Diagnosis for Mass. health care: Pricey
Since Massachusetts reformed its health care system in 2006, it's achieved almost universal insurance coverage. But a new study says the overhaul is being undermined by rising costs and other issues. Janet Babin reports.
A doctor reads a blood pressure gauge during an examination of patient at the Codman Square Health Center in Dorchester, Mass. (Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
More on Health
TEXT OF STORY
Kai Ryssdal: Since Massachusetts overhauled its health-care system in 2006, the state has gotten almost universal insurance coverage. But a new study shows that the program, which is supposed to cut health costs, does come at a price. Marketplace's Janet Babin reports from North Carolina Public Radio.
JANET BABIN: The survey found that more residents than ever had access to health care in 2008. But they had a harder time paying the bills. And low-income patients had trouble getting in to see specialists. The physicians either weren't taking new patients or wouldn't accept the type of health insurance they had.
Jon Kingsdale is with Massachusetts Health Connector, the agency that helps residents find health care. He says now that the state has conquered universal coverage, it has to improve on cost and quality.
Jon Kingsdale: Once you solve part of this very complex set of problems, you then probably exacerbate some other problems and need to focus. So that's exactly what we're doing in Massachusetts.
The state program requires companies to make fair and reasonable contributions to employee health care. And residents have to buy their own insurance if they can afford it.
The state plan is touted as a model for national health-care reform.
But the survey found that the program fails to address one of the major contributors to rising health-care costs: people who use the emergency room when they can't afford to see a doctor.
Bill Roper is CEO of the University of North Carolina health-care system. It serves low-income patents, many of them uninsured.
Bill Roper: We're drowning in a tidal wave of indigent care. We have lots of customers, and some of them pay us.
Roper says even with its flaws, the Massachusetts system is far better than health care in the rest of the country. The survey was published in the journal Health Affairs.
In Durham, N.C., I'm Janet Babin for Marketplace.
Comments
Comment | Refresh
From LA, TX, 06/01/2009
Howard Dean is correct.
"a"(Toothy, Robust)"public health insurance option is more important than bipartisanship, and Democrats should pass health-care legislation that includes the option with 51 votes if necessary."
"Democrats should have "no intention" of working with Republicans if it's not the strongest possible legislation that could be passed with a simple majority." (Howard Dean)
This is what WE THE PEOPLE gave the Democrats all that power to do for us.
jacksmith -- WORKING CLASS
From Los Angeles, CA, 05/29/2009
The reason why the costs are rising so high in Mass. is not, as these so-called experts like to try and sell us, procedures & prices but it is the fact that the private insurance industry was retained as an option. THAT is the root of the problem. In every instance, everything else is addressed except for the elephant in the room which is ALWAYS the private insurance industry and it's + $12.655 BILLION in net profit of just the top 7 co's. The 1/3 of every healthcare dollar that goes directly to profit & paper pushing costs required to administer the private insur option and of course the CEO compensation in these co's that rival that of AIG's, et al. People who can no longer afford that private option (which continues to escalate in price) go into the public option filling the public option with the sickest and most expensive and therein lies the root of the escalating cost of this public/private idea. The solution is quite obviously a SINGLE PAYER solution - to any civilized human being with even a thread of grey matter where numbers and the economy are concerned. instead of spending $$$$ on more studies and more bandaids and more manipulation to avoid doing the hard but right thing, just f-g get rid of the private insurers. Period.
From Spring, TX, 05/29/2009
It was a foregone conclusion that the Mass. experiment in "universal" health coverage would run out of money )and still not achieve universal coverage) eventually. The reason? The private health insurance companies are still involved, and all those customers are just a captive audience for them. No wonder some Mass. residents would rather pay the fine and go without insurance. Also to be noted is the fact that before this plan went into effect Mass. had the highest percentage of insured people of all the states.
From Houston, TX, 05/29/2009
Only single payer national health can control costs, keep quality high and provide universal health care. For-profit health plans must be eliminated. All other industrialized nations have some form of national health insurance that prohibit for-profit health plans from playing a role except for supplemental coverage (i.e., private hospital room, experimental treatment). They spend half as much as us but have as good or better outcomes and cover everyone. The only difference is that they don't allow for-profit health plans in their system. Having a public option but keeping for-profit private health plans creates a Frankenstein system that won't work to control costs.
05/29/2009
We still need a single payer system.
05/28/2009
Why not ask hospitals and insurance companies to be transparent about what they charge? Why not require hospitals to send you a single bill with the complete bill instead of sending you several different broken bills from all the subcontractors? Would you buy a computer from Dell if you were to receive bills from the case, motherboard, CPU, memory, disk drive, and video card manufacturers? Why do we have to put up with that from the hospital? When the insurance company pays the hospital, they get a discount which is roughly 1/3 of the marked price; why don't you get told what exactly is paid? Why don't hospital disclose costs for typical procedures as restaurants do on their menus? Why don't we require hospitals and health insurance companies to be transparent and not hold the information asymmetry (the insurance company and hospital know everything about you, yet you are not worthy of knowing the costs/prices and what really is done to you).
05/28/2009
Why not ask hospitals and insurance companies to be transparent about what they charge? Why not require hospitals to send you a single bill with the complete bill instead of sending you several different broken bills from all the subcontractors? Would you buy a computer from Dell if you were to receive bills from the case, motherboard, CPU, memory, disk drive, and video card manufacturers? Why do we have to put up with that from the hospital? When the insurance company pays the hospital, they get a discount which is roughly 1/3 of the marked price; why don't you get told what exactly is paid? Why don't hospital disclose costs for typical procedures as restaurants do on their menus? Why don't we require hospitals and health insurance companies to be transparent and not hold the information asymmetry (the insurance company and hospital know everything about you, yet you are not worthy of knowing the costs/prices and what really is done to you).
Post a Comment: Please be civil, brief and relevant.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. All comments are moderated. Marketplace reserves the right to edit any comments on this site and to read them on the air if they are extra-interesting. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting.
You must be 13 or over to submit information to American Public Media. The information entered into this form will not be used to send unsolicited email and will not be sold to a third party. For more information see Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.