Williams exposed all that's wrong with health insurance
Tribune News Service
Venus Williams returned to the professional tennis circuit in July with a win in the first round of the DC Open. (She lost in a late round.) In an interview on the court following the match, the 45-year-old made a somewhat surprising admission on why she decided to return to competitive tennis. 'I had to come back for the insurance because they informed me earlier this year I'm on COBRA," she said, referring to the federal law that allows individuals to temporarily continue their employer-sponsored health insurance after leaving a job by paying the premiums. Williams has made more than $40 million in prize money during her tennis career and has a net worth estimated to be almost $100 million. There's little worry she'd become uninsured due to lack of funds. Still, her comments get at the problem buried so deep into our system of health insurance that no policymaker has the nerve to touch it, which is that health and work shouldn't be linked.
Although America's system of health insurance is built on employer-sponsored coverage, there's scant labour market or health justification for this arrangement. The strongest part of the system is the depth of entrenched interests, rather than, say, producing good health outcomes, controlling costs or providing coverage to as many people as possible. Yet, policymakers have made clear that rather than rock this boat, they'd prefer to wait for it to tip over on its own.
Congress's lack of stewardship over health insurance dates back to its origins. The first such plan in the US was offered by Baylor University Hospital to Dallas public school teachers in 1929. The architect was a former teacher working in the hospital's administration who came up with a monthly subscription plan in exchange for future hospital stays. After adding more professions and hospitals, it became Blue Cross. The American Medical Association, seeing the success of the American Hospital Association's new experiment, began to offer non-hospital physicians plans, which became Blue Shield.
Dropped into this swirling mix of loosely linked occupations, hospitals, doctors, and monthly payments for negotiated care was the multi-year wage freezes of World War II. Employer-paid plans were exempt from these freezes, the costs of plans were deemed to be a business expense, and the benefits were not counted as income. After the war, the Internal Revenue Service solidified the twice-over tax preference as part of the Internal Revenue Code. At no point did policymakers articulate a design to provide health insurance for Americans through their employers. Each successive Congress has instead inherited a system whose circumstantial origins were cemented into something permanent but not planned. The lack of planning is evident when considering the myriad miseries the system creates.
Where to begin. First, health insurance is not only expensive for employers to provide, but employers are not equally financially capable of bearing the costs. As a result, larger firms get to provide better coverage than smaller firms, which are at a disadvantage to negotiate things such as insulin costs. On top of which, employees of small firms on average a pay higher share of the total premium as well as face a higher deductible than employees of large firms. Disparity in health-insurance offerings mars the labour market. Productivity is maximised when workers and firms are matched based on their human capital. But throw insurance into the mix, and employers can be boxed out when competing for workers based on their health offerings and workers can warp their job search and tenure based on which employers provide the best health plan. The latter is called job lock, and it's a good description of Williams' experience: Staying at a job mostly for the health insurance. It's a bad situation for workers and employers.
Health insurance also mars compensation. There's evidence that workers who can be identified as adding to health costs, such as women of child-bearing age who may become pregnant or obese individuals, are paid less as a result. This is on top of the broader suppression of wage growth and labor demand experienced by all workers as a result of employer health costs. What's truly bad about this whole system is that tying health insurance to work creates coverage gaps that the government must fill. Indeed, the evolution of public health insurance has been about Congress trying to fill holes employers leave behind. And in these holes fall some of the most expensive people or situations to insure. Medicaid covers 35% of all disabled individuals in the US, 61% of all long-term care recipients, and 41% of all births while Medicare covers 80% of all deaths. As a macabre aside, the most expensive year of life is the last one, and end-of-life care is half of Medicare spending.
In essence, employers are 'skimming the top,' insuring younger and higher income Americans and avoiding the oldest, poorest, chronically disabled, or dying. And the government sinks a fortune into supporting this system. The tax-preferred status of health insurance benefits that opts employers and employees out of income or payroll tax duties on those benefits totaled $384 billion in 2024.
Although the Affordable Care Act added some regulations and mandates to employer benefits, most of the bill's thrust was to cover those left out of the employer market by subsidising the individual market and expanding Medicaid. It was a compromise policy. What's incredible about the One Big Beautiful Bill Act is that it dismantles much of the ACA's wraparound coverage, already weakened by the Supreme Court decision that made Medicaid expansion optional. It's a rejection of the compromise that propped up the employer-sponsored system, a system so rife with problems that even a wealthy professional tennis legend will admit her career is a function of needing access to consistent health insurance.
Either employer-sponsored health insurance is worth all the costs, inefficiencies, and problems, and Congress works around it, or it's an 80-year experiment with enough evidence of failure that it's time to move on to the next system. Sitting on the shore and waiting for the boat to sink isn't enough.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Gulf Today
8 hours ago
- Gulf Today
Work requirements, red tape ahead for millions on Medicaid
Now that the Republicans' big tax-and-spending bill has become law, new bureaucratic hurdles have emerged for millions of Americans who rely on Medicaid for health coverage. A provision in the new law dictates that, in most states, for the first time, low-income adults must start meeting work requirements to keep their coverage. Some states have already tried doing this, but Georgia is the only state that has an active system using work requirements to establish Medicaid eligibility — and recipients must report to the system once a month. When she first started using the system, Tanisha Corporal, a social worker in Atlanta, wasn't opposed to work requirements — in principle. But when she left her job at a faith-based nonprofit to start her own project, the Be Well Black Girl Initiative, she needed health coverage. She soon came face-to-face with how daunting it can be to prove you are meeting the state's work requirements. 'I would have never thought that I was going to run into the challenges that I did, with trying to get approved, because I'm like, I know the process,' Corporal said. 'I've been in human services.' Corporal has been a social worker for more than two decades in Georgia and was familiar with the state's social service programs. For years, it had been her job to help others access benefit programmes. But her challenges with paperwork and the process had only begun. Health advocates point to Georgia's system as a sign that the new law will lead to excessive red tape, improper denials, and lost health coverage. Beginning in 2027, the law will require adults on Medicaid who are under 65 to report how they engaged in at least 80 hours per month of work, education, or volunteer activities. Alternatively, these adults could submit documentation showing they qualify for an exemption, such as being a full-time caregiver. Most states will have to set up verification systems similar to Georgia's, which can be expensive to implement and run. In the two years since launching its program, Georgia has spent more than $91 million in state and federal funds, according to state data. More than $50 million of that was spent on building and operating the eligibility reporting system. Right now, just under 7,500 people are enrolled in Georgia. For Corporal, 48, forgoing coverage wasn't an option. She had been diagnosed with pre-diabetes and had other medical concerns. 'I have breast cancer in my family history,' she said. 'So it was like, I gotta get my mammograms.' On paper, it looked as if she qualified for Georgia's program, called Georgia Pathways to Coverage. It offers Medicaid to adults — who otherwise wouldn't qualify for traditional Medicaid in Georgia — with incomes up to the federal poverty level ($15,650 per year for an individual, or $26,650 per year for a family of three), as long as they can show that for at least 80 hours a month they're working, attending school, training for a job, or volunteering. Corporal was eager to apply. She was already volunteering at least that much, including with the nonprofit Focused Community Strategies, and helping with other South Atlanta community improvement efforts. She gathered up the various documents and forms needed to verify her duties and volunteer hours, then submitted them through Georgia's online portal. 'And we were denied. I was like, this makes no sense,' said Corporal, who has a master's degree in social work. 'I did everything right.' In the end, it took eight months fighting to prove that she and her son, a full-time college student in Georgia, qualified for Medicaid. She repeatedly uploaded their documents, only for them to bounce back or seemingly disappear into the portal. She went through numerous rounds of denials and appeals. Corporal recently pulled up one of the denial notices on her cellphone to read aloud: 'Your case was denied because you didn't submit the correct documents. And you didn't meet the qualifying activity requirement,' she read from the email. When she tried to call the state Medicaid agency for answers, it was difficult reaching anyone who could explain what was wrong with her application paperwork, she said. 'Or, they'll say they called you, and we look at our call log. Nobody called me,' she said. 'And the letter will say, you missed your appointment, and it'll come on the same day' as it was scheduled. Corporal's Pathways to Coverage application was finally approved in March after she spoke about her experience at a public hearing covered by Atlanta news outlets. When asked about the delays and difficulties Corporal experienced, Ellen Brown, a spokesperson for Georgia's Department of Human Services, emailed this statement: 'Due to state and federal privacy laws, we cannot confirm or deny our involvement with any person related to a benefits case.' Brown added that Georgia is implementing tech fixes to streamline the uploading and processing of participants' documents. They include 'rolling out a refresh to the Gateway Customer Portal in late July that will include easier navigation and training videos for users as well as built-in prompts to ask customers to upload required documents.' Now that Corporal has coverage, she is having to recertify her volunteer hours every month using the same glitchy reporting system. It's stressful, she said. 'It's still a nightmare, even once I got through the red tape and got approved,' Corporal said. 'Now maintaining it is bringing another level of anxiety.'
Gulf Today
a day ago
- Gulf Today
Insane tariff
The American medical system has faced many criticisms, mostly valid, especially in terms of cost and availability. Just when you think it couldn't get worse, it does. One disaster is the recent cuts, by Robert Kennedy Jr, of $US500 million in research into mRNA vaccines. Research would have helped to protect people, not harm them. Another one is Trump's proposed tariff of 250% on pharmaceuticals produced in Australia and other countries. This would seem to be designed to make Americans pay more for needed medicines or to bully Australian producers. All it will achieve, if it actually happens, is to harm American citizens. Keep well, if you can afford to. Dennis Fitzgerald, Melbourne, Australia
Gulf Today
2 days ago
- Gulf Today
Williams exposed all that's wrong with health insurance
Kathryn Anne Edwards, Tribune News Service Venus Williams returned to the professional tennis circuit in July with a win in the first round of the DC Open. (She lost in a late round.) In an interview on the court following the match, the 45-year-old made a somewhat surprising admission on why she decided to return to competitive tennis. 'I had to come back for the insurance because they informed me earlier this year I'm on COBRA," she said, referring to the federal law that allows individuals to temporarily continue their employer-sponsored health insurance after leaving a job by paying the premiums. Williams has made more than $40 million in prize money during her tennis career and has a net worth estimated to be almost $100 million. There's little worry she'd become uninsured due to lack of funds. Still, her comments get at the problem buried so deep into our system of health insurance that no policymaker has the nerve to touch it, which is that health and work shouldn't be linked. Although America's system of health insurance is built on employer-sponsored coverage, there's scant labour market or health justification for this arrangement. The strongest part of the system is the depth of entrenched interests, rather than, say, producing good health outcomes, controlling costs or providing coverage to as many people as possible. Yet, policymakers have made clear that rather than rock this boat, they'd prefer to wait for it to tip over on its own. Congress's lack of stewardship over health insurance dates back to its origins. The first such plan in the US was offered by Baylor University Hospital to Dallas public school teachers in 1929. The architect was a former teacher working in the hospital's administration who came up with a monthly subscription plan in exchange for future hospital stays. After adding more professions and hospitals, it became Blue Cross. The American Medical Association, seeing the success of the American Hospital Association's new experiment, began to offer non-hospital physicians plans, which became Blue Shield. Dropped into this swirling mix of loosely linked occupations, hospitals, doctors, and monthly payments for negotiated care was the multi-year wage freezes of World War II. Employer-paid plans were exempt from these freezes, the costs of plans were deemed to be a business expense, and the benefits were not counted as income. After the war, the Internal Revenue Service solidified the twice-over tax preference as part of the Internal Revenue Code. At no point did policymakers articulate a design to provide health insurance for Americans through their employers. Each successive Congress has instead inherited a system whose circumstantial origins were cemented into something permanent but not planned. The lack of planning is evident when considering the myriad miseries the system creates. Where to begin. First, health insurance is not only expensive for employers to provide, but employers are not equally financially capable of bearing the costs. As a result, larger firms get to provide better coverage than smaller firms, which are at a disadvantage to negotiate things such as insulin costs. On top of which, employees of small firms on average a pay higher share of the total premium as well as face a higher deductible than employees of large firms. Disparity in health-insurance offerings mars the labour market. Productivity is maximised when workers and firms are matched based on their human capital. But throw insurance into the mix, and employers can be boxed out when competing for workers based on their health offerings and workers can warp their job search and tenure based on which employers provide the best health plan. The latter is called job lock, and it's a good description of Williams' experience: Staying at a job mostly for the health insurance. It's a bad situation for workers and employers. Health insurance also mars compensation. There's evidence that workers who can be identified as adding to health costs, such as women of child-bearing age who may become pregnant or obese individuals, are paid less as a result. This is on top of the broader suppression of wage growth and labor demand experienced by all workers as a result of employer health costs. What's truly bad about this whole system is that tying health insurance to work creates coverage gaps that the government must fill. Indeed, the evolution of public health insurance has been about Congress trying to fill holes employers leave behind. And in these holes fall some of the most expensive people or situations to insure. Medicaid covers 35% of all disabled individuals in the US, 61% of all long-term care recipients, and 41% of all births while Medicare covers 80% of all deaths. As a macabre aside, the most expensive year of life is the last one, and end-of-life care is half of Medicare spending. In essence, employers are 'skimming the top,' insuring younger and higher income Americans and avoiding the oldest, poorest, chronically disabled, or dying. And the government sinks a fortune into supporting this system. The tax-preferred status of health insurance benefits that opts employers and employees out of income or payroll tax duties on those benefits totaled $384 billion in 2024. Although the Affordable Care Act added some regulations and mandates to employer benefits, most of the bill's thrust was to cover those left out of the employer market by subsidising the individual market and expanding Medicaid. It was a compromise policy. What's incredible about the One Big Beautiful Bill Act is that it dismantles much of the ACA's wraparound coverage, already weakened by the Supreme Court decision that made Medicaid expansion optional. It's a rejection of the compromise that propped up the employer-sponsored system, a system so rife with problems that even a wealthy professional tennis legend will admit her career is a function of needing access to consistent health insurance. Either employer-sponsored health insurance is worth all the costs, inefficiencies, and problems, and Congress works around it, or it's an 80-year experiment with enough evidence of failure that it's time to move on to the next system. Sitting on the shore and waiting for the boat to sink isn't enough.
