Reforming healthcare reform

Tomorrow (Monday) morning, President Obama will propose limits on rate increases from health insurance companies. That's according to a report this evening from the New York Times. At it might be attributed to the considerable press given to the issue during the past week.

A rate increase of 30% or more is enough to get anyone’s attention, when inflation is running somewhere under 3%. So it’s not surprising that Anthem was on the receiving end of media coverage last week, from the New York Times to ABC News.



Implications: Healthcare reform was already an ill-defined concept. It was popular, early-on, because voters were told simply that, “somebody is making too much money, and we’re going to find out who it is and put a stop to it.” But in recent months—not surprisingly—the issue has attracted more confusion rather than clarity… as differing interests seem to be positioning the matter in different ways. (Healthcare providers would like it to be an insurance and drug company issue… insurance providers would like all of this to be positioned as a care provider and pharmaceutical issue… and drug companies are quick to respond that strong profits fuel research and development of new and better treatments.)

Healthcare reform is not confusing because consumers are easily confused. It is confusing because many players have competing interests, and they all seem to be talking at once. From a trend-watching point-of-view, I’m wondering how long the consumer will be tolerant of all this noise.

Examples like this media story about Anthem seem to lay bare both the greed (record profits, accompanied by selective rate increases of nearly forty percent), as well as the complex challenges facing the insurance sector (like healthy patients canceling policies while sick patients tap insurance company resources). In either event, I’d watch for consumers to be increasingly hungry for point-blank stories that bring clarity to this issue, whether the target is drug companies, doctors, insurers… or politicians who attempt to profit from the dilemma in votes, while contributing little in the way of solutions.

Whether you are a healthcare provider, drug company, politician, or an insurance company...

Consider clarity.

Mike Anderson