"Short-term customers boosting health costs; Lesson for US overhaul in gaming of Mass. system" by Kay Lazar, Globe Staff | April 4, 2010
Thousands of consumers are gaming Massachusetts’ 2006 health insurance law by buying insurance when they need to cover pricey medical care, such as fertility treatments and knee surgery, and then swiftly dropping coverage, a practice that insurance executives say is driving up costs for other people and small businesses.
In 2009 alone, 936 people signed up for coverage with Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts for three months or less and ran up claims of more than $1,000 per month while in the plan.
Are you kidding? That's it? A few million bucks?
Their medical spending while insured was more than four times the average for consumers who buy coverage on their own and retain it in a normal fashion, according to data the state’s largest private insurer provided the Globe....
Yeah, I'm really feeling sorry for them:
The Massachusetts Model: Blue Cross Turns Green For Killingsworth
I'm TIRED of the GAME, folks!
Also see: The Massachusetts State Budget
See where the money is coming from and where it is going, dear readers?
The phenomenon is likely to be repeated on a grander scale when the new national health care law begins requiring most people to have insurance in 2014, unless federal regulators craft regulations to avoid the pitfall....
Well, WERE THEY NOT in the BILL?
WTF?!!!!
Yup, Congress shoved that thing up your ass without even reading it, America!!
How could it be SO VAGUE after SO MUCH TIME and EFFORT, huh -- unless it was ON PURPOSE!
The INSURANCE INDUSTRY WROTE the BILL!!
The problem is, it is less expensive for consumers — especially young and healthy people — to pay the monthly penalty of as much as $93 imposed under the state law for not having insurance, than to buy the coverage year-round. This is also the case under the federal health care overhaul legislation signed by the president, insurers say.
Problems?
What problems with a bill we are going to love so much when we finally know what is in it?
Governor Deval Patrick recently filed legislation that state regulators believe will help fix the problem, by restricting insurance enrollment to twice a year for people who buy on the open market and allowing waiting periods before coverage kicks in. But insurers say stronger action is needed. Consumer advocates caution, however, that many people who sign up for short-term coverage may merely be between jobs.
State doesn't give a rat's ass about your excuses, 'er, problems.
When state lawmakers overhauled the health care system in 2006, they combined into a single insurance pool consumers who buy coverage on their own with those who get insurance through their jobs at small businesses that employ 50 or fewer people. The aim was to make insurance more affordable for the individuals buying coverage on their own, who tended to be sicker and therefore had been paying very high premiums. And the hope was that having small businesses and their workers absorb some of the cost of covering this group would raise their premiums only modestly. But insurers now say that it didn’t work as planned, and that consumers who work for small businesses have ended up shouldering a much larger burden....
Yup, NOTHING EVER WORKS OUT the way GOVERNMENT PLANNED, ever notice that?
And then they wonder why we DON'T WANT THEM "HELPING" US!!!
Consumer advocates said they aren’t convinced that a lot of people are gaming the system, and they said that many of the individuals buying on the open market are likely those who are between jobs, new to the state, or have some other legitimate reason to buy coverage for a short period. They said that before the state makes it harder for consumers to buy coverage, there should be reliable data showing the extent of the problem....
Oh, there ISN'T EVEN ANY EVIDENCE for this AGENDA-PUSHING, FRONT-PAGED PoS???
Sigh.
--more--"
I'm feeling sick now; better go buy some coverage.
