ObamaCare Clusterfuck: People can't find coverage that include their doctors or their drugs on the Exchange. Could that account for their unhappiness?
First, the user experience:
[T]he hunt for a health plan that would cover a particular drug or a favorite doctor proved particularly frustrating for many consumers navigating the new insurance exchanges under the federal government's health care overhaul, according to a report released Monday.
In nearly half the 85 health plans analyzed, it was difficult or impossible for people to determine what drugs were covered, according to the report by market research firm Avalere Health, the first systematic analysis of consumer experience on the exchanges.
The report analyzed health plans in five states that relied on the federal HealthCare.gov website, as well as state-run exchange plans in Washington, D.C., and a dozen states.
A directory of doctors was somewhat easier to find, but there were still some cases in which it was a very demanding search, the report found.
What's more, the websites typically ranked plans by premium price, which could have misled patients who needed a specific costly medication if it wasn't covered by the cheapest plan, Avalere spokeswoman Caroline Pearson said.
"It was very difficult for consumers to get a more nuanced view of what their plans covered," Pearson said. In some cases, a consumer would have to click six times to find drug coverage information. Even worse, no links to lists of covered drugs existed for some health plans.
That forced consumers to search insurance company websites, and, even if they found the covered drug lists, it could be tough to determine which lists went with the exchange plans they were comparing, Pearson said [and that's before we get to generics vs. brands].
"Many chronic conditions rely on medications for management and to keep people out of the hospital," Pearson said. "If your drug is not covered, then you're responsible for the full cost or you have to switch to a different drug. The impact on the patient could be several thousands of dollars a year." ...
"None of the sites has done a good job helping consumers compare out-of-pocket costs," [Robert Krughoff, president of Consumers' Checkbook] said. "That results in consumers wasting thousands of dollars a year."
Obamacare is expected to play a major role in the midterm elections, and some numbers suggest the law could be a major hindrance for Democrats:
- By a 44-48 margin, voters say they oppose the health-care law.
- 50% of respondents said the implementation of the law is going worse than they expected, compared to 41% who said it's going better than they thought. This comes despite the fact that enrollment exceeded original targets, as more than 8 million people signed up for insurance through exchanges set up by the law.
- 47% say the law is making their health-care costs go up. Just 7% say it's making costs go down, and 41% say their health-care costs have stayed about the same.
- By an even wider margin, respondents said they think the ACA is leading to health-care costs increases across the country — 58% said Obamacare is making health-care costs rise, while only 11% said they think costs are decreasing.
- By a 44-24 margin, respondents said the law is helping to make the quality of the nation's health-care system worse.
Democrats and Obama enablers always focus on premium price. I suggest that, as rational consumers, "voters" are focusing on value for money. And ObamaCare's narrow networks, narrow formularies, high co-pays, and high deductibles lower its value in the eyes of consumers, especially those who formerly had employer-based insurance. But for people who need a particular doctor, or need particular drug, ObamaCare could be not only poor value, but actually defective, in that they could well purchase a policy they thought would cover them, but doesn't.
The plans are crapified. People get this. For good or ill, the political class intends to crapify everything in more or less the same way because markets.
NOTE Democrats and Obama enablers will note that the Exchanges will be improved in future. First, they had five Fucking years to get it right. Why didn't they? Why weren't the needs of the patient a priority? Second, a single payer system makes all these problems go away. You don't have a lemon market of plans competing with each other by concealing information. In fact, you don't have a health insurance market at all, which what allows Canada to save a shit ton of money with better health outcomes.