The most realistic path to ‘Medicare for All’ says a former Insurance CEO

I said back in 2010 to a healthcare consulting colleague, we will eventually need to consider national health insurance, but it won’t happen. When he asked why, I responded the “Healthcare industrial complex is too powerful.” People forget the reason we have the Affordable Care Act is CFOs were tired of rising healthcare costs to their bottom line.

Healthcare is a complex topic and the ACA added to that complexity. It has since gotten better, but we need to shore it up to stabilize it more, rather continue to allow it to be diminished as its opponents have down for several years.

But, national health care under the banner of “Medicare for All” is worthy of consideration with data and analysis. This retired actuary, benefits consultant and benefits manager supports data driven analysis to improve what we have and consider more substantive changes. JB Silvers, a former health insurance CEO and professor of health care finance at Case Western University, penned an article called “The most realistic path to ‘Medicare for All'” in The New York Times earlier this month. Here are excerpts from the article:

“Much to the dismay of single-payer advocates, our current health insurance system is likely to end with a whimper, not a bang. The average person simply prefers what we know versus the bureaucracy we fear.

But for entirely practical reasons, we might yet end up with a form of Medicare for All. Private health insurance is failing in slow motion, and all signs are that it will continue. It was for similar reasons that we got Medicare in 1965. Private insurance, under the crushing weight of chronic conditions and technologic breakthroughs (especially genetics), will increasingly be a losing proposition.

As a former health insurance company C.E.O., I know how insurance is supposed to work: It has to be reasonably priced, spread risks across a pool of policyholders and pay claims when needed. When companies can’t do those fundamental tasks and make a decent profit is when we will get single payer.

It’s already a tough business to be in. Right now the payment system for health care is just a mess. For every dollar of premium, administrative costs absorb up to 20 percent. That’s just too high, and it’s not the only reason for dissatisfaction.

Patients hate paying for cost-sharing in the form of deductibles and copays. Furthermore, narrow networks with a limited number of doctors and hospitals are good for insurers, because it gives them bargaining power, but patients are often left frustrated and hit with surprise bills.

As bad as these problems are, most people are afraid of losing coverage through their employers in favor of a government-run plan. Thus inertia wins — for now.

But there’s a reason Medicare for All is even a possibility: Most people like Medicare. It works reasonably well. And what could drive changes to our current arrangement is a disruption — like the collapse of private insurance.

There are two things insurers hate to do — take risks and pay claims. Before Affordable Care Act regulations, insurance companies cherry-picked for lower-risk customers and charged excessive rates for some enrollees…”

There is only one solution: pooling and financing many of the risks related to chronic and acute health care issues. A study by my former company noted generally 15% of participants drive 80% of the claims costs in any given year. It may not be the same 15%, but with major chronic issues, some could continue to be in the mix. The principle of insurance is to pool those risks, so that good risks can moderate the higher risks.

The ACA uses the private insurance system, exchanges and expanded Medicaid. Unfortunately, there are about 15 states who still have not expanded Medicaid. Medicare for All would consolidate the risk into one place, eliminating the profit load and reducing the relative administration cost of insurance companies. I have suggested for several years to do a pilot and expanded Medicare eligibility from age 65 to age 62, or even lower. This would let us measure the impact of such a change.

Yet, what we don’t need is this to become political. What people do not realize is the ACA has been sabotaged on several occasions by my former party which drove some insurers out of the market and increased premiums for everyone else more so than they otherwise would have been.

So, let’s cut to the chase and study options. And, politicians should let people who know what they are doing do the analysis. The ACA was made too complex and the exchange roll out was botched. On the flip side, what the GOP did in 2017 was sloppy and poorly staffed, so what was voted on woulf have been harmful to many.