CTNewsJunkie carried a post discussing some consumer advocates’ concerns about the Charter Oak health plan proposed by Governor Rell. Quoting the CTNewsJunkie post:
Mrs. Rell proposed the plan, touted as a public-private partnership between managed care organizations and the state, last December. At that time, she said her administration would develop “an affordable, accessible product,” with a premium of about $250 per month. The plan received one public hearing in February, before the legislature passed it as part of a larger implementer bill in July.[...]
Advocates also argue that what the state has put forward up to this point will likely be unattractive to the uninsured, “given its limited benefits and questionable consumer protections.”
There is a proposed limited drug benefit of only $2,500 a year and a $2,000 a year benefit for medical equipment.[...]
Mr. Dearborn said the plan was “not proposed as the Rolls Royce of programs.” And it was by no means meant to be “universal” coverage, he said. He said it’s “affordable, credible coverage,” for those unable to obtain health benefits from their employers or aren’t old enough to qualify for Medicare.
And nestled in there I see a sign that maybe someone’s about to “get it” on the health care issue in the U.S.—that the problem isn’t strictly a high level of uninsureds in the population, but instead that health care is awfully darned expensive, and getting worse.
Attempting to address that with insurance is aggravated by calls for mandatory enhancements that potentially drive up the cost of providing cover, aggravating the situation.
And even if political consensus is achieved to spread the costs of a few across the population of an entire state, medical cost inflation is such that the burden will become significantly heavier than most people expect pretty darn quickly.
Focusing on expanding health insurance is an extremely myopic stance to take. While it may be part of a solution, there needs to be some debate and consensus-building on what can be done to control costs and manage future inflation.
And, dare I say it, perhaps there ought to be some public debate on whether we, as a society, are willing to always fund the latest, greatest, sexiest, and usually most-expensive medical treatments that Americans feel that they’re entitled to. Perhaps some thought should be given to whether that goal needs to be de-entitled….or at least reserved for when more cost-effective treatments aren’t effective?