Public healthcare systems are increasingly refusing (temporarily) to reimburse newly approved medical treatments of insufficient or uncertain cost-effectiveness. As both patient demand for these treatments and their list prices increase, a market might arise for voluntary additional health insurance (VHI) that covers effective but (very) expensive medical treatments. In this paper, we evaluate such potential future practices of VHI in public healthcare systems from a justice perspective. We find that direct (telic) egalitarian objections to unequal access to expensive treatments based (...) on different ability to afford VHI do not stand up to scrutiny. However, such unequal access might lead to loss of self-respect among individuals, or loss of fraternity within society, rendering it more difficult for citizens to interact on equal moral footing. This would be problematic from a relational egalitarian perspective. Moreover, the introduction of VHI might turn out to have negative consequences for the comprehensiveness and/or the quality of the public healthcare services that are offered to all patients equally through basic health insurance. These consequences must be weighed against potential health gains and the value of liberty. We conclude that governments should be careful when considering the introduction of VHI in public healthcare systems. (shrink)

In Pacificare Health Systems, Inc. v. Jefrey Book, the US. Supreme Court ruled that the mandatory arbitration clause in an HMO contract should be enforced to compel a physician to arbitrate his RICO charges against the health plan, even though the clause could be construed to limit the arbitrator’s authority to award full damages under the RICO statute. The ruling could prevent physicians with health plan arbitration agreements from taking future reimbursement claims against insurance companies directly to court, even (...) when the allegations involve a potential statutory breach outside of the explicit scope of the provider contract.Dr. Book’s arbitration claim was part of a larger class action lawsuit filed in August of 2000 by a group of physicians and patients seeking reimbursement from eight managed care companies for unpaid health insurance claims. (shrink)

In Pacificare Health Systems, Inc. v. Jefrey Book, the US. Supreme Court ruled that the mandatory arbitration clause in an HMO contract should be enforced to compel a physician to arbitrate his RICO charges against the health plan, even though the clause could be construed to limit the arbitrator’s authority to award full damages under the RICO statute. The ruling could prevent physicians with health plan arbitration agreements from taking future reimbursement claims against insurance companies directly to court, even (...) when the allegations involve a potential statutory breach outside of the explicit scope of the provider contract.Dr. Book’s arbitration claim was part of a larger class action lawsuit filed in August of 2000 by a group of physicians and patients seeking reimbursement from eight managed care companies for unpaid health insurance claims. (shrink)

The problem of inadequate pain management for both terminally ill patients and patients with chronic pain has recently been documented by a number of authors and studies. A 1997 report by the Institute of Medicine, for example, states that “a significant proportion of dying patients and patients with advanced disease experience serious pain, despite the availability of effective pharmacological and other options for relieving most pain.” There are particularly impressive data that pain associated with cancer is not adequately treated.The problem (...) has been attributed to inadequate education of physicians on approaches to pain management and an often misguided belief that prolonged therapy with certain pain medication will lead to addiction; legal obstacles, such as physicians’ fear of criminal prosecution and other disciplinary actions by state licensing boards for overprescribing narcotics; and inadequate insurance coverage as a result of narrow eligibility criteria for hospice care for Medicare beneficiaries, and inadequate reimbursement more generally for pain management and palliative care. (shrink)

The problem of inadequate pain management for both terminally ill patients and patients with chronic pain has recently been documented by a number of authors and studies. A 1997 report by the Institute of Medicine, for example, states that “a significant proportion of dying patients and patients with advanced disease experience serious pain, despite the availability of effective pharmacological and other options for relieving most pain.” There are particularly impressive data that pain associated with cancer is not adequately treated.The problem (...) has been attributed to inadequate education of physicians on approaches to pain management and an often misguided belief that prolonged therapy with certain pain medication will lead to addiction; legal obstacles, such as physicians’ fear of criminal prosecution and other disciplinary actions by state licensing boards for overprescribing narcotics; and inadequate insurance coverage as a result of narrow eligibility criteria for hospice care for Medicare beneficiaries, and inadequate reimbursement more generally for pain management and palliative care. (shrink)

PurposeTo evaluate the prevalence and treatment patterns of speech and language disorders in Germany.MethodsA retrospective analysis of data collected from 32% of the German population, insured by the statutory German health insurance. We used The International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th revision, German Modification codes for stuttering, cluttering, and developmental disorders of speech and language to identify prevalent and newly diagnosed cases each year. Prescription and speech therapy reimbursement data were used to evaluate treatment patterns.ResultsIn (...) 2017, 27,977 patients of all ages were diagnosed with stuttering. Stuttering prevalence peaks at age 5 years. Cluttering was diagnosed in 1,800 patients of all ages. Developmental disorders of speech and language were identified in 555,774 AOK-insurants. Treatment data indicate a substantial proportion newly diagnosed stuttering individuals receive treatment, with slightly fewer than 20 sessions per year, on average. We confirmed a previous study showing increased rates of atopic disorders and neurological and psychiatric comorbidities in individuals with stuttering, cluttering, and developmental disorders of speech and language.ConclusionThis is the first nationwide study using health insurance data to analyze the prevalence and newly diagnosed cases of a speech and language disorder. Prevalence and gender ratio data were consistent with the international literature. The crude prevalence of developmental disorders of speech and language increased from 2015 to 2018, whereas the crude prevalence for stuttering remained stable. For cluttering, the numbers were too low to draw reliable conclusions. Proportional treatment allocation for stuttering peaked at 6 years of age, which is the school entrance year, and is later than the prevalence peak of stuttering. (shrink)

When the cost-effectiveness of newly approved cancer treatments is insufficient or unclear, they may not (immediately) be eligible for reimbursement through basic health insurance in publicly funded healthcare systems. Patients may seek access to non-reimbursed treatment through other channels, including individual funding requests made to hospitals, health insurers, or pharmaceutical companies. Alternatively, they may try to pay out of pocket for non-reimbursed treatments. While currently little is known of these practices, they run counter to a deeply held egalitarian ethos (...) that is prevalent in many publicly funded healthcare systems. In this article, we investigate to what extent this ethos can be grounded in theories of justice, notably egalitarianism and prioritarianism. We argue that allowing out-of-pocket payments by patients themselves, in principle, is not unjust from the perspective of either of these theories, provided that it does not raise in-practice justice-based concerns, for instance by displacing more cost-effective care, to the detriment of other patients, or by failing to treat patients equally. In contrast, we conclude that the practice of making exceptions for individual patients by health insurers or healthcare providers does run counter to the justice-based requirements of equal treatment. (shrink)

Functional foods aim to provide a positive impact on health and well-being beyond their nutritive content. As such, they are likely candidates to enhance the public health official’s tool kit. Or are they? Although a very small number of functional foods (e.g., phytosterol-enriched margarine) show such promise in improving individual health that Dutch health insurance companies reimburse their costs to consumers, one must not draw premature conclusions about functional foods as a group. A large number of questions about individual products’ (...) safety, efficacy, and affordability need to be answered before they might become an important part of the public health agenda. More importantly, though, the costs and benefits of functional foods relative to alternative mechanisms of public health improvement need to be ascertained. Alternative scenarios that warrant investigation are mainly the supply of nutraceutical ingredients in pill form targeting “at risk” groups and consumer education on diet and lifestyle. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Managed Health Care: New Ethical Issues for All*Martina Darragh (bio) and Pat Milmoe McCarrick (bio)Changes in the way that health care is perceived, delivered, and financed have occurred rapidly in a relatively short time span. The 50-year period since World War II encompasses enormous growth in medical technology, soaring health care costs, and significant fragmentation of the two-party patient- physician relationship. This relationship first grew to include the third-party (...) payer, the health insurance industry, and now “with great speed and relatively little public awareness, a significant change has occurred in the way some decisions are made about a patient’s medical care” (III, Institute of Medicine 1989).The new means of providing health care bring an increasing number of parties into clinical decision-making processes. With this change, ethical issues that once concerned only health care professionals, the physician or the nurse, have expanded to include the patient and the groups who “manage” care—e.g., health maintenance organizations (HMOs), preferred provider organizations (PPOs), point of service groups (POSs), independent practice associations (IPAs), insurance reviewers, hospital administrators, institutional managers, and, the most recent players, purchasers of group health care who base their decisions on competitive pricing.The term “managed care” refers to a variety of continually adapting and developing arrangements that involve four groups. These groups, which have been labeled by the world of business, not health, are the “consumer” (once the patient), the “provider” (the physician and other health care professionals), the “insurer” (the reimburser for any care), and the “purchaser of care” or the primary buyer of health services (the large employer organization). Capitation is a common way to pay for health services in managed care systems. A certain dollar amount is negotiated for health services for a specified number of patients whether the care is delivered or not; the provider shares with the [End Page 189] insurer any financial risk for the actual cost of care (III, Centers for Disease Control 1995).When the Clinton administration’s health care reform movement failed to gain support in the U.S. Congress, the use of managed care to control rising health care costs accelerated. The literature on managed care and its effect on the patient-physician relationship reflects this shift. During the era of health care reform, “debate centered on how managed care could control costs, on the use of technology and patient satisfaction, [and] on access and barriers to care” (IV, Emanuel and Dubler 1995). When managed care organizations began contracting with physicians to provide health care services subject to the plans’ provisions, these plans became agents in clinical decision making on a wide-spread basis. HMO enrollment grew to 51 million persons by 1994 (III, Centers for Disease Control 1995). This “corporatization” of health care has sparked a plethora of articles about the effects of the marketplace on the physician’s ability to do what is best for the patient, and on the patient’s ability to trust the physician to do so.Many authors make it clear that managed care itself is not the problem, but rather the development of for-profit managed care plans by “corporate conglomerates with billions of dollars in assets that compensate their executives as grandly as basketball players” (V, Kassirer 1995) “in a marketplace that is largely unregulated” (I, Zoloth-Dorfman and Rubin 1995). “Some, mostly older plans that were created when cost containment was an unexpected benefit rather than their central purpose, deliver high-quality care economically. Unfortunately, others cut costs by recruiting the healthiest patients, excluding the sickest, rationing care by making it inconvenient to obtain, and denying care by a variety of mechanisms” (V, Kassirer 1995).These cost-containment features now play an intimate role in clinical practice. When a managed care plan contracts with a physician, the doctor becomes a “double agent” with contractual obligations to the plan to provide a preset amount of services and professional responsibilities to each patient to authorize necessary treatment (V, Angell 1993). This duality can undermine the physician’s fiduciary responsibility to the patient wherein the physician “has power over the affairs of [the patient]...and is required by law to act on that person’s... (shrink)

In Kentucky Association of Health Plans, Inc. v. Miller,, the Supreme Court unanimously held that states’ “any willing provider” laws are not preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The Court ruled that states can regulate their health maintenance organizations, and thus upheld a Kentucky law that requires insurers to reimburse services of any health care provider who is willing and able to meet established criteria. The Supreme Court has heard several cases related to ERISA in the (...) last few years, and other such cases are working their way through the court system. Coupled with this most recent decision in Miller, the Supreme Court may significantly alter the shape of the insurance industry. (shrink)

In Kentucky Association of Health Plans, Inc. v. Miller,, the Supreme Court unanimously held that states’ “any willing provider” laws are not preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The Court ruled that states can regulate their health maintenance organizations, and thus upheld a Kentucky law that requires insurers to reimburse services of any health care provider who is willing and able to meet established criteria. The Supreme Court has heard several cases related to ERISA in the (...) last few years, and other such cases are working their way through the court system. Coupled with this most recent decision in Miller, the Supreme Court may significantly alter the shape of the insurance industry. (shrink)

Rationale In Belgium, several policies regulating reimbursement of acid suppressant drugs and evidence-based recommendations for clinical practice were issued in a short period of time, creating a unique opportunity to observe their effect on prescribing. Aims and objectives To describe the evolution of prescriptions for acid suppressants and explore the interaction of policies and practice recommendations with prescribing patterns. Method Monthly claims-based data for proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and H-2-antihistamines by general practitioners, internists and "astroenterologists were obtained from the (...) Belgian national health insurance database (1997-2005). The evolution of reimbursed defined daily doses and expenses after introduction of reimbursement regulations and dissemination of practice recommendations was explored. Results Recommendations had no impact on prescribing. All changes can be related to concomitant policies. Lifting reimbursement restrictions for cheaper products did not control growth or save costs in the Iona term. Only restricting reimbursement of all PPIs managed to curb the growth. We observed an unintended increase of non-omeprazole PPIs by gastroenterologists. Conclusions Reimbursement policies influence prescribing, but their effect can be unintended. A dialogue between policymakers and guideline developers, and evidence-based policies that are linked to clinical guidelines, could be an effective way to pursue both cost-containment and quality of care. (shrink)

On August 29, 2006, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that an injured ERISA plan beneficiary need not be “made whole” by any injury-related recovery from a third party in order for her ERISA plan to assert subrogation or reimbursement rights if the plan's terms either 1) “unambiguously establish a plan priority” to any funds a beneficiary recovers from a third party, or 2) are reasonably interpreted to establish such a priority by (...) an ERISA plan fiduciary clearly authorized to do so.In 1991, appellants William and Judith Moore purchased an ERISA health insurance policy from Blue Cross Blue Shield of the National Capital Area and its wholly-owned subsidiary CapitalCare. On September 10, 1992, the Moores’ daughter Alistaire, a plan beneficiary, was seriously injured in an automobile accident. (shrink)

In September 2009, the First Circuit Court of Appeals decided Blue Cross & Blue Shield v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, part of the class action suit known as In re Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale Price Litigation. The First Circuit upheld a Massachusetts District Court finding that AstraZeneca violated Massachusetts’ consumer protection laws by manipulating the “average wholesale price” of its physician-administered injectable cancer drug Zoladex, leading to overpayment by the government, third-party payers, and consumers. This case, which highlights the persistent tension (...) between pharmaceutical pricing flexibility and consumer protection, has important implications for similar pending class actions.Between 1991 and 2003, Medicare, as well as many private insurance companies, pegged reimbursement for certain pharmaceutical products to a national “average wholesale price” for each drug. Although the amended 1991 Medicare Part B regulations3 that introduced the term “average wholesale price” failed to define it explicitly, there is some indication in the legislative history that AWP was intended to refer to the prices that physicians and pharmacists actually pay to the drug manufacturers. (shrink)

In September 2009, the First Circuit Court of Appeals decided Blue Cross & Blue Shield v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, part of the class action suit known as In re Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale Price Litigation. The First Circuit upheld a Massachusetts District Court finding that AstraZeneca violated Massachusetts’ consumer protection laws by manipulating the “average wholesale price” of its physician-administered injectable cancer drug Zoladex, leading to overpayment by the government, third-party payers, and consumers. This case, which highlights the persistent tension (...) between pharmaceutical pricing flexibility and consumer protection, has important implications for similar pending class actions.Between 1991 and 2003, Medicare, as well as many private insurance companies, pegged reimbursement for certain pharmaceutical products to a national “average wholesale price” for each drug. Although the amended 1991 Medicare Part B regulations3 that introduced the term “average wholesale price” failed to define it explicitly, there is some indication in the legislative history that AWP was intended to refer to the prices that physicians and pharmacists actually pay to the drug manufacturers. (shrink)

On August 29, 2006, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that an injured ERISA plan beneficiary need not be “made whole” by any injury-related recovery from a third party in order for her ERISA plan to assert subrogation or reimbursement rights if the plan's terms either 1) “unambiguously establish a plan priority” to any funds a beneficiary recovers from a third party, or 2) are reasonably interpreted to establish such a priority by (...) an ERISA plan fiduciary clearly authorized to do so.In 1991, appellants William and Judith Moore purchased an ERISA health insurance policy from Blue Cross Blue Shield of the National Capital Area and its wholly-owned subsidiary CapitalCare. On September 10, 1992, the Moores’ daughter Alistaire, a plan beneficiary, was seriously injured in an automobile accident. (shrink)

Parts I through III of this paper will examine several, increasingly comprehensive forms of aggregation, ranging from insurance reimbursement “lock-in” programs to PDMPs to completely unified electronic medical records. Each part will advocate for the adoption of these aggregation systems and provide suggestions for effective implementation in the fight against opioid misuse. All PDMPs are not made equal, however, and Part II will, therefore, focus on several elements — mandating prescriber usage, streamlining the user interface, ensuring timely data uploads, (...) creating a national data repository, mitigating privacy concerns, and training doctors on how to respond to perceived doctor-shopping — that can make these systems more effective. In each part, we will also discuss the privacy concerns of aggregating data, ranging from minimal to significant, and highlight the unique role of stigma in motivating these concerns. In Part IV, we will conclude by suggesting remedial steps to offset this loss of privacy and to combat the stigma around SUDs and mental health disorders in general. (shrink)

Within international development [1], public health [2], and clinical medicine [3]–[5], there is increasing interest in determining whether cash payments or other economic incentives can be used to influence the choices and behavior of individuals and groups in order to promote desired health goals. However, a number of complex issues affect the review and approval by research ethics committees of research studying the effectiveness of using financial incentives to promote desired health goals. Current ethical and regulatory frameworks regard the provision (...) of gifts or cash payments to participants in human research as potentially problematic. Specifically, these frameworks imply that such incentives may undermine the autonomy of participant choice, hinder the disclosure of medical information, exacerbate social inequalities, or result in the exploitation or degradation of vulnerable populations [6]–[9]. Typically, these frameworks provide guidance about payment to research participants to reimburse expenses, to compensate for time and effort, to provide insurance coverage, or as an incentive to participate in the research itself. However, the issue of payment as a component of the research intervention is relatively new. RECs thus lack explicit guidance about ethical issues surrounding research that evaluates the use of financial incentives as an intervention to promote health. (shrink)

The budget battles have hit the Indian Health Service hard: sequestration forced a 5 percent reduction in funds, followed by an additional 0.2 percent rescission in the recently passed Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act. Exempted from sequestration (and rightly so) were other very important health care programs such as the Veterans Administration Health Programs, the State Children's Health Insurance Programs, and Medicaid. Medicare has been reduced by only 2 percent, with that cut targeted to provider reimbursement so as (...) to avoid a reduction in service to beneficiaries. In March 2013, Representatives Betty McCollum, Tom Cole, and Michelle Lujan Grisham introduced a bill to reduce the impact of sequestration on the IHS to 2 percent (H.R. 1371). This bill was referred to the Committee on the Budget, but to date, there has been no movement on it.Why was the IHS susceptible to sequestration? Why is it considered a “discretionary” line item in the federal budget? Why is there not parity for Indians, whose health status remains far below that of mainstream America? As a matter of legal requirement, social contract, and moral obligation, the United States should fundamentally change how Indian Health is funded. (shrink)

This volume is an exploration of the ethical issues raised by health insurance, which is particularly timely in the light of recent advances in medical research and political economy. Focusing on a wide range of areas, such as AIDS, genetic engineering, screening and underwriting, new disability legislation and the ethics of private and public health insurance, this comprehensive and sometimes controversial book provides an essential survey of the key issues in health insurance. Divided into two parts, the first considers the (...) ethics of underwriting, risk assessment and the acceptance and refusal of insurance risk by insurers. Discussing the unjust treatment of high-risk applicants, the authors identify sources of unfairness to both parties of the insurance contract, indicating how reasonable trade-offs can be made. The second part considers the argument for a mix of public and private insurance for acute and long-term care, offering recommendations for changes in the balance of social insurance, and discussing the shift toward long-term contracts in private health care and pension insurance. (shrink)

This volume is an exploration of the ethical issues raised by health insurance, which is particularly timely in the light of recent advances in medical research and political economy. Focusing on a wide range of areas, such as AIDS, genetic engineering, screening and underwriting, new disability legislation and the ethics of private and public health insurance, this comprehensive and sometimes controversial book provides an essential survey of the key issues in health insurance. Divided into two parts, the first considers the (...) ethics of underwriting, risk assessment and the acceptance and refusal of insurance risk by insurers. Discussing the unjust treatment of high-risk applicants, the authors identify sources of unfairness to both parties of the insurance contract, indicating how reasonable trade-offs can be made. The second part considers the argument for a mix of public and private insurance for acute and long-term care, offering recommendations for changes in the balance of social insurance, and discussing the shift toward long-term contracts in private health care and pension insurance. (shrink)

The current debate that surrounds the issue of patient rights and the transformation of health care, social insurance, and reimbursement systems has put the topic of patient responsibility on both the public and health care sectors' agenda. This climate of debate and transition provides an ideal time to rethink patient responsibilities, together with their underlying rationale, and to determine if they are properly represented when being called `patient' responsibilities. In this article we analyze the various types of patient responsibilities, (...) identify the underlying motivations behind their creation, and conclude upon their sensibleness and merit. The range of patient responsibilities that have been proposed and implemented can be reclassified and placed into one of four groups, which are more accurate descriptors of the nature of these responsibilities. We suggest that, within the framework of a free-market system, where health care services are provided based on the ability to pay for them, none of these can properly be justified as a patient responsibility. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:The Human Genome Project and BioethicsEric T. Juengst, Ph.D. (bio)The fifteen-year "human genome project" at the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Energy officially began on October 1, 1990. With it began a new dimension in federally supported scientific research: concurrent funding for work to anticipate the social consequences of the project's research and to develop policies to guide the use of the knowledge it produces. As (...) a result, the National Center for Human Genome Research (NCHGR) at NIH will support the largest public investment in bioethical analysis to date.NCHGR was established to work with other federal, private, and international organizations on the scientific effort to characterize the form and content of the human genome. The research will yield information—high-resolution genetic linkage and physical maps of all the human chromosomes as well as human DNA sequence data—that will be a resource for studies of gene structure and function. It will greatly increase our understanding of the genetic aspects of human health and disease. That increased understanding will eventually provide insights into the prevention and treatment of the 3,000 known inherited disorders, and of conditions caused by our (gene-governed) physiological reactions to pathogens, toxins, and mutagens of external origin.It has been clear since the conception of the human genome project, however, that professional and public deliberations concerning the responsible use of genetic information must be a part of the process. The most immediate consequence of genome research will be the development of new diagnostic and predictive tests, well in advance of corresponding therapeutic or curative advances. The implications of acquiring and using that knowledge about individuals raise policy questions at many levels within society. The primary purpose of the Ethical, Legal and Social Implications Program at the NCHGR is to anticipate and address these questions early in the life of the scientific project, to help optimize the [End Page 71] benefits to human welfare and opportunity from the new knowledge, and to guard against its misuses.The program has identified three sets of questions as particularly important to pursue as the genome initiative proceeds:1.Issues involved in the integration of new genetic tests into medical practice. Human genome research is expected to increase greatly the number of gene-based diagnostic and prognostic tests available to health professionals. The bioethical policy problems involved in integrating those tests effectively into medical practice include developing standards for:— accuracy and quality control of genetic tests;— medical indications for testing and design of testing protocols;— professional responsibilities of clinicians who perform tests;— confidentiality of information obtained from testing;— access to and use of test results by third parties, such as health insurers; and— reimbursement for testing and test-related counseling.These are problems for both those charged with regulating the use of new genetic tests and for those establishing the standards of practice within the health professions. Thus, in addition to soliciting and funding scholarly research proposals on both the factual and normative questions raised by these problems, the program is commissioning a major new study by the National Academy of Sciences/Institute of Medicine aimed at providing professional guidelines for the integration of genetic services into mainstream medical practice.2. Issues involved in educating and counseling individuals about genetic test results. The primary risk that health professionals will face in using genetic tests is the misinterpretation of their findings and the resulting potential for psychological trauma, stigmatization, and discrimination. Sometimes, out of ignorance, patients, families, and social institutions already stigmatize genetic disorders and treat those with them unfairly. This risk broadens as the genetic elements of more health problems are uncovered and gene-based tests for susceptibilities and carrier states are developed.To protect against these risks, NCHGR is soliciting and supporting projects aimed at improving professional and public understanding of these tests and their implications. For example, a philosopher is leading a team of geneticists and physicians in a scholarly effort to clarify [End Page 72] concepts of genetic susceptibility and draw out the social meaning of their different interpretations. Other projects involve social scientific studies of genetic risk perceptions, stigmatization, and discrimination. The conclusions of these studies, and... (shrink)

Rising health insurance costs and the cost of living crisis are likely leading to an increase in unpaid health insurance bills in many countries. In Switzerland, a particularly drastic measure to sanction defaulting insurance payers is employed. Since 2012, Swiss cantons – who have to cover most of the bills of defaulting payers - are allowed by federal law to blacklist them and to restrict their access to medical care to emergencies.In our paper, we briefly describe blacklisting in the context (...) of the Swiss healthcare system before we examine the ethical issues involved in light of what is known about its social and health impacts. We found no evidence that blacklisting serves as an effective way of recovering unpaid health insurance contributions or of strengthening solidarity within the health insurance system. Furthermore, the ambiguous definitions of what constitutes an emergency treatment and the incompatibility of the denial of medical care with the obligation to provide professional assistance complicate the implementation of blacklists and expose care providers to enormous pressure.Therefore, we conclude that blacklists and the (partial) denial of medical care not only pose profound ethical problems but are also unsuitable for fulfilling the purpose for which they were introduced. (shrink)

There are four basic models for health care systems: the private market insurance model, the national single-payer model, the national health service model, and the social insuranceSocial insurance model. The social justice debate over health care usually focuses on the comparative efficiency and quality of competitive private market insurance and the universal coverage and equity of national health care systems. It is a mistake, however, to think that a universal right to health care services requires a single-payer, government-run, national health (...) care system. The social insurance model of Germany, France, Japan, and many other countries, deserves more attention, as it incorporates the strengths of both market models and national health care models. (shrink)

This paper addresses the question of whether Medicaid is in fact a high-cost program after adjusting for the health of the people it covers. We compare and simulate annual per capita medical spending for lower-income people (families with incomes under 200% of poverty) covered for a full year by either Medicaid or private insurance. We first show that low-income privately insured enrollees and Medicaid enrollees have very different socioeconomic and health characteristics. We then present simulated comparisons based on multivariate statistical (...) models that estimate the effects of private and Medicaid coverage on the likelihood of using services, and the level of expenditures, given any use, holding constant demographic, economic, and health status characteristics. The simulations demonstrate that if people with Medicaid coverage—with their health status, disability, and chronic conditions—were given private coverage, they would cost considerably more than they do today. Conversely, if the privately insured were given Medicaid coverage, spending would be lower. We find no evidence that spending differences between Medicaid and private coverage for low-income people are due to lower service use by Medicaid beneficiaries. We conclude that most of the difference in expenditures is due to differences in provider payment rates. (shrink)

ABSTRACTThe health‐care reform promised by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of March 2010 continues our dependence on a central feature of the American health‐care system: employer‐sponsored insurance . In this article I will criticize the assumptions regarding market and welfare concerns on which this dependence is based and argue that efforts to mandate ESI ignore both the dynamics of the employment relation and the nature of health‐care needs. A comparison between investing in employee education and investing in employee (...) health will reveal the pragmatic challenges to ESI and the covert appeal to employer beneficence on which ESI rests. This paper argues that relying on ESI to guarantee appropriate care for a significant segment of the population is undesirable and unsustainable from both market and moral perspectives. (shrink)

Communitarian values are stronger in health insurance than in life or disability insurance. This correlates with increased tolerance for insurers' use of genetic information in disability insurance underwriting, which, in turn, is relevant to the scope and content of proposals to regulate such use.

This project focuses on the extent to which disability insurers should be allowed to use genetic information in underwriting and rate-setting, but this subject cannot be completely isolated from the related questions of whether life and health insurers should also have this discretion. Federal and state laws place significant restrictions on insurers’ use of genetic information in health insurance, but regulation of such use in life and disability insurance is considerably more modest. This essay examines the reasons for this disparity (...) and discusses the implications for future proposals to regulate disability insurers’ use of genetic information in underwriting and rate-setting. The thesis is relatively simple: Communitarian values are stronger in health insurance than in life and disability insurance. Accordingly, the public is likely to acquiesce to insurers’ insistence that they be allowed to make distinctions among insureds in disability insurance that would not be tolerated in health insurance. (shrink)

This paper explores the consequences of the oft ignored fact that public health insurance must actually be supplied by the state. Depending how the state is modeled, different health insurance outcomes are expected. The benevolent model of the state does not account for many actual features of public health insurance systems. One alternative is to use a standard public choice model, where state action is determined by interaction between self-interested actors. Another alternative—related to a strand in public choice theory—is to (...) model the state as Leviathan. Interestingly, some proponents of public health insurance use an implicit Leviathan model, but not consistently. The Leviathan model of the state explains many features of public health insurance: its uncontrolled growth, its tendency toward monopoly, its capacity to buy trust and loyalty from the common people, its surveillance ability, its controlling nature, and even the persistence of its inefficiencies and waiting lines. (shrink)

Health insurance exchanges can organize the market for health insurance by connecting small businesses and individuals into larger insurance pools. HIEs have been proposed as a possible means of making insurance more accessible, increasing competition among health plans, and promoting choice of insurer. President Obama's campaign proposal and various congressional leaders have proposed establishing insurance exchanges through federal legislation. However, whether the federal or state government, or even a private entity, can organize an insurance exchange to connect health insurance sellers (...) and buyers under the law is the question explored in this paper. Specifically, the paper addresses legal restraints or limitations to such an exchange at the federal, state or private entity level, and offers solutions. Although exchanges implicate many design and policy issues regardless of whether they are implemented at a federal, state, or private entity level, the paper concludes that are no absolute legal bars to the establishment of health insurance exchanges. (shrink)

There are four basic models for health care systems: the private market insurance model, the national single-payer model, the national health service model, and the social insurance model. The social justice debate over health care usually focuses on the comparative efficiency and quality of competitive private market insurance and the universal coverage and equity of national health care systems. It is a mistake, however, to think that a universal right to health care services requires a single-payer, government-run, national health care (...) system. The social insurance model of Germany, France, Japan, and many other countries, deserves more attention, as it incorporates the strengths of both market models and national health care models. (shrink)

This paper examines the role that population vulnerabilities play in insurance coverage for a representative sample of Latinos and Asians in the United States. Using data from the National Latino and Asian American Study (NLAAS), these analyses compare coverage differences among and within ethnic subgroups, across states and regions, among types of occupations, and among those with or without English language proficiency. Extensive differences exist in coverage between Latinos and Asians, with Latinos more likely to be uninsured. Potential explanations include (...) the type of occupations available to Latinos and Asians, reforms in immigration laws, length of time in the United States, and regional differences in safety-net coverage. Policy implications are discussed. (shrink)

By 2014, each of the fifty states and the District of Columbia will have a new health insurance exchange, or marketplace, established under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. These exchanges are the centerpiece of the reform law: they will be the main portals where people who do not have health insurance coverage through their jobs and small businesses will go, either in person or online, to find a health plan and to learn about and apply for federal subsidies. (...) The most immediate challenge facing all fifty‐one exchanges is fulfilling their most basic role: ensuring that all who are eligible to enroll in qualified health plans and to receive federal subsidies in fact enroll. (shrink)

This “Legal Solutions in Health Reform” paper identifies and analyzes the legal issues raised by health insurance exchanges. Like all Legal Solutions papers, it does not purport to provide a concrete proposal as to how health insurance exchanges should be organized or even whether they should play a role in health care reform. Rather, it attempts simply to describe the legal issues that health insurance exchanges raise, and to propose alternative solutions to legal problems where useful. More specifically, it analyzes (...) and offers alternative solutions to the legal problems raised by proposals to establish insurance exchanges by the federal government, by state governments, and by private entities or associations. Because the focus of this project and paper is on legal issues, discussion of policy and design issues is attenuated. Nevertheless, some attention to policy issues is unavoidable because law is the realization of policy. (shrink)

This is an important time to focus on the question of insurance discrimination based on health status. The nation once again is poised to embark on a major health care reform debate. Even as the number of uninsured stands at some 45 million persons, millions more may be poised to lose coverage during the worst economic downturn in generations. In addition, a large number of persons may be seriously under-insured, with coverage falling significantly below the cost of necessary health care. (...) In recent years, the proportion of insured persons who are underinsured has grown by 60% since 2003, reaching an estimated 25 million persons in 2007. Health care costs experienced by insured persons now account for more than 75% of all personal bankruptcies related to medical care. Underlying these figures is a national approach to health care financing for the non-elderly that effectively increases the odds that those who are in poor health status will be uninsured or underinsured. (shrink)

Actuarial underwriting, or discrimination based on an individual's health status, is a business feature of the voluntary private insurance market. The term “discrimination” in this paper is not intended to convey the concept of unfair treatment, but rather how the insurance industry differentiates among individuals in designing and administering health insurance and employee health benefit products. Discrimination can occur at the point of enrollment, coverage design, or decisions regarding scope of coverage. Several major federal laws aimed at regulating insurance discrimination (...) based on health status focus at the point of enrollment. However, because of multiple exceptions and loopholes, these laws offer relatively limited protections. This paper provides a brief overview of discrimination practices, the federal law, and federal reform options to manage discriminatory practices in the insurance and employee health benefit markets. (shrink)

This article investigates the scope and effects of enhanced consumer choice in health insurance that is presented as a cornerstone of the new health insurance legislation in the Netherlands that will come into effect in 2006. The choice for choice marks the current libertarian trend in Dutch health care policymaking. One of our conclusions is that the scope of enhanced choice should not be overstated due to many legal and non-legal restrictions to it. The consumer choice advocates have great expectations (...) of the impact of enhanced choice. A critical analysis of its impact demonstrates that these expectations may not become true and that enhanced consumer choice should not be perceived as the ‘magic bullet’ for many problems in health care. (shrink)

According to HealthCare.gov, by improving access to quality health for all Americans, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) will reduce disparities in health insurance coverage. One way this will happen under the provisions of the ACA is by creating a new health insurance marketplace (a health insurance exchange) by 2014 in which “all people will have a choice for quality, affordable health insurance even if a job loss, job switch, move or illness occurs”. This does not mean that everyone will have (...) whatever insurance coverage he or she wants. The provisions of the ACA require that each of the four benefit categories of plans (known as bronze, silver, gold and platinum) provides no less than the benefits available in an “essential health benefits package”. However, without a clear understanding of what criteria must be satisfied for health care to be essential, the ACA’s requirement is much too vague and open to multiple, potentially conflicting interpretations. Indeed, without such understanding, in the rush to provide health insurance coverage to as many people as is economically feasible, we may replace one kind of disparity (lack of health insurance) with another kind of disparity (lack of adequate health insurance). Thus, this paper explores the concept of “essential benefits”, arguing that the “essential health benefits package” in the ACA should be one that optimally satisfies the basic needs of the people covered. (shrink)

ZusammenfassungVon Vertragsärzten in ihren Praxen angebotene oder hier von Patienten nachgefragte "individuelle Gesundheitsleistungen" sind in unserem Gesundheitswesen zu einer häufigen Erscheinung geworden. Es hat sich ein "zweiter Gesundheitsmarkt" mit einem erheblichen ökonomischen Potential entwickelt. Die Leistungen umfassen ein weites Spektrum; sie adressieren ganz unterschiedliche Gesundheitsstörungen, Ziele und Hoffnungen und sind extrem heterogen. Auch dies erschwert eine einheitliche Definition. Aus Patientensicht scheint das wichtigste Merkmal, dass IGeL vollständig privat bezahlt werden müssen. Der Beitrag diskutiert IGeL unter normativen Gesichtspunkten und adressiert 6 (...) Fragen: welche Risiken und Chancen beinhalten IGeL für das hergebrachte Bild des Arztes und seine Profession, das Verständnisder wissenschaftlichen Grundlagenärztlicher Untersuchungs- und Behandlungsmethoden, das Verständnis der Medizin und ihrer Ziele, die bisherige Rolle der Patienten, die Beziehung zwischen Arzt und Patient und das Bild der Gesetzlichen Krankenversicherung? Einerseits sind IGeL aus unterschiedlichen Gründen für Patienten und Vertragsärzte attraktiv. In Zeiten einer zunehmenden Regulierung der Medizin erhöhen sie Freiheitsgrade und Wahlmöglichkeiten beider Seiten. Andererseitshaben sie das Potential, vor allem die Rolleund Profession des ArztesimSystemderGKVund ihreWahrnehmungtiefgreifendzu verändern. Obsich der IGeL-Markt bei uns kontrollieren und regulieren lässt, ist eine zurzeit offene Frage. (shrink)