Did President Obama “Lie” When He Said “If You Like the Policy You Have, You Can Keep It”? Context Is Everything

Posted on by

How many times have you heard that the President of the United State “lied” to the American people when he said “If you like the policy you have, you can keep it?”  Even some liberals have swallowed this Republican talking point.

In December, Politifact, the Tampa Times Pulitzer-prize-winning online fact-checker, went so far as to name Obama’s  statement “the lie of the year.”

Since then, the story has generated headlines like this one: ““Reporter Asks Obama, “What’s It Like to Be Called Liar of the Year?” 

What most people don’t recall is that in 2008 m when President Obama first uttered those fateful words, Politifact—the very same fact-checking organization– graded his statement as “True.”

What is going on here?

                          Context: Who Was Obama’s Audience?

It should come as no surprise that Obamacare’s opponents ripped the president’s original statement out of context. This was easy to do because so few people remember the third Obama/McCain debate that took place in Hempstead, New York, on Oct. 15, 2008.  During this debate then-Senator Obama uttered the words that would haunt him: “you can keep your plan.”  

A transcript of the debate reveals what he meant. In response to a question from the debate’s moderator, Obama laid out a thumbnail sketch of healthcare reform:  “Here’s what my plan does. If you have health insurance, then you don’t have to do anything. If you’ve got health insurance through your employer, you can keep your health insurance, keep your choice of doctor, keep your plan.”

Obama had said something similar in his second debate with McCain a week earlier, in Nashville Tennessee.  “If you’ve got health care already, and probably the majority of you do, then you can keep your plan if you are satisfied with it. You can keep your choice of doctor.”

Few remember that when Obama assured Americans that the Affordable Care Act would not interfere with the benefits they had, he was addressing “the majority” of insured Americans–people who worked for large companies that offered comprehensive coverage.  More than two-thirds of the American work-force is employed by firms with more than 100 workers, and at the time, 99% of large companies offered health benefits.  He was not talking to the 5% of Americans who purchased their own coverage in the individual market, or the 17% who were covered by a small firm. (Only 35% of the U.S. work-force is employed by small companies and less than half of those firms offer health insurance.)

                 Context: What Was the Issue Obama and McCain Were Addressing?

In  2008 when Americans who had good health benefits at work heard the phrase “healthcare reform,” many worried that this would mean a “government takeover” that would eliminate their employer-sponsored plans. In short, they feared a single-payer system. Obama was trying to reassure them that this wouldn’t happen.

At the time, Politifact understood that this was the concern that Obama was addressing.  Here is what Politifact’s Angie Holan wrote in October of 2008:

“Obama is accurately describing his health care plan here. He advocates a program that seeks to build on the current system, rather than dismantling it and starting over. People who want to keep their current insurance should be able to do that under Obama’s plan. His description of his plan is accurate, and we rate his statement True.”

Continue reading →

Did the Administration Conceal the Fact That Millions Would Have to Replace Their Insurance With A New Policy?

Posted on by

At the end of October NBC’s Lisa Myers and Hannah Rappleye broke the story: “millions of Americans are getting or are about to get cancellation letters for their health insurance under Obamacare, say experts, and the Obama administration has known that for at least three years. Four sources deeply involved in the Affordable Care Act tell NBC News that 50 to 75 percent of the 14 million consumers who buy their insurance individually can expect to receive a ‘cancellation’” letter or the equivalent over the next year because their existing policies don’t meet the standards mandated by the new health care law. One expert predicts that number could reach as high as 80 percent. And all say that many of those forced to buy pricier new policies will experience ‘sticker shock.’

“Buried in Obamacare regulations from July 2010,” Myers and Rappleye reported, “is an estimate that because of normal turnover in the individual insurance market, “40 to 67 percent” of customers will not be able to keep their policy. That means the administration knew that more than 40 to 67 percent of those in the individual market would not be able to keep their plans, even if they liked them.”

In fact, NBC’s investigative team did not t need four unnamed sources “deeply involvthe ACA” to tip them off that millions of customers would be receiving these notices.

Three years earlier Health & Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius had called a press conference to announce that under the ACA, 43 million Americans working for small companies” would be moving to new plans.   Labor Secretary Hilda Solis joined her to explain that the new plans would give workers “all of the protections of Obamacare.” 

In a press release HHS spelled out the numbers: “roughly 42 million people insured through small businesses will likely transition from their current plan to one with the new Affordable Care Act protections over the next few years,” along with “17 million who are covered in the individual health insurance market.”  .

What about President Obama’s promise that “If you like your plan you can keep it”?  As I explain it the post above, when he first made this pledge, he was addressing “the majority” of insured Americans who worked for a large companies where they received generous benefits. These were the folks who “liked their plans,” and in a debate with Senator McCain, he was reassuring them that health reform would not mean dismantling employer-based insurance and moving to a single-payer system. But over time, candidate Obama made the mistake of letting his pledge turn into a sound bite. At that point, it became easy for his opponents rip that line out of its original context, and brand him a liar.

In 2013, when reporters claimed that people who received the “cancellation letters” were blind-sided, they ignored the fact people in the individual market often lost their policies. As HHS observed in its 2010 press release: “roughly 40% to two-thirds of people in the individual market normally change plans within a year,”  in part because carriers in that market routinely discontinued  policies.  Inevitably, the replacements they offered costs more and/or covered less. As a result,  Americans who purchased their own insurance were accustomed to scrambling, year after year, to find new coverage.  In the fall of 2013, neither they, nor reporters who knew anything about the individual market, should have been shocked when so many policy-holders discovered that they would not be able to renew their plans..

Was the News “Buried” In Obscure Obamacare Regulations?

Hardly. The New York Times covered the press conference in its A1 section, noting that, “the rules appear to fall short of the sweeping commitments President Obama made while trying to reassure the public” that they “could keep their current coverage if they like it.”  But, as the Times reported, the administration explained that  “this was just one goal of the legislation.” Another goal was to make sure, as Labor Secretary Hilda Solis put it when responding to a question “that insurers don’t take advantage of their customers.” 

Originally, the Affordable Care Act had stipulated that if an insurer sold a plan before March 2010, when the ACA passed, the carrier could continue to renew that plan—even if it didn’t meet the ACA’s standards. But reformers did not want to give carriers carte blanche. As Sebelius explained at the press conference: If, after 2010, insurers (or employers) made dramatic changes to a plan, hiking deductibles or reducing benefits (“for instance, deciding to stop covering  treatments for say, HIV/AIDS or cystic fibrosis,”)  it would be considered a new plan.  At that point, the insurer would no longer be able to renew the policy and would have offer a replacement that met the ACA’s requirements for consumer protection.

Back in June 2010 the New York Times was not the only major media outlet that publicizing the rules: Fox News issued a “Special Report,” which claimed that “up to 80 percent of small businesses and 64 percent of large businesses may have to give up the plans they had today within three years,” The Report even included a video of Sebelius making the announcement.

Yet in October of 2013 Fox would claim that the press conference never happened.  On Fox & Friends, co-host Steve Doocy charged that the administration hid the facts.  “Back in 2010, they knew millions would lose [their coverage], and they didn’t say a word!”

Okay, I understand that most folks at Fox don’t start their day by skimming the New York Times. But don’t they watch Fox News?

Continue reading →

An Obamacare “Horror Story” That Just Isn’t True: How Did This Happen? Part 2

Posted on by

For months, health reform’s opponents have been trumpeting tales of Obamacare’s innocent victims – Americans who lost their insurance because it doesn’t comply with the ACA’s regulations, and now have to shell out more than they can afford – or go without coverage.

Trouble is, many of those stories just aren’t true.

Below I posted about a Fort Worth Star Telegram article that leads with the tale of Whitney Johnson, a 26-year-old new mother who suffers from multiple sclerosis (MS). Her insurer just cancelled her policy, and according to Johnson, new insurance would cost her over $1,000 a month.

That claim stopped me in my tracks. Under the ACA, no 26-year-old could be charged $1,000 monthly – even if she has MS.

Obamacare prohibits insurers from charging more because a customer suffers from a pre-existing condition. This rule applies to all new policies, whether they are sold inside or outside the exchanges.

At that point, I knew that something was wrong.

When I checked the exchange – plugging in Johnson’s county and her age – I soon found a Blue Choice Gold PPO plan priced at $332 monthly (just $7 more than she had been paying for the plan that was cancelled). Co-pays to see a primary care doctor would run just $10 ($50 to visit a specialist) and she would not have to pay down the $1,500 deductible before the insurance kicked in.

My radar went up: Recently, I have been reading more and more reports regarding “fake Obamacare victims.”

Now I couldn’t help but wonder: Who are these folks in the Start-Telegram story? The paper profiled four people who supposedly had been hurt by Obamacare. When I Googled their names I soon discovered that three (including Johnson) wereTea Party members.

The paper describes them as among Obamacare’s “losers,” but the truth is that they didn’t want to be winners. Two hadn’t even attempted to check prices in the exchanges.

Meanwhile, it appeared no one at the Star-Telegram even attempted to run a background check on the sources, or fact-check their stories. I couldn’t help but wonder: “Why?”

The answer will surprise you.

Johnson finds affordable insurance …

When I tried to phone the reporter, she didn’t return multiple calls. Finally, I reached an editor at the paper. He told me that  both Yamil Berard, the reporter, and her editor were out of the office. I expressed my concern that inaccuracies in the story would discourage readers who were thinking about signing up in the exchanges. He suggested that I sounded like an “advocate” for Obamacare.

To my surprise, two hours later he called me back.

He had just received an internal email, he told me, which revealed that Whitney Johnson had found affordable insurance for $350 a month – just $25 more than the premium on her cancelled policy, and roughly what I thought she would pay in the exchange.

I asked the editor if he could send me a copy of the e-mail. “No,” he replied “It’s an internal memo.”

Would the paper publish a follow-up, acknowledging that Johnson would not have to pay $1,000 for coverage?

“I’m not sure what we’ll do with it.” He sounded cautious.

The Star-Telegram Doesn’t Tell Its Readers

To this day – more than a month after the story appeared – the Star-Telegram still hasn’t  published a follow-up, explaining that under Obamacare, no 20-something – including Johnson – will be charged $1,000 a month.

I then contacted Johnson, who confirmed that she had found a $350 Blue plan outside of the exchange. Based on the details she provided, I managed to locate it. (The premium is actually $347.92 a month.)

It turns out to be very similar to the exchange policy I had found. The premium is higher, but the deductible ($1,000 instead of $1,500) and co-pays for medications ($10/50/100 vs. $35/75/150) would be slightly lower. The provider network would be the same (Blue Choice).

The exchange plan offers a stronger safety net, and for someone with MS this could be important: If her husband’s income drops, or he loses health benefits at work, they would immediately be available for a subsidy. Because her new policy is not on the exchange, they would have to wait until open enrollment in November 2014 to sign up for a 2015 plan with subsidies.

I Talk to the Story’s Editor–and the Reporter 

Next, I spoke to Steve Kaskovich, the editor who assigned the story to Berard. He explained that he had asked the reporter to write a piece about people whose policies were cancelled, and as a result were “caught in the quagmire.”

I originally wrote this post for www.null.com, an independent website (not connected to the insurance industry)where I, Wendell Potter, Hal Pollack, LInda Bertghold  and Louise Norris all blog.

To read the rest of this post click  here / and “Scroll down to Editor: Find People Caught In a Quagmire.” There you will discover what the editor had to say. When I finally talked to the  reporter, the truth came out. You can also hear me talking about the Star-Telegram piece –and problems with the way the media has been covering health care reform on NPR’s “Eye on the Media” . Click here: 

Obamacare “Horror Stories”–Who Are These People? How Many of These Stories Are True? Part 1

Posted on by

No doubt you have seen or read stories about innocent Americans who have become casualties of Obamacare. The law that was supposed to help middle-class families is now asking them to pay unreasonable premiums and sky-high deductibles. In many cases, they had perfectly good coverage that has been cancelled because it didn’t meet the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA’s) “standards.”

Trouble is, some of these anecdotes  just aren’t true. When an unbiased  reporter begins to make some phone calls, they start to fall apart.

Nevertheless,  these tales of Americans harmed by Obamacare  are being promoted by various conservative groups–including the Republican National Committee.  An internal RNC memo provides advice on how to collect stories of “victims” and feed them to the press.

Knowing this, when I read the horror stories,  I can’t  help but wonder: have the folks who are quoted checked prices on their Exchange?  Do they know  whether they are eligible for government subsidies?   How many didn’t  even try to find out because they just don’t like the ACA?  Who are these people who step forward to  identify themselves victims of the trainwreck called Obmacare? Where did they come from? How did the reporters who wrote the stories find them?

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, are journalists  fact checking their tales? How many are just writing down whatever their sources tell them?

          A Young Mother Suffering From MS Searches For Insurance

A few weeks ago, I stumbled upon a story that ran in the Fort Worth Star Telegram on November 26. The lead is compelling:

“Whitney Johnson, an Arlington 26-year-old with multiple sclerosis, can’t afford to go without health insurance. Her life depends on it.

She gave birth to her first child Sept. 2 after undergoing a series of rigorous steroid treatments, surgeries and a plasma exchange that saved her life. She pays $325 a month for an individual insurance plan – a drop in the bucket compared with the cost of her plasma protein replacement therapy, which runs $40,000 a pop. She undergoes treatment every five weeks.

But now, with the Affordable Care Act in full swing, Johnson’s insurance is under threat.. . .

Recently, the story  explains, Johnson’s insurer sent her a letter saying that because her policy “does not comply with Obamacare” it will be cancelled Jan. 1, 2014. Initially she hoped that she might shift to her husband’s employer-based health plan  For $325 a month, it covers him and their son. But it  turns out that if Whitney were added the policy, their premium would triple.

Meanwhile, she “has been unable to access the federal health exchange website” the newspaper reports, “which has been hampered by technical problems.”

In a video talking about her experience,  Johnson claims  that when she began “trying to shop around ‘ outside the Exchange, “the rates went from $1,000 to $1,800 a month for not even close to the coverage that my previous  insurance had offered me.”

This is when I knew that there was something very wrong with Johnson’s story.

                        $1000 a Month To Insure a 26-Year- Old ???

Anyone who knows anything about Obamacare would realize that under the ACA, no 26-year-old would be asked to pay $12,000 a year – even if she had MS. Obamacare does not let insurers charge more because a customer suffers from a pre-existing condition. This rule applies to all new policies, whether they are sold inside or outside the exchanges.

And Johnson is just 26. In most exchanges, 20-somethings pay far less than older Americans.  I was certain that that she could get a much better deal. It didn’t take me long to find one.

Continue reading →

The Media’s One-Sided Coverage of Obamacare

Posted on by

Why does the media continue to insist on promoting the conservative meme that “Obamacare is a disaster”? Today Bloomberg ran a story headlined “Health-Care Law Support Hits New Low, Poll Shows

The piece begins: “Support for President Barack Obama’s signature health-care law has reached its nadir, according to a CNN/ORC International poll released today. The survey shows 62 percent of Americans opposing the law, the highest total since CNN began polling on the issue in March 2010. Just 35 percent favored it. The health-care law has been plagued by a faulty website, hindering efforts to log in and buy insurance, and by the revelation that millions of Americans could not keep their health insurance as Obama originally promised.”

It would be more accurate to say: “Support has been plagued by a faulty website—and a media determined to bury the good news while exaggerating the bad news.”

The very next sentence of the Bloomberg piece illustrates what I’m talking about: “Of those opposing the law, 15 percent said the legislation didn’t go far enough.” (If you actually look at the poll, you will find that pollsters were more explicit: 15% said the law was “not liberal enough.)  Bloomberg continues: ““Another 43 percent said the measure was too liberal based on Republican proposals such as the health-care measure championed by then-Gov. Mitt Romney in Massachusetts.”

Here is a more accurate, cleaerer  lead:  “50 percent of those polled either like the law (35% ) or think that it isn’t liberal enough (15%).”

It also is worth noting that the percent of people who think the ACA isn’t liberal enough is rising: in May 11% said the law wasn’t sufficiently progressive; last month 14% voiced that complaint. In other words, as more people learn about the details of Obamacare, more think that it’s too conservative.)

That’s quite different from the lead the reporter chose: “The survey shows 62 percent of Americans oppose the law.” Most readers would assume that means 62% are opposed to reform, when in fact 50% either support reform or would have liked a more progressive bill.

A balanced story would emphasize that the country remains deeply divided about the overhaul of our health care system. That should have been the headline: “Half of all Americans Support Legislation Sixteen percent thought they would be “better off” while 40% said they expected to be about the same.”Designed to Make U.S. Healthcare Better, More Equitable, and More Affordable.”

Continue reading →

Nelson Mandela’s “Lethally Effective Political Cocktail of Charm, Respect, Integrity, Pragmatism and Hard-Nosed Sense”

Posted on by

Below, an excerpt from “Nelson Mandela’s Legacy.”  The author, John Carlin, is a senior international writer for El Pais, and  the author of Playing the Enemy: Nelson Mandela and the Game That Made a Nation, the basis for the film Invictus directed by Clint Eastwood and starring Morgan Freeman and Matt Damon.  The article appeared in the December 7 issue of the The Cairo Review of Global Affairs

This is far and away the best piece that I have read about Mandela. (Hat tip to Clifton Leaf for calling attention to it on Twitter. I urge everyone to read it

“Mandela had the same effect on practically everyone he met. Take the case of General Constand Viljoen, who in 1993, with the path set for multiracial elections a year later, was anointed leader of South Africa’s far right, charged with heading “the white freedom struggle.” Viljoen, who had been head of the South African Defence Force between 1980 and 1985, travelled the country organizing what he called armed resistance units, others called terrorist cells. Mandela reached out to him through intermediaries and the two men met in secret at his home. Viljoen, with whom I have talked about this encounter, was almost instantly disarmed. Expecting a monster, having conditioned himself to regard Mandela as a fearsome Communist with little regard for human life, Viljoen was dumbstruck by Mandela’s big, warm smile, by his courteous attentiveness to detail (‘Do you take sugar in your tea, General?’), by his keen knowledge of the history of white South Africa and his sensitivity to the apprehensions and fears white South Africans were feeling at that time. When the two men began discussing matters of substance, Mandela put it to him that, yes, he could go to war and, yes, his people were more skilled in the military arts than black South Africans; but against that, if it came to race war, black South Africa had the numbers, as well as the guaranteed support of practically the entire international community. There could be no winners, Mandela said. The general did not disagree.

“That first meeting led to another, then another. Viljoen succumbed to Mandela’s lethally effective political cocktail of charm, respect, integrity, pragmatism and hard-nosed sense. He called off the planned ‘armed struggle’ and, to the amazement of the South African political world, he agreed to take part in the all-race elections of April 1994, thereby giving his blessing to the political transformation Mandela had engineered, agreeing to the peaceful hand over of power from the white minority to the totality of the population. Viljoen won a parliamentary seat in representation of his freshly formed rightwing Freedom Front and I remember watching him on the day the new, all race parliament was inaugurated. Mandela was the last to enter the chamber and, as he walked in, Viljoen’s eyes settled on his new black president. His face wore an expression that could only be described, I thought at the time, as adoration. I asked him when we talked some years later whether I had been right in that description and he said I had been. The retired general also reminded me that before taking his seat on that inaugural parliamentary occasion Mandela had broken protocol by crossing the floor to shake hands with him. What had Mandela said to him? ‘He said, “I am very happy to see you here, general’.” And what did the general reply? ‘I said nothing. I am a military man and he was my president. I shook his hand and I stood to attention.’”

A Note to HealthBeat readers:

Carlin points out that “The big truth about Mandela is that  . . . he achieved the historically rare feat of uniting a fiercely divided country.”

This led me to reflect: Might someone emerge who possesses the character, generous vision, and hard-nosed pragmatism needed to unite the deeply polarized nation that we live in today?

Lord knows, during his first term, President Obama struggled to find common ground with Republicans. But he did not persuade them. I have argued that conservatives are simply too angry—and too scared by the changes they see coming– to listen to reason. Yet surely the South African Defence was just as angry, and just as scared.

But Barack Obama’s first term began when he was just 47. Nelson Mandela became president of South Africa when he was 76. No one could expect the younger man to possess the older man’s wisdom. Twenty-seven years in jail had given Nelson Mandela a great deal of time to think; his spirit and his resolve were forged in that purgatory. Mandela’s  life experience had put him in a unique position to shape history.

Obama also left his mark on our society. Obamacare will change health care in America, and given the strength of the opposition, it is a miracle that the legislation survived.

If Obama had been older and wiser, could he have brought this nation together back in 2008?

I would say “No. ”Mandela enjoyed a critical advantage: “Both he and General Viljoen knew that “if it came to [a] race war, black South Africa had the numbers . . .”

Even today, hard-liners in the Republican Party do not realize that the majority of Americans reject their far-right creed.  Not yet. They still think that they represent the majority—that they are the majority, that this is their country– and for that reason they are not ready to yield an inch.

 

 

Next Year, Will Your Employer’s Insurance Cover 62 Services and Products with No Co-Pay or Deductible? How Much Will You Save?

Posted on by

Under the ACA,  some 62 preventive services and products will be free: no copays and the deductible will not apply. The list includes vision checks for children, birth control, and more than a dozen vaccines.

This rule will hold true not just for plans sold in the exchanges, but for most employer-sponsored plans. Under Obamacare, they, too, must offer preventive care without cost-sharing – unless they are “grandfathered.” (Grandfathered plans are policies that existed before the ACA was passed in 2010, and that have not made substantial changes to benefits or cost-sharing since then.)

This year, just 36 percent of Americans who have health benefits at work are enrolled in a grandfathered plan,, down from 48 percent in 2012 and 56 percent in 2011. Each year, more plans will lose their grandfathered status. 

The ACA’s list of preventive services and products covers most of the reasons that many of us visit a physician – for blood pressure checks, cholesterol checks, flu shots, mammograms, tetanus shots, Pap smears or colorectal cancer screening.

Some of us go to the doctor because we want help losing weight, or quitting smoking. Counseling and smoking cessation products – including nicotine patches – all make the list.

If we feel sad, and don’t know why, we may want to be screened for depression. Under Obamacare, this is a free preventive service. If you are a new mother who is feeling blue – or a 60-year-old man who just doesn’t want to get up in the morning – and your primary care physician (PCP) determines that you are depressed, he will send you to a someone who can provide counseling andor medication. The initial consultation with your PCP is free.

Preventive care for kids

As parents, we take our children to doctors for a host of reasons – often because we want advice. “What should I feed a plump six-year old?” “My 14-year-old doesn’  like to leave his room-and he is being teased at school. Should I be worried?”

The ACA lists 25 preventive services for children, including diet counseling, depression screening for adolescents, , oral health risk assessments for children under age 11, behavioral and developmental assessments,  vaccines to protect against 12 diseases, obesity screening and counseling, flu shots and tetanus shots.

      How Much Will You Save? Why Should Men Pay for Contraception?

A woman who uses birth control m”ay save up to $600 a year.

Some men are not happy that part of their insurance premium will pay for contraception. “I’m single and I never plan to have children” one HealthBeat reader grouses. “Why should I pay for it?

There are many answers. But here is an easy one: Women use more preventive services when they are younger, but as men age, the fact that they didn’t go to the doctor for blood pressure screening – or help losing weight – catches up with them. According to the Health Cost Institute, healthcare spending for women exceeds spending for men until age 60. At that point men’s healthcare becomes more costly.  

This is when healthy women begin subsidizing men. Of course, much depends on how long an individual lives. If a fit 70-year-old woman survives until she is 95, she may, in the end, cost society more than an overweight man who has a knee replacement, suffers from diabetes, and dies of heart disease at age 75.

But over the long run, these things even out. Different people need more care at different points in their lives. This is how insurance works: over time, we subsidize each other.

I originally wrote about preventive care on Healthinsurance.org. To  find out more about how much you will save, and how free preventive care affects the maximum that you will ever be expected to lay out under Obamacare click here  and scroll down to “Most Won’t Exceed Their Deductibles.”

Under Obamacare, Will Out of Pocket Spending Be Higher?

Posted on by

Not long ago, the Fear-Mongers were warning that under the Affordable Care Act, insurance premiums would spiral, causing “sticker shock.” Then the rates were published, and it turned out that, thanks to transparent markets in the exchanges, insurers had to compete on price, and premiums are lower than expected.  

But don’t worry, reform’s opponents haven’t run out of talking points. (I expect that long after most of the country has begun to enjoy the benefits of Obamacare, out-of-touch conservatives still will be muttering to themselves – rather like Japanese officers who held out in the jungles of the Philippines after WW II ended, unable to accept the fact that they had lost the war.)

In search of a new meme, they have latched onto the idea that, in the exchanges, customers will face “Staggering Out-of-Pocket Costs.” Sure, premiums may look low they say,, but wait until you try to use the policy and find yourself laying out $6,000. . Not long ago, Fox News summed up the argument: If the policy you bought in the individual market is cancelled because it doesn’t conform to the ACA’s rules, and you are forced to purchase coverage in an exchange, co-pays and deductibles will soon make you realize that the ACA is really “The Unaffordable Care Act.” 

Fox picked up the theme from a Bloomberg News story that went viral:“Obamacare Deductibles 26% Higher Make Cheap Rates a Risk,”  the Bloomberg headline screamed. As evidence, Bloomberg pointed to a survey of seven states, done by HealthPocket Inc., that compares the average deductible a consumer will face if he purchases a Bronze Plan in an Obamacare exchange to the average deductible in the private-sector market where 5 percent of Americans have been buying their own coverage. (These are the policies that are disappearing because they don’t meet the ACA’s standards.)

It turns out that the survey greatly exaggerates out-of-pocket spending in the Exchanges by focusing only on Bronze plan.  Meanwhile, the media ignores the most important number: what is the Maximum that an insurer can ask you to pay out of pocket?

The problem with many of the policies that are now being cancelled is not just that they were studded with holes  (some didn’t cover hospitalization; some didn’t cover chemo), but that in many states, a family could be asked to pay $30,000—or more—in co-pays and deductibles. . In a few states, there was no cap on the a patient’s liability.I This is how families lose their homes.

I’ve written about this here on null.com. Read the entire post and, if you like, come back here to comment.

Generic Drug Prices—All Over the Map

Posted on by

Did you know that the price you pay for a generic drug can vary by as much as 447 percent (or $749) depending on where you shop? When Consumer Reports called 200 pharmacies around the country to get prices for five blockbuster drugs that had recently gone off patent their investigators found that a month’s supply of generic Lexapro (the antidepressant escitalopram) cost just $7 at Costco yet $119 at RiteAid. Generic Lipitor (the cholesterol-lowering atorvastatin), was $15 at the online FamilyMeds.com and $144 at Target.

Naomi Freundlich has written an outstanding post about the wild variations in pricing on ReformingHealth.org. There, where she reveals that even a breast cancer drug can fetch $450 at one store (CVS) and $14 at a “local, independent drug store.”

Freundlich concludes that such disparities are not a sign of “free market competition.”“Without price transparency there is no free market —only bargains for those with the means to research prices or those lucky enough to use a nearby pharmacy that offers lower prices on generic drugs. For the millions of other Americans—many uninsured or with large deductibles—who have never considered that prices on their generic medications could vary so dramatically, the so-called free market is a sham.”

I would add that just as the government regulates prices for other necessities –namely gas and electricity—we should join the rest of the developed world, and regulate drug prices