Washington

Health Policy rankings

Health indicators	Rank
Population	6,132,462
Number of insurance mandates	49
Death rate per 100,000	739.1
Percent of adults overweight or obese	56.50%
Percent of adults who have visited a dentist in the last 12 months	71.00%
Number of births (2004)	81,747

Ranking public policy	Rank
Overall health ownership rank	27
Government health care rank	28
Private health insurance rank	43
Medical tort rank	17
Provider burden of regulation rank	8

Sources

Policy ranks are from the U.S. Index of Health Ownership, published by the* Pacific Research Institute.
Health indicators are from State Health Facts, a service of the Kaiser Family Foundation.
Number of insurance mandates comes from Health Insurance Mandates in the States 2007 (PDF), a publication of the Council for Affordable Health Insurance.

State Policy Network members

Government offices

Thursday, January 31, 2008

"Profit" is a Dirty Word; State of Washington to Control Prices

By John LaPlante

Categories: Insurance Regulation, Washington

Next time someone tells you that we need to complete the government takeover of health care because "the private market isn't working," consider the situation in the state of Washington.

After regulations destroyed the market for individual insurance policies, the state backed off its regulations a bit. Insurance companies came back. But now there's a hew and cry because premiums are up. (Not surprisingly, so are profits--but then again, where do companies get their reserves from?)

So what does the political class plan to do? Subject insurance companies to price controls.

Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler said it's time for transparency.
Kreidler said he requested the legislation because there's no way for him to tell the public if the rates are legitimate since he does not have access to the relevant company data.

"No way for him to tell the public if the rates are legitimate."

Sounds like price controls to me. So much for a private market. This one is, in large measure, government-controlled.

posted by John LaPlante
1:21 pm
0 comment

Monday, February 5, 2007

Unpaid Medical Leave to Get More Expensive?

Washington State Proposal: Paid Leave

By John LaPlante

Categories: Washington

Incrementalism is a key political tactic, and it's being used, once again, to promote a European-style social health and welfare system.

In 1993, the Federal Leave and Medical Act (FMLA) inserted the federal government, once again, into the workplace. It requires "large" companies to give employees 12 weeks of unpaid leave for medical purposes.

The U.S. would be moved towards a European system if the FMLA became, shall we say, tightened up. Reduce the number of employees that a company must have before it is considered "large." Increase the scope of what counts as "medical" grounds for a leave. Increase the length of the time period.

Or more significantly, make companies pay for the unpaid leave.

Paid leave is one item that is being discussed in Washington state, as Carl Gipson reports for the Washington Policy Center. Most employees (65 percent) already get some sort of payment when they go on medical leave, and even most companies not covered by the FMLA give unpaid leave.

But what of paid leave? It would impose compliance costs on business, and premium costs on all employees.

Further, it's unlikely that the costs will remain the same. One plan being proposed would pay out $250 a week. But as Gipson points out, "Realistically, the $250 maximum weekly benefit is not sufficient for many real-world scenarios. While a worker is on leave, any paid benefits are of help, but $250 per week is an unsustainable amount for many people – particularly for urban area residents. The concern lies in that, if the $250 benefit were implemented, it would not stay at $250 for very long. Lawmakers would be tempted to increase the maximum weekly benefit to model California's paid family leave bill, which allows a maximum weekly benefit of $840 at a cap of six weeks, with higher payroll taxes to match."