1-1banner
 
medpundit
 

 
Commentary on medical news by a practicing physician.
 

 
Google
  • Epocrates MedSearch Drug Lookup




  • MASTER BLOGS





    "When many cures are offered for a disease, it means the disease is not curable" -Anton Chekhov




    ''Once you tell people there's a cure for something, the more likely they are to pressure doctors to prescribe it.''
    -Robert Ehrlich, drug advertising executive.




    "Opinions are like sphincters, everyone has one." - Chris Rangel



    email: medpundit-at-ameritech.net

    or if that doesn't work try:

    medpundit-at-en.com



    Medpundit RSS


    Quirky Museums and Fun Stuff


    Who is medpundit?


    Tech Central Station Columns



    Book Reviews:
    Read the Review

    Read the Review

    Read the Review

    More Reviews

    Second Hand Book Reviews

    Review


    Medical Blogs

    rangelMD

    DB's Medical Rants

    Family Medicine Notes

    Grunt Doc

    richard[WINTERS]

    code:theWebSocket

    Psychscape

    Code Blog: Tales of a Nurse

    Feet First

    Tales of Hoffman

    The Eyes Have It

    medmusings

    SOAP Notes

    Obels

    Cut-to -Cure

    Black Triangle

    CodeBlueBlog

    Medlogs

    Kevin, M.D

    The Lingual Nerve

    Galen's Log

    EchoJournal

    Shrinkette

    Doctor Mental

    Blogborygmi

    JournalClub

    Finestkind Clinic and Fish Market

    The Examining Room of Dr. Charles

    Chronicles of a Medical Mad House

    .PARALLEL UNIVERSES.

    SoundPractice

    Medgadget
    Health Facts and Fears

    Health Policy Blogs

    The Health Care Blog

    HealthLawProf Blog

    Facts & Fears

    Personal Favorites

    The Glittering Eye

    Day by Day

    BioEdge

    The Business Word Inc.

    Point of Law

    In the Pipeline

    Cronaca

    Tim Blair

    Jane Galt

    The Truth Laid Bear

    Jim Miller

    No Watermelons Allowed

    Winds of Change

    Science Blog

    A Chequer-Board of Night and Days

    Arts & Letters Daily

    Tech Central Station

    Blogcritics

    Overlawyered.com

    Quackwatch

    Junkscience

    The Skeptic's Dictionary



    Recommended Reading

    The Doctor Stories by William Carlos Williams


    Pox Americana: The Great Smallpox Epidemic of 1775-82 by Elizabeth Fenn


    Intoxicated by My Illness by Anatole Broyard


    Raising the Dead by Richard Selzer


    Autobiography of a Face by Lucy Grealy


    The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat by Oliver Sacks


    The Sea and Poison by Shusaku Endo


    A Midwife's Tale by Laurel Thatcher Ulrich




    MEDICAL LINKS

    familydoctor.org

    American Academy of Pediatrics

    General Health Info

    Travel Advice from the CDC

    NIH Medical Library Info

     



    button

    Sunday, July 01, 2007

    Mandated Mandates: Today is the day that Massachusetts residents have to have health insurance or else be penalized. Well, not really. They have until December 31 it turns out, to really have health insurance. The penalty:

    Massachusetts is deliberately taking things slowly. In 2008, the penalty for those not insured will be a loss of state tax exemption, worth about $219; later the penalty will be up to half of a monthly insurance premium for each month a person is uninsured. Also, while any insurance is acceptable at first, by January 2009, everyone must have drug coverage.

    There is concern that there will be about 60,000 people who are not poor enough to qualify for state aid to buy insurance and yet who will also not be able to afford the premiums themselves. So why are they mandating drug coverage? Wouldn't it make sense to drop the drug coverage mandate so that there will be more affordable policy options for those 60,000?
     

    posted by Sydney on 7/01/2007 01:36:00 PM 5 comments

    5 Comments:

    I'm not following your causal assessment. How exactly will dropping the mandate provide coverage for these 60,000 persons? Isn't it much more likely that such a class -- who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid, but who cannot afford private insurance -- would be shut out from coverage anyway>

    By Blogger Daniel, at 2:57 PM  

    When an insurance company has to offer drug coverage, it means that the policies are more expensive. If they had the option to offer a policy that didn't cover drugs, then they could offer lower-cost plans which could make them affordable to at least some, if not all, of those people who can't afford the current coverage may be able to afford the cheaper insurance without drug coverage.

    By Blogger sydney, at 12:31 PM  

    Furthermore, it's a nice feeling to think that one is in a "low risk" category for health complications. So it'd be nice to "reward" those conscientous people everywhere who don't smoke, exercise, drink in moderation and take their baby aspirin, with lower premiums. Too bad for the folks with genetic risks, I guess.

    But, we physicians know what a "risk factor" is, don't we? It's not a guarantee, and the lack of risk factors doesn't give us some kind of deflector shield against illness. I do think we have led the public to believe it does, though.

    As I said, let's distinguish policies on convenience factors and deductibles, but not on meaningful coverage.

    By Anonymous danie, at 2:44 PM  

    There are two problems with dropping drug coverage- one, some studies show coverage can reduce overall costs through decreased hospitalizations. I believe that we will definitely see this with Medicare.

    Sydney, you properly pointed out that those who join a plan with no drug coverage will pay less- but you miss the other half of the equation. Those who need medications will suddenly see their policies skyrocket. This is the whole point of risk pooling, and it is what mandatory health insurance is trying to get accomplish. Why do big companies get better health insurance rates? The ability to spread risk over many lives. Massachusetts is just trying to do the same thing. For this to work, everybody has to play.

    There are many other ways to decrease the costs of a policy- high deductibles, restricted formularies, restricted panel of providers, no travel coverage, etc. But you can't discriminate based on clinical risk or the whole project will fail.

    By Anonymous danie, at 2:47 PM  

    My posts were reversed, sorry!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:48 PM  

    Post a Comment

    This page is powered by Blogger, the easy way to update your web site.

    Main Page

    Ads

    Home   |   Archives

    Copyright 2006