Automatic Health Care Enrollment: Lower Costs for Users?
In a recent New York Times (NYT) op-ed, Lanhee Chen and James Capretta collaborate to share insight on the ongoing battle for universal health care. Chen and Capretta are supporters of universal coverage, and have proposed a solution on lowering premiums for users: automatic enrollment. They argue that employers should utilize automatic enrollment for their employees, but allow their employees to see what plans are available, and also understand their options. Their argument is based on their research that automatic enrollment works "best when the financial burden on the beneficiaries is minimal." They utilize Medicaid as their basis for the findings, as the users are not placed under financial pressure once enrolled.
Chen and Carpetta aim to target middle-class Americans, those of whom are paying higher premiums for their current insurance plans; and also those who opt out of insurance plans due to the high premiums. It is noted that currently Congress has a legislative plan in place, but it is noted that the premiums would not be lowered significantly. Reducing insurance premiums would also take significant database sharing about prospective users, in order to best suit them as a whole. The duo does a decent job arguing for automatic enrollment, but much of the op-ed appeared to lack enough substance to create a strong argument. There did not seem to be enough information regarding realistic policies or plans for carrying out automatic enrollment. They offered minimal solutions to the insurance premium increases, which did not further their argument whatsoever.
In order for their argument to have been stronger, I would have liked to see more data regarding current enrollment status, reasons as to why people do not enroll (aside from high premiums), and also how many companies would want to have the opportunity to afford their employees competitive insurance. It would have also benefited them to educate the reader on the current averages for insurance premiums, and what an "ideal" premium would look like for comparison. If they were to have added additional education elements, I think there argument would have been much stronger, and more persuasive.
Chen and Carpetta aim to target middle-class Americans, those of whom are paying higher premiums for their current insurance plans; and also those who opt out of insurance plans due to the high premiums. It is noted that currently Congress has a legislative plan in place, but it is noted that the premiums would not be lowered significantly. Reducing insurance premiums would also take significant database sharing about prospective users, in order to best suit them as a whole. The duo does a decent job arguing for automatic enrollment, but much of the op-ed appeared to lack enough substance to create a strong argument. There did not seem to be enough information regarding realistic policies or plans for carrying out automatic enrollment. They offered minimal solutions to the insurance premium increases, which did not further their argument whatsoever.
In order for their argument to have been stronger, I would have liked to see more data regarding current enrollment status, reasons as to why people do not enroll (aside from high premiums), and also how many companies would want to have the opportunity to afford their employees competitive insurance. It would have also benefited them to educate the reader on the current averages for insurance premiums, and what an "ideal" premium would look like for comparison. If they were to have added additional education elements, I think there argument would have been much stronger, and more persuasive.
Comments
Post a Comment