More popular (barely) than oil companies

Are Americans happy with the health care system they have?  Apparently not, according to this survey by the polling firm Harris Interactive.

Harris asked more than 1,000 adults whether they thought various industries are doing a good job.  Health insurers and managed care companies, such as HMOs, ranked near the bottom, with clear majorities of people surveyed saying they are doing a bad job. Only oil companies and tobacco companies ranked lower.

Drug companies also fell near the bottom of the list, barely edging out cable companies.

Among industries connected with health, only hospitals turned up among the higher-ranked sectors.

Thanks to Jane Sarasohn-Kahn at the blog Health Populi for pointing out the results.

Why the low esteem? “Health plans often seem to under-insure us, or their premium increases are passed on to us and we don't want to pay more for what seems to be eroding health services,” wrote Sarasohn-Kahn, a health economist. “Pharma is passing along higher prices for many drugs this year, and is still, well, Big Pharma: not coming up with cures for cancer and Parkinson's, et al., as soon as we want them, in this lagging pipeline period.”

– 08/13/08

I fell for his blue eyes – and his Blue Cross

It’s not like we need more reasons to support universal health care.  For union members, it’s a way of getting our most difficult issue off the bargaining table, letting us focus on wages, job security and other vital needs of our members and retirees.  And for all of us, it’s morally right; we don’t like to see any Americans who can’t get the care that they need.

But while we don’t need another reason, here’s another one anyway: Universal health coverage might prevent hasty marriages.

Some couples have been accelerating plans to get married so one person can get health insurance coverage, The New York Times reported today.  

The Times tells the story of a Louisiana woman with kidney disease who is speeding up plans to get married – despite qualms that she’s moving too fast – so she can get covered by her husband-to-be’s insurance.  (She lost her own insurance when her medical problems forced her to leave her job.  And because she has a serious medical condition, she couldn’t get affordable insurance on her own.)

Insurance problems don’t always push people toward marriage.  The article also reports about a Washington state couple which considered divorce so that the wife, who has a liver condition, could meet the income requirements for state-subsidized insurance.

Beyond the marital and divorce incentives posed by the current health insurance system, the need to get or keep coverage also prompts people to take or stay in a job they don’t want, a condition sometimes called “job lock.”
 

– 08/13/08

Analysis compares candidate’s health plans

Which would end up covering more people?  Which would cost more?

Obama’s plan would extend coverage to some 34 million people when fully implemented, while McCain’s plan would result in coverage for only 5 million, according to a recent analysis by the Tax Policy Center of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, two Washington think tanks.

Overall, Obama’s plan would cover about half of all Americans without health insurance, according to the analysis. McCain’s plan would cover fewer than 10 percent.

And, Obama’s plan costs far less per person to get people covered. Obama’s plan would cost $1.6 trillion over ten years, but McCain’s plan would cost only slightly less, $1.3 trillion, according to the analysis.  The authors called the analysis “preliminary,” and said they would offer a revised version in September.  

“Senator Obama's plan provides far greater ‘bang-for-the-buck,’ spending far less per capita for its coverage of the uninsured population,” according to a summary of the Urban/Brookings analysis by the Economic Policy Institute

The analysis also predicted the McCain plan would lead many small and medium-sized employers to stop offering coverage altogether. And it found the Obama plan would provide the most help to low- and middle-income families.

– 08/11/08

Survey says: Time for serious health system change

A survey of more than 1,000 adults finds more than 8 in 10 think the American health system needs fundamental change or needs to be rebuilt completely, according to a report today from the Commonwealth Fund, a foundation which studies health issues.

The poll shows – as other polls have – that health is shaping up to be a key issue in the November elections. Survey respondents also said it is very important for presidential candidates to address health costs, quality and access.  For CWA’s analysis of how candidates Barack Obama and John McCain plan to deal with health issues, see this "Building a Political Movement" brochure.

A Kaiser Family Foundation poll in June found that health care ranked third among issues voters most wanted to see addressed by the candidates, after the economy and gas prices and the Iraq war. And a separate Kaiser poll reported in July, conducted with NPR and the Harvard School of Public Health in the swing states of Florida and Ohio found that health was closely intertwined with other pocketbook issues which were at the top of voters’ minds.

The Commonwealth poll also showed that many Americans report they can’t get care when they need it, they sometimes get care they don’t need, and they have hassles with billing and insurance claims. Among the findings:

• About three in four people say they have trouble getting timely access to their doctor.

• A third said their doctor had recommended unneeded treatment or ordered a repeat of a test which had already been done.

• More than a quarter of adults said they had serious or very serious hassles with medical bills and insurance claims.

• Across regions, income groups and political parties, overwhelming majorities supported action to improve quality and affordability of health care and to cover the uninsured.

 

– 08/08/08