Well, there would still be a need for insurance
companies that would be responsible for processing claims and providing
"supplemental" plans as they do for medicare, I suppose.
My recollection, though, is that even though the
government doesn't processs medicare, the system has lot of flaws. It might be
very frustrating for both providers and consumers if there aren't good
information processing systems in place. Maybe Dick or Bill can comment on their
experiences with medicare (part D and otherwise) and the relative ease of
their claims processing to, say, MMIS II which is used for MA
claims?
I, personally, believe that a single payor system
is in the best interest of all, but I'm not sure how we will be able to
transition.
Kathy Seifert
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 8:38
AM
Subject: Re: [Winona] FW: qotd:
Medical-loss ratios oflargestfor-profitinsurers
[Winona Online Democracy]
I agree, but how are we going to do this
when the insurance companies are so powerful with their lobbying? Also
would the drug companies want this type of coverage? I have been told they
are only out to make a buck. Someone I know is in Mexico right now
getting cancer treatments that are not available here. Her dr in
LaCrosse told her if she went to Mexico not to come back to him.
Linda Fort
[Winona Online Democracy]
We clearly need universal coverage and a single payer. Think
"Medicare for all" without hundreds of HMOs involved like the Part D
mess. We must take the middle man out from between the doctor and the
patient. We must simplify the reimbusment process. We must
remove the administrative waste.
Craig Brooks
[Winona
Online Democracy]
Over the years I have heard insurance company
statistics that attribute 15 to 25% of the premium dollars to the cost
of underwriting and issuing the policy. The cost of claim processing
has to be added to that.
Health insurance has traditionally cost
less than casualty insurance probably because of group coverage and
less complicated claim procedures. ----- Original Message -----
From: "Davis, William MD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To:
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 2:28 PM Subject:
[Winona] FW: qotd: Medical-loss ratios of largest
for-profitinsurers
[Winona Online Democracy]
This is
related to our discussion of medical fees and the impact of insurance.
While it looks pretty good that they are spending 76 to 83% of premium
dollars on health care, they are including the cost of processing
claims and selling insurance as though it was being spent on patients.
If you add in the cost of processing the insurance in hospitals and
doctor's offices, the burden for patients is even higher. What is also
unknown is whether companies include the cost of processing claims and
selling insurance in the amount they spend on patient
care. Bill
William Davis
MD [EMAIL PROTECTED] 507.454.5050 ext 623 825
Mankato Ave Winona MN 55987
American Medical News March 6,
2006 Health plans make more, spend less in 2005 By Jonathan G.
Bethely
If physicians needed any more indication of tightening
reimbursement, how about this - not only did profits for the biggest
health plans go up last year, but those plans also continued to cut
the percentage of revenue they spend on care.
The
medical-cost ratio - also called the medical-loss ratio
or medical-care ratio - is the key number for health plans in terms
of their level of profitability. That ratio, simply, is the percentage
of dollars the companies spend on health care.
Whereas 10 years
ago many plans had medical-cost ratios in the high 80s or 90s, now
the highest percentage among large, publicly traded
health insurers is Health Net, at 83.9%. Aetna, which had a
medical-cost ratio well into the 90s when CEO John Rowe, MD, took
over in 2000, recorded a ratio of 76.9% in 2005, Dr. Rowe's final
full year before his retirement. That was the lowest medical-cost
ratio for the nation's largest publicly traded plans.
Medical-loss
ratios for 2005 (Source: Company 10-K, year-end filings with the
Securities and Exchange Commission):
76.9% - Aetna 82.3% -
Cigna 83.9% - Health Net 83.2% - Humana 78.6% - UnitedHealth
Group 80.6% -
WellPoint
http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2006/03/06/bisd0306.htm
Comment:
Clearly, one-fifth of health insurance premium dollars are
not
being spent on health care, but are consumed by the insurers.
What does not show up in these numbers is the cost of the
administrative burden that these insurers place on the health care
delivery system. The billing and insurance related functions for
physicians and hospitals burn up another 12 percent or so of the
premium dollar (Kahn et al, Health Affairs, Nov/Dec 2005).
Add
these together, and that is about one-third of the premium
dollar.
We are very concerned about the continued escalation of
health care costs. New technology and pharmaceuticals are adding to
the spending on physicians, hospitals, laboratories and other health
care services. We fret about these expenditures within the
two-thirds of the insurance premium that actually makes it down to
the health care system, yet we are ignoring the one-third that is
wasted on administrative services that provide no health
benefit for the patient.
We are enriching this industry for
providing coverage for the healthy workforce and their young, healthy
families, and for covering the healthy sub-sector of the individual
insurance market. We taxpayers are footing the bill for the
population subgroups with greater health care needs.
We certainly
are not receiving much value from the insurers - letting them have
the easy stuff at a very high cost. Wouldn't it be more logical
to target their waste, rather than slowing spending growth by making
health
care unaffordable for those who do have needs?
Why do
we keep hearing that eliminating this industry isn't
feasible? You would think that anyone with a modicum of business
sense would believe that keeping them in charge is no longer
feasible.
_______________________________________________ Quote-of-the-day
mailing
list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/quote-of-the-day
_______________________________________________ This
message was posted to Winona Online Democracy All messages must be
signed by the senders actual name. No commercial solicitations are
allowed on this list. To manage your subscription or view the message
archives, please
visit http://mapnp.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/winona Any problems
or suggestions can be directed to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] If
you want help on how to contact elected officials, go to the Contact page
at http://www.winonaonlinedemocracy.org
_______________________________________________ This
message was posted to Winona Online Democracy All messages must be
signed by the senders actual name. No commercial solicitations are
allowed on this list. To manage your subscription or view the message
archives, please
visit http://mapnp.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/winona Any problems
or suggestions can be directed to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you want help on how to contact elected officials, go to the
Contact page
at http://www.winonaonlinedemocracy.org
_______________________________________________ This message was
posted to Winona Online Democracy All messages must be signed by the
senders actual name. No commercial solicitations are allowed on this
list. To manage your subscription or view the message archives, please
visit http://mapnp.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/winona Any problems or
suggestions can be directed to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] If
you want help on how to contact elected officials, go to the Contact page
at http://www.winonaonlinedemocracy.org
_______________________________________________ This message was
posted to Winona Online Democracy All messages must be signed by the
senders actual name. No commercial solicitations are allowed on this
list. To manage your subscription or view the message archives, please
visit http://mapnp.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/winona Any problems or
suggestions can be directed to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] If you
want help on how to contact elected officials, go to the Contact page
at http://www.winonaonlinedemocracy.org
|