Medical leaders say individual health insurance mandate is important for patients/physicians

(Medical Xpress) -- While the battle over the legality of the Affordable Care Act's mandate requiring most individuals to purchase health insurance continues to be fought, its impact on the quality and cost of care and what it would mean for patients and their physicians has been largely overlooked.

According to a commentary in this week's , the individual mandate would have tangible benefits for patients and their physicians. According to commentary by authors Edward D. Miller, M.D., dean/CEO of Johns Hopkins Medicine, and Scott A. Berkowitz, assistant professor of and medical director for Accountable Care for Johns Hopkins, the mandate would strengthen the patient-physician relationship, increase access to , stabilize insurance premiums, and largely eliminate the problem of "free riding"—where individuals who can afford health insurance choose not to purchase it but still obtain health care services, without the intention of covering the costs of their care.

"It should be clear to objective observers that the manner in which our nation has historically dealt with health care insurance coverage is unfair, inequitable and unsustainable," says Miller. "Ensuring that the maximum number of people possible have health insurance is crucial in improving access to, and the quality of, care."

"The potential positive impact of the individual mandate on the patient-physician relationship is underappreciated," says Berkowitz. "We know from research that patients with insurance are more likely to have routinely involved in coordinating their care, are more apt to receive regular screening and preventative services, and have an increased life expectancy."

The authors also note that by increasing the number of insured individuals, the mandate should reduce the cost of routine health care services and help provide financial security from potentially devastating health care costs.

"Health care costs are reaching crisis levels and inadequate health insurance is a significant contributor," says Miller. "According to the federal Department of Health and Human Services, in 2008 alone, an estimated $73 billion in uncompensated health care was provided in the United States, resulting in as much as a $1,000 increase in annual family premiums. The individual mandate should greatly reduce the level of uncompensated care and the resulting need to pass these costs on to those with ."

The authors also note that the individual mandate addresses the issue of fairness, pointing out that the market is unique in that while virtually everyone will require medical care during their lives, many do not pay for that care. "For those individuals for whom health coverage is unaffordable, there is a societal obligation to create remedies. On the other hand, for those who could afford to purchase coverage, yet choose not to, it should be made clear that 'free riding' cannot be sanctioned," says Berkowitz.

"As policymakers and the judiciary consider these challenging issues, the focus should and must remain on patients," Miller concludes. "In the end, the health of patients relies on the health of the system providing their care, so it is imperative to get it right, and the individual mandate is an important step in that direction."

Provided by Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions

5 /5 (1 vote)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Legal analysis: The health insurance mandate is constitutional

Sep 14, 2010

The most politically charged feature of the health reform law is the mandate that legal residents have health insurance. Within weeks of the law's passage, twenty states had filed lawsuits charging that the mandate is unconstitutional ...

Prioritizing health-care reform components

Feb 06, 2009

Faced with a barrage of pressing issues, the Obama administration has placed health-care reform high on its agenda. The timing bodes well for change, according to Aaron E. Carroll, M.D., director of the Indiana University ...

Recommended for you

Study recommends inmate immunity test

19 hours ago

(AP)—Federal experts are recommending that California test inmates for immunity to a sometimes fatal soil-borne fungus before incarcerating them at two Central Valley state prisons where the disease has killed nearly three ...

Down syndrome teens need support, health assessed

Jul 25, 2014

Young adults with Down syndrome experience a range of physical and mental health conditions over and above those commonly reported in children with the condition—and these health problems may significantly ...

Time out for exercise

Jul 25, 2014

University of Queensland researcher has found that restructuring our daily routine to include exercise can have unexpected effects on health.

User comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

dogbert
1 / 5 (1) Aug 10, 2011
Just and advertisement for Obamacare. Nothing but propaganda composed of the author's opinions.

This article a few days ago shows the reality:
http://medicalxpr...cal.html

Of lower-income safety-net patients, 33.3 percent said they had sought care for a nonemergency condition at an emergency department, compared with 14.7 percent of all adults.


Those patients who abused public and emergency services in Massachusetts continued to abuse those services when they had mandated insurance. This resulted in an increase in the most costly component of hospital care.

The mandate is not only unconstitutional, it doesn't work.
OldBlackCrow
3 / 5 (2) Aug 10, 2011
Yep... they don't mention those who choose to pay cash only for healthcare, which is much cheaper than using insurance. All hail government intervention! :-/
ForFreeMinds
3 / 5 (2) Aug 13, 2011
"the individual mandate would have tangible benefits for patients and their physicians"

"The authors also note that the individual mandate addresses the issue of fairness, pointing out that the health care market is unique in that while virtually everyone will require medical care during their lives, many do not pay for that care."

I see, because government forces doctors to provide medical to those who don't pay, we need to force everyone to purchase insurance, even those who don't pay for their health care.

Why not just allow doctors the right to turn away those who don't pay? They won't be purchasing medical insurance either, that will passed on to taxpayers.

You don't have to force people to purchase a product in which the benefits outweigh the costs. Thus, this a bunch of malarkey.