Health Care in America: Searching for Ways to Make $2 Million Seem Less Like $2 Million

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

The Wall Street Journal reports that health insurers are desperately searching for ways to make expensive treatments somehow seem less expensive:

Insurers are scrambling to blunt the expense of new drugs that can carry prices of more than $2 million per treatment, offering new setups aimed at making the cost of gene therapies more manageable for employers.

Cigna Corp. plans to announce Thursday a new program that allows employers and insurers to pay per-month fees for a service that will cover the cost of gene therapies and manage their use. CVS Health Corp. says it plans to offer a new layer of coverage specifically for gene therapies, which would handle employers’ costs above a certain threshold. Anthem Inc. said it is looking at special insurance setups to help employers protect themselves from the financial impact of the drugs.

The core problem here is that employers end up paying for these treatments, not insurers. If you’re a big company, that doesn’t matter much. It all comes out in the wash. But if you’re a small company, a sudden $2 million increase in your premiums is a killer. That’s the downside of having a small risk pool.

The answer, obviously, is to quit playing games with insurance companies and move everyone into the biggest risk pool of all: the entire country. This is one of the things that makes universal health care more efficient than our current Rube Goldberg system. Not only can the US government negotiate better prices for new treatments like this, but it can spread the costs far more widely than any single company or insurer. That’s both efficient and sensible.

But instead of doing the efficient and sensible thing, apparently we’re going to continue spending time arguing about whether Bernie Sanders lied when he said 500,000 people declare bankruptcy every year due to medical debt. The Washington Post fact checker says he did, and has declined to issue a correction despite abundant evidence that Sanders was basically right. Not that it matters anyway. Obviously bankruptcy has many causes, and it’s a matter of judgment whether any particular case is “due to” medical debt. You can probably make a case for any number you want. But the bottom line is that whatever the number is, it’s too big. And anyway, it’s a small fraction of the number of people who don’t declare bankruptcy but are put in severe financial trouble just because they got sick. Why do we put up with this idiocy?

WE CAME UP SHORT.

We just wrapped up a shorter-than-normal, urgent-as-ever fundraising drive and we came up about $45,000 short of our $300,000 goal.

That means we're going to have upwards of $350,000, maybe more, to raise in online donations between now and June 30, when our fiscal year ends and we have to get to break-even. And even though there's zero cushion to miss the mark, we won't be all that in your face about our fundraising again until June.

So we urgently need this specific ask, what you're reading right now, to start bringing in more donations than it ever has. The reality, for these next few months and next few years, is that we have to start finding ways to grow our online supporter base in a big way—and we're optimistic we can keep making real headway by being real with you about this.

Because the bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we hope you might consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

payment methods

WE CAME UP SHORT.

We just wrapped up a shorter-than-normal, urgent-as-ever fundraising drive and we came up about $45,000 short of our $300,000 goal.

That means we're going to have upwards of $350,000, maybe more, to raise in online donations between now and June 30, when our fiscal year ends and we have to get to break-even. And even though there's zero cushion to miss the mark, we won't be all that in your face about our fundraising again until June.

So we urgently need this specific ask, what you're reading right now, to start bringing in more donations than it ever has. The reality, for these next few months and next few years, is that we have to start finding ways to grow our online supporter base in a big way—and we're optimistic we can keep making real headway by being real with you about this.

Because the bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we hope you might consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate