having their kids' hospital bills go to collection. I think the younger generation is largely irresponsible, living off mommy and daddy well into their twenties, taking 6 years to get through college and still having the folks pick up the bills. Only the irresponsible are pinched by requiring mandatory coverage, the responsible get it, anyway.
Thumbs Up Thumbs Down
0
fj198602 on 15/12/2009 00:36:35
avatar
<a href="http://www.ourshoesbox.com">christian louboutin</a>
<a href="http://www.ourshoesbox.com">boots</a>
<a href="http://www.ourshoesbox.com">high heels</a>
<a href="http://www.ourshoesbox.com">womens boots</a>
<a href="http://www.ourshoesbox.com">heels</a>
<a href="http://www.ourshoesbox.com">women's shoes</a>
<a href="http://www.ourshoesbox.com">knee boots</a>
<a href="http://www.ourshoesbox.com">women's boots</a>
<a href="http://www.ourshoesbox.com">black shoes</a>
<a href="http://www.ourshoesbox.com">boots shoes</a>
<a href="http://www.ourshoesbox.com">new shoes</a>
<a href="http://www.ourshoesbox.com">high boots</a>
<a href="http://www.ourshoesbox.com">black boots</a>
<a href="http://www.ourshoesbox.com">manolo</a>
<a href="http://www.ourshoesbox.com">Chloe</a>
<a href="http://www.ourshoesbox.com">christian</a>
----------------------------------------------
<a href="http://www.ourshoesbox.com/christian-louboutin-c-22.html">christian shoes</a>
<a href="http://www.ourshoesbox.com/manolo-blahnik-c-26.html">manolo blahnik</a>
<a href="http://www.ourshoesbox.com/giuseppe-zanotti-c-25.html">giuseppe zanotti</a>
<a href="http://www.ourshoesbox.com/miu-miu-c-32.html">miu miu</a>
<a href="http://www.ourshoesbox.com/christian-louboutin-c-22.html">christian louboutin pumps</a>
<a href="http://www.ourshoesbox.com/christian-louboutin-c-22.html">christian shoes spring 2010</a>
<a href="http://www.ourshoesbox.com/salvatore-ferragamo-c-33.html">salvatore ferragamo</a>
<a href="http://www.ourshoesbox.com/jimmy-choo-c-27.html">jimmy choo</a>
<a href="http://www.ourshoesbox.com/jimmy-choo-c-27.html">choo shoes</a>
<a href="http://www.ourshoesbox.com/christian-louboutin-c-22.html">christian louboutin shoes</a>
<a href="http://www.ourshoesbox.com/christian-louboutin-c-22.html">christian louboutin pumps</a>
<a href="http://www.ourshoesbox.com/manolo-blahnik-c-26.html">manolo sale</a>
<a href="http://www.ourshoesbox.com/manolo-blahnik-c-26.html">blanhnik shoes</a>
<a href="http://www.ourshoesbox.com/miu-miu-c-32.html">miu miu shoes</a>
<a href="http://www.ourshoesbox.com/contente-overtheknee-boots-p-37.html">knee high boots</a>
<a href="http://www.ourshoesbox.com/velours-scrunch-boots-grey-p-58.html">thigh high boots</a>
<a href="http://www.ourshoesbox.com/contente-overtheknee-boots-p-37.html">knee high</a>
<a href="http://www.ourshoesbox.com/ruched-ankle-boots-p-81.html">pumps shoes</a>
<a href="http://www.ourshoesbox.com/astraqueen-shoe-boots-pink-p-68.html">red shoes</a>
<a href="http://www.ourshoesbox.com/trottinette-ankle-boots-suede-p-65.html">brown shoes</a>
<a href="http://www.ourshoesbox.com/cate-leather-wedge-boots-p-55.html">leather shoes</a>
<a href="http://www.ourshoesbox.com/fifre-corset-ankle-boots-black-p-52.html">louboutin size shoes</a>
<a href="http://www.ourshoesbox.com/moulage-platform-ankle-boots-black-p-50.html">black leather shoes</a>
<a href="http://www.ourshoesbox.com/leather-ankle-boots-p-46.html">leather shoes boots</a>
<a href="http://www.ourshoesbox.com/leopardprint-ankle-boots-p-43.html">designer shoes</a>
<a href="http://www.ourshoesbox.com/louboutin-josefa-platform-sandals-p-435.html">women's sandals</a>
Thumbs Up Thumbs Down
0
nintendo ds stylus on 04/01/2010 21:03:15
avatar
"According to an Urban Institute study, uncompensated care for the uninsured accounts for only three percent of U.S. health care costs."

This statistic says nothing about (1) those who are uninsured, and are "under" (as opposed to "un")-compensated (for instance, by medicare) or (2) those who are uninsured and just don't get the care they need, so there is nothing to compensate, or (3) those who are insured, but are un or under-compensated.
Thumbs Up Thumbs Down
0
total: 4 | displaying: 1 - 4

Post your comment comment

Rate this article
5.00
Newsletter
eNews and updates
Sign up to receive breaking news as well as receive other site updates!

We comply with the HONcode standard for trustworthy health information: verify here .
Blog Communities
Newstin BlogBurst.com Subscribe with Bloglines Journalist Blogs - Blog Catalog Blog Directory http://www.wikio.com Add to Technorati Favorites View Kathlyn Stone's profile on LinkedIn
My Zimbio Top Stories