Tag: health care costs
Democrats Must Address Looming Cost Spike In Private Health Insurance

Democrats Must Address Looming Cost Spike In Private Health Insurance

Here’s the good news. The Democratic Party’s demand that Congress extend the Affordable Care Act premium subsidies in exchange for helping end the government shutdown is fracturing the GOP monolith.

In recent social media posts, Rep. Majorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) articulated what every legislator on the GOP side of the aisle knows but won’t admit. Out-of-pocket costs for ACA plans will skyrocket next year if the enhanced subsidies passed by the Biden administration during the pandemic are allowed to expire.

“This is a major crisis in America,” she said this week on NewsNation, a conservative cable news network. “We’re looking at a massive spike in health premiums. It’s going to crush people. They’re going to have to drop their health insurance. That will put a lot of people in danger of becoming bankrupt with health care bills, with hospital bills,” she said.

Even Donald Trump, ever the prevaricator, has begun toying publicly with opening negotiations with Democrats after Greene made her comments.

But she went further. It is not just the 24 million people on ACA plans who will get hit hard with average premiums more than doubling to more than $1900 a month (before subsidies) without the enhanced premium subsidies. “People with regular or private plans, their premiums are looking to go up a median of 18 percent. That’s brutal,” she said.

Always fast and loose with her facts, Greene’s claim that private health plan premiums will rise 18% is more than double what employer benefits consultants are predicting. But there’s no doubt huge spikes in employer premiums and employee co-premiums are coming. Both will likely to see near double-digit increases.

That’s the issue I want to address in today’s post because it represents a messaging minefield for Democrats, even if they win an extension of the ACA plan subsidies.

Where’s the rest of us?

During September, there was an interesting debate within the Democratic Party about what to demand from the GOP majority before giving them the votes needed to keep the government running beyond September 30th. Progressives wanted to focus on limiting the Trump regime’s flagrant violations of the law and constitution. Centrists, led by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), preferred putting health care — usually a winning issue for Democrats — front and center. The centrist majority won the day.

The political wisdom of the leaders’ decision now seems vindicated. As Jonathan Cohn wrote yesterday in The Bulwark (his post was headlined “The Democrats Are Winning the Shutdown Fight”):

“A big premium spike can be a political nightmare for the party in charge, as anybody who lived through the Obamacare rollout can attest. That’s the whole reason Republicans seem so uncertain about their current position—and why now even MAGA stalwarts like Greene are suggesting Republicans sign on to an extension. If nothing else, that would seem to give Democrats leverage to demand even more…
“Democrats actually do care passionately about making health care more affordable. If the subsidy boost lapses, the higher costs will mean real hardship for many millions, and 4 million more Americans with no insurance at all. Extending the subsidy boost would prevent most or all of that from happening. And insofar as Republicans are bound to support some kind of extension eventually—precisely because the blowback to the spike could be so strong—forcing a deal now, in this high-profile debate, would allow Democrats to claim (legitimately) it was their doing.”

Nowhere in his lengthy article did Cohn discuss the employer-based insurance market, which covers 164 million working Americans and their families. If the Democrats say nothing about their looming health care cost increases, it will be a huge mistake.

Should Democrats win on the ACA issue, it will no doubt be great news for the 24 million Americans whose health insurance comes through plans sold on the exchanges. Just seven percent or about 1.7 million purchasers pay the full cost of their plans. The rest receive subsidies based on income that limit their out-of-pocket premiums. The lowest wage workers pay nothing at all.

For most, the total cost of the plan is irrelevant. The federal government picks up most if not all of any increase in the total cost of the plan.

But that won’t be true for the far larger employer-based insurance market — the half of all Americans whose health plans come through an employer, group or union. Their plans receive no direct subsidy. The employer share — on average about 75 percent of a family plan — is tax deductible as is any employee premium, usually deducted from paychecks. But the employee share paid through co-pays and deductibles is not unless their medical expenses exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income; they itemize deductions; and their total deductions exceed the standard deduction. Even then, the deduction is only the amount over 7.5 percent of AGI.

Both employers and employees will bear the full upfront cost of the expected large increases in premiums on tap for next year. A month ago, Mercer, a leading benefits consulting firm, projected average employer premiums could rise nine percent next year based on preliminary results from its annual survey of nearly 2,000 employers. It predicted actual increases would be closer to 6.5 percent because of steps employers will take to hold those costs in check. That’s still twice the overall inflation rate.

Smaller employers will be hit hardest of all. A recent issue brief from the Kaiser Family Foundation found the median proposed premium increase for 318 small group insurers who offer ACA-compliant plans was 11 percent.

What’s behind rising costs?

Mercer health research director Beth Umland cited the usual suspects for the biggest increase in health care costs since 2010: The high cost of cancer treatments and weight-loss drugs; higher-than-usual price increases enabled by provider consolidation; higher health care worker wages driven by rising inflation in the general economy; and the “buildout of AI-based platforms that help providers optimize billing.”

The KFF brief echoed that analysis. It cited higher prescription drug costs and utilization, rising labor expenses, and overall economic inflation. “Some insurers also note declining enrollment and worsening risk pool morbidity as factors leading to higher projected costs next year,” the brief said.

The daily news in the health care trade press is filled with stories of insurers and providers battling over who should be forced to absorb some of those rising costs. Insurers are increasingly resorting to the “just say no” form of prior authorization and receiving pushback from both providers and patients. Modern Healthcare (where I used to be editor) reported this morning that insurers Aetna and Cigna are imposing their own version of the two-midnight rule (don’t ask) by forcing hospitals to accept out-patient rates for emergency room visits deemed routine care, no matter how long they stay in the hospital.

There’s going to be a lot more of those ER visits next year should the ACA subsidies not be extended, since an estimated four million people are expected to drop coverage. That will force many folks to use hospital ERs instead of primary care physician practices for their routine care. And, given that those dropping coverage will be fairly low income, most will postpone or fail to pay those ER bills, which leads to higher prices for everyone else who uses hospital services. Hospitals invariably raise prices to make up for uncompensated care.

And how will employers mitigate some of those rising costs (thus whittling the expected nine percent increase down to 6.5 percent), according to Mercer? “The survey found that 59 percent of employers will make cost-cutting changes to their plans in 2026 — up from 48 percent making changes in 2025 and 44 percent in 2024,” Umland wrote. “Generally, these involve raising deductibles and other cost-sharing provisions, which can lead to higher out-of-pocket costs for plan members when they seek care.”

In other words, workers will see their out-of-pocket co-pays and deductibles rise sharply in addition to a 6.5% average increase in their co-premiums, which are taken directly out of their paychecks. Workers with chronic health care needs could see their annual medical expenses rise at three times the overall inflation rate — perhaps even into double digits.

Only a tiny share of those increased costs will be mitigated by a Democratic win on ACA subsidies. Nor will a win do anything to help the millions of people who will be thrown off Medicaid, whose uncompensated expenses when they also show up in ERs for routine care will also be reflected in higher private employer/employee insurance bills.

For a majority of Americans, any Democratic Party claim that they “saved” health care by their strong stance during the shutdown negotiations will ring hollow in the face of their still rising out-of-pocket expenses.

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

Why Are Fox Hosts So Eager To Jack Up Americans' Health Care Costs?

Why Are Fox Hosts So Eager To Jack Up Americans' Health Care Costs?

Fox News propagandists are overwhelmingly backing the GOP’s bogus shutdown message that congressional Democrats are refusing to fund the government because they want to give health care to illegal immigrants. But every once in a while their masks slip, and they reveal that they oppose extending the crucial Obamacare subsidies at the heart of Democrats’ actual position, which would trigger drastic premium price hikes for millions of Americans.

A partial government shutdown began at midnight on Wednesday after both Republican and Democratic proposals to extend government funding failed to reach 60 votes in the Senate. CBS News reported that the Democrats’ “red line” was “a permanent extension of enhanced tax credits for Americans who purchase health insurance through the Affordable Care Act marketplace.” Those enhanced tax credits, authorized under the American Rescue Plan Act in 2021, are scheduled to expire at the end of the year.

That’s as it should be, according to some Fox pundits.

Fox host Sean Hannity complained on Wednesday night that Democrats had refused to fund the government in part because “they want to extend Biden COVID-era health care subsidies, which were supposed to be temporary. COVID is over.” But rather than explain the implications of allowing those subsidies to expire, Hannity pivoted away to his main gripe. “Don’t let the left fool you. This is also about your tax dollars funding health care for illegals,” he said, while airing B-roll from 2022 and 2023 of migrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico border. “Democrats have been lying, trying to deny it,” he added.

Earlier that day on The Five, after Democratic co-host Jessica Tarlov pointed out that the ACA subsidies are “the crux” of the dispute, Jesse Watters interjected that Democrats “juiced up the premiums for COVID-level spending” and Republicans simply “want to bring it back down to pre-COVID.”

Guest host and Fox contributor Paul Mauro chimed in that Democrats “used COVID to throw all of these subsidies in, and like any entitlement, when you go to take it away, people have strokes.”

“Right,” Fox host Greg Gutfeld interjected.

This position is wildly unpopular — polls show that supermajorities of Americans support extending the subsidies, with even Republicans and self-identified MAGA supporters backing it by a wide margin — and for good reason.

The 22 million Americans who benefit from those enhanced subsidies will face crushing increases in the cost of health insurance if those Fox hosts get their way and Republicans allow them to expire. According to CBS News:

The cost of premiums for people who buy their insurance through the ACA marketplaces could more than double, rising from an average of $888 in 2025 to $1,904 in 2026, according to a Sept. 30 analysis by KFF. About 4 million people would likely drop their insurance coverage if the credit is allowed to expire because they would't be able to afford the costs, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated.

That’s a huge potential impact for millions of people — but Fox’s mentions of these subsidies are breathtakingly rare.

Tarlov and other Democrats have used appearances on the right-wing network to try to warn its viewers, but Fox’s stars are far more blasé. They are relying on a typical page from Fox’s standard playbook: Mentions of the Obamacare subsidies and potential results of the policy they support are few and far between, as the hosts instead try to redirect the attention of their audience and stoke their rage over the prospect of undocumented immigrants receiving benefits.

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters

Your Guide to the Difficulties of American Healthcare

Your Guide to the Difficulties of American Healthcare

The current United States healthcare system is a heavily debated topic as the 2020 election comes into full swing. Some are proclaiming a transition to Medicare for all and others are pushing for a public option that allows individuals to choose their plans, including government-provided options. To help you better understand the difficulties facing the healthcare system, as well as the challenges of navigating it, let’s explore in-depth just how the system works and what can be done to mitigate the stress of accessing care.

The Financial and Legal Challenges of Navigating Healthcare

Over 44 million Americans are uninsured with another 38 million having inadequate insurance. The lack of insurance or appropriate coverage is one of the biggest hurdles facing Americans when it comes to accessing healthcare services. Without necessary coverage, millions of Americans face crushing medical debt or the possibility of forgoing needed treatment to avoid debt they cannot pay.

These facts have been thrown to the forefront of the 2020 political debates, with each candidate putting forth their solutions to help lift this burden off the shoulders of the people. However, regardless of who enters into office, the difficulties facing Americans now and those already struggling with medical debt is something that must also be taken into consideration.

Already it costs over $250 billion to process the 30 billion healthcare transactions that occur every year. Adding to that are the 20,000 malpractice claims which are filed by patients and family members each year. The problem here comprises both how the medical industry is structured and how lower rates of coverage result in underinsured Americans receiving a lower standard of care. Studies indicate that uninsured or underinsured individuals are less likely to receive preventative care or services for both major health issues and chronic conditions that would otherwise be treatable.

Arguments against Medicare for all and healthcare reform insist that a higher influx of patients now able to seek affordable treatment will result in even higher rates of malpractice, though many counter-argue that adequate reform will reduce the number of claims due to more readily accessible superior care programs. To understand the truth, let’s look that the top reasons people file malpractice claims as reported in a study published in J Law Med Ethics.

  • 33 percent of respondents answered that they were advised to sue from someone outside of their immediate family, 56% of which were advised by someone in the medical field.
  • 24 percent of respondents said that they sued for malpractice because they needed money for long-term care.
  • Another 24 percent said that they were intentionally misled by a healthcare provider.
  • 20 percent of respondents said they sued because their child wouldn’t be able to have a future.
  • Another 20 percent said they filed a claim to get more information that they felt had been withheld from them.
  • 19 percent of respondents filed because they wanted to prevent future errors or get justice for their malpractice injury.

As this study shows, out of 127 families surveyed, a majority of malpractice cases were filed at the advice of a medical professional or because a family either needed money or felt they had been misled intentionally. Though the survey conducted was only on a small group, it shows that one of the top concerns facing Americans is the high cost of care which leads to legal entanglement in the hopes of mitigating the burden.

Power of Attorney

Another legal issue that many Americans face is obtaining acceptance as powers of attorney. About 63 percent of those surveyed by the Joint Editorial Board of Uniform Trust reported that they had occasional difficulty, with another 17 percent saying they had frequent difficulty. Having the power of attorney over healthcare is important if an individual is incapacitated and unable to make healthcare decisions for themselves. When family members have difficulty being accepted in this role, it can lead to unnecessary stress, especially if the problems are occurring in the middle of a medical emergency. If the power of attorney is rejected, it’s often up to the family to seek out a lawyer to help them get approval. These difficulties, coupled with the challenges of haggling with insurance companies or navigating healthcare costs upfront, contributes to the growing frustration and outright avoidance of medical intervention for potentially treatable issues and concerns.

The Debate in 2020

As we’ve discussed, healthcare is one of the foremost debate topics of the 2020 election, but voters need to understand the differences in the plans that are being put forth. Universal coverage, for instance, would attempt to provide insurance for all American residents. In other countries that have this system implemented, these services are paid for by either public or private programs, sometimes a combination of both. Alternatively, a single-payer healthcare system utilizes one entity — not necessarily the government — which pays for all healthcare services. Contrary to popular belief this is not a form of socialized medicine, which would instead consist of government ownership over all medical facilities, professionals, and payment plans.

That said, a majority of Americans are also split on how healthcare should be reformed, with most being concerned about the overall cost they are paying, as opposed to the system used to insure them. As of 2016, the United States has been spending twice as much as other Western nations on healthcare, with the U.S. spending 25 percent more than the second-highest spending nation, Switzerland. And a recent survey of voters in Iowa, South Carolina, and New Hampshire show that voters there are more concerned about out of pocket costs and not the insurance coverage itself.

Different Ideas

Both parties have various solutions on how to fix the rising costs of healthcare, though even along party lines there are not concrete agreed on solutions. Most in the Democratic party wish to see the government play a larger role in healthcare, while Republicans are rallying for less government interference and more free-market programs. Both solutions bear weight, though unless a solution can be agreed upon, healthcare will likely remain a hot debate topic for decades of elections to come.

In addition to access to care, there are also different ideas about types of care. Long-term care, mental health services, and addiction rehabilitation have also become hot button issues that hopeful candidates are talking about this election season. Once again at the heart of these problems lies the cost of care and accessibility. Mental health and addiction services, in particular, are areas in which the healthcare system is severely lacking. Even as though some candidates have put forth plans for reform in these areas, only a few have devised plans regarding Americans in rural areas and those living with disabilities.

What Can Be Done to Mitigate Difficulty in Accessing Care?

First and foremost the healthcare system needs to be reformed to match the current needs of American citizens and it needs to be done in a way that the common public can understand. This means removing unnecessary jargon and instead laying out healthcare plans in a way that doesn’t exclude individuals without a medical degree. Often families have the most difficulty when it comes to trying to understand exactly what their insurance plans cover and what all they are being charged for. This confusion can lead to people being overcharged for services and paying more simply because they cannot understand the ins and outs of the current medical system.

Furthermore, there needs to be a collective move to bring down the price of necessary treatments and drugs to ensure that they are both accessible and affordable for every American. Because cost is the number one concern of voters in this election, this issue is likely to be the one talked about and targeted the most. Until healthcare costs can be reigned in, we will likely continue to see the same aversion to care and the denial of treatment in fear of debt accumulation that we have seen for the past decade.

While these changes are likely to not be seen immediately, what we can do now is not hesitate to ask questions and demand answers to all of our healthcare concerns. If you don’t understand your current policy and feel that you are underinsured, speak to your insurance company and ask them to explain your policy in full.

If you’re currently without insurance and need care, you can call doctors, hospitals, and urgent care centers in your area and ask for prices. Often urgent care centers offer faster and more affordable care than hospitals or doctor’s offices. You can also ask your doctor to prescribe a generic version of a prescription you need or use a discount app to save on the cost.

The healthcare system is tricky at best to navigate, but if people continue to speak up about their difficulties, it’s likely that soon there will be a solution reached that can better benefit the American people.

Is America’s Healthcare Ready For The Silver Tsunami?

Is America’s Healthcare Ready For The Silver Tsunami?

With the Baby Boomer generation aging and gradually having advanced healthcare needs, America seems like it’s going to have a hard time keeping up. The so-called “silver tsunami” isn’t a natural disaster that causes flooding, but rather a test of the United States’ healthcare capacities. This tsunami carries a hefty amount of power just like its natural namesake, as it could potentially force change in the U.S over time. Already, the impacts of generational population sizes are beginning to show where the weak points are in the nation’s care options.

Baby Boomers Aging

Every generation has some natural fluctuations in numbers, but the Baby Boomer generation has been notoriously large. Because of this, many current systems in place are unequipped to deal with the generation’s large numbers. Now, as the generation ages and the Silver Tsunami approaches, more members of the generation will require additional medical intervention.

Many of these medical needs are fairly commonplace, such as hearing aids and similar assistive devices. More than 10 million people in the U.S. use hearing aids. However, with more strain being put on the nation’s healthcare system, some Boomers are falling through the cracks. This neglect can have a major impact on the health of Boomers, especially in the face breakouts of diseases. The common cold may be easy enough for an older American to overcome since the average person makes a full recovery in about 10 days, but viruses like influenza and measles pose a serious danger. If at-risk seniors don’t have access to the vaccines and care they need to fight afflictions like these, they could lose their lives.

Cracks In System Exposed

With more people relying on healthcare and even assisted living, more problems with the systems currently in place are being exposed. In some cases, this can take the form of highly costly procedures that are necessary for comfortable aging. This is particularly true of complicated interventions, such as cardiopulmonary bypass. Gibbon developed the cardiopulmonary bypass in 1953, and it’s still often a necessary measure in healthcare. The high cost, unfortunately, leads many individuals to not receive the care they need to live longer, healthier lives.

Cost isn’t the only harmful element of the current American healthcare system. When it comes to treating the elderly, malpractice and even abuse occur at alarmingly high rates. Elderly patients often lack necessary representation and advocacy when it comes to their care. A recent study estimated that only one in 14 cases of elder abuse are ever reported to authorities. With an aging population, the United States will be in need of better, more reliable care for the elderly.

Preparing Future Healthcare

Luckily, some are taking steps to begin preparing for the Silver Tsunami today. Improving the nation’s healthcare system will take time, and as the next presidential election approaches, healthcare will continue to be a subject of debate. However, some areas across the nation have already begun training additional medical care staff in order to prepare for the needs of an older demographic of patients. With improved training and changes to healthcare, it’s possible that medical treatment across the board will become more affordable. This could even extend into procedures often seen as aesthetic in nature; today, some four million Americans are wearing braces, according to the American Association of Orthodontists. With potentially drastic measures needed to make healthcare affordable enough for the vast aging population, it’s possible that healthcare could gradually become more affordable.

With the Baby Boomer population aging rapidly, adaptations in healthcare must be created in order to accommodate the increased demands. Currently, the healthcare system will struggle to care for everyone reaching their elderly years. In the years to come, the United States will need to adapt in order to care for all of its elderly citizens effectively and affordably.

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World