3 ms·
What are you trying to say? That insurance companies shouldn't have to cover drug treatments? Perhaps, instead, this is an issue with lack of regulation and ins
by cguess 9y ago
What are you trying to say? That insurance companies shouldn't have to cover drug treatments? Perhaps, instead, this is an issue with lack of regulation and inspection. Fund treatment, but also fund inspections and required standards (which it seems, according top the article, is finally happening). It's not like health insurance companies don't want to see the treatment work, they make their money when their patients are healthy.
- njarboe 9y agoUnder ACA insurance companies must spend 80% of of premium dollars on claims and activities to improve health care quality. 85% in large markets. Sort of like the cost-plus system in defense spending. The company % take remains the same so there is incentive to increase the amount spent. Just jack up the premiums.
- robbiemitchell 9y agoI disagree. The incentive is to spend as little as possible on the remaining %, because sick people already cost a ton as it is. Most insurance revenue comes from non-ACA employer plans, which don't have this requirement.
- vidarh 9y agoIt is a general problem with "cost plus" type arrangements though, that really always ought to have clauses to explicitly reward cost-cutting (by letting the provider keep a portion) and sound investments towards better care.
- nanis 9y ago> That insurance companies shouldn't have to cover drug treatments? Insurance is for independent, random risks. It doesn't take a genius to see this coming: Here is a law that says "you get to a lot of money if you 'treat' people. Don't worry, there are really no criteria of success you have to achieve, all you have to do is get addicts through the door. Oh, you have repeat customers? Even better. Here take as much as you want."