Showing posts with label Commonwealth Fund. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Commonwealth Fund. Show all posts

Health Insurance Falling Short for More People

Number of underinsured up 60% last year vs. 2003, study finds

By KRISTEN GERENCHER
June 13, 2008 3:38 p.m

Source: wsj.com - The Wall Street Journal

SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- People without health insurance risk potential financial disaster if they should need expensive medical care, but a growing number of underinsured Americans also find themselves on shaky financial ground.

Despite the U.S. economy's growth in the last five years, the number of people with health insurance who face high out-of-pocket medical expenses relative to their incomes has risen sharply since 2003, according to a new study.

More than 25 million working-age Americans were underinsured last year, up 60% from the 16 million who had inadequate coverage in 2003, according to a report from the Commonwealth Fund, a private foundation in New York. The rate of underinsurance nearly tripled among middle- and higher-income families, those with at least $40,000 in family income.

"Lack of insurance is only one part of the problem, as even the insured have serious gaps in coverage," said Karen Davis, president of the Commonwealth Fund. "Insurance coverage is the ticket into the health-care system, but for too many, that ticket doesn't buy financial security or genuine access to care."

The upward trend in the underinsured rate reflects how much rising health-care costs have outpaced wage gains. Premiums for family coverage have jumped 78% since 2001, while wages have risen 19% and general inflation has gone up 17% in that time, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Researchers considered people who had coverage all year long underinsured if they had out-of-pocket medical, prescription, dental and vision expenses that amounted to 10% or more of their total household income, or 5% if they were low income. People who had deductibles equal to or greater than 5% of their income also qualified as underinsured because of their potential financial exposure.

During 2007, 42% of adults, or 75 million people, were either uninsured or underinsured, up from one-third in 2003, according to the study of 2,616 people ages 19 to 64. It was published online Tuesday in the journal Health Affairs.

Similar patterns to uninsured

Employers burdened by rapidly rising health-care costs have been shifting more of those costs to workers or limiting benefits, the study found. The underinsured were more likely to have individual or small-group coverage, and those with employer-based health insurance were more likely to work in low-wage jobs or at small firms than their adequately insured counterparts. What's more, the underinsured were more likely to report paying high deductibles and many paid high annual premiums.

The underinsured often resembled the uninsured more so than the insured in their health-care choices and experiences. More than half of the underinsured -- 53% -- and 68% of the uninsured avoided needed care because of cost, compared with 31% of the adequately insured who went without, the study found. That includes not seeing a doctor when sick, not filling prescriptions and not getting recommended diagnostic tests or treatments.

About 45% of the underinsured reported difficulty paying medical bills, being contacted by collection agencies or changing their way of life to keep up on health-care payments, just shy of the 51% of uninsured who said the same.

In the U.S., even people with health insurance can rack up medical debt or face bankruptcy, said Cathy Schoen, senior vice president of the Commonwealth Fund. "As a nation we are losing ground. We need to move in new directions."

Leon Rousso, a certified financial planner in Ventura, Calif., who sells health insurance as part of his business, said he tries to place moderate-income people in health plans that have a sensible annual out-of-pocket maximum and reasonable coverage for their biggest potential out-of-pocket costs. Sometimes that means moving them to a higher deductible plan in exchange for lower premiums.

Of course, many people have to take whatever their employer offers them, he said.

Insured people "don't really have a lot of clout," Rousso said. "Middle to lower middle class, that's really where the vulnerable spot is. You see a lot of people who don't have a lot of money."

Those who shop for their own plan are wise to look for coverage of big-ticket items. Rousso advised focusing on financial protection for hospitalization charges and prescription drugs.

"Those are the biggest places to lose your fortune," he said. "It's all about protecting your assets."

Many of the underinsured are in scaled-down, more affordable health plans, said Nancy Davenport-Ennis, chief executive of the nonprofit Patient Advocate Foundation in Newport News, Va. The group tries to help people with chronic, debilitating and life-threatening conditions get the care they need, with 78% of its annual cases involving cancer patients.

"We actually found that an underinsured consumer has a tougher time getting to resources than a completely uninsured consumer," she said.

The underinsured are often in plans that have limits such as dollar caps on diagnoses and specific services and restrictions on the number and kind of drugs covered, which can undercut the kind of aggressive care many cancer patients count on, Davenport-Ennis said.

"In affordable plans, it's almost standard to see a cap on the number of radiation visits you can have a year - somewhere between 12 and 15 -- while most cancer therapies that have radiation as part of the treatment protocol historically require six consecutive weeks of daily treatments," she said. "If you're capped at 12, you're going to be a private-pay person for the next 18."

The Patient Advocate Foundation offers free case management for health-insurance issues of the seriously ill. Its hotline is 1-800-532-5274.

Controversy over cost controls

The U.S. spends enough on health care -- 16% of its gross domestic product -- to extend adequate health insurance to all, said Alan Sager, a health policy and management professor at Boston University's School of Public Health.

"It's something everyone wants and deserves, and crafting durably affordable health care is essential to rebuilding the economy," he said.

"If we continue to accelerate toward the cliff, we'll be spending more money on care but will have more uninsured and underinsured people, which means hospitals and doctors will work harder to overserve those of us who still have good insurance."

In Massachusetts, a statewide reform law passed in 2006 that aimed to cover all residents "took an important step" but introduced new tensions, he said, especially around politically palatable cost-control methods. Many of the ones currently in vogue in national politics as well won't do the trick, Sager said.

"The ideas that are under widespread political discussion -- electronic medical records, prevention, chronic-care case management or deinsuring patients so they will be more motivated to shop by price and quality -- none of these things will work to contain costs," Sager said. "They're all being pushed because they offer the shallow political promise of containing costs without actually disrupting business as usual in health care. Business as usual in health care means regular, large infusions of more money every year."

Still, Sager said he's optimistic that the next five years will bring major improvements in the nation's health-care system.

"We all know we're medically vulnerable because none of us is going to live forever, but as more of us realize that we're also financially vulnerable, we'll demand change and [solutions] that work financially, medically, ethically and politically."

Write to Kristen Gerencher at kgerencher@dowjones.com

States' Scorecard Finds Big Differences in Kids' Health Care

By Steven Reinberg
HealthDay Reporter
Wednesday, May 28, 2008; 12:00 AM

WEDNESDAY, May 28 (HealthDay News) -- The quality of children's health care in America varies widely from state to state, as does their access to insurance and care and the likelihood of living long and healthy lives.

That's the conclusion of a new scorecard produced by the Commonwealth Fund, a private foundation that seeks to promote better health care for all Americans.

According to the scorecard, if all states performed as well as the top few states:

an additional 4.6 million children nationwide would have health insurance; 11.8 million more children would get their recommended yearly medical and dental check-ups; 10.9 million more children would have a "medical home" -- a regular source of care; 1.6 million fewer children would be at risk for developmental delays;and nearly 800,000 more children would be up-to-date on their vaccines.

Iowa, Vermont, Maine, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire are the top performing states, according to the report, while Arizona, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Jersey, Nevada and Texas are at the bottom.

"States and the federal government have a very high stake in ensuring that children are healthy," Commonwealth Fund President Karen Davis said during a teleconference Tuesday. "In fact, more than one-third of children in the United States receive health care funded by the federal government as well as the 50 states and the District of Columbia."

The report,U.S. Variations on Child Health System Performance: A State Scorecardwas released Wednesday.

There are 28 million children covered by Medicaid and 6 million covered by the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), Davis noted. And the key to providing health care to children is insurance, Dr. Edward L. Schor, the Commonwealth Fund's vice president for child development and preventive care, said during the teleconference.

"In this study, we found a four-fold difference in the rates at which children are uninsured," Schor said.

The number of uninsured children varied widely across the states, from a low of 5 percent in Michigan to a high of 20 percent in Texas. States that had the most insured children tended to have the highest scores on quality of care, Schor said.

If all states performed as well as Michigan when it came to providing insurance, then 4.6 million more children would have health insurance, Schor said. "That would cut the rate of uninsured children in half," he said.

Using vaccinations as a measure of access to care, the scorecard again found substantial variation among the states, Schor said. "In Massachusetts, 94 percent of children were up-to-date on their immunizations, whereas in Nevada it was only 67 percent," he said.

Another key is having a "medical home" -- a regular source of care, Schor said. "Whereas 77 percent of children in New Hampshire had a medical home, in Mississippi, 34 percent had a medical home," he said. "We know that children who have a medical home have a better quality of care."

The scorecard took into account 13 indicators of children's health, including access, quality, costs, equity and the potential to lead a long and healthy life. While no state scored high on all categories, some regions surpassed others. For example, states in the Northeast and Upper Midwest often ranked higher in several areas, while the lowest rankings were in the South and Southwest, the report found.

Studies have shown that in states with high numbers of uninsured children, those children are less likely to get recommended health care, vaccines, dental care and regular checkups. These children are also at greater risk for developmental delays and infant mortality, Davis said.

But even in the highest-ranking states, quality of care falls short of goals, the report noted. In Massachusetts, the top-ranked state in quality, 75 percent of the children were seen by a doctor and a dentist in the past year, compared with only 46 percent of children in Idaho.

"One of the major efforts states can take to improve quality of care is to provide health insurance coverage to children, particularly low-income children," Davis said. "States that do a good job on that are among the states that are highest ranked on the various dimensions of quality of care. They are also the states that tend to do well on equity measures to help ensure that minority children and low-income children have better access to care and better quality of care".

One expert believes it's essential to increase funding for Medicaid and SCHIP to get more children covered by health insurance.

"We think this is a great report and it shows what we have been trying to show for a long time, which is how important Medicaid and SCHIP are to children's health," said Jenny Sullivan, a senior health policy analyst with the nonprofit, nonpartisan health care advocacy group Families USA. SCHIP legislation was enacted in 1997 to cover children in low-income families.

More information

To read the full report, visit the Commonwealth Fund.

SOURCES: May 27, 2008, teleconference with Karen Davis, president, and Edward L. Schor, M.D., vice president, Child Development and Preventive Care, The Commonwealth Fund, New York City; Jenny Sullivan, senior health policy analyst, Families USA, Washington, D.C.;U.S. Variations on Child Health System Performance: A State Scorecard