One teenager in Iowa costs 12 million a year to insure

debbiedowner

Gold Member
Feb 12, 2017
11,999
3,129
275
One teenager in Iowa who costs $12 million a year to insure perfectly encapsulates the successes and failings of Obamacare

Over the past couple of years there has been a mystery in the Iowa individual insurance market.

According to Blue Cross Blue Shield insurer Wellmark, there was a patient in the state's Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) exchanges who required $1 million a month in care.

This staggering $12 million in care each year was distorting the insurer's exchange business and forcing it to raise premiums across the exchange rapidly.


The story is heartbreaking, but it also has implications for the insurance market in the state.


On a broader scale, this one case also shows why Obamacare's exchanges are facing problems — and why they have been saviors for many sick Americans.

Needed changes
This particular case is special, according to the Des Moines Register. The cost of care for most hemophiliacs tops out at $1 million annually (which is still incredibly costly). This case is an extreme example of the problems facing the Obamacare markets." data-reactid="31" style="margin-bottom: 1em; color: rgb(38, 40, 42); font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">This particular case is special, according to the Des Moines Register. The cost of care for most hemophiliacs tops out at $1 million annually (which is still incredibly costly). This case is an extreme example of the problems facing the Obamacare markets.

Obamacare mandated that insurers cover people even if they had preexisting conditions that insurers previously could use to deny coverage. According to Larry Levitt, a senior vice president at the nonpartisan health-policy think tank The Kaiser Family Foundation, this naturally led to problems." data-reactid="32" style="margin-bottom: 1em; color: rgb(38, 40, 42); font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Obamacare mandated that insurers cover people even if they had preexisting conditions that insurers previously could use to deny coverage. According to Larry Levitt, a senior vice president at the nonpartisan health-policy think tank The Kaiser Family Foundation, this naturally led to problems.

"Of course making insurance more accessible for people with preexisting conditions has also created challenges for the stability of the individual insurance market," Levitt told Business Insider. "Covering the cost of very expensive patients raises the potential need for a reinsurance pool of some sort that existed in the first three years of the ACA and is part of the [American Health Care Act]."" data-reactid="33" style="margin-bottom: 1em; color: rgb(38, 40, 42); font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">"Of course making insurance more accessible for people with preexisting conditions has also created challenges for the stability of the individual insurance market," Levitt told Business Insider. "Covering the cost of very expensive patients raises the potential need for a reinsurance pool of some sort that existed in the first three years of the ACA and is part of the [American Health Care Act]."

Reinsurance is a policy that provides some federal funding to offset insurers' higher costs incurred from covering a sicker pool of patients." data-reactid="34" style="margin-bottom: 1em; color: rgb(38, 40, 42); font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Reinsurance is a policy that provides some federal funding to offset insurers' higher costs incurred from covering a sicker pool of patients.

The Iowa case also fits in with the trend of an increased number of older and sicker people signing up for ACA plans than originally expected since the exchanges came online.

In turn, premiums increased dramatically and insurers suffered substantial financial losses. Losses were so great at some insurers — especially those who mismanaged their plan structures — that they decided to leave these markets.

Levitt also said that a smaller market like Iowa's is even more problematic because there are fewer healthy people in the risk pool to offset the cost for an insurer such as Wellmark.

While these issues certainly need to be fixed in order to provide a more stable market for everyone in the exchanges, the story also gives a strong example for why Obamacare has been a success as well.

Success story
It is apparent that, from the insurer's side of things, the structure of the Obamacare markets presents a substantial issue when facing such high expenses. From the patient's side of things, however, the ACA is likely a godsend.

As pointed out by Levitt, some of the regulatory changes in Obamacare most likely saved the patient's family from serious financial stress and possibly serious health consequences.

An expensive patient like this would have faced any number of challenges getting and affording health care before the ACA," Levitt told Business Insider on Thursday. "Such an expensive condition would be a whopping preexisting condition, and no insurer would have offered him insurance."" data-reactid="42" style="margin-bottom: 1em; color: rgb(38, 40, 42); font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">"An expensive patient like this would have faced any number of challenges getting and affording health care before the ACA," Levitt told Business Insider on Thursday. "Such an expensive condition would be a whopping preexisting condition, and no insurer would have offered him insurance."

The community rating, a provision of Obamacare, obligates insurers to price premiums the same for people of the same age in the same area. This prevented people with preexisting conditions from being charged more than healthy people and getting priced out of the market.

Without that provision, an insurance company could raise premiums for a sick patient substantially to offset some of their costs, but the price could be so high that it would be financially crippling for the patient's family.
 
Which is more important, insurance company profits or a human? I know there needs to be a happy medium. Insurance companies rob Peter to pay Paul from premiums. Why is it different when the govt. gets involved? If the govt. could get their ledger books to balance it would help a lot of things, except profits by companies that loan the US money through T-bill procurement.
The other side of the coin is.. Either act like this is a Christian nation or stop calling this a Christian nation.
 
Why is it so hard to simply admit that it isn't worth twelve million dollars a year to keep one person alive?
 
Last edited:
The federal government has been screwing up health care and health insurance for decades. All of the tinkering has only made things worse. We have completely thrown away what works in America and that was the free market approach and we are paying dearly for it now.

Obamacare made things even worse. We still have yet to see just how devastating that law was to healthcare and a ever shrinking physician pool. Lack of care and wait time stories and non coverage complaints are increasing everyday.

I support a move back to when insurance companies could compete for your business. I also think government regulations could be cut to entice people back into the healthcare field again. Tort reform never even gets discussed anymore but that is a huge cost contributor.

But unfortunately the swamp creatures got a taste of the power and influence that came along with government run healthcare/Obamacare. They refuse to now let go. It's addictive I guess.

So now what? Single payer. Like it or not this is where we are headed. We have decided in America that people do not have to be responsible for themselves and buy health insurance at age 18 so we actually have no other option. Government run top to bottom lousy, mediocre, fall short, over priced health care. Good luck everyone! and whatever you do do not get sick.
 
Pro life is pro life. If it costs 100 million so be it. Why does a dollar sign have to be involved?
 
Pro life is pro life. If it costs 100 million so be it. Why does a dollar sign have to be involved?

Because, if the money is coming from a community pool, that's money that others could use.
 
Pro life is pro life. If it costs 100 million so be it. Why does a dollar sign have to be involved?

I agree, if you are pro life it doesn't matter if the child is in the womb or 15 years old, you take all means to save regardless of the cost.

You can't be anti-abortion, let the kid be born and then whatever happens, happen to that child.

Looking back 6 years ago when my 87 yr old brother in law was dying (for weeks) a hospital, skilled nursing facility and numerous doctors trying to keep a person this age with chf and kidney disease alive, now this was not moral but rather dollar driven. The dollar amount involved was close to $2 million. For what? Of course, once Medicare discounted it down nowhere near the $2 million. This is always where I disagreed with obamacare, they should have directed reform at healthcare providers.

Skimming the article again this morning I can't help but wonder if this teenager could not have been placed on Medicaid, then again it still costs to keep him/her alive. Also did some research on Wellmark and they recently built I believe he article said a $500 million building. Also, they don't seem to be as profitable as some others.
 
Pro life is pro life. If it costs 100 million so be it. Why does a dollar sign have to be involved?

I agree, if you are pro life it doesn't matter if the child is in the womb or 15 years old, you take all means to save regardless of the cost.

You can't be anti-abortion, let the kid be born and then whatever happens, happen to that child.

I'm starting to get that most people aren't thinking about this issue rationally, at all, but I'm wondering - is there a point where you'd cut this kid off? What if it were $10 million a month? $100 million?
 
Last edited:
The federal government has been screwing up health care and health insurance for decades. All of the tinkering has only made things worse. We have completely thrown away what works in America and that was the free market approach and we are paying dearly for it now.

Obamacare made things even worse. We still have yet to see just how devastating that law was to healthcare and a ever shrinking physician pool. Lack of care and wait time stories and non coverage complaints are increasing everyday.

I support a move back to when insurance companies could compete for your business. I also think government regulations could be cut to entice people back into the healthcare field again. Tort reform never even gets discussed anymore but that is a huge cost contributor.

But unfortunately the swamp creatures got a taste of the power and influence that came along with government run healthcare/Obamacare. They refuse to now let go. It's addictive I guess.

So now what? Single payer. Like it or not this is where we are headed. We have decided in America that people do not have to be responsible for themselves and buy health insurance at age 18 so we actually have no other option. Government run top to bottom lousy, mediocre, fall short, over priced health care. Good luck everyone! and whatever you do do not get sick.

Before the federal government screwed it up, the private healthcare industry had already screwed it up. McCain's plan to exclude pre existing conditions would have solved the problem, if it hadn't already been too late at the down wave of industry consolidation. The ACA is a government rescue plan to save the American healthcare from implosion. As government plans are always contaminated by private interest in the 21st century, it is bound to fail. The solution is till the exclusion of pre existing conditions and anti trust regulations enforced. Totally impossible in the 21st century.
 
The ACA is a government rescue plan to save the American healthcare from implosion. As government plans are always contaminated by private interest in the 21st century, it is bound to fail. The solution is till the exclusion of pre existing conditions and anti trust regulations enforced. Totally impossible in the 21st century.

Exclusion of pre-existing conditions is the only thing that makes insurance possible.
 
Before the federal government screwed it up, the private healthcare industry had already screwed it up. McCain's plan to exclude pre existing conditions would have solved the problem, if it hadn't already been too late at the down wave of industry consolidation. The ACA is a government rescue plan to save the American healthcare from implosion. As government plans are always contaminated by private interest in the 21st century, it is bound to fail. The solution is till the exclusion of pre existing conditions and anti trust regulations enforced. Totally impossible in the 21st century
And what now? Single payer did mess up the whole issue so did letting young adults remain on their parents plans. Now things are so far down the preexisting road that all we can do is force people to get coverage at the age of 18. That would alleviate eventually the preexisting problem. You have to have ins to drive and now you will have to have ins to live. It will become just another thing we must do as Americans. We will never get the genie back into the bottle on preexisting health ins.
 
Before the federal government screwed it up, the private healthcare industry had already screwed it up. McCain's plan to exclude pre existing conditions would have solved the problem, if it hadn't already been too late at the down wave of industry consolidation. The ACA is a government rescue plan to save the American healthcare from implosion. As government plans are always contaminated by private interest in the 21st century, it is bound to fail. The solution is till the exclusion of pre existing conditions and anti trust regulations enforced. Totally impossible in the 21st century
And what now? Single payer did mess up the whole issue so did letting young adults remain on their parents plans. Now things are so far down the preexisting road that all we can do is force people to get coverage at the age of 18. That would alleviate eventually the preexisting problem. You have to have ins to drive and now you will have to have ins to live. It will become just another thing we must do as Americans. We will never get the genie back into the bottle on preexisting health ins.

Yes, this is a difficult one. Once upon a time, during the days of Trump's grandfather, America was a free land, and you pocketed what you earned.

Then you agreed to pay federal personal income taxes forever.

Then you agreed to pay student loans forever.

Then you agreed to pay health insurance forever.

Now you will agree to pay carbon tax forever too.

Americans always agree to pay whatever.

Very easy.
 
The problem, as I see it, is with the exorbitant costs of healthcare in our country and not really related to health insurance at all. If healthcare itself was more affordable, then health insurance would also be more affordable. By controlling what the health insurance companies do, we are not really addressing the real issue.
 
The story doesn't address the root problem............neither does trying to make insurance more affordable...............

The root problem..................NO TREATMENT SHOULD COST THIS MUCH...................No way in HELL.

That is the problem.............Not the insurance companies...............
 
health-costs-per-person-2000-2007-selected-countries.png

What Country Spends The Most (And Least) On Health Care Per Person?

We spend double plus per capita than any country in the world.......
 
And so? What would you all suggest we do about such a situation where a person is born with a disease where the expense is more than the family can bear?

Or, in this case, what should we do when it's more expense than an insurance company can afford? Or more expensive than a state can afford? More expensive than a nation can afford?
 
Or, in this case, what should we do when it's more expense than an insurance company can afford? Or more expensive than a state can afford? More expensive than a nation can afford?

1 full time doctor may cost half a million a year. $1000 in medicine a day comes to $365000 a year. Nation can borrow more, or control the price.
 

Forum List

Back
Top