Jeff Melcher, Republican candidate for the Kansas State
Senate 10th District, claims in campaign literature that he is
committed to health care reform “the Kansas way”. He has a three-pronged plan
to “fix health care”. Here it is:
1. Ailment: Individual Health Insurance Costs.
Presumably, the ailment is that costs are too high. The solution fails to
mention family coverage. Melcher’s Cure
is to allow Kansans to buy health insurance across state lines which he claims would
create a larger choice of vendors and available coverage. The broadened
offerings would create “vigorous competition for … health insurance dollars”
bringing premium costs down.
Response:
The only health insurance vendors which I can imagine being added to the pool
of available policies by Melcher’s proposal would be those not presently
offering health insurance in Kansas. Do such insurers actually exist? And, if
they do, why do they not compete now for Kansans business? What kinds of
coverage options would out-of-state companies provide that presently are not available
in Kansas? Is it because the policies they offer do not qualify according to
the review standards of the Kansas State Insurance Commissioner? Is it good
public policy to permit the sale of health insurance policies in Kansas by
companies that are not regulated by the state and might be fiscally unsound. A low-cost,
non-regulated out-of state policy will be a risky proposition, if it doesn’t fully
pay legitimate claims or cancels coverage without recourse. A low-cost policy
regulated by another state that does not have standards that protect consumers
as well as Kansas will not be competing on a level playing field with Kansas
insurers. What would keep companies that now sell insurance in Kansas to forgo
the Kansas regulatory process and sell to Kansans from across the state line? Commissions
collected by insurance salespersons in other states will be income lost to
Kansas agents. Is it true that competition drives insurance premium costs? I
think not- utilization of health care services, health care costs and
negotiated reimbursement rates, and insurance company operating cost efficiency
have a larger impact on health insurance
premiums. Like many proposed solutions, the cure for this “ailment” may sound
good to someone who is not knowledgeable about health insurance, but it is dangerous
for consumers, unnecessary given the regulatory structure of the health
insurance industry and impractical considering the extra costs of bureaucracy
that would be created . Buying insurance “across state lines” would be
practical only if the federal government were to replace the state governments
as the regulators of health insurance policies. Frankly, I’m surprised that
this idea of going out-of-state for health insurance has not been dismissed by
insurance experts as a crackpot idea. Am I missing something?
2. Ailment:
Small Employers Can’t Afford Employee
Health Insurance Coverage. Melcher’s Cure
is “to allow small business to band together to leverage a greater risk pool
when shopping for insurance, making available access to association health
plans for small employers.”
Response: I
know of no Kansas laws prohibiting employers large or small from pooling health
insurance risks. This sounds like a solution looking for a problem that is
thrown into the mix to increase the number of proposed ideas for solutions. As
to the affordability of health insurance coverage, that is a problem for each
employer to address independently. There are basically two ways to control the
employer’s cost: increase the employee’s share of the cost and reduce medical, hospital,
drug, dental or optical or other coverages.
3. Ailment:
ObamaCare Spikes Health Care Costs. Melcher’s Cure alleges that
ObamaCare increases costs, limits choice, and hurts the economy. Melcher
claims, “It must be repealed.”
Response: These are classic complaints by conservatives.
Unfortunately, the facts don’t support their contentions. The Affordable Care
Act actually lowers costs. Choice of healthcare provider, quality of healthcare,
and available medical services are unaffected. The economy will be strengthened
by lowering health insurance costs and by prevention of ailments that decrease the
health and thus the productivity of Americans. Unfortunately his ailment is phony therefore the "cure" is non-sensical.
I wouldn’t call Melcher’s
cures for what doesn’t ail us the Kansas Way. Surely, a Kansas voter is too
smart to buy Melcher’s health care fix that supposedly will “keep the
bureaucrats from getting between you and your doctor.” By the way, where and when
does that happen? Surely there is no third party in the room at any of the
doctors with whom I have appointments. I will rely on my doctors to keep
bureaucrats out of the examining, operating or recovery rooms and not some
politician who attempts to regulate my medical treatment by falsely attacking the Affordable Health Act. Melcher's 'Cures" are nothing but snake oil remedies.
