Modern Healthcare - - Opinions Editorials -

“The de­ci­sion by Blue Cross (and) Blue Shield of Mas­sachusetts to re­fund to cus­tomers $4.2 mil­lion to make up for the sev­er­ance wind­fall of for­mer CEO Cleve Killingsworth is a well-in­ten­tioned ges­ture that nonethe­less un­der­scores some fun­da­men­tal ten­sions in the way Blue Cross op­er­ates. … Hav­ing no way to re­claim the money from Killingsworth, the in­surer de­cided to show its re­spon­sive­ness by re­fund­ing an equiv­a­lent amount to its cus­tomers. ... Blue Cross ex­ists only to serve its cus­tomers; any dol­lar it spends fool­ishly is a loss to them, and to the state that re­lies on Blue Cross to help keep health­care costs from sky­rock­et­ing.”

—BostonGlobe “Con­ser­va­tive crit­ics of Med­i­caid—and of health­care re­form’s re­quire­ment to ex­pand it—have made the out­landish claim that it pro­vides such poor care that en­rollees would be bet­ter off hav­ing no cov­er­age. … A new study of Ore­gon’s pro­gram ... found that Med­i­caid pa­tients re­ported both bet­ter health and more fi­nan­cial sta­bil­ity than unin­sured poor peo­ple. … Any politi­cians ea­ger to find sav­ings by deny­ing poor peo­ple ac­cess to Med­i­caid should rec­og­nize that they will be harm­ing the health and fi­nan­cial well­be­ing of highly vul­ner­a­ble Amer­i­cans.”


Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.