|
A Different Perspective on Health Insurance
By Peter L. DeHaan, Ph.D.
December 2004
It
happened again. It shouldn’t
surprise me but it does. In fact, it
has been said so often that most people believe it to be true and accept it as
fact. What am I talking about?
Once again, a politician has stood up and impassionedly, emphatically,
and convincingly asserted that we, as citizens of the United States of America,
have a right to health care.
Wait
a minute, we have a right to health
care? Is it in the Constitution?
Is it listed in the Bill of Rights? No,
health care is not a right, but asserting that it is serves as an effective
rallying cry for those who feel under-insured.
People who do not enjoy this “right” imagine themselves as victims
and in need of a champion to rescue them from their implied substandard
existence. Who will rescue them?
The very same politician who pointed out this grave injustice in the
first place! Political rhetoric
aside, there are several other misunderstandings about health insurance, as
well.
According
to Webster’s, insurance is the “coverage by contract whereby one party
undertakes to indemnify or guarantee against loss by a specified contingency or
peril.” The key words here are
“contingency or peril.” Let’s
look at some examples.
I
have insurance on my house that will replace it if it is destroyed or suffers
major damage. Without insurance,
losing a home would be a financially devastating hardship.
My homeowner’s policy doesn’t cover repairs or maintenance; those are
things I can afford to pay myself.
My
cars are insured as well. When they
are new, I have full coverage in the event of a major accident.
The thought of needing to unexpectedly shell out tens of thousands of
dollars to replace a car is sufficient justification to pay for premiums with
full coverage.
If
people had the same expectations of their car insurance as they do for their
medical insurance, here is how it might work.
First, there would be a two dollar co-pay for gasoline.
It wouldn’t matter if the tank were half-full or empty; the cost of a
fill up would be two dollars. This
would provide little incentive to buy fuel-efficient vehicles – we would
merely want cars with bigger gas tanks! Oil
changes would probably not be covered, but that’s okay.
Just skip the oil changes and when the engine seizes up, there’s
nothing to worry about, because it’s covered!
If you hadn’t reached your deductible, you might need to pay twenty
percent of the “reasonable and expected” charges for an engine rebuild, but
that’s all. Then there are tires.
Your policy would pay to have tires replaced every two years.
It wouldn’t matter if you needed tires or not.
So even though there is still usable tread on them, you have them
replaced – insurance will pay for them. Of
course, if one of these new tires has a blow out before the two years are up,
then you’re out of luck – and you get mad at your insurance company.
What about the cost to keep that old beloved car running?
Not a problem, insurance covers it. Never
mind that the parts are no longer being manufactured, hard to find, and
expensive. Insurance will pick up
the tab. The downsides to this
incredulous scenario are that there will be lots of paperwork and you can only
go to mechanics that are “part of the system.”
“Wait,”
you say, “Cars are not people!” You’re
right. They’re not. So, let’s
talk life insurance. I want my
family taken care of in the event I die unexpectedly.
This sounds simple, but there is a decision to be made as to just how
well I want them to be provided for. The
first reaction is that my family should be totally and completely taken care of
– forever. Let’s see, that will
be a policy for a gazillion dollars and the monthly payment will be…slightly
more than my take-home pay. Okay
then, how about if they are partially taken care of but still need to work.
Now the monthly insurance payment drops but is still too high.
Okay, how much insurance can I get for fifty bucks a month?
I’ll take it!
So
insuring our lives is reduced to an economic decision, a cost-benefit
calculation. If the tendency is to
focus on the expense of life insurance, rather then the benefit, why not do the
same for medical insurance?
Back
when companies paid all their employees’ health insurance premiums, we, the
insured, didn’t care about – or even consider – the cost of that benefit.
But as premiums skyrocketed, companies began shifting some of that cost
to employees. This should have
driven home the financial cost of company-provided health insurance, but for far
too many employees it didn’t. Over
the years, I’ve had call center agents come to me with this common lament
about their health insurance: “I didn’t even get back as much as I put
in!”
Health
insurance isn’t like the lottery. The
expectation of receiving more than you paid is simply ludicrous.
Yet, for some reason, many people view their health insurance with such a
mindset. I submit they don’t think
that way about their auto or home insurance, and certainly not their life
insurance. Personally, each time
that I write a check from the premium for my car, house, or life insurance, I am
thankful that I didn’t need to use it!
What
many workers don’t realize is that insurance companies are in the business to
make money. Even non-profit
insurance companies have to have this attitude.
How do they make money? Quite
simply, their income (that is, insurance premiums) needs to exceed their
expenses (that is, claim payouts and overhead).
That means, on average, no one is going to “get back as much as they
put in.” If they do, the insurance
company has lost money on them. If
the insurance company losses money on too many people, or for too long, they
either go out of business or need to dramatically raise rates.
Once
we recognize the economic aspects of insurance (the cost-benefit perspective),
are cognizant of the business model (to make money), and jettison wrong
expectations (getting more than we put in), we can move forward with an attitude
that health insurance should cover the “big” things and we should take care
of the rest. Therefore, I want a
policy that will cover a major surgery, a catastrophic illness, and prolonged
treatments. I want to, and should be
able to, cover the rest. But how can
I do that?
Incredibly,
the government has a solution! It
starts with a high-deductible health plan. High-deductible
means much lower premiums. This
addresses concerns of catastrophic illnesses and bills that would result in
financial ruin. In fact, my own
health plan has a deductible of $5,150. That
means I am on my own to cover most, if not all, of my family’s medical
expenses. This brings up the second
aspect, a health savings account (HSA). An
HSA lets me set aside money, tax-free, for medical expenses. This
money can generate a return, which is also tax-free, and when I use the money
for medical expenses, it is again tax-free.
With
the high-deductible medical insurance combined with a health savings account, I
have taken control of my medical costs and saved money.
I make decisions for how and when money will be spent on medical
procedures, just like every other expense I consider – on the cost-benefit of
the transaction. Lest you become
aghast at me turning health considerations into a dollar sign, let me remind you
that every other purchase is treated that way. So
why not medical costs, too? After
all, what we eat has a great bearing on our health, but it is common to bypass
healthy and advisable foods based solely on their cost.
We buy life insurance not by how much we need, but by what we can afford.
The place we live and the car we drive, both of which can have health
ramifications, are again based on cost.
Originally,
high-deductible health insurance plans and HSAs were intended for the
self-employed. Now they have been
expanded to include small businesses (the majority of call centers are small
businesses). Plus, it is likely that
President Bush will try to expand the scope of who can be covered by these
programs. We have an opportunity to
adapt a new attitude and take control of rising medical costs; let’s do so.
To read other articles written by Peter DeHaan,
go to From
The Publisher or check out his blog at
http://blog.peterdehaan.com. In addition to publishing Connections Magazine
and AnswerStat magazine (for hospital and medical related call centers), Peter
also publishes several related websites, including
MyArticleArchive.com.
He may
be reached at 866-668-6695, dehaan@connectionsmagazine.com
or www.PeterDeHaan.com.
Return
to List of Articles || Read more articles at MyArticleArchive.com
|