Dana Blankenhorn

Rethinking Healthcare

The Dana Plan for peeling the layers of health reform

By Dana Blankenhorn | Oct 19, 2009 |

I have been covering the health reform debate regularly over at ZDNet Healthcare and running into the predictable flak.

(The picture of a bookie shop is from Wikipedia.)

When my writing does not meet the ideological approval of the audience, I’m called biased. This is inevitable no matter what I write because the issue is so contentious.

So here I want to briefly tell you where I stand. I stand for peeling the layers.

Health insurance currently covers all three layers of health costs — what we know we need, what we’ll probably need, and what we might need.

The bottom layer includes things even the youngest and healthiest adults need. Regular check-ups, wellness counseling, help with diet and exercise. We routinely pay these costs for little kids, but once you’re 21 you’re on your own. And you become accustomed to not seeing these costs as real or necessary.

Once you turn 40 or (gasp) 50 you start paying these costs as part of your routine. You get the pap smear, the colonoscopy, the prostate exam. You get your cholesterol checked and adjusted, you get serious about your blood sugar, you start going to the gym or at least walking each day.

If these things had become habits at 20 you might not be hustling to catch up. We can save a ton as a society, over time, if everyone is paying these costs and getting these benefits.

This is not “insurance.” Insurers are bookies. They can set rates for the outside chances of cancer or a heart attack, they can estimate the odds you’ll fall and or get in a car wreck. They are good at this. They are not good at paying out on sure things.

That’s what bankers do. So health care should be run by bankers, not bookies.

If everyone has costs (and they do) everyone should pay them into a common pool. You then designate a health system to take that money — you can change if you move or switch jobs — and they use that money for your basic care.

They assign you a wellness coach, who uses data from your regular check-ups and anything else they can learn to keep you as healthy as they can. This should be a doctor, but we don’t have enough primary care doctors so most people will get this through groups that have doctors at the top and a range of people aligned to them.

Health insurance, too, comes in two layers. There are the likely hazards — cavities, eyeglasses, mental problems, maintenance prescriptions — and there are the unlikely ones.

You can insure that second layer or handle those costs yourself through a Health Savings Account (HSA), whose sponsor might win you discounts through buying power. Insurers can and do set up such plans today. It’s a conservative idea that can work.

Then there’s real insurance, the “catastrophic care” plans some Republicans consider a total solution to the problem. This is where the insurance industry started, gradually expanding into wellness because there was money in it and savings were promised.

We should have insurance for catastrophes, just as we have car insurance, fire insurance, and business insurance. The market works well here, and for those who don’t go to the market taxes can pay for care that’s as good (or bad) as the public wants to make it.

That’s a good place for a political debate.

So what do we have?

  1. A per-capita wellness tax everyone pays, which providers compete to get your piece of.
  2. A layer of costs we can either cover through forced savings or pay cash for.
  3. A layer of catastrophic coverage we handle through the market, with taxes paying for minimal standards of care on the uninsured.

The “Dana Plan” has something in it to make everyone angry:

  • Conservatives are going to hate the wellness tax. They’re going to hate the nagging it pays for even more.
  • Liberals are going to hate the standard of care the uninsured get, when compared to those who buy insurance.
  • There are going to be gaps in the middle as people treat necessities as extravagances.

This isn’t a political plan. I am quite tired of politics when it comes to health care.

But this is the honest truth. There are costs everyone must bear to stay well. Avoiding them, and evading their message, is what leads to chronic conditions like diabetes and heart disease. The rich also expect a different level of care from poor people, and in the American system they have a right to that.

I wish I could have written this two years ago, when I first started covering health care for ZDNet. I wish I had this plan 30 years ago when I began covering business for a living.

Better late than never.

 
Reply to Story

SmartPlanet TalkbackShare your ideas and expertise on this topic

Subscribe to this discussion via RSS

  •  
    1

    iron_monk@...

    10/19/09 | Report as spam

    RE: The Dana Plan for peeling the layers of health reform

    Insurers take on risk, everything is a risk when it comes to
    insurance... health insurance should be like car insurance, in
    regards we use it to pay for accidents, we pay for our maintenance
    out of pocket, this is where HSA's and a high deductible plan can
    save us lots of money. If people want to live a unhealthy lifestyle,
    they have that right of freedom, but they will have to pay
    when it comes to getting health insurance. The government has
    created the mess, we need less government intervention in healthcare
    to fix it, not more. NO MORE TAXES. To give few have nots of
    "health insurance" they will have to take away freedom from the
    majority of people... which is UNJUST

    Side bar... as the bureaucrats would have you believe that people
    are dying because of no health insurance, which is a total lie.
    People who need medical care cannot be turned away from a hospital
    emergency room for lack of ability to pay.

    People have a responsibility to take care of themselves, if they
    live unhealthy lifestyles, too bad. It's called FREEDOM. We should
    have FREEDOM to SUCCEED and TO FAIL.

  •  
    2

    DanaBlankenhorn

    10/19/09 | Report as spam

    The bottom peel

    What about those costs we all must incur, costs which if we don't incur them we die, now or later?

    I guess you'd say it's FREEDOM to forego these costs. FREEDOM to not tax us to pay for those costs.

    Trouble is, a lot of people would like those costs paid in some way. A lot of people might prefer not to die of diabetes or heart disease in their 40s. They might like the option not to.

    If you refuse to pay those taxes in the name of FREEDOM, you're taking away their FREEDOM to live.

    Oh, and the opposite of FREEDOM isn't government. It's anarchy. No government, no FREEDOM. Unless you consider Somalia FREE.

  •  
    3

    Professor8

    10/20/09 | Report as spam

    Dana, weren't you ever an analyst?

    Sheesh! First you've got to gather information, then analyze it, define the
    problem(s) to be solved. What's the problem? Many people want infinite
    health care at zero cost... and they really really want it... now.

    If you can't afford something, and you can't get or won't accept charity,
    you don't get it, no matter how much you want or "need" it.

    The bookie analogy is pretty good, though. Protection rack, er, uh,
    insurance companies do not take on risk. They're weasels, as we saw a
    while back when hurricanes came through and one particular firm declared
    that all damage to their insurees was "flood damage" (which they've
    already dumped off onto the feral federal government, and hence to tax-
    victims). They were even caught forging engineers' reports, and leaning
    on engineers to get them to change their reports. What's most amazing to
    me is that they're still in business, still protected BY federal and state
    governments, and the executives are still pulling down megabucks, for
    nothing.

    "medical insurance leads us to buy more health care than we would buy if
    insurance were not available and every bill had to be paid in cash." ---
    Lester C. Thurow 1980 _The Zero-Sum Society_ pg 89

    "In 1940 [the 4th year of Socialist Insecurity imposition] people aged 65 &
    older in the US was only 6.8% of the total population, according to that
    year's census. Life expectancy at birth was calculated by the National
    Center for Health Statistics to be 63.6 years -- 61.4 years for men & 65.7
    years for women... The hardy few who did make it to 65 could expect to
    live -- & draw benefits -- another dozen years (13.4 for women)." ---
    Marshall N. Carter & William G. Shipman 1996 _Promises to Keep_ pp 29
    -30

    "Today, the vast majority of people in the US are covered by Medicare or by
    some sort of private insurance plan. Because a 3rd party is paying most of
    the cost, consumers have little reason to shop for better prices, nor do
    doctors have an incentive to lower their charges to gain more business. If
    anything, the reverse is true." --- Derek Bok 1993 _The Cost of Talent_ pg
    121

    "[A] day's stay in the hospital cost 5 times as much in 1970 as it did in
    1950. These incentive problems have existed since the advent of medical
    insurance, but the negative effects on overall health costs have only
    manifested themselves since WW2 because health insurance was rare
    before that time. In 1940 less than 10% of the US population had any
    health insurance, so while institutions responsible for reducing market
    forces in medicine were developed earlier in the century, they did not exert
    a major effect until insurance became more wide-spread." --- Randall G.
    Holcombe 1995 _Public Policy & the Quality of Life_ pg 129 (referencing
    Martin Feldstein 1971-12-?? "Hospital Cost Inflation: A Study of NonProfit
    Price Dynamics" _American Economic Review_ vol 61 pp 853-872 & Burton
    A. Weisbrod 1991-06-?? "The Health Care Quadrilemma: An Essay on
    Technological Change, Insurance, Quality of Care, & Cost Containment"
    _Journal of Economic Literature_ vol 29 pp 523-552)

  •  
    4

    swiley@...

    10/20/09 | Report as spam

    Re: the Obama Plan . . . Dana Plan? . . . Any difference?

    Sorry, no matter how you spin it, it's still the "government run, 1500 page, no one has read, refuse to post on the internet so we can't read it, non-transparent (in contrast to the president's campaign promise" Obama Plan. No diffence. It's "robbing Peter to pay Paul", or in this case, robbing from hard-working taxpayers who chose to work and sacrifice in order to purchase health insurance. The government should concentrate on covering those who are certifiably unemployed as a result of the economy, the working poor and those who are locked out due to pre-existing conditions. Why change it for EVERYONE in order to cover those who choose not to work, chose to spend their money elsewhere or are here illegally?

  •  
    5

    mashford@...

    10/20/09 | Report as spam

    I agree with everything, but the tax ...

    Hi! Dana,

    The government screws-up everything they touch (Failed Fannie, Freddie, SS, medicare, education, legal system, ...). If we give them control of Well Care, then it will cost double & accomplish 1/2. Please re-think the tax part ... I'm Independent, not republican

    Thanks!

    My Best!

    Mark

  •  
    6

    What the ...!

    10/20/09 | Report as spam

    RE: The Dana Plan for peeling the layers of health reform

    O'bama can fix it w/o much fuss. All he has to do is sign an executive order changing the insurance companies to N.P.O.s. They'll quickly settle into MUCH lower cost operations to save their salaries. Include in the order that they must maintain their current level of service and it is settled.

  •  
    7

    pranavb99@...

    10/20/09 | Report as spam

    RE: The Dana Plan for peeling the layers of health reform

    Dana, not a bad article for a statist. Your comment doesn't fly, though: "If you refuse to pay those taxes in the name of FREEDOM, you're taking away their FREEDOM to live" Its unfortunate that our government schools don't teach us that freedom is a negative right, not an obligation. Its tough to have a debate unless we start from a common framework of understanding the nature of rights and the reason for their existence.

    Iron Monk is correct, the government has created the mess. The public option is all about increasing competition, right? So why does the administration avoid no-cost reform? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YD1JH3dF_X4 (3:04)

    Senior Presidential Adviser David Axelrod cites statistics on how insurance companies dominate state markets (1:25) and proposes a public option to introduce competition, but refuses to endorse de-regulation of state barriers (the very purpose of the Commerce Clause in the Constitution) on competition between insurance companies. Ideology and winning elections clearly drives politics.

    So is Axelrod like an evil CEO who commits fraud and can be prosecuted? No, far worse, he's an idealist politician who never grew up, who paves the road to hell with his good intentions, and is unassailable for pushing to break the law: "I got into politics because I believe in idealism. Just to be a part of this effort that seems to be rekindling the kind of idealism that I knew when I was a kid, it's a great thing to do." http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-axelrod15feb15,1,1237468.story

    Government failures drive market failures. Its a shame that the term hasn't entered the mainstream, since most of our problems are due to it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_failure

    Dana, I think you'll find this article on Somalia very interesting. http://www.cato-unbound.org/2007/08/06/peter-t-leeson/anarchy-unbound-or-why-self-governance-works-better-than-you-think/

  •  
    8

    eric.pederson@...

    10/20/09 | Report as spam

    Remember the good ole days?

    The market does not currently work for the catastrophic coverage,
    though perhaps it can be fixed. There is a huge economic incentive
    to find ways not to pay for catastrophic care, and smart insurers
    will of course pursue these self-interests on behalf of their
    shareholders

    If you invest in a healthcare insurer you should understand that the
    profits you've enjoyed came at the cost of people's lives. You made
    a couple bucks, someone died so that you could. Blood for money

    This is not the right area for a for-profit business. It's
    Dickensonian, like the days of Ebeneezer Scrooge.

    "But what did Scrooge care? It was the very thing he liked. To edge
    his way along the crowded paths of life, warning all human sympathy
    to keep its distance..."

  •  
    9

    JohnMcGrew@...

    10/20/09 | Report as spam

    Again Dana, you start off reasonable, but then...

    ...as you frequently seem to do, you have to resort to extremes as
    answers to any debate.

    Your original post is far more reasoned than most I see regarding
    this debate. You are amongst the few who seem to actually understand
    that what most Americans think of as "health insurance" is actually a
    "payment plan". Insurance is a hedge against lesser-likely but
    catastrophic events. However, 60-years of corporate custom abetted
    by the tax code has seen to it that most people think of insurance as
    something an employer takes responsibility for with $20 co-pays and
    real costs that they never ever see, or realize even exist.

    My favorite example is: How expensive would your auto insurance have
    to be if it also covered oil changes, tune-ups, and replacement
    tires? And how much would consumers care about the actual cost of
    oil changes, tune-ups, and replacement tires if all they had to pay
    to get them whenever they wanted them was $20?

    But the unfortunately, your "wellness tax" is simply a blank check in
    a nation where few understand, and fewer can even define in finite
    terms what all "health care", is, or should be, especially when most
    of those clamoring for it expect that it will be paid for by someone
    other than themselves.

    Add to that the idea that somehow a hopelessly corrupt congress can
    develop a plan that was not riddled with special and self interest,
    and then stand behind and defend what they write before the people
    instead of relying on code and procedural gimmicks to get it passed
    into law. And this is all done in the shadow of the explicit goal of
    implementing a Soviet-style single-payer system the second their
    flawed system predictably fails. Any discussions of "freedom" will
    be long since mute at that point; we'll all be slaves to the state.

  •  
    10

    JohnMcGrew@...

    10/20/09 | Report as spam

    Oh, and one other major myth you cling to...

    ...is this idea that somehow if everyone get free regular checkups as
    they should, that they will start living healthier lives and require
    less expensive care down the road.

    This is myth on several levels; the 1st being that most health care
    dollars are spent on the final months of life, regardless of how old
    someone is. The 2nd is that the effects of obesity and diabetes are
    more expensive to treat than the diseases that those who avoid
    obesity and diabetes will eventually get in their place in old age.
    (cancer, althzhiemers, etc, unless we actually will be using "death
    panels"...)

    And the 3rd myth is that somehow people will simply live healthier
    because they get to go to the dr for "free". But that seems to be
    your optimistic viewpoint, in that you also believe that if only we
    had more sidewalks, then people would start walking more and driving
    less.

    In fact, I fear the opposite; free health care will actually
    encourage people to be less healthy, just as the success of anti-
    virals have encouraged the return to unsafe sexual practices as AIDS
    is no longer seen as the death sentence it was 20 years ago. If
    people won't go on a diet, there will be free medication and
    surgeries to fix the problem.

  •  
    11

    DanaBlankenhorn

    10/20/09 | Report as spam

    Thanks to all on the thread

    My ideas were generated from interviews with people in the wellness and insurance industries over the last two years, including people involved in predictive health.

    What businesses tell me is that the best way to lower health care costs is wellness. Do everything you can to keep people from getting sick and you can make a material impact on the cost curve.

    I suggested "tax" and everyone ran from the hills. But I'm no hypocrite. If everyone has to pay in and get something out I'm not going to call it a "user fee." If it's universal it's a tax.

    My suggestion is that this be a pass-through to wellness companies, who are able to choose whom to serve and offer a variety of plans based on folks' age and risk.

    If I know you need a colonoscopy and regular heart screeings this year, I'm not going to give you the bottom-level plan with the health club and the massage. That's the market at work.

    All this can be automated. The overhead costs of running automated plans are really very low. That's why insurers have such high profit margins.

  •  
    12

    JohnMcGrew@...

    10/20/09 | Report as spam

    OMG! They make profits?

    Finally, you let it slip. The evil "P" word.

    Personally, I would never do business with an insurance company that
    did not make a profit. Contracting with a unprofitable company would
    mean only 2 things; either rates would have to be raised
    significantly in the near future, or worse, they'd be unable to pay
    claims when the day came that I'd need them. (This is what is likely
    to happen with the non-profit "public option" when it happens, which
    is inevitable)

    And as industries go, the health insurance industry is no where near
    the top of the list in terms of profit margin. You need to do some
    research beyond DNC press releases before regurgitating lines like
    that. Your audience here is a bit more sophisticated than MSNBC's.

  •  
    13

    DanaBlankenhorn

    10/21/09 | Report as spam

    John McGrew

    I like profits. I don't object to profits.

    But there are serious questions to be raised about the size of health insurance profits. Anti-trust issues, for instance. To what extent are these profits monopoly rents, and how should government respond to make them the product of good business rather than legal tricks?

    While I take it that the profit motive is a great thing, it's also not the only motivation for all market participants. It is foolish to ridicule these other motivations. I have learned this in covering open source.

  •  
    14

    JohnMcGrew@...

    10/21/09 | Report as spam

    But you speak as though you do object

    "But there are serious questions to be raised about the size of
    health insurance profits."


    My casual reading of industrial comparisons puts the net profit
    margin for the health insurance industry somewhere between 4 and 11
    percent; hardly levels I'd consider questionable or even worthwhile
    considering the levels of risk involved today.

    Now, if you want to talk about eliminating anti-trust and monopoly
    rents in the health care arena, I'd probably be your biggest fan.
    Again, these are distortions totally created by government
    intervention by:

    o Incentives and disincentives via the tax code
    o Favoring employer and state provided coverage over personally
    provided coverage
    o Not allowing insurance to be purchased across state lines
    o Regulation through mandates, which discourages competition
    o The biggest monopoly, Medicare
    o Practically zero transparency

    But none of this is on the current agenda, which almost completely
    driven with the goal of a single-payer system. And the biggest
    problem with the single payer system is that it's not-for-profit,
    meaning that nobody comes out ahead for doing it well.

  •  
    15

    JohnMcGrew@...

    10/23/09 | Report as spam

    Oh, and I forgot a biggie...

    ..."tort reform".

    If you want to see "questionable profits", how about those for John
    Edwards' former law firm?

  •  
    16

    FuzzyIce

    10/27/09 | Report as spam

    RE: The Dana Plan for peeling the layers of health reform

    I believe in prevention as a way to deter or to identify earlier
    conditions. The only way to provide it to everybody is through some
    form of government way. There are plenty of examples in Europe of
    systems that does work well. Germany, Great Britain and Denmark,
    for instance... and they are officially controlled.
    Surely they cost money to everybody, and ultimately, it's up to the
    individual to chose between a super-sized junk food with a gallon
    of soda sweetened with corn-syrup. Some people will still die from
    self neglecting by ignoring wellness practices, but many more will
    be able to benefit from a regular visit to a prime care office.
    Some say we don't have enough doctors, even though they currently
    make some serious money (nothing wrong with that...), but if we
    decrease their exposure to being sued for frivolous reasons there
    would be more of them. We always can schedule wisely, and have some
    doctors working on Fridays again...
    If we don't do this, most of our medicine will be practiced at the
    Emergency rooms, and we all know how expensive that is.
    Think about the IT market, for example. Ten years ago, we were
    importing people from everywhere to code for Y2K. Surely, we off-
    shored lots of those jobs and nowadays we have surplus of such
    professionals...
    Maybe we could start importing doctors as well... Bottom line is,
    the saying that 4 of every 5 Americans have some sort of insurance
    is not working.

  •  
    17

    JohnMcGrew@...

    10/27/09 | Report as spam

    Fuzzy, before becoming convinced that...

    ..."There are plenty of examples in Europe of systems that does
    work well. Germany, Great Britain and Denmark, for instance..."
    ,
    might I suggest reading what the people in those countries think
    about their health care. Since it's readily available in English,
    I'd suggest British papers such as:

    London Observer: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/
    London Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/

    Just search by keyword "NHS" (for "national health service", and
    you'll find plenty of examples of what we will be in for when we
    adopt an "officially controlled" health care system. The American
    promoters of the "government option" are counting on it that you'll
    be too lazy to actually do that.

The following tags are supported in Smartplanet comments:
<b></b> <i></i> <u></u> <pre></pre>

Leave a Reply

  1. Name: You are currently: a Guest |
advertisement

Quick Poll

advertisement

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn has been a business journalist for nearly 25 years and has covered the online world professionally since 1985. He founded the Interactive Age Daily for CMP Media, and has written for the Chicago Tribune, Advertising Age's "NetMarketing" supplement, and dozens of other publications over the years.

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn has been a technology reporter since 1982, a business reporter since 1978, and a writer for as long as he can remember. His Schwab IRA has a few tech stocks in it, most notably some Intel and Applied Materials bought over 10 years ago. But the vast majority of his tiny fortune (emphasis on the word tiny) is invested in mutual funds. He presently writes for no one else but ZDNet, SmartPlanet and himself. But if you've got an opportunity let him know. If he takes the gig he"ll first add it to this disclosure page.
Rethinking Healthcare examines innovation in the health care industry covering topics such as electronic and personal health records, treatment, privacy, regulation and using information technology to manage and monitor chronic conditions.