I'm not sure how I feel about this.
Apr. 17th, 2008 01:55 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
leftyjewBill 17-700, the “Healthy DC Act of 2008”
DC Councilmember David Catania (along with seven other councilmembers) recently introduced legislation that forces DC's uninsured population to buy insurance and provides them an insurance policy that is reasonably affordable (3% of their adjusted gross income) and includes more than just emergency coverage. A Google search on CareFirst (the org that's offering this insurance plan) yields a program in Baltimore which focuses exclusively on prescription drugs. (And also a horrible leak of members' personal information by the same organization, and a sketchy attempt to mismanage the not-for-profit into privatization). If anyone knows of any examples of this program in other cities, please let me know.
On the one hand, universal health insurance is nice. ((Really the goal should be universal health CARE and not simply INSURANCE, but this may be a different conversation.)) However, requiring people to buy it just seems like you're working to help providers and not their patients. Yes, I know that lack of health insurance is one of the leading cases of bankruptcy, but that seems like you're fixing the symptoms of a bad system and not the underlying cause. What's the underlying cause? Maybe that health care is so expensive? But it costs a lot of money for advanced treatments, and hospitals often have "inefficient use of beds" to cover costs. Also, one reason hospital care is so expensive is because so many people default on payments.... Damn. Maybe the underlying cause is poverty? Or the lack of (qualified) primary care physicians and general preventative care for the poor. Anyway, I'm interested in others' opinions.
DC Councilmember David Catania (along with seven other councilmembers) recently introduced legislation that forces DC's uninsured population to buy insurance and provides them an insurance policy that is reasonably affordable (3% of their adjusted gross income) and includes more than just emergency coverage. A Google search on CareFirst (the org that's offering this insurance plan) yields a program in Baltimore which focuses exclusively on prescription drugs. (And also a horrible leak of members' personal information by the same organization, and a sketchy attempt to mismanage the not-for-profit into privatization). If anyone knows of any examples of this program in other cities, please let me know.
On the one hand, universal health insurance is nice. ((Really the goal should be universal health CARE and not simply INSURANCE, but this may be a different conversation.)) However, requiring people to buy it just seems like you're working to help providers and not their patients. Yes, I know that lack of health insurance is one of the leading cases of bankruptcy, but that seems like you're fixing the symptoms of a bad system and not the underlying cause. What's the underlying cause? Maybe that health care is so expensive? But it costs a lot of money for advanced treatments, and hospitals often have "inefficient use of beds" to cover costs. Also, one reason hospital care is so expensive is because so many people default on payments.... Damn. Maybe the underlying cause is poverty? Or the lack of (qualified) primary care physicians and general preventative care for the poor. Anyway, I'm interested in others' opinions.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-04-17 06:52 pm (UTC)they really should have more than one HMO participating in this to create some vague sort of accountability and patient choice, and in case they boot a plan out (amerigroup is being kicked out of dc alliance).
one big issue is the way MDs are paid. Insurance reimburses more for expensive procedures than for cheap ones, so there's pressure to order more expensive treatment. really they should reimburse based on time spent or something.