!! History Commons Alert, Exciting News

Context of '2000: Health Care Costs Increase 8.1 Percent'

This is a scalable context timeline. It contains events related to the event 2000: Health Care Costs Increase 8.1 Percent. You can narrow or broaden the context of this timeline by adjusting the zoom level. The lower the scale, the more relevant the items on average will be, while the higher the scale, the less relevant the items, on average, will be.

1998: Health Care Costs Increase 6.1 Percent

According to the Mercer National Survey of Employer-Sponsored Health Plans, the average total health benefit cost rises 6.1 percent in 1998 [San Francisco Chronicle, 12/8/2003] compared to a 1.6 percent increase in the Consumer Price Index. [InflationDate(.com), 6/22/2006]

Timeline Tags: US Health Care

1999: Health Care Costs Increase 7.3 Percent

According to the Mercer National Survey of Employer-Sponsored Health Plans, the average total health benefit cost rises 7.3 percent in 1999 [San Francisco Chronicle, 12/8/2003] compared to a 2.2 percent increase in the Consumer Price Index. [InflationDate(.com), 6/22/2006]

Timeline Tags: US Health Care

2000: Health Care Costs Increase 8.1 Percent

According to the Mercer National Survey of Employer-Sponsored Health Plans, the average total health benefit cost rises 8.1 percent in 2000 [San Francisco Chronicle, 12/8/2003] compared to a 3.4 percent increase in the Consumer Price Index. [InflationDate(.com), 6/22/2006]

Timeline Tags: US Health Care

2001: Health Care Costs Increase 11.2 Percent

According to the Mercer National Survey of Employer-Sponsored Health Plans, the average total health benefit cost rises 11.2 percent in 2001 [San Francisco Chronicle, 12/8/2003] compared to a 2.8 percent increase in the Consumer Price Index. [InflationDate(.com), 6/22/2006]

Timeline Tags: US Health Care

2002: Health Care Costs Increase 14.7 Percent

According to the Mercer National Survey of Employer-Sponsored Health Plans, the average total health benefit cost rises 14.7 percent in 2002 [San Francisco Chronicle, 12/8/2003] compared to a 1.6 percent increase in the Consumer Price Index. [InflationDate(.com), 6/22/2006]

Timeline Tags: US Health Care

2003: Health Care Costs Increase 10.1 Percent

According to the Mercer National Survey of Employer-Sponsored Health Plans, the average total health benefit cost rises 10.1 percent in 2003 [San Francisco Chronicle, 12/8/2003] compared to a 2.3 percent increase in the Consumer Price Index. [InflationDate(.com), 6/22/2006]

Timeline Tags: US Health Care

A study conducted by Harvard University and the Canadian Institute for Health Information finds that administrative costs in America’s health care system are almost twice that of Canada. The study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, reports that the US health bureaucracy consumes 31 percent of total health care spending. By comparison, Canada’s administrative expenses amount to only 16.7 percent. Steffie Woolhandler of Harvard, who led the team, says if the US were to adopt a single-payer health care system like Canada, the funds saved would be enough to provide insurance for the more than 41 million uninsured Americans. [Woolhandler, Campbell, and Himmelstein, 2003; Toronto Star, 8/21/2003]

Timeline Tags: US Health Care

The Commonwealth Fund, a private organization founded to improve America’s health care system, releases a study that finds the US spends more on health care than any nation on earth, yet “consistently underperforms on most dimensions of performance, relative to other countries.” The report is based on a number of surveys conducted with patients along with information from primary care physicians. “The US spends twice what the average industrialized country spends on health care but we’re clearly not getting value for the money,” says Commonwealth Fund president Karen Davis. Compared with Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand, and Britain, “the US health care system ranks last or next-to-last on five dimensions of a high-performance health system: quality, access, efficiency, equity, and healthy lives. The US is the only country in the study without universal health insurance coverage, partly accounting for its poor performance on access, equity, and health outcomes. The inclusion of physician survey data also shows the US lagging in adoption of information technology and use of nurses to improve care coordination for the chronically ill.” These findings are similar to those of studies conducted in 2004 and 2006. “The most notable way the US differs from other countries is the absence of universal health insurance coverage,” the study’s authors note. “Other nations ensure the accessibility of care through universal health insurance systems and through better ties between patients and the physician practices that serve as their long-term ‘medical home.’ It is not surprising, therefore, that the US substantially underperforms other countries on measures of access to care and equity in health care between populations with above-average and below-average incomes.” The study’s executive summary concludes: “For all countries, responses indicate room for improvement. Yet, the other five countries spend considerably less on health care per person and as a percent of gross domestic product than does the United States. These findings indicate that, from the perspectives of both physicians and patients, the US health care system could do much better in achieving better value for the nation’s substantial investment in health.” Britain receives the highest overall ranking in the study, followed by Germany, and then by New Zealand and Australia, which tie for third. Canada is placed fourth. [Commonwealth Fund, 5/15/2007; Agence France-Presse, 5/15/2007]

Entity Tags: United Kingdom, Germany, United States, Karen Davis, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, Commonwealth Fund

Timeline Tags: US Health Care

Former health insurance executive Wendell Potter (see July 10, 2009), who formerly headed the PR division at Cigna, says that the skyrocketing profits of health care corporations and their executives are directly driving the industry’s opposition to health care reform. According to filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the profits of the US’s 10 largest health insurance companies rose 428 percent between 2000 and 2007. In 2000, those 10 companies made a combined profit of $2.4 billion. In 2007, those numbers had risen to $12.9 billion. During that seven-year period, the number of Americans without health insurance rose 19 percent. The CEOs of those 10 firms made an average of $11.9 million in 2007 alone. MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow notes that the health insurance industry “bankrolled efforts to kill the last effort at health care reform” in 1994 (see Mid-January - February 4, 1994). In an interview with Maddow, Potter blames the insurance industry for much of the recent spate of “town hall” disruptions that have helped derail debate over health care reform (see June 30, 2009, July 6, 2009, July 25, 2009, July 27, 2009, July 27, 2009, July 31, 2009, August 1, 2009, August 1, 2009, August 2, 2009, August 3, 2009, August 3, 2009, August 3, 2009, August 3, 2009, August 4, 2009, August 4, 2009, August 5, 2009, August 5, 2009, August 6, 2009, August 6, 2009, August 6-8, 2009, August 8, 2009, and August 10, 2009) “and a lot of the deception that’s going on in terms of disinformation that many Americans apparently are believing.” Potter goes on to note that health insurance firms are making tremendous profits on the steady erosion of paid premiums going to fund medical claims. In 1993, the industry paid out roughly 95 percent of the premiums they took in to claims. In 2007, that number had dropped to 80 percent. Insurance firms also routinely “kick sick people off the rolls when they do get sick or when people get injured.… [A]nd also, they’re paying fewer claims.” The health insurance industry is dead set against the so-called “public option,” Potter says, for the simple reason that a publicly run alternative to private insurance would cost its members profits. [MSNBC, 8/11/2009]

Entity Tags: Wendell Potter, Rachel Maddow

Timeline Tags: US Health Care

America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), the health insurance industry’s largest lobbying organization, releases a study that claims the Democrats’ health care reform initiative would send health insurance costs sharply upward. The study is released the day before the Senate Finance Committee votes on its version of the reform proposal. [The Week, 10/12/2009] AHIP says it intends to circulate the study among lawmakers on Capitol Hill and use it as the basis for new advertisements attacking the health care reform proposals. [Washington Post, 10/12/2009] NBC Washington calls the study “a surgical strike against Democrats’ best hope for passing health reform,” specifically targeting the Finance Committee’s legislative efforts, which it calls the “Baucus bill” for committee chairman Max Baucus (D-MT). Until now, AHIP has operated largely behind the scenes to delay or terminate Congressional efforts to reform US health care; the study marks its most public and overt effort to influence the discussion. According to the study, which was carried out by accounting and services firm PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PWC) and paid for by AHIP, the average cost increase would be $1,700 per family per year by 2013. “[T]he cumulative increases in the cost of a typical family policy… will be approximately $20,700 more than it would be under the current system,” the report claims. “[T]he cost of coverage for both single and family policies in the individual, small group, large group, and self-funded insurance markets” will rise dramatically. AHIP official Karen Ignagni says private insurers would almost certainly pass cost increases to consumers for a number of reasons, including her claim that too many people with pre-existing conditions would sign up for insurance. “The report makes clear that several major provisions in the current legislative proposal will cause health care costs to increase far faster and higher than they would under the current system,” she writes. Baucus calls the study “seriously flawed.” A spokesman for the Finance Committee, Scott Mulhauser, says: “Now that health care reform grows ever closer, these health insurers are breaking out the same, tired playbook of deception to prevent millions of Americans from getting the affordable, accessible care they need. It’s a health insurance company hatchet job, plain and simple.” [America's Health Insurance Plans, 10/11/2009; NBC Washington, 10/12/2009; Washington Post, 10/12/2009] An analysis of the committee’s proposal by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) shows that while some people’s premiums would go up, the subsidies to be provided by the government would make health insurance considerably less expensive for most consumers. According to the CBO, premiums under the government “exchange” option proposed in the Baucus bill would cost consumers $14,400 per year in 2016, while the average private insurer would charge their customers $21,300 by 2016. [Think Progress, 10/12/2009] Nancy-Anne DeParle, director of the White House Office of Health Reform, says PWC is not the firm to have carried out such a study. “Those guys specialize in tax shelters,” she says. “Clearly this is not their area of expertise.” [Washington Post, 10/12/2009] Almost immediately after the study’s release, critics begin attacking it, calling it deeply flawed and an “industry hit job” (see October 11-12, 2009). And PWC itself will back away from the study’s central claims (see October 12, 2009).

Entity Tags: Scott Mulhauser, Max Baucus, Karen Ignagni, Nancy-Anne DeParle, Senate Finance Committee, Congressional Budget Office, PriceWaterhouseCoopers, America’s Health Insurance Plans

Timeline Tags: US Health Care

Ordering 

Time period


Email Updates

Receive weekly email updates summarizing what contributors have added to the History Commons database

 
Donate

Developing and maintaining this site is very labor intensive. If you find it useful, please give us a hand and donate what you can.
Donate Now

Volunteer

If you would like to help us with this effort, please contact us. We need help with programming (Java, JDO, mysql, and xml), design, networking, and publicity. If you want to contribute information to this site, click the register link at the top of the page, and start contributing.
Contact Us

Creative Commons License Except where otherwise noted, the textual content of each timeline is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike