Age- rating in insurance companies-current health care legislation

[nightrain]

Column by Martha Burk on Huffington Post, July 16, 2009

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/martha-burk/aarps-bait-and-switch-on_b_235766.html



The Senate health committee has approved its version of a health care bill, largely tracking the House version requiring Americans to get health insurance, with some subsidies to the poor to help them afford coverage.

The Senate finance committee, where the going is likely to get a lot rougher, has yet to act. They have to figure out how to pay the tab and still garner at least a couple of Republican votes.

The health committee bill would establish a number of stringent federal health insurance rules to replace the hodge-podge of state regulations. Insurers couldn't deny coverage to people because of their claims experience or sex. Coverage couldn't be denied because of pre-existing conditions either.

And what about age? Here comes the rub -- there's something called "age rating" that has sparked all-out warfare between groups that advocate for older Americans. We're not talking about those old enough for Medicare -- they're likely to remain largely untouched by whatever is approved.

It's the "young old" -- those between 50 and 65 -- who are going to get zapped big time if age rating goes into effect. Essentially it means older folks will pay some multiple of the premiums charged to younger people for the same coverage, just because of their age. Since everybody knows older people are more likely to have pre-existing conditions, it's a back door way to replace exorbitant premiums for prexisting conditions with exorbitant premiums for being older.

But it still ain 't fair. A healthy 55 year old who works out and watches what she eats could be asked to pay double what a 30 year old 350 pound person with diabetes and arthritis would get hit for.

The Leadership Council of Aging Organizations (LCAO), a coalition of 60 national not-for-profit organizations concerned with the well-being of people over age 50, has sent a letter to the Senate finance committee arguing that age rating should be ditched altogether. They point out that for most people of modest means who wouldn't qualify for subsidies, the age-rating schemes could push premium costs to as much as 25% of pre-tax income.

The letter was signed by about half of LCAO's member groups -- not including the 900 pound gorilla AARP. Seems AARP wants to allow this blatantly age discriminatory policy to go forward. True, they would limit it to maybe having 50-somethings pay no more than twice the premium of younger people for the same coverage.

Sounds like they're saying a little bit of age discrimination is ok, as long as it doesn't go too far.

The Older Women's League fought hard to get enough sign-ons to send the letter. That's because the plans would particularly affect older single women, already lower on the income scale and less likely to have employer coverage. They rightly pointed out that if gender rating was on the table, every women's group would be raising holy hell.

So where are the rest of the advocates for those over 50? AARP already rakes in megabucks from its supplemental insurance business - you figure it out.

Profits over people - it's the American way.

---------------------

Pay attention people....

[Autumn]

1. I think I figured it out,

we might be screwed. No surprise there.

[backscatter712]

4. Time to talk reconciliation.

There's a reason why both the Senate HELP bill and the House bill are engineered to be deficit-neutral: reconciliation. I don't know if the White House is actually going to use reconciliation, but as it stands, it's our equivalent to the nuclear option - as long as the bill does not increase the deficit, it only needs 50 votes. We don't have to actually use it, we can just threaten to use it, and the Rethugs will be coerced into saying something other than "No!"

[Schema Thing]

2. that's not why it isn't fair...

it isn't fair because now is the time to admit that we're either all in this together, or we're not.



age is not a choice, it's a pre-existing condition; and that term needs to be stricken from the American vernacular.

[slipslidingaway]

3. kick...

to find later.

[bhcodem]

5. Age rating already exists

I believe all current individual health plans already use age rating as well as gender rating. It's all based on actuarial tables. Even though the basic premiums go up every year the age factor also comes into play to increase the cost.

[nightrain]

6. yep. sure. do we want that to continue and to be applied

to "health care reform"? I say no.

[lumberjack_jeff]

7. I'm almost 50

I think that age rating is fair. Older people like me *do* use healthcare more frequently.

The system is going to become compulsory. If we're going to force people to pay for their own coverage, it is reasonable and fair that the premiums reflect, to some degree, their own risk.

I find it a little ironic, that after advocating for health care reform for 25 years, I'll get less than 10 years use out of it before I start getting medicare.

[nightrain]

8. well, babies and children use a fair amount

of healthcare for accidents and unexpected care, and so do teens with type 1 diabetes or people of younger age who have other chronic conditions. Shall we charge them more too? If a person comes into the world with a condition that will require more care, maybe we should charge them more too? People who have chronic "psychiatric" conditions? or someone who develops cancer? or ??

Hmm.... how about looking at how Taiwan or Canada or England handle people who need "more" care.

Seems rather unfair to require the "ill"/"infirm"/"challenged in some way" to pay more. How about empathy, taking care of your neighbor, we're all in it together?

How about getting rid of "premiums", and have a reasonable percentage of income to be paid regardless of what challenges a person comes in with/faces. Like the kinder and gentler approach rather than a punishing approach.

A large risk pool shares the risk most of us will eventually experience. I think we can do universal coverage without bankrupting/shaming people.

Aging is a pre-existing condition.


(uh oh, putting on flame protection now)

[lumberjack_jeff]

9. It all becomes a question of which actuarial factors are prudent.

One of the main problems with the current system is that EVERY actuarial factor is used, enabling insurers to reject any customers which pose any risk of claims. (or quote them a $5,000 a month premium)

The other end of the spectrum is having everyone pay the same premium. I could live with this, but given the political considerations (the need to convince 20-somethings that a system of compulsory insurance is good for them) I think taking age and gender (as HR3200 does) into consideration is a good idea.