Top Product Ratings:  Ellipticals  |  Hospitals  |  Tooth whiteners  |  Blood-glucose meters  |  Insurance plans  |  Blood-pressure monitors  |  Treadmills
| More
Health-care reform: Would allowing people to shop for out-of-state insurance lower health costs for all?
Feb 1, 2010 1:35 PM
Lower healthcare costs That idea is a centerpiece of several alternative reform proposals. It would indeed lower insurance premiums for some people, namely the young and healthy who already have a relatively easy time finding affordable coverage. But it would raise costs for those who are having the toughest time under the current system—the sick and the aging.

Here’s how it would work. Anyone in the market for an individual policy could shop for coverage anywhere in the country. (If you’re on Medicare or get your coverage through a job, none of this would apply to you.) Right now, you can only buy an individual policy that’s approved for sale in the state where you live. And states vary widely in how strictly they regulate insurance. A few states require insurers to accept all comers, young and old, sick and well. In other states, insurers can turn down whoever they want, or charge older people or those in less-than-perfect health higher premiums. Some states have relatively strict rules about what health insurance has to cover, while others allow the sale of plans with very skimpy benefits.

Not surprisingly, the more consumer protections a state has, the more expensive health insurance tends to be. That’s because insurers have to collect premiums high enough to cover people in less-than-ideal health, and pay the cost of more of their care.

So what would happen if you could buy insurance in another state?

Patient and consumer advocates predict it would spark a "race to the bottom" as insurers flocked to the least-regulated states and started luring healthy, younger customers with cheap, skimpy policies. We could see something like what happened with credit cards. Until the late 1970’s, state usury laws limited the amount of interest a bank could charge on a credit card. But after the Supreme Court ruled that banks only had to adhere to the laws of the state they’re based in, but could hand out cards nationwide, states like South Dakota and Delaware relaxed their interest limits to lure credit-card companies to open up shop there. If you have a card with a 24 percent interest rate, you can thank that decision for it.

Meanwhile, the states with more stringent regulations would see their risk pools shrink as younger, healthier customers switched to cheaper out-of-state coverage. Eventually, in these states the only customers left in the risk pool would be sicker, older people who couldn’t get those cheaper policies. Because insurers have to collect enough premiums to cover people’s health care expenses, they would increase relentlessly, eventually forcing people to drop coverage they could no longer afford.

The effect on overall health coverage would be a wash, concluded the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office in its analysis of the bill that includes this proposal. The proportion of uninsured legal residents would be the same in 2019 as it is today—17 percent. What’s more, the uninsured would be sicker—and thus more in need of insurance—than they are today. (For comparison’s sake, the health reform bill passed by the Senate would result in an uninsurance rate of just 6 percent by 2019, according to the CBO.

—Kevin McCarthy, associate editor

Post a comment

Comments:

6
Expand All
Collapse All