There are other trade-offs that did
not make it into this round of rate stories, and reporters need to explore them
in future pieces. I spent some time on the website of the Oregon Insurance Division, which
listed rates for insurers selling one of the four standardized policies--the
bronze policy, which will cover only about 60 percent of someone's medical
expenses. The monthly premiums for individual policies were indeed low, ranging
from $169 to $422 per month, depending on a host of variables, for a single
40-year-old who doesn't smoke.
The site also disclosed what a person gets for that low premium. The bronze
plan comes with a $5,000 deductible for an individual ($10,000 for a family)
and very high cost sharing for many services. For example, a person would have
to pay 50 percent of the bill for a stay in the hospital, even to have a baby;
50 percent for emergency care, unless it resulted in an admission; 50 percent
for diagnostic tests like CT scans and MRIs; and $120 for every urgent care
visit. In other words, premiums may be low but that may be nothing to celebrate
if you get sick or hurt.
The glowing coverage from the West Coast could spark a new meme that can mislead the public. What's needed is thorough, comprehensive, and skeptical reporting on rate announcements in other states. It may be impossible to compare this year's individual market rates with those in 2014. In fact, it may be best to concentrate not on premiums, as officialdom would like, but on all the other policy elements that go into helping people decide if a particular offering will be good for them. It is that mix that will reveal whether a policy is good, bad, or mediocre.
The implementation of Obamacare is not really a political story. It's a consumer story, and what's called for is some old-fashioned, hard-hitting, and skeptical consumer reporting.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
