The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) is out the morning of January 18 with a very complex set of statistics clearly designed simply to the scare the bejeezus out of people. The gist of the research is that four years from now you're all screwed if the House of Representatives repeals, reforms or otherwise fiddles with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) this year.
When the Department's secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, was in Massachusetts on January 7, the DHHS's Boston office put out a similar press release according to the Boston Globe. To the Globe's credit, its healthcare blogger then illustrated how incorrect Ms. Sebilius was, at least in terms of the situation in Massachusetts. I have no idea what the statistics are for the rest of the country but I am fairly sure that they vary state to state and insurer by insurer so blanket press releases about the whole country, such as those released by the DHHS on January 18, are probably as wrong in other states as the Boston Globe found them to be in Massachusetts.
For example, one of the common statistics thrown around relates to lifetime limits. As with terms and conditions of any insurance contract -- whether it be something purchased yourself (about 10% of the people in Massachusetts) or negotiated by your employer for you (about 80% of the people in Massachusetts) -- you have to read the fine print. One size does not fit all. MIT Professor Jonathan Gruber, one of the architects of both the PPACA and Romneycare in Massachusetts, at a meeting held in Washington DC on Thursday January 13 (see http://www.iom.edu/~/media/Files/Activity%20Files/HealthServices/EssentialHealthBenefits/2011-JAN-12/1015%20Gruber.pdf) presented a slide (number 18) that said only 7% of the insured in Massachusetts had lifetime limits even before Romneycare.
There was no source cited for that statistic but if correct, it probably applies in many places or in many policies elsewhere in the nation as well. The January 13 Gruber presentation also says the policy holders that didn't have lifetime limits wanted it that way. Although I find that unusual, I presume it was in order that the insured (or the employer negotiating for him or her) could get lower premiums. It should all be about choice.
People outside Massachusetts should dig into the January 18 DHHS claims before believing them. We have found the government very willing to bend the truth in Massachusetts as illustrated here and here, and there is no doubt in my mind that the same tricks will be tried nationwide. After all, isn't the PPACA just like Romneycare?
-- Dennis Byron