So here's an interesting case of deja vu. Years ago, we reported on the efforts of Minnesota Blue Cross to standardize the way benefits are described, making it easier to compare plans and understand one's coverage. At the time, this was considered cutting edge.
Fast forward eight(!) years, and the Feds are busy touting - and tweaking - their own take on this idea:
"Federal agencies want to change the standard "nutrition label for health plans" in a way that could make it more appealing for young, healthy insurance buyers."
Aside from the obvious similarities, I find it amusing that anyone thinks that young people really find anything about health insurance "appealing." It may be "necessary," or even "helpful," but appealing? Please.
Do Ms Burntwell and her minions really believe that lack of "scenarios" is what's behind the abysmal sign-up numbers we're seeing? In fact, almost all of the enrollments are simply mindless, zero effort re-enrollments. One wonders why.
Fast forward eight(!) years, and the Feds are busy touting - and tweaking - their own take on this idea:
"Federal agencies want to change the standard "nutrition label for health plans" in a way that could make it more appealing for young, healthy insurance buyers."
Aside from the obvious similarities, I find it amusing that anyone thinks that young people really find anything about health insurance "appealing." It may be "necessary," or even "helpful," but appealing? Please.
Do Ms Burntwell and her minions really believe that lack of "scenarios" is what's behind the abysmal sign-up numbers we're seeing? In fact, almost all of the enrollments are simply mindless, zero effort re-enrollments. One wonders why.
Posts
