Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

eridani

(51,907 posts)
Sat Feb 15, 2014, 09:45 AM Feb 2014

Insurers drastically reduce choice in poorer counties

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304450904579366950560009742

Hundreds of thousands of Americans in poorer counties have few choices of health insurers and face high premiums through the online exchanges created by the health-care law, according to an analysis by The Wall Street Journal of offerings in 36 states.

Consumers in 515 counties, spread across 15 states, have only one insurer selling coverage through the online marketplaces, the Journal found. In more than 80% of those counties, the sole insurer is a local Blue Cross & Blue Shield plan. Residents of wealthier, more populated counties in the U.S. receive lower-priced choices than those living in counties with a single insurer.

The price differences reflect the strategy of insurers to pick markets where they believe they can turn a profit—and avoid areas of high unemployment and a concentration of unhealthy residents they deem more risky.

Aetna Inc. and UnitedHealth Group Inc., for instance, have limited their participation in the new health-insurance marketplaces, where consumers shop for coverage, to a much smaller map than their traditional business. They offer coverage in more counties outside of the marketplaces, where plans are sold directly to consumers and federal subsidies aren't available.

Aetna targeted areas with stable levels of employment and income to attract desirable customers to its marketplace offerings, Chief Executive Mark Bertolini said last fall. "We were very careful to pick the markets" where the insurer could succeed, he said.

Reversing the trend presents a challenge because low-population areas are unlikely to draw more insurers, said Glenn Melnick, a health-care economist at RAND Corp: "I don't think the health law can overcome those economics."


Comment by Don McCanne of PNHP: We’ve always know that insurers market their plans in areas where there is the greatest potential for business success. As USC Health Finance Professor Glen Melnick explains, the Affordable Care Act cannot overcome those economics.

Clearly we have the wrong model for reform. Private insurers respond to business opportunities. Public insurance, such as a single payer national health program, simply enrolls everyone; there are no market decisions to be made.

So is it going to continue to be about private insurance markets, or will it be about patients - all patients? An improved Medicare for all would be about the latter
5 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Insurers drastically reduce choice in poorer counties (Original Post) eridani Feb 2014 OP
Did the best and the brightest write the ACA, or SamKnause Feb 2014 #1
This is why private insurance companies are ultimately not the answer. drm604 Feb 2014 #2
Single payer would solve that. Wilms Feb 2014 #3
Do you think it could have gotten passed? Adrahil Feb 2014 #4
It might very well have gotten us a public option eridani Feb 2014 #5

SamKnause

(13,037 posts)
1. Did the best and the brightest write the ACA, or
Sat Feb 15, 2014, 10:08 AM
Feb 2014

did the insurance companies write the ACA ?

I think we all know the answer.

Why didn't our "esteemed politicians" ensure there were no loopholes ?

Pelosi, "We have to pass the health care bill so that you can find out what is in it".

What an inept joke the government of the U.S. is.

The 1% were not concerned with what was in the ACA. They can afford insurance.

The politicians were not concerned with what was in the ACA. Our tax dollars pay for their insurance.

The Supreme Court was not concerned with what was in the ACA. They usually rule on the side of the corporations. (Corporations are people let's not forget). They ruled the states do not have to expand Medicaid. (Another devastating loophole.)

drm604

(16,230 posts)
2. This is why private insurance companies are ultimately not the answer.
Sat Feb 15, 2014, 10:19 AM
Feb 2014

They will always find ways to be selective about their customers. They answer only to their stockholders and have no concern about the greater good.

In a way, this behavior is self-defeating in the long run. Their amorality will antagonize the public more and more until we finally say enough is enough.

 

Wilms

(26,795 posts)
3. Single payer would solve that.
Sat Feb 15, 2014, 01:17 PM
Feb 2014

Why no one mentioned that to Obama and Pelosi is beyond me.



Oh. Wait.



 

Adrahil

(13,340 posts)
4. Do you think it could have gotten passed?
Sat Feb 15, 2014, 02:20 PM
Feb 2014

I think reality intervenes here. It couldn't get the votes. We're going to have to do this incrementally. Overreach is a sure way to kill a reform effort.

I think if this is really a problem, then it's a reason to say "See, we SHOULD have a public option to ensure competition."

eridani

(51,907 posts)
5. It might very well have gotten us a public option
Sat Feb 15, 2014, 11:16 PM
Feb 2014

Ask for a public option and get nothing
Ask for single payer and maybe get a public option.

You know--if you will accept $4000 for your used car, you need to ask for $6000 or $7000.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Insurers drastically redu...