As usual, women get screwed

As a women's studies minor in school, I did a lot of reading about how women are forced to succeed within a society built by men. A lot this concept has to do with the workforce: in order to get ahead, you have to put in a lot of hours and spend a lot of years, etc., which forces women to either choose not to have a family, or to not get ahead.

Of course, I am always really happy to read an article about how some companies have implemented a policy (such as telecommuting, flexible hours, daycare onsite, etc.) that provide all employees (not just women -- the policies also benefit men) greater flexibility that allows them to avoid being forced to choose between having a family and succeeding in a career.

So it really bugs me to see shit like the (slow) rise in popularity of high-deductible health plans . According to an article on Thursday in Dow Jones (I can't link), several studies show that women get fucked in out-of-pocket costs under HDHPs. It's not only bad enough women have to be pregnant, most likely be the primary caregiver once the kid is born, while working, now women also might have to pay more to be pregnant.

HDHPs are not women-friendly health plans. They are, as usual, a way for businesses to save money while leaving women behind.

The Commonwealth Fund in April released an issue brief written by Judy Waxman, vice president for health at the National Women's Law Center, and Elizabeth M. Patchias, a health policy analyst at NWLC. It writes,

Women are more likely than men to need health care throughout their lifetimes. Women’s reproductive health needs require them to get regular check-ups, whether or not they have children, and women of all ages are more likely than men -- 60 percent versus 44 percent -- to take prescription medications on a regular basis .... For younger women, this difference is even greater; women ages 19 to 29 use prescription drugs at almost three times the rate of men in that age group. Further, women are more likely than men to have a chronic condition requiring ongoing treatment (38% vs. 30%). Finally, certain mental health problems, including anxiety and depression, affect twice as many women as men.

It concludes,

Given these factors, policy proposals that provide comprehensive benefits at affordable cost would help more women obtain meaningful coverage. Conversely, reforms that result in higher out-of-pocket expenses and limited benefits will not significantly improve the health and financial security of women.

Exactly, ladies.

Thoughts on high-deductible health plans

Okay, don't want to go into this in too much detail, but the Wall Street Journal today published a piece about how high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) with health savings accounts aren't gaining traction with workers. To me, this seems kind of self-explanatory. I mean, when given a choice between a plan that will pay for a lot of things for me, and a plan in which I have to save my own money and make a lot more choices, I'm going to choose the easy, cheap one. Of course, if you are telling me I have a choice between no health care and a HDHP with an HSA, I'm choosing the HDHP/HSA. Something is better than nothing.

One huge problem is, and the Journal notes this, that there simply isn't enough information out there for consumers to make educated choices about price versus quality in choosing doctors. If I was looking for a doctor to perform a heart bypass, would I really want the cheapest? But if I have this plan, that's what I'm constantly going back to. Not to mention, plenty of sites looking to compile data on costs have found that hospitals don't just toss out a price for any given procedure. Hospitals have one price for one insurance company, one price for another, one price for Medicaid and Medicare, and one price for the uninsured. Trying to get a straight answer about final cost is not easy.

On top of costs, where would I find information about quality of care? There isn't easily comparable data out there. I read some recent coverage (I forget where) about different companies trying to set up quality data about hospitals and even states, like New Jersey for heart surgery, that rate doctors and hospitals about very specific procedures. But really, the U.S. health care system just isn't there yet. It's not comparable data ... some sites measure quality in different ways, making a hospital good on one site and bad on another.

So really, it's no surprise that HDHPs/HSAs haven't caught on yet. They are just TOO much work. Health care is important, but I just want it, I don't want to have to research it. I have other things to do. Maybe Bush is right when he says we need a culture shift toward people acting more like consumers about their health care. But right now, it's just not easy enough to make it worthwhile.