Full Coverage Health Care Insurance

Accessibility to health care includes more than just pre-existing diseases.

The health care system was a universally discussed issue in this year' s politics campaign. What everyone agrees is that it has to do with accessibility. Is it possible to get the care I need when I need it, or are there obstacles such as pre-existing diseases? Those are issues that annoy patient and insurer, among them me in my former position as Health Insurance Chief Executive.

Policy -makers spoke mainly about pre-existing diseases as a means of ensuring health outcomes. However, as a former managing director of the health insurance fund, who is now studying health financing, I think this opinion is too easy. A number of different tiers of accessibility are pertinent - insurance coverage available, affordability of premium, restricted share of costs, adequate number of suppliers and free choices.

Does the account have only one insurance contract? Republikans generally redefine approach in the form of insurance cover, to low premia. In this electoral period, many of them have spoken out in favour of covering pre-existing diseases. They didn't say how the insurance companies would do it. Many believe, however, that the full coverage schemes under the Affordable Care Act go beyond the target as they increase premium levels.

Strip-down schemes recently approved by the Trump Board offer, by definition, adequate accessibility and will be less costly as they offer less coverage. Unfortunately, someone with a past history of cancers will be able to buy one of these, but the real cure for a relapse may well be ruled out to make the plan financial workable.

Though we have not seen many details, it is clear that they will provide significantly lower coverage, so the consumer will be on the move for many costly treatment options. Other than inviolable millennia would not consider this adequate accessibility adequate. What is even more serious is that many buyers of these upgraded schemes do not realise this until it is too late to do so (although large format disclosures are required).

As these low-cost polices draw in a more healthful populace, they will also push up premium rates for all others in an indirect way. Humans are betting against the insurer if they can, and choose more coverage if they are likely to need it, and less if they think that they will be well. Although largely predicated on self-deception, this innate stimulus results in a policy that penalises those who need the most cover most.

That was the trigger for ACA's unique client assignment that everyone must buy a contract that met the required coverage. Keeping sound individuals in the swimming pools is distributed among the health insurance expenses - even for pre-existing illnesses. However, this insurance fragmentation is exactly what caused the initial malfunctioning that restricted our ability to reach many individuals with the most needs.

Tight definitions of "access", combined with idealistic commitments to totally unhindered marketing, even if they disappoint many prospective clients, lead to thisilemma. However, can I also pay the insurance? Also the next levels of acces are afflicted with difficulties. A way in which the employer and the federal administration have managed to deal with higher health care bills is to increase the amount that the policyholders have to pay through highly taxable insurance.

This " share of expense " is an effective way of forcing individual persons and households to become underfinanced insurance societies. The assumption of the start-up expenses is based on the assumption that they will opt for a healthier way of life and will be more diligent in their search for care. Actually, those on low incomes have a tendency to delay the necessary care or make a dishonest claim on suppliers if they cannot afford it.

Responding to this accessibility challenge to reducing otherwise unaffordable funding commitments, the Accelerator compelled insurance companies to provide schemes that subsidised tiered contributions on the basis of the insured's earnings. Now, insurance companies are still obliged to provide these cuts, but the governments have not kept their promises to help them fund them.

Consequently, insurance companies drastically raised premium rates. Thus, there has been maintained availability of working needy who are qualified, but there has been a decline in availability of middle and higher paid workers who now have much higher bonuses. Part of this system manipulated by Yerry, insurance companies and employer have switched to tight networking that restricts the vendors to which the patient has direct contact.

In this way, payors can negotiate lower payments and, to a lower degree, ensure better care for patients. Consequently, as the number of contractors is reduced by employer and plan, it is becoming less and less possible to have full open acces to all suppliers. When you change health insurance or the networks exclude a clinic, doctor or other caregiver, a person has to go somewhere else or make a laugh.

As a result, out-of-network support is an annoying area of individual lack of knowledge and misuse by hungry vendors aiming for much higher prices than usual. Unfortunately, the causes of these problems are not easy. This includes the wish to mitigate demands, to allow choices, to bargain for supplier payments, to promote reactivity, to reap rewards for adequate care and to favour prevention efforts.

The confusion of our present system and the insufficient provision of adequate accessibility may well lead to major changes. Within any given approach, however, there is a need to address these many aspects of accessibility.