Monday, August 30, 2004
Kansas surpasses all neighbors except Missouri in new mandate ranking
[Victoria Craig Bunce and JP Wieske, "Health Insurance Mandates in the States 2004," Council on Affordable Health Insurance, July 2004.]
Kansas is home to 37 health insurance mandates. Only Missouri, with 39, exceeds that number. Colordado and Oklahoma each have 35 and Nebraska has 27. While not all mandates are equal, every mandate drives up the cost of insurance. Kansas now ranks 15th in the nation for the number of uninsured in the state. Perhaps it is time to reevaluate the value of the mandates currently in place.
While mandates make health insurance more comprehensive, they also make it more expensive because mandates require insurers to pay for care consumers previously funded out of their own pockets. In some markets, mandated benefits increase the cost of health insurance by as much as 45%.
Mandating benefits is like saying to someone in the market for a new car, if you can’t afford a Lexus loaded with options, you have to walk. Having that Lexus would be nice, as would having a health insurance policy that covers everything one might want or need. But drivers with less money can find many other affordable options; whereas when the price of health insurance soars, few other options exist.
According to a 1999 study conducted by the Health Insurance Association of America (HIAA), as many as one in four individuals who are without coverage are uninsured because of the cost of state health insurance mandates.
Elected representatives find it difficult to oppose any legislation that promises enhanced care to potentially motivated voters. The sponsors of mandates know this fact of political life. As a result, government interference in and control of the health care system is steadily increasing. So too is the cost of health insurance.
In 1965, only seven benefits were mandated by the states; today, the Council for Affordable Health Insurance (CAHI) has identified more than 1,800 mandated benefits and providers. More are on their way. In January 2004 alone, CAHI followed the introduction of 295 new mandates in states across the country. This number only increased as the legislative sessions progressed.
How do state legislators justify their actions? One way is to deny a mandate is a mandate. For example, legislators may claim that requiring health insurance to cover a type of provider — such as a chiropractor, podiatrist, midwife or naturopath — is not a mandate because they aren’t requiring a particular therapy. But if insurance is required to cover the provider; it must pay for the service provided. There is no essential difference in requiring insurance to cover a chiropractor (a provider) or chiropractic care (the therapy).
Another way they justify their support is to assert the new mandate will cost little or nothing. Indeed, legislators and a mandate’s supporters usually claim that mandating a new provider or benefit will save money. But with 1,800 mandates in force we have lots of evidence: mandates virtually always cost money rather than save it.
[Matthew Hisrich, "State Mandates reduce insurance affordability," The Flint Hills Center, May 2004.]
[Victoria Craig Bunce and JP Wieske, "Health Insurance Mandates in the States 2004," Council on Affordable Health Insurance, July 2004.]
Kansas is home to 37 health insurance mandates. Only Missouri, with 39, exceeds that number. Colordado and Oklahoma each have 35 and Nebraska has 27. While not all mandates are equal, every mandate drives up the cost of insurance. Kansas now ranks 15th in the nation for the number of uninsured in the state. Perhaps it is time to reevaluate the value of the mandates currently in place.
While mandates make health insurance more comprehensive, they also make it more expensive because mandates require insurers to pay for care consumers previously funded out of their own pockets. In some markets, mandated benefits increase the cost of health insurance by as much as 45%.
Mandating benefits is like saying to someone in the market for a new car, if you can’t afford a Lexus loaded with options, you have to walk. Having that Lexus would be nice, as would having a health insurance policy that covers everything one might want or need. But drivers with less money can find many other affordable options; whereas when the price of health insurance soars, few other options exist.
According to a 1999 study conducted by the Health Insurance Association of America (HIAA), as many as one in four individuals who are without coverage are uninsured because of the cost of state health insurance mandates.
Elected representatives find it difficult to oppose any legislation that promises enhanced care to potentially motivated voters. The sponsors of mandates know this fact of political life. As a result, government interference in and control of the health care system is steadily increasing. So too is the cost of health insurance.
In 1965, only seven benefits were mandated by the states; today, the Council for Affordable Health Insurance (CAHI) has identified more than 1,800 mandated benefits and providers. More are on their way. In January 2004 alone, CAHI followed the introduction of 295 new mandates in states across the country. This number only increased as the legislative sessions progressed.
How do state legislators justify their actions? One way is to deny a mandate is a mandate. For example, legislators may claim that requiring health insurance to cover a type of provider — such as a chiropractor, podiatrist, midwife or naturopath — is not a mandate because they aren’t requiring a particular therapy. But if insurance is required to cover the provider; it must pay for the service provided. There is no essential difference in requiring insurance to cover a chiropractor (a provider) or chiropractic care (the therapy).
Another way they justify their support is to assert the new mandate will cost little or nothing. Indeed, legislators and a mandate’s supporters usually claim that mandating a new provider or benefit will save money. But with 1,800 mandates in force we have lots of evidence: mandates virtually always cost money rather than save it.
[Matthew Hisrich, "State Mandates reduce insurance affordability," The Flint Hills Center, May 2004.]
Comments:
Post a Comment
