Hello, and welcome to this week’s installment of the weekly Health Insurance News Roundup. There was one big story this past week, as well as a few smaller stories that were quite interesting. The big story this past week is a study released by the Urban Institute in the journal Health Affairs that talks about the apparent success of Massachusetts’s mandated health insurance law, Chapter 58, and how the mandate has cut the number of uninsured resident by fifty percent.
Under Chapter 58, residents are required to show proof of health insurance coverage or pay a fine, while the state will subsidize those who can’t afford health coverage. While the program still seems to have some problems — which we’ll talk about in a moment — the numbers are fairly impressive. In 2006, before the law was enacted, the uninsured rate in the state was 13%. In 2007, after the law was enacted, the uninsured rate was 7%, a drop of fifty percent. These numbers demonstrate promise in the nation’s only universally mandated health care system.
Numbers also released by the Massachusetts Department of Revenue show that 95% of the state’s taxpayers are insured, which is impressive indeed. The numbers of low-income people who had access to care also increased, from 79.5 percent in 2006 to 83.1 percent in 2007. Another important benchmark, people who said they didn’t receive adequate health care due to cost, dropped from 27.3 percent in 2006 to 16.9 percent in 2007, a significant drop. The final number I’ll mention is that among adults who were below the poverty line, and therefore eligible for fully subsidized health insurance, dropped by over two-thirds to around ten percent. This shows promise in that, if healthcare is subsidized and made more affordable for everyone, people will get their basic health care needs met.
Not everything with this plan is rosy, however, and there are some problems. For example, the cost of the program was initially thought to be $725 million, but ended up being $869 million, a $144 million dollar difference. State legislators hope to fill in that gap with a $1-per-pack cigarette tax.
The other big problem I came across in my research was laid out in The Boston Globe. In an article entitled, “A bug in healthcare law: Newly insured outpace available doctors,” author Tanya Perez-Brennan discusses how the lack of available doctors is resulting in long waits for patients seeking even basic health care. Some facilities reported waiting lists in the hundreds of people, while others said the wait was two to four weeks to see a physician.
There are several problems here that Chapter 58 has brought to light, the main being the lack of doctors and the lack of space. According to Dr. H. Carroll Eastman, medical director of the Joseph M. Smith Community Health Center, “We have no room for more doctors and we don’t have more doctors, but we have lots more patients.” The article goes onto say that the new law has brought to light a crisis that has been ongoing for a while in terms of recruitment. However, legislators are now aware of the situation and plan to recruit 100 doctors over the next five years to fill the gaps in the health care system. Overall it sounds like the system is working, despite a few normal bumps in the road.
Moving on from that topic, Google Health and online health records were in the news again this week. In an article entitled, “Is Google site good for your health records?” on Cleveland.com, authors Patrick O’Donnell and John Horton ask some good questions about online services such as Google Health, such as “Do doctors recommend using a service like this?” or “Is Google Health secure?.” The article is presented as a series of questions that any average American might ask of an online service such as Google Health. Overall, the authors seem positive yet skeptical about Google Health and bring privacy concerns into the mix, which has been on the mind of many since Google Health launched.
In a similar article, but from another point of view, author Jeff Cogswell asks, “Online Health Records: What’s the Big Deal?” over on eWeek. He takes issue with, what he terms, the differences between “on the internet,” and “accessible through the internet.” He compares having your online health records the same as going to your bank online and looking at your statement. The difference is mainly semantics, sure, but the author seems worried that people are going to misinterpret that if their records are online, anyone can read them. The author goes on to say that some providers have their own online health records systems that are just as secure as other online systems of this type. I believe the author is trying to put to rest some of the fear-mongering going on by some of the mainstream media, and for the most part I think he’s successful.
Our final bit of news comes from New York Times, in an article entitled, “After Caesareans, Some See Higher Insurance Cost.” In the article, author Denise Grady discusses how some women have either had their health insurance premiums raised, or have been denied health insurance coverage altogether due to prior caesarean procedures. This has led to many women feeling helpless, especially those who didn’t have elective caesareans. With the amount of caesarians at an all-time high of 31 percent of all births, it’s reasonable to believe that this issue will also increase. Health insurance companies vary on coverage from state to state, and a caesarean birth costs more than a vaginal birth — upwards of $2,700 more, states the article — however the treatment of women with caesarians makes them feel discriminated against.
This concludes our weekly Health Insurance News Roundup. I hope you’ve enjoyed it and found it entertaining and informative. Have a happy, safe and healthy day.
Other Health Insurance News Options:
Return to Articles Page.
Massachusetts’ Health Care Mandate a Success? Also, Online Health Records and Other News
Hello, and welcome to this week’s installment of the weekly Health Insurance News Roundup. There was one big story this past week, as well as a few smaller stories that were quite interesting. The big story this past week is a study released by the Urban Institute in the journal Health Affairs that talks about the apparent success of Massachusetts’s mandated health insurance law, Chapter 58, and how the mandate has cut the number of uninsured resident by fifty percent.
Under Chapter 58, residents are required to show proof of health insurance coverage or pay a fine, while the state will subsidize those who can’t afford health coverage. While the program still seems to have some problems — which we’ll talk about in a moment — the numbers are fairly impressive. In 2006, before the law was enacted, the uninsured rate in the state was 13%. In 2007, after the law was enacted, the uninsured rate was 7%, a drop of fifty percent. These numbers demonstrate promise in the nation’s only universally mandated health care system.
Numbers also released by the Massachusetts Department of Revenue show that 95% of the state’s taxpayers are insured, which is impressive indeed. The numbers of low-income people who had access to care also increased, from 79.5 percent in 2006 to 83.1 percent in 2007. Another important benchmark, people who said they didn’t receive adequate health care due to cost, dropped from 27.3 percent in 2006 to 16.9 percent in 2007, a significant drop. The final number I’ll mention is that among adults who were below the poverty line, and therefore eligible for fully subsidized health insurance, dropped by over two-thirds to around ten percent. This shows promise in that, if healthcare is subsidized and made more affordable for everyone, people will get their basic health care needs met.
Not everything with this plan is rosy, however, and there are some problems. For example, the cost of the program was initially thought to be $725 million, but ended up being $869 million, a $144 million dollar difference. State legislators hope to fill in that gap with a $1-per-pack cigarette tax.
The other big problem I came across in my research was laid out in The Boston Globe. In an article entitled, “A bug in healthcare law: Newly insured outpace available doctors,” author Tanya Perez-Brennan discusses how the lack of available doctors is resulting in long waits for patients seeking even basic health care. Some facilities reported waiting lists in the hundreds of people, while others said the wait was two to four weeks to see a physician.
There are several problems here that Chapter 58 has brought to light, the main being the lack of doctors and the lack of space. According to Dr. H. Carroll Eastman, medical director of the Joseph M. Smith Community Health Center, “We have no room for more doctors and we don’t have more doctors, but we have lots more patients.” The article goes onto say that the new law has brought to light a crisis that has been ongoing for a while in terms of recruitment. However, legislators are now aware of the situation and plan to recruit 100 doctors over the next five years to fill the gaps in the health care system. Overall it sounds like the system is working, despite a few normal bumps in the road.
Moving on from that topic, Google Health and online health records were in the news again this week. In an article entitled, “Is Google site good for your health records?” on Cleveland.com, authors Patrick O’Donnell and John Horton ask some good questions about online services such as Google Health, such as “Do doctors recommend using a service like this?” or “Is Google Health secure?.” The article is presented as a series of questions that any average American might ask of an online service such as Google Health. Overall, the authors seem positive yet skeptical about Google Health and bring privacy concerns into the mix, which has been on the mind of many since Google Health launched.
In a similar article, but from another point of view, author Jeff Cogswell asks, “Online Health Records: What’s the Big Deal?” over on eWeek. He takes issue with, what he terms, the differences between “on the internet,” and “accessible through the internet.” He compares having your online health records the same as going to your bank online and looking at your statement. The difference is mainly semantics, sure, but the author seems worried that people are going to misinterpret that if their records are online, anyone can read them. The author goes on to say that some providers have their own online health records systems that are just as secure as other online systems of this type. I believe the author is trying to put to rest some of the fear-mongering going on by some of the mainstream media, and for the most part I think he’s successful.
Our final bit of news comes from New York Times, in an article entitled, “After Caesareans, Some See Higher Insurance Cost.” In the article, author Denise Grady discusses how some women have either had their health insurance premiums raised, or have been denied health insurance coverage altogether due to prior caesarean procedures. This has led to many women feeling helpless, especially those who didn’t have elective caesareans. With the amount of caesarians at an all-time high of 31 percent of all births, it’s reasonable to believe that this issue will also increase. Health insurance companies vary on coverage from state to state, and a caesarean birth costs more than a vaginal birth — upwards of $2,700 more, states the article — however the treatment of women with caesarians makes them feel discriminated against.
This concludes our weekly Health Insurance News Roundup. I hope you’ve enjoyed it and found it entertaining and informative. Have a happy, safe and healthy day.
Other Health Insurance News Options:
Return to Articles Page.