Krupa's Back Pages

April 7, 2010

More Self-interest in MA Healthcare

Filed under: Healthcare — Steve Krupa @ 5:31 pm
Tags: , , , ,

Mr. Adam Smith (again)

On 4/4/2010 I blogged about insurance cycling in Massachusetts.  News reports state that some MA consumers are gaming the system  by purchasing health insurance prior to getting an elective procedure only to drop it after receiving the service.  For many consumers, especially those without chronic illness, it is cheaper to pay the $93/month penalty than a $400/month insurance premium, unless of course the cost of the services you need exceed the short-term cost of  health insurance.  This behavior, which  is allowed by insurance regulations in MA, is economically rational (albeit mean and not for the good of all).  Widespread experience of this type of behavior would certainly increase the individual cost of health insurance for those that maintain continuous coverage. 


Today, 4/7/2010, we have a cadre of Massachusetts insurance companies, led by Blue Cross Blue Shield of MA, suing the state’s department of insurance (DOI) for refusing to approve proposed premium increases, claiming, among other things, that they (the cadre) stand to experience substantial losses if the rate increases are not approved.  Apparently the MA DOI has rejected 235 of 274 applications for premium increases, demonstrating their intention to impose a cap on premium increases.  Traditionally the primary role of the DOI is to protect insurance consumers by monitoring the financial solvency of insurance companies. 

In MA healthcare is now 100% under the purview of politics, with some reports suggesting that MA’s healthcare program is significantly over original budget estimates (did I mention that the proposed rate increases range from 8-32%?).  If you are a politician, bureaucrat or consumer in MA, rate caps initially appear to be the perfect solution to rising medical costs. 

However, it is unlikely that insurers will stay in a market where they are certain to lose money, a reality I am certain the MA bureaucrats (read: DOI) understand.  If the insurers vacate certain markets where will consumers go for their health insurance?  If this situation were to play out to its extreme and insurers were forced to abandon certain markets would this be viewed as a failure of the bureaucracy, the elected politicians or the private insurance system? 

If you were an elected politician would you expect to remain in office if the private insurance system failed under your watch? 

A failed private insurance system would certainly boost the argument for a “public option,” a euphemism for “an insurer of last resort” and a potential transitional step toward a single-payer HC system, which is a rational bureaucratic objective.


Leave a Comment »

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at

%d bloggers like this: