Letter to the Editor: Many factors cause higher health care costs

There was a column in the June 9 issue of SBJ ("Health insurance companies hurting American society") that was written by Linda Bower, a human performance improvement consultant. Because I am employed in the health care (insurance) industry, I feel it is my duty to present the facts behind the high rise in health care that we are faced with.

First of all, I would like to address her concern that health insurance companies are the cause of the rise in health care costs. Because of the state that our economy is in (also affected by the events of 9/11), there are companies going out of business, cutting employees and setting the standard for pay and benefits lower for new hires. Therefore, it should be no surprise that the change in economy has an effect on health care as well.

Also, spending on health care services and prescription drugs have seen a dramatic increase in recent years. U.S. health care spending in 2001 rose 8.7 percent, and last year spending on health care rose to $1.4 trillion, according to the Jan. 8 New York Times article, "Spending on Health Care Increased Sharply in 2001" by Robert Pear.

Blue Cross Blue Shield reports that 79 percent of health care costs are driven by hospital and physician costs, mainly due to the major advances in medical technology. According to a study performed by Blue Cross Blue Shield late last year, it was found that 18 percent of the increase is related to hospital market restructuring, including consolidation, and 20 percent is due to the nursing shortage in many health care facilities.

Although the option of adopting a social health care system seems like the answer we all hoped for, there are many downfalls to this system as opposed to the health care system already in force in the United States. For example, Great Britain adopted socialized medicine in 1948 with the creation of the National Health Service. The first problem with this program was skyrocketing demand. First-year operating costs of NHS were 52 million pounds higher than the original estimates, according to "National Health Insurance: A Medical Disaster," an Oct. 1, 1992 report by The Freeman (Foundation for Economic Education Inc.).

By the mid-1970s, more than 700,000 English men, women, and children were on hospital waiting lists at any given time. As a result of widespread public dissatisfaction, the British government shut down its National Health Service, and reintroduced market-based health care competition.

In Canada, the same pattern of deteriorating facilities, overburdened doctors and long hospital waiting lists is evident. Of Canada's population of 26 million, 250,000 are on waiting lists for surgery. Since 1987, the entire country spent less money on hospital improvements than the city of Washington, D.C., which has a population of only 618,000. In Canada, as in Britain under social health care, patients are denied care, forced to cope with increasingly obsolescent hospitals and equipment, and can die while waiting for treatment.

The answer to a quality and efficient health care system is not a simple one, but there are alternatives to being uninsured. These issues are being researched and evaluated by the U.S. Congress in order to find the answers to the health care problems we face. Individuals can take advantage of the Missouri Health Insurance Pool, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act or the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, which are all options that were specifically designed for those who are unable to obtain coverage elsewhere.

If you are concerned about your health care options, you can receive a free consultation at several insurance agencies to find out more information.

Angela Walls

Marketing specialist

Croley Insurance & Financial