Perhaps the most important lesson I learned when I was an
insurance broker was the law of large numbers. Simply put, the law states that
the more “risk units” you have in the pool you are underwriting, the more
likely the losses will conform to what is predicted. Made sense then, still
makes sense now.
If the goal of health care reform is to bend the cost curve,
why not increase the number of “risk units” in the pool of insureds and thereby
make the expense of losses closer to the predicted figure?
The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that eliminates the
pre-existing conditions exclusion for people seeking insurance is intended to produce the largest
possible pool of “risk units” so that the actual losses incurred are closest to
the costs estimated.
A second lesson from my time in the insurance field is that insurance
coverage should further equity or fairness. For too long, too many of those
without insurance, whatever the reason for their lack, have accessed the health
care system without paying for their care.
The resulting cost-shifting has increased the cost of care and of insurance
coverage for those who have bought health insurance—an inequitable arrangement.
The ACA with the changes it will implement by 2014 will
reduce the number of uninsured. That in turn will make the expense of health care
more predictable, possibly lower, and ultimately more equitable.
1 comment:
I came across your blog on google and found you topic interesting. My question is this: Since the average risk in the group is going up by forcing into the group the highest risk persons, wouldn't that increase the cost per entrant? Do you think the offset due to risk stability will compensate for this?
Thanks.
Post a Comment