|
Health Access Weblog
|
On top of student loans...
Sunday, April 20, 2008
We are coming close to high school and college graduations, so it's a good time to spotlight this post by Henry Stern on InsureBlog on student insurance. The young are the most likely to be uninsured, and what is offered to them isn't a very good value. The post spotlights a very typical student policy that will leave some students will have significant medical debt even before graduation. Labels: MedicalDebt, OtherBlogs, Underinsurance, YoungAndUninsured
posted by Anthony Wright |
Permalink |
2:38 PM
a
The young and the restless...
Monday, October 29, 2007
Aurelio Rojas in the Sacramento Bee has a terrific story about the young and uninsured, which Robert in Monterey at Calitics comments on extensively. As we stated on this blog previously and in the article, twentysomethings are the biggest slice of the uninsured, but's it not because they don't want coverage: it's that they are more likely to be low-income, to work at jobs that don't provide coverage, to not be eligible for public programs. When offered coverage, they take it up at similar rates as other age groups. The question is whether we can offer coverage that is affordable, available, and administratively simple. Labels: InTheNews, YearOfReform, YoungAndUninsured
posted by Anthony Wright |
Permalink |
12:07 PM
a
Graduating into insecurity...
Thursday, June 14, 2007
With Anita Grier, president of the City College of San Francisco, I had an op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle today on how graduates (and young people in general) are likely to find themselves uninsured... and how health reform options might provide some relief and security. Young folks know these issues. The young voted overwhelmingly for Proposition 72 in 2004, more than any age group. If they turned out in Californian at the same levels they did nationally, that significant health reform proposal, which got 49.2% of the vote, would have passed. The young have a big stake--and need to have a big impact--in the debate in Sacramento this year. I've reprinted the op-ed below. New Graduates Fly Without a Safety Net
by Anita Grier and Anthony Wright
Congratulations, grads. Revel in these last few days while you are still cocooned and cared for in your families and school communities. After graduation, your search for the basics to support your life will be more precarious and risky. That's because graduation also means almost 400,000 of these young adults (younger than 24) will be cut off from health insurance under their parents' plans or from their universities. A report by the Commonwealth Fund (www.commonwealthfund.org) showed that 2 out of 5 college graduates are uninsured after they leave school. In California, 20-to-29-year-olds make up the largest percentage of uninsured, at 29 percent. Now some critics say that it is their fault. They think young people are slackers, or don't care about their health, or are spending a fortune on the pleasures of the here and now. They are wrong. Young people tend to pick up coverage at the same rates as other age groups. For many new grads who are out looking for work, it's an even harder job to find affordable health coverage. According to the most recent California Health Interview Survey (www.chis.ucla.edu), young adults are four to five times less likely to be eligible for health care on the job, compared with adults in all other age groups. Why? Young people starting their careers now face a changed job market, with an increased reliance on temporary workers, subcontractors, part-time workers and extended probation and waiting periods. What's more, 20-to-29-year-olds are more than twice as likely to be in jobs that don't offer coverage at all. So what's a young person to do? If you've shopped for insurance as an individual lately, you already know the answer. Insurance companies don't have to sell you coverage, when you're buying on your own. If you've got a "pre-existing" condition, you're out of luck -- and your "condition" could be something as common as ear infections -- when you were a toddler. Of course, if you can find a company that will sell you insurance as an individual, be prepared to take out a health insurance loan (to go with your student loans now coming due). Health insurance for individuals is expensive (when you can find it). Let's take a typical, healthy 23-year-old with a liberal arts degree (the top degree in the state), with an entry-level position that would earn about $35,000 in San Francisco. The young adult would have 101 plans to choose from: a "typical" low-end plan starting at around $50 a month. What does $50-a-month buy you? No coverage for primary care visits, no prescription drug coverage (which means no birth control or antidepressants) and no maternity. Women are allowed OB/GYN examinations but must pick up at least 25 percent of the cost of the office visit. So what are you paying for? Coverage that doesn't kick in until you've spent at least $1,500 for a deductible. Deductibles for these "less expensive" plans can be $5,000. Blue Cross has an entire line of products dedicated to twentysomethings, called "Tonik" with high-deductibles and no coverage for what a young person is most likely to need -- maternity. By contrast, the average single California worker who receives coverage on the job pays the same amount, but receives more comprehensive benefits -- such as a fixed co-pay for doctor's visits, and prescription drug coverage. Young adults who want traditional, comprehensive plans that many of us get on the job, they would have to pay no less than $90 a month and up to $410 a month. For new graduates beginning their careers with entry-level salaries and loads of student loans, asking them to pay $46 a month for a policy they can't be used until they've spent at least $1,500 is unreasonable. They're practically paying to be uninsured. Blaming their lack of insurance on them because they can't afford a richer plan is unfair. We should be focused on systemic changes to ensure that we all share the responsibility of making sure that Californians, young and old, get good, affordable health care. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and leaders in the state Legislature have started that process. We need to make sure they follow through with real health-care reform this year. A long-standing proposal that could help all Californians -- not just young adults -- is SB840 by state Sen. Sheila Kuehl, which would create a universal, single-payer, Medicare-like system in California. The proposals of Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez and Senate President Pro Tempore Don Perata make it more likely for young adults to achieve on-the-job coverage by setting a minimum employer contribution of 7.5 percent of payroll on both full-time and part-time workers' health care. Other reforms in the discussion that would help young adults include: reforming the insurance market for people who must buy coverage on their own; expanding public health programs; guaranteeing that coverage is affordable to buy and use; and setting a minimum standard for insurance packages -- rather than promoting and encouraging bare-bones plans. Policymakers could also take a cue from other states, such as New Jersey and Utah, which require private insurance to cover dependent children up to a higher age -- 25 or 28 years old, as they pursue higher education. As for this year, no "break a leg" wishes when your senior goes up to get her or his diploma. In the current state of health care, that could be one expensive wish. Labels: InTheNews, YearOfReform, YoungAndUninsured
posted by Anthony Wright |
Permalink |
12:56 AM
a
Young folks: I want my MTV coverage!
Friday, March 30, 2007
New York magazine has a must-read article for anybody over 30 (and a great read for those under 30). There's only one problem: the title. The article is heartbreaking in describing the problem: young people who are students, part-time workers, just starting their careers, who are not offered employer-based coverage, don't qualify for public programs, and with low-incomes and high rents can't afford to buy it as individuals. The situation seem particular acute for places like New York and California. This statement could just as easily be about the Golden State:
“A lot of the professions that draw young people to New York—everything from retail to the arts to restaurants to software development—tend to have spottier coverage,” says James R. Tallon, the president of the United Hospital Fund, a health-care think tank. Even large corporations are increasingly reluctant to offer coverage. (At a company like MTV, for instance, many full-time employees work in a nebulous state of hourly wages and no benefits, an arrangement that can last years.) But while the article describes all these situations where the current system places young people in these no-win situations, the piece is entitled, "The Young Invincibles," using the insurance industry term, and accepting their premise. With those three words, it suggests that folks "choose" to be uninsured. If people actually read the text, you have Andrew Kuo, a 29-year old painted who "made a vow to be insured by the time he turned 30." And here's one anecdote:
Nichole Schulze, a 31-year-old former publicist and current student at the Fashion Institute of Technology, was quick to rattle off a battery of quasi-logical preventive measures: “You won’t see me snowboarding or mountain biking or even jaywalking. My friends think I’m a freak because I’m the only person in New York who actually waits until the light changes to cross the street. Oh, and I eat a kiwi every morning because I read somewhere that they contain twice the vitamin C of oranges. And if it’s snowing? I’m the one walking on the inside of the sidewalk, just in case a cab decides to swerve and hop the curb.” Should any of these methods fail? “I carry an expired Blue Cross card in my wallet. You never know, maybe they’ll think I have insurance and I’ll get better care.”
Doesn't sound like they feel invincible to me. Labels: YoungAndUninsured
posted by Anthony Wright |
Permalink |
5:48 PM
a
Would Blue Cross' Tonik cover ass herpes?
Friday, March 16, 2007
a
Tonik or Snake Oil?
Thursday, March 15, 2007
My colleague Hanh's post about the 22-year old restaurant worker who spoke at the Assembly Republican press conference on health reform has gotten some attention, on blogs such as the California Progress Report and Working Californians and others. It's an important story: Here's a young woman who wants to be insured (so much for the "young immortal" myth), but has barriers in her way. She doesn't get health coverage at the job (and thus would be helped by some standard for employer-based coverage). To get coverage, she has no other choice but to go into the open market, and her broker steers her to Tonik, a Blue Cross product. You can find out more about the product at the marketing website, here:  It is a controversial product. It markets to young, healthy people, has aggressive underwriting to weed out anybody who might be sick, offers them a high deductible plan with skimpy benefits. Blue Cross gets to collect premiums without paying out very much in health care services. It's a great deal for them, but what about for the young consumer? Are they truly getting value for their dollar? When he was Insurance Commissioner, Lt. Gov. Garamendi spotlighted the plan for criticism in his 2005 report, "Priced Out: Health Care in California." On page 27, he talked about the exclusion of maternity coverage, and specifically mentioned that it would be "predictable" that these premium-paying people would end up on Medi-Cal or Access to Infants and Mothers (AIM): So the most likely reason that a 22-year old woman might visit a hospital--pregnancy--won't be covered by this plan. (It seems she would benefit from a minimum benefit standard.)  This plan is so silly it was featured on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. I wish I could link to the Ed Helms segment, but copyright issues have taken it off the Internet. It makes fun of an attempt of a big insurance company to clumsily cater to young people--but also makes an important point about why young people are--or are not--uninsured. It had the best health care policy chart that I have ever seen, which indicated the reasons that young people are uninsured. One half of the pie chart read "TOO POOR"; the other half read "TOO SICK"--a short ways to talk about "pre-existing conditions." A small sliver in the middle simply read, "TOO EXTREME"--the apparent target audience for this product.
It 's both silly and sad at the same time. Labels: YoungAndUninsured
posted by Anthony Wright |
Permalink |
11:04 AM
a
Paying to be Uninsured
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
YI just got back from the press conference held by Assembly Republicans to unveil their health proposal, where they showed how their plans would help small businesses and young people. The young person featured was a nice 22-year-old named Suzanne Hernandez who is enrolled in Blue Cross' "Part-Time Daredevil" Tonik plan, which has a $3,000 deductible. Miss Hernandez doesn't get coverage through her employer -- Lucille's Smokehouse BBQ in Rocklin. The restaurant industry, she explained, often does not offer benefits and most employees don't work full-time, which means they wouldn't qualify for benefits anyway. (First off, the solution here would be to require businesses to provide coverage to both full- and part-time workers. Then, Miss Hernandez wouldn't be on her own.) The Tonik plan, she said, gives her 4 doctors visits a year for a $30 co-pay. That's what she needs ....for now. As a young woman, though, she might need maternity, I said. What would happen if she got pregnant? Her broker stepped in and said Blue Cross actually allows Tonik enrollees to roll into a higher deductible plan -- $5,000 a year -- which includes maternity. And childbirth, the broker said, costs a lot more than $5,000. But $5,000 on a part-time job at a restaurant still seems kind of expensive, I said. Well, said the broker, there's social programs for that, called AIM -- Access for Infants and Mothers. That's right -- a person that doesn't have adequate insurance through Blue Cross should enroll in Access for Infants and Mothers -- a state program for low-income women who have deductibles that are too high, the broker said. The last time I looked, Access for Infants and Mothers was a government program -- the kind that Assembly Republicans said today they didn't really think would work. I wonder what they would think if they knew that part of this Blue Cross business model -- as advised by the broker -- relied on social programs to provide the rest of the health coverage that the insurance company itself does not provide. Labels: Insurers, Sacramento, Underinsurance, YearOfReform, YoungAndUninsured
posted by Hanh Kim Quach |
Permalink |
1:29 PM
a
First take on the Assembly Republican proposal...
It’s good that the Assembly Republicans have agreed there’s a need to fix the problems in health care, even if we disagree with many of the solutions. Some of their proposals—like raising Medi-Cal rates—make sense and are necessary. But many of the proposals would serve to undermine consumer protections and ultimately take the health out of health insurance. We need to reduce costs, but not at the price of reducing care and coverage. As even insured Californians grow concerned that their coverage won’t be there when they need it, these proposal go in the wrong direction, providing less security for families. The entire section on “maximizing choice” is focused on offering what many would consider a bad choice: watering down coverage by either reducing benefits or increasing deductibles. They find an impressive number of ways to accomplish the goal: On benefits, one proposal would allow out-of-state plans, not subject to California’s consumer protection laws, to be able to operate here unregulated. (Would you like a plan regulated by the Alabama Department of Insurance?) Or they would allow plans sold without any minimum benefit standards, without covering cancer screenings, pap smears, or diabetic supplies. (The point of insurance is not having to guess what disease or ailment you might have, but to be covered regardless.) They also have several bills to encourage high-deductible plans, through tax credits for Health Savings Accounts (which can only be used with plan of $5,000 deductibles or more). While even some proponents have said that such plans only work for the “healthy and wealthy” (and opponents sometimes question that, these proposals would encourage such “underinsurance” for public employees (through CALPERS), low-income families (through Medi-Cal), and even more stunningly, those with “pre-existing conditions.” This would actually serve to make coverage worse for many Californians. There are other ways to contain costs, other than simply shifting them to consumers. Here’s a whole list, on the Health Access website… There are things worth looking at in the Assembly Republican proposal, even if one or two of them seem to already be in existing law. For example, allowing small businesses to band together to get better rates on coverage makes sense: California had a purchasing pool for small employers, unfortunately this privatized program shut down last summer with little notice and less explanation. Similarly, increasing the number of nurses is a good idea: there have been several efforts to do this but more could be done. And there are things worth exploring like allowing employers to buy coverage that is both health insurance and the medical side of workers compensation. And while we don’t think that high deductible plans make much sense for most people with pre-existing medical conditions, we agree that guaranteeing coverage is available for people with health conditions is the right step to take. So we welcome the Assembly Republicans to the debate, even if consumer group disagree on key points. Labels: YoungAndUninsured
posted by Anthony Wright |
Permalink |
8:32 AM
a
Of pirates and snowboarders...
Thursday, February 15, 2007
 I testified today at the Senate Health Committee's hearing, chaired by health care champion Senator Sheila Kuehl, on Governor Schwarzenegger's health proposal. My colleague Hanh will post a more full run-down of the discussion, but here's my first take: I was impressed that the Senators zeroed in on the right questions about health reform: What is affordable for consumers? Who ultimately bears the risk? The legislators seemed to get the point of health reform is to provide a benefit, not a burden, to individual patients and families. If voters continue to remind them and hold them accountable, the prospects of positive reforms this year are good. The two most vivid images invoked by the Senators was of insurers as pirates, and of 23-year old surfboarders as slackers. My point in testimony was that as we define the problem, that leads to different solutions. And I think the pirate insurers are a much bigger problem than snowboarders.  SNOWBOARDERS: As I have said before, the vast majority of Californians desperately want coverage. Even young people: see my earlier post, in defense of the young: http://www.health-access.org/2006/12/young-californians-unite-more-on.htmPIRATES: So the Governor's plan is a good start when it attempts to remove barriers Californians face to coverage through employers, public programs, or the private individual market. It's good to place some clear basic rules of the game for the insurers that actively work to avoid covering people who might actually need care. You can't simply require people to buy coverage all alone as individuals without consideration for ability to pay, a defined and meaningful benefit, the power of group purchasing, or shared risk with an employers or a public program. But it seems that some key legislators, at least, understand those questions. More later. Labels: YoungAndUninsured
posted by Anthony Wright |
Permalink |
2:51 PM
a
Young Californians, Unite! More on the Manifesto...
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
Over on the Sac Bee Crossroads blog on Healthcare, I refute the much-cited argument (by many, not just by Assemblyman Richman) about young people not caring about being insured: So let me be the one confront one of my pet peeves, blaming young people to provide justification for an individual mandate: Here’s this quote from the opening essay by former Assemblyman Richman: “Young healthy adults, 18-34 years old, are the largest single demographic segment of the uninsured and account for about 40% of uninsured adults. This population with low health care needs collectively believes it is not economically worthwhile to purchase costly insurance.”
He’s right that young people are more likely to be uninsured, but wrong about the reason. It’s simply not supported by the data, which shows: * Young people are more likely to be low-income, just starting out their careers. * They are more likely to work at jobs that do not provide health coverage to their workers (McDonald’s, Wal-Mart, etc) * They are more likely to be in the first several months or years of employment, and thus not qualify for their employer’s health benefits. * They are less likely to qualify for Medicaid, since they are less likely to have dependant children at home.
These are the reasons young people are more likely to be uninsured, not because they don’t want it. The most recent CHIS (California Health Interview Survey) data shows that when offered, young people take up coverage at the same rate as older people. They have similar rates of uninsurance if you account for income and job type.
Yet the mythical problem of the “young invincible” leads policy folks to propose an individual mandate, which as we have written (in a paper on the Health Access website) is not just unwarranted, but unworkable and unwise. (http://www.health-access.org/expanding/docs/access.project.Ind.Mandate120406.pdf)
Most importantly, miscasting the problem leads to unfortunate solutions. We should be focused on systemic changes to extend dependent coverage, get more employers to provide health coverage, to expand public insurance programs, or to create a universal system like Medicare or the VA. Young folks get this: they overwhelmingly supported Prop 72, because they see themselves or their friends working but not having coverage, and the consequences, even for those that are healthy. Young people aren’t the problem, they are the solution.Twenty-somethings are the base support for any health reform, and they need to be engaged and active in this debate. Part of a young people's health agenda would be extending dependent coverage. Speaker Nunez sponsored such a bill in 2005, one that Health Access California supported, with some interest from groups like Rock the Vote. Other states, most recently New Jersey and Massachusetts, have raised the age that a dependent child can stay on their parents' health insurance. With young folks seeking more education and otherwise staying at home longer, it's a small but important step. Our 2005 bill summary shows the fate of the bill, AB1698(Nunez): it was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger. We'll see if this is another idea that he may reconsider, as part of a broader package. Labels: YoungAndUninsured
posted by Anthony Wright |
Permalink |
10:19 PM
a
Webmaster: webmaster@health-access.org
|
|
|
Anthony Wright is the executive director, |
| with a background as a consumer advocate and community organizer on many issues, including health issues for the last ten years in California and New Jersey. |
|
|
|
Hanh Kim Quach is the policy coordinator; previously serving as |
| a newspaper reporter covering the Capitol for the Orange County Register and other papers for eight years |
|