Tag: health care
Republicans Push Skimpy, Unaffordable Health Coverage As Costs Keep Rising

Republicans Push Skimpy, Unaffordable Health Coverage As Costs Keep Rising

The median cost of employer-based health insurance this year leaped ahead at nearly twice the rate of the consumer price index, according to the annual Kaiser Family Foundation employer survey released yesterday. Sadly, workers are bearing a larger share of the increased burden through rapidly rising co-premiums.

The press coverage this morning of the closely followed survey emphasized the combined top-line increase of 5.5 percent for a family plan, which now stands at a staggering $26,993 a year or about the price of a new compact car. The cost of an employer-based individual plan rose at the slightly lower rate of 4.6 percent to $9,325 a year.

But a deeper dive into the numbers provides a better understanding of why people are so upset about rising health care costs. Employee co-premiums for a family plan (the amount deducted from paychecks) rose 7.6 percent on average to $6,850. The employer share went up only 4.8 percent. The net effect was a downward shift in the share paid by employers and a corresponding upward shift in the share paid by their employees, which was a half percentage point more or 25.4 percent of the total.

This increased burden on workers comes after an eight-year period when the employer share of premiums rose fairly steadily (with a few years off early in the pandemic). Companies offset some of those increases by funneling more of their workers into plans that raised their out-of-pocket expenses for deductibles and co-pays.

Depending on the plan type (HMO, PPO, high-deductible), the average deductible from employer-based family plans now ranges from $3,118 to $5,095 a year. Fully a third of workers and their families enrolled in high-deductible plans for 2025, up from 28 percent the previous year and the most ever.

Put the two together, and the median family (half pay more, half pay less) now pays anywhere from $9,968 to $11,945 a year for health care or close to $1,000 a month. Given the median household income in 2024 stood at $83,730, that translates into anywhere from 12 percent to 14 percent of a typical family’s income.

Things are about to get a lot worse. Next year’s premiums and co-premiums for employer-based plans, which cover an estimated 154 million people, are set to rise six percent to seven percent, according to a new survey by Mercer, a health care benefits consulting firm. If the split between employers and their employees remains the same, that will exceed wage increases by two to three percentage points. Wage increases have been trending down for the past three years, falling to just 4.1 percent this past August, the last month reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics before the government shutdown.

Source: Atlanta Federal Reserve

No wonder health care costs now ranks as the second most important issue for inflation-weary Americans, just behind the deteriorating state of the overall economy. More than four in five of 1,300 adults surveyed in mid-October by the Associated Press and the NORC Center for Public Affairs said health care issues were extremely or very important to them personally. That was nine percentage points more than crime and 23 percentage points ahead of immigration — the next two biggest concerns.

The impact of ACA/Medicaid cuts on employer plans

The outlook for employer-based plans will also get a lot worse if Democrats fail to restore the Medicaid cuts and the enhanced subsidies for Affordable Care Act plans (which provides affordable insurance for tens of millions of low-wage workers, gig workers and sole proprietors). An estimated 7.3 million people who purchased subsidized exchange plans will drop ACA coverage, with more than half becoming uninsured, according to a Commonwealth Fund brief.

Many will look for cheaper, non-ACA compliant plans that don’t quality for listing on the exchanges because they provide skimpier benefits, are not required to provide free preventive care, can discriminate based on prior medical conditions, and often carry extremely high deductibles and co-pays. This summer, the Trump administration announced it wouldn’t enforce the rule approved by the Biden administration in mid-2024 that limited such plans to three months duration.

“Those who sell non-ACA plans … will absolutely see the coming open enrollment as an opportunity to push their plans as more affordable alternatives, without sharing full information with consumers about the limits of those plans,” said JoAnn Volk, a professor at Georgetown University’s Center on Health Insurance Reforms.

What happens when people who previously had Obamacare buy skimpy plans or become uninsured? They postpone care until their conditions require emergency room treatment — the most expensive place to obtain health care. When struck by serious illnesses like cancer, heart attacks and strokes, they often fail to pay their uncovered bills, or resort to Go Fund Me campaigns to pay off their high deductibles. Some will negotiate long-payoff periods and live the rest of their lives burdened by medical debt. Some will declare bankruptcy.

Hospitals and physicians, in turn, will raise their prices to cover the cost of uncompensated care, which will cause private insurance rates to rise even more. Rising prices, rising insurance premiums, and rising uninsured rates is an accurate description of what existed in the U.S. before passage of the ACA.

These health care economic fundamentals are of little interest to the modern-day Republican Party, which invariably includes some variation of bare-bones insurance as one of their answers to the affordability crisis. Early in the shutdown, they floated ideas like instituting new income caps on Obamacare subsidies, establishing minimum co-pays, and cutting off subsidies for new enrollees, none of which they would agree to negotiate until the government is reopened.

Then, last week, Politico reported they are also willing to beef up tax credits for investing in health savings accounts, which could be used to buy skimpy plans. Lower-income workers generally avoid HSAs since they can’t afford the voluntary deductions needed to fund them.

I can’t predict when or how the shutdown crisis will end. But I am pretty confident that I know what will happen to health care costs in the next few years given Republican control of Washington. They’re going up, up, and up.

Merrill Goozner, the former editor of Modern Healthcare, writes about health care and politics at GoozNews.substack.com, where this column first appeared. Please consider subscribing to support his work.

Reprinted with permission from Gooz News

GOP 'Glory Days'? The Insurance Market Before Obamacare Was A Nightmare

GOP 'Glory Days'? The Insurance Market Before Obamacare Was A Nightmare

The Republicans seem to hope that most people have no knowledge or memory of the insurance market before Obama pushed the Affordable Care Act (ACA) through Congress. Most people would probably not like to go back there.

The big problem with the pre-ACA insurance market is that insurers don’t like to insure people with health issues. This might be too complicated for a Republican politician, but it is pretty straightforward to ordinary people.

Most people are reasonably healthy. For that reason, insurers are happy to cover them. From the standpoint of an insurer, covering a healthy person just means that someone is sending you a check every month. It’s a good deal, if you can get it.

But covering people with serious health issues is a totally different ball game. These people actually cost insurers money. They have to pay for doctors’ and hospital bills, drugs, therapy, and all sorts of other expenses.

Since insurers are much smarter than Republican politicians pretend to be, they could avoid paying the bills for people with serious health conditions by just refusing to insure them in the first place. If someone had a history of cancer or heart disease, insurers could just refuse to offer them coverage. People with health problems are money losers for insurers, they want to cover the people who just send them checks.

Some states put restrictions on insurers’ ability to reject people for pre-existing conditions. The response in that case was to simply charge people with health issues a much higher premium. That meant that a cancer survivor or person with heart disease might pay a premium three or four times as high as a person in generally good health. This would make the policy unaffordable for most people with health issues.

Even if they do end up paying the bill, the insurer will have limited their losses by collecting high premiums. And, who knows, not all cancer survivors have recurrences, maybe the insurer can just put those higher premiums in the bank.

Then there was also the trick of rescission. This meant that an insurer would go over the health forms that people were required to submit before getting insurance, to see if there was some basis for cancelling the policy. This could mean, for example, that an insurer could cancel the policy of a cancer patient because they had failed to list a visit to the hospital on an insurance form. As a result, instead of getting stuck with tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars of bills, the insurer could stick the patient with it by claiming they lied when they took out the policy.

This is what the Republicans are telling us was the golden age of the health insurance industry, that was ruined by Obamacare. Obamacare required that insurers issue policies to people without regard to their health and also required that everyone within an age group pay the same premium.

Remarkably, after the passage of Obamacare, healthcare cost growth slowed sharply. This is the exact opposite of what the Republicans are running around saying.

In the decade before Obamacare passed, from 2000-2010, healthcare costs increased 4.0 percentage points as a share of GDP — the equivalent of more than $1.2 trillion in today’s economy. By contrast, in the 15 years since its passage, health care costs have increased by just 1.4 percentage points. If healthcare costs had continued to increase at the pre-ACA rate, we would be spending another $1.4 trillion year, $11,000 per household, on healthcare.

This doesn’t mean our current healthcare system is great. It is very far from it. Insurers still have an enormous incentive to deny claims and refuse needed treatment. Their abuses can be restrained with serious regulation, but we know the Trump administration doesn’t like any regulations that limit corporate profits, so look for much worse insurer abuses in the years ahead. In a sane world, we would have something like the Canadian universal Medicare system and save hundreds of billions a year on insurance costs.

We also pay way too much for drugs and medical equipment. Drugs are almost invariably cheap to manufacture and distribute. It is government-granted patent monopolies that make them expensive. That is absurdity of the tragic choices many people are forced to make when they have to struggle to find tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to pay for a life-saving drug. The drug is actually cheap; we just make it expensive with patents. If drug research and development were financed through direct public funding, as we already do to a substantial extent with the National Institutes of Health, no one would have to struggle to pay for the drugs they need.

I won’t give the full sales pitch for Medicare for all here, I just want to make the point that saving Obamacare should not be the final goal. But the key point is that Republicans are pushing total nonsense in arguing that the pre-ACA insurance market was something anyone in their right mind would want to see again. For my part, when it comes to glory days, I’ll stick with the Boss.

Dean Baker is a senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research and the author of the 2016 book Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer. Please consider subscribing to his Substack.

Reprinted with permission from Dean Baker.

Vance Invents A Racist Anti-Migrant Myth To Defend GOP Shutdown

Vance Invents A Racist Anti-Migrant Myth To Defend GOP Shutdown

Vice President JD Vance defended the GOP’s government shutdown on Wednesday by falsely claiming the Democratic Party is trying to give federal health care benefits to undocumented immigrants.

"If you're an American citizen [and] you've been to a hospital in the last few years, you probably noticed that wait times are especially large, and very often somebody who's there in the emergency room waiting is an illegal alien—very often a person who can't even speak English,” Vance said. “Why do those people get health care benefits at hospitals paid for by American citizens?”

As ABC News notes, undocumented immigrants are not eligible for federally funded health insurance programs.

Like many of his GOP colleagues, Vance’s only defense for the party’s failed policies is racist scapegoating. While the Trump administration threatens Americans with economic suffering, their supposed solutions amount to little more than blaming immigrants and marginalized groups for the consequences of their own policies.

The Republican playbook is simple: Lie, repeat the lie, and lie again.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

RFK Jr Won't Make America Healthier -- But He Can Make Us Sicker

When Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was named as Secretary of Health and Human Services, Calley Means, a former Republican lobbyist, expressed a common misconception: "The public health expert class has given us a public health collapse. We are on the verge of, at best, a health crisis and, at worst, a societal collapse with 20% of GDP going to health expenditures. (We're) getting sicker, fatter, more depressed, more infertile for every dollar we spend."

The Trump movement has given snake oil salesmen new life because their conspiracy-mindedness fits seamlessly into the MAGA analysis of the world: You are not responsible for anything that has gone awry in your life. Sinister elites have betrayed you. They've shipped your job overseas, halved your neighbor's salary through bad trade deals, stolen elections and picked your pocket to fund forever wars. In that spirit, the notions that vaccines cause autism, that antidepressants cause school shootings, and that COVID-19 spares Jews and Asians seem to demand a fair hearing.

In the early days of Trump 2.0, even reasonable adults who should know better told reporters that it might be good to have Kennedy as our chief public health officer because, after all, we do have a serious problem with chronic health conditions like type 2 diabetes, heart disease and obesity.

But the reality is that most of what causes chronic medical conditions in America is almost entirely outside the remit of government. Obesity, lack of exercise, smoking, drinking and poor diet all contribute mightily to chronic poor health — and they are behaviors that are extremely difficult to change. By contrast, government is indispensable in certain crucial areas — prevention and treatment of infectious diseases, promoting research on new drugs, and funding scientific studies on best practices. In all of those, Kennedy is not only failing to do his job well; he is doing the exact opposite of what he should.

Please don't get me wrong: People get cancer and Parkinson's and ALS and lots of other ailments due to simple bad luck. But chronic conditions like type 2 diabetes, obesity and heart disease are closely linked to behavior. Even cancer rates can be affected by eating habits: consuming lots of fruits and vegetables has been shown to be protective against several forms of cancer. Again, this is not to blame people for their diseases or to suggest in any way that they don't deserve treatment and care. But as a matter of epidemiology, it's important to be clear-eyed about what we can control and what we can't.

People who are obese have a 28% higher risk of heart disease than do people of normal weight. Carrying excessive extra pounds also increases cancer rates, stillbirths, preeclampsia, strokes, arthritis, type 2 diabetes, kidney disease, infertility, gout and mental health challenges.

Sitting for most of every day also does not conduce to good health.

We Americans (and, to be fair, many people around the globe) do a lot of that. A British study found that adults who watch six or more hours of TV a day had twice the all-cause mortality of those who watched two hours or less.

Everyone knows that the best path to good health is eating healthy foods, getting a decent amount of exercise, avoiding cigarettes, drinking alcohol in small amounts (no more than one drink per day for women, two for men) and maintaining a healthy body weight. A study in the journal Circulation found that women who followed these recommendations lived an average of 14 years longer than those who did not, and men lived an extra 12. But take a guess at how many American adults actually follow all five of those recommendations? According to a University of Oregon analysis, only 2.7%.

So, yes, we are plagued by diabetes, heart disease, strokes and cancer. But it's not because we use food dyes, or because drug companies have conspired to keep us sick, or because Wi-Fi is frying our brains. The only way to grapple with these conditions is to change our behavior — and that's hard.

Meanwhile, what is not hard, or shouldn't be, is to hire a government that does the basics of public health, like empanel experts to advise on the composition of the yearly flu vaccine, or provide guidance on which vaccines are needed for children and at what ages, or fund research on vaccines to prevent future pandemics. On all of these fronts, Kennedy has done the opposite, disbanding advisory committees of academics and physicians, canceling funding for mRNA vaccine research, changing the recommendation for COVID vaccines for pregnant women and babies, and creating a panel stacked with frauds to "reexamine" the nonexistent link between the MMR vaccine and autism.

Kennedy's crusade will not overcome our chronic disease problem. But it is very probable, if he is not stopped, that former plagues like measles will make a big comeback; that we will be far less prepared to cope with the next epidemic because we cut research on the miracle of mRNA technology; that rates of vaccine hesitancy will continue to rise; and that trust in government professionalism will be shattered.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World