Study: Disability Discriminates

• By NU ONLINE NEWS SERVICE

Published 5/18/2009

Subscribe to Life & Health

Print This Article

Return To Article

Normal Text

Large Text

ShareThis

Health problems that keep single, middle-income workers off the job can hit them with losses equal to 20 times the amount of their pre-disability annual income.

Researchers at Milliman Inc., Seattle, have included that estimate in an analysis of the effects of disability prepared for America's Health Insurance Plans, Washington, and the Life and Health Insurance Foundation for Education, Arlington, Va.

AHIP and LIFE commissioned the analysis in connection with Disability Insurance Awareness Month.

Milliman analysts estimated the effects of disability by considering 4 representative individuals: A single male, age 40, who earned $50,000 per year before becoming disabled; a married male, age 40, who earned $50,000 per year before becoming disabled, and with a spouse earning $25,000 per year; a single female, age 50, who earned $200,000 per year before becoming disabled; and a married female, age 50, who earned $200,000 per year prior to disability, and whose spouse earns $100,000 per year.

One scenario the Milliman analysts considered was a disability lasting until the individual turned 65.

For the high-income, married female, the present value of income reduction, expense increase and tax reduction would be about 3.8 times pre-disability income.

The impact would be about 10 times pre-disability income for the single, high-income female and also about 10 times pre-disability income for the married, middle-income male.

For the single, middle-income male, the impact would be almost 20 times income, Milliman analysts estimate.

If the disability lasted 5 years for all 4 representative individuals, the impact would be about 1.7 times pre-disability income for the high-income, married female; 2.6 times income for the married, middle-income male; 3.7 times income for the single, high-income female; and 4.6 times income for the single, middle-income male.

"In these scenarios," the analysts write, "the financial impact of disability is significantly higher for single individuals than for those who are married to a working spouse, because typically only a portion of total household income is lost when a married individual becomes disabled, and because medical insurance may be available through the spouse's employer if the disabled individual is unable to continue coverage."

The impact of disability also is harder on lower-income individuals than on higher-income individuals, in part because tax savings are lower, and in part because "the added health care costs incurred during disablity are a greater portion of income at lower income levels," the Milliman analysts write.

When you hear advocates of Universal Health Care...

...think about this:

Who amongst us would:
- take a car back to a mechanic who already screwed up the last service, and made it worse each and every time he messed with it;
- take laundry to a laundry mat where the washers stained the last batches of clothes;
- go eat where the service is lousy and the food tastes worse each time we go?

Am I missing something here?

Yes - I agree the current health insurance system is not working to the best level it could.
But I'd rather be on it than the current Universal Care System for the over 65, called Medicare, or Medicaid, for the under 65.

We sometimes forget, in all the hype that anyone who needs Emergency care can still get it if they go to a hospital.
Note that because of what is happening, this may change in UTAH

People who want Universal Health Care need to be asked to explain why the following is happening with the Government Universal Health Care system we already have.

They should also be reminded that before we do a political biased change to scrap what we have now, and create another Government system, prudence and (un?) common sense would point out that we need to get the current Government systems fixed, first.

If not, Doctors, Nurses and Providers that are not enslaved to the Government have the right to refuse to treat patients. Hospitals that are not federally owned will have the right to refuse all but emergency care to those on Medicare.

Here is the current Universal Health Care system at work:


UT hospitals struggling under Medicaid cuts

By Anne Zieger

Hospitals in Utah are reeling under a 25 percent Medicaid reimbursement cut that was much larger than anticipated, and now are warning that they might be forced to offset costs by increasing fees on insured patients or cutting back on charity care.

Hospital association leaders said the hospitals failed to factor in the effects of using a funding stream to offset the cuts occurring in 2009. Meanwhile, technical changes in the payments to hospitals for "nonphysicians services" such as nursing care also had an impact on such reimbursement. To help address this huge change in funding, the state is looking at increasing its tobacco tax or imposing a tax on hospital stays.

If the state can't come up with a solution, state hospitals could theoretically refuse to treat Medicaid beneficiaries entirely, observers note.

To learn more about Utah's Medicaid situation:
- read this Kaiser Daily Health Policy Review item

Budget reconciliation process on Health Care affects your health.

Hopefully the plan for health care in the U.S. will be under bi-partisan craftsmanship. The Budget reconciliation process, if used here, will create a plan that will have almost 1/2 of the population left out of the creation process.

This would not be a good situation for a president who campaigned, in part, on his ability to reach across the isle.

It would not be a good for the population, as if it is fast tracked, the overall concerns of "We, the People" will not be fully heard.

Providers will choose alternative channels, since there is no way to force them to accept more patients and give less care for less money. Those with short memories need only look what happened in MD about 10 years ago, or what is happening in Massachusetts and other states, today.

If we've learned anything at all from the last year of Congress, with the Stimulus Bill and TARP, Congress moving quickly spells major expenses and lack of control for us now, and our future generations.

"We, the People" have an obligation, and a right to be heard, and be involved fully in the process. Do not let Congress adversely affect the quality of life just to "do something".

Those who have followed my posts know the risks we have if we allow "any" system to be put in place. A plan like used in most European nations, Canada, or our own VA or Medicare system will leave us with limited access to providers.

Such a system will have more Doctors retiring, more going to limited "boutique" access practices, and less accepting the public limited access and limited fee system.
Massachusetts's is on the leading edge, with several state mandates, and they are experiencing Doctor shortages, lack of care, and major increases in ER use.

Trends showing increased lack of care, denial of care, limited access to medications, denied coverage are well documented in Medicare recipients, as well as in Universal "one payer" (one controller of health care access) systems.

I, for one, with 5 family members as Medical providers, am scared to turn 65, because I loose coverage levels and access I enjoy now.

Please, follow the process, and remain active in the political agenda. Your health depends on it.

Health May Go On Fast Track

• By ARTHUR D. POSTAL

Published 4/28/2009

Democratic congressional leaders have come out with a 2010 budget resolution conference agreement that includes health reform and estate tax provisions.

Democrats and Republicans have posted separate texts and analyses of the 2010 budget resolution agreement on the Senate Budget Committee website, at http://budget.senate.gov

The conference agreement resolves differences between the Senate version, S. Con. Res. 13, and the House version, H.Con. Res. 85.

Here is a "side by side" comparison posted by the Republican members of the Senate Budget Committee.

Congress has agreed to handle health reform measures through the ordinary legislative process until Oct. 15, officials say. If no legislation passes by that date, Congress may consider health reform through the budget reconciliation process.

Supporters of a bill usually need to get the cooperation of 60 senators to get the bill to the Senate floor. When Congress includes a measure in the budget reconciliation process, supporters need just 51 votes in the Senate.

Robelynn Abadie, president of the Association of Health Insurance Advisors, Falls Church, Va., says she is disappointed that health reform could end up becoming part of the budget reconciliation process but welcomes the decision to let lawmakers try to craft a bipartisan health reform plan through the ordinary legislative process until October:

“A health care bill written entirely by Democrats would almost certainly create a new public health insurance program,” Abadie warned.

Continuing with bipartisan efforts offers the best chance of coming up with “an agreement on health care that will stand the test of time,” says John Greene, a vice president at the National Association of Health Underwriters, Arlington, Va.

“Reconciliation would make it difficult to achieve bipartisan health care reform that addresses the core issues of cost, access, and quality together,” says Robert Zirkelbach, a spokesman for America’s Health Insurance Plans, Washington.

Democratic congressional leaders have come out with a 2010 budget resolution conference agreement that includes health reform and estate tax provisions.

Democrats and Republicans have posted separate texts and analyses of the 2010 budget resolution agreement on the Senate Budget Committee website, at http://budget.senate.gov

The conference agreement resolves differences between the Senate version, S. Con. Res. 13, and the House version, H.Con. Res. 85.

Here is a "side by side" comparison posted by the Republican members of the Senate Budget Committee.

Congress has agreed to handle health reform measures through the ordinary legislative process until Oct. 15, officials say. If no legislation passes by that date, Congress may consider health reform through the budget reconciliation process.

Supporters of a bill usually need to get the cooperation of 60 senators to get the bill to the Senate floor. When Congress includes a measure in the budget reconciliation process, supporters need just 51 votes in the Senate.

Robelynn Abadie, president of the Association of Health Insurance Advisors, Falls Church, Va., says she is disappointed that health reform could end up becoming part of the budget reconciliation process but welcomes the decision to let lawmakers try to craft a bipartisan health reform plan through the ordinary legislative process until October:

“A health care bill written entirely by Democrats would almost certainly create a new public health insurance program,” Abadie warned.

Continuing with bipartisan efforts offers the best chance of coming up with “an agreement on health care that will stand the test of time,” says John Greene, a vice president at the National Association of Health Underwriters, Arlington, Va.

“Reconciliation would make it difficult to achieve bipartisan health care reform that addresses the core issues of cost, access, and quality together,” says Robert Zirkelbach, a spokesman for America’s Health Insurance Plans, Washington.