/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/51616431/ios-10-shrug-emoji.0.png)
Despite ample evidence to the contrary, I really don't relish playing the role of naysayer. But when folks who should know better deceptively suggest that a particular "solution" is having a major impact on health care delivery and financing, well, I think it's important to offer perspective.
What in the heck are you babbling on about, Henry?
Glad you asked. This:
"Why health care sharing ministry memberships now top 1 million"
I beg your pardon?
In a country of about 326 million, this is barely a rounding error. So why is this "news?"
Look, I'm a fan of sharing ministries (up to a point): they're a low cost, ACA-compliant alternative to ObamaPlans, and they encourage lifestyles and behaviors that promote good health. And I like that they're not network-driven, meaning pretty much complete freedom to actually "keep your doctor."
But there's also no backstop: that is, there's nothing to force the organization to actually pay the bills, or accept someone with pre-existing conditions. And for catastrophic claims, well, those can be problematic:
"[T]hough they set aside a slightly larger amount as part of an optional agreement to help other members facing catastrophic needs." [emphasis added]
Do I think they have a place? Of course: it's not like ObamaPlans are any great deal, either. And I'm glad that they serve the needs of (many) of those who participate, FoIB Thomas L, for example:
"So far so good on all things Samaritan. All current expenses are already paid, the money for the obgyn is pre-paid to the clinic (which for whatever reason they hold in escrow), and the money for the hospital’s delivery estimate I have in a separate account ready to go."
But to pretend that sharing ministries are some unstoppable, substantial force with which to be reckoned? No.
What in the heck are you babbling on about, Henry?
Glad you asked. This:
"Why health care sharing ministry memberships now top 1 million"
I beg your pardon?
In a country of about 326 million, this is barely a rounding error. So why is this "news?"
Look, I'm a fan of sharing ministries (up to a point): they're a low cost, ACA-compliant alternative to ObamaPlans, and they encourage lifestyles and behaviors that promote good health. And I like that they're not network-driven, meaning pretty much complete freedom to actually "keep your doctor."
But there's also no backstop: that is, there's nothing to force the organization to actually pay the bills, or accept someone with pre-existing conditions. And for catastrophic claims, well, those can be problematic:
"[T]hough they set aside a slightly larger amount as part of an optional agreement to help other members facing catastrophic needs." [emphasis added]
Do I think they have a place? Of course: it's not like ObamaPlans are any great deal, either. And I'm glad that they serve the needs of (many) of those who participate, FoIB Thomas L, for example:
"So far so good on all things Samaritan. All current expenses are already paid, the money for the obgyn is pre-paid to the clinic (which for whatever reason they hold in escrow), and the money for the hospital’s delivery estimate I have in a separate account ready to go."
But to pretend that sharing ministries are some unstoppable, substantial force with which to be reckoned? No.
Posts
