ERD50
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
I gave the data point not so much as to suggest a solution but to give an idea of cost for a group that is going to be higher than average in cost. Yet spreading that cost around doesn't make insurance unaffordable in Minnesota.
OK, it is interesting that the high risk pool doesn't seem to cost all that much more to insure. By keeping costs reasonable for people, they are more likely to just get the insurance rather than try to game the system and wait until they are sick, and that lowers the total "riskiness" of that pool.
I think it all points back to the basics, we need to get everyone in a program to avoid the selection issues (on both sides), and we need to control costs, while giving people some reasonable choice and say in some matters (some of which they may need to pay for).
Am I interpreting this correctly? If the premiums are ~ 110% of "similar plans" (I assume you mean what a large employer would be charged per employee), and the premiums cover ~50% of the cost, that means the true cost is ~ 220% of "similar plans", a little more than double. Which isn't bad, esp if you just cannot get ins.
So essentially, Minnesota is "forcing" the ins cos to cast a wider net, take in more risk and spread the costs across the group (which is what ins is all about). The downside is maybe to the mega corp that negotiated a good rate, maybe because steadily employed people are healthier on average, or they have health clubs, etc... they are going to pay more.
Maybe that is what we need, but like others it is bothering me that this seems to be nothing but cost shifting, rather than tangible efforts to reduce costs. I keep hearing we have the highest costs for health care in the US and not always better outcomes, we should be able to find places to cut. What's next - when I buy a new car, there will be a 10% fee to help pay for a car for some person that just can't afford it? Hey, it's only 10%, and it will help someone.... I guess I just get tired of the "you have so we will take it" as the *first* line of response. Did they say they are going to pay for this from taxes from the top 1%? So 1% are going to pay their health care, and then pay the gap for another 99 people on top of that?
-ERD50