Uninsured Americans could be facing nearly $75,000 in medical bills if hospitalized for coronavirus

[BeckyDem]

Published Wed, Apr 1 20203:01 PM EDT
Megan Leonhardt
@Megan_Leonhardt


Thanks to lawmakers, coronavirus tests are now free for all Americans. But if you do test positive for COVID-19 and require treatment, the hospital bills could easily cost Americans tens of thousands of dollars, even if you have insurance.

Those who are hospitalized with coronavirus can expect to pay anywhere from $42,486 to $74,310 if they are uninsured or if they receive care that’s deemed out-of-network by their insurance company, according to recent analysis by independent nonprofit FAIR Health.

For those with insurance who are using in-network providers, out-of-pocket costs will be a portion of $21,936 to $38,755, depending on the cost-sharing provisions of their health plan.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/01/covid-19-hospital-bills-could-cost-uninsured-americans-up-to-75000.html





Medicare for ALL 2020

[Make7]

1. Federal government will pay for COVID-19 treatment for uninsured, HHS secretary says

WASHINGTON -- The federal government will use a portion of funds provided by Congressional relief acts to cover coronavirus testing and treatment for the uninsured, United States Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar said Friday.

Funding from the Families First Coronavirus Response Act will be used to cover testing and other diagnostic services for the uninsured, Azar explained during the daily White House coronavirus task force briefing.

A portion of the $100 billion provided by the CARES Act will be used to reimburse providers for coronavirus-related treatment costs for the uninsured. Providers will be reimbursed at Medicare rates and will be unable to bill an uninsured patient for the balance of their care, according to Azar.

"This should alleviate any concern uninsured Americans may have about seeking the coronavirus treatment," President Donald Trump said Friday.

<- snio ->

https://abc7.com/health-insurance-obamacare-uninsured-coronavirus-treatment/6074727/

[BeckyDem]

2. Uninsured. It covers all costs for those with insurance?

I'm not aware of that.

[thesquanderer]

6. AFAIK, those with insurance will still have to meet their copays and deductibles.

But at least that should be reasonably manageable, certainly compared to the full billed costs.

[BeckyDem]

7. That is not what is being reported in this OP.

We could wipe out all catastrophic medical debt, period. Lets remember that if one member of a family becomes sick, others can too.
You think they can manage those costs? No, they will not.

[thesquanderer]

9. The OP does not contradict what I'm saying.

What in the OP makes you think what I said is not correct? Can you quote the line? Thanks.

p.s. Family policies have total deductibles that, once met, cover everyone in the family. So it's not like a family of 5 with a $5k total deductible is going to have $25k out of pocket if all 5 get sick, it will still be $5k.

[BeckyDem]

10. Out of pocket costs won't exist for each family member who needs hospitalization?

However, America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) clarified that the out-of-pocket costs for treatment – such as hospitalizations for more serious cases – would not be waived, meaning people with private insurance who face deductibles could be on the hook for large costs.

https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/brief/potential-costs-of-coronavirus-treatment-for-people-with-employer-coverage/

[thesquanderer]

12. Yes, as I said originally, they still have to meet their deductibles (and copays).

That's exactly what I said in my post #6. You just quoted back confirmation of what I already said. So it still seems you were mistaken to reply to that post with "That is not what is being reported in this OP." What I said is completely consistent with the OP as well as with the additional reference you supplied.

[BeckyDem]

13. In your first post your opinion was:

( But at least that should be reasonably manageable, certainly compared to the full billed costs.)


I haven't read anything that suggests reasonable, especially when multiplied with any given family.

[thesquanderer]

14. A deductible is far more manageable than the entire $75,000 bill.

Assuming someone has even the very worst Obamacare plan, the maximum deductible is $8,150 for an individual, $16,300 for a family. That's a whole lot more manageable than $75k for an individual, or $375k for a family of 5.

Or to put it differently, the former may be manageable on a 36 month payment plan (which hospitals typically offer interest-free), the latter could easily lead to bankruptcy.

[BeckyDem]

15. I doubt anyone in that position would agree its manageble at all.

[thesquanderer]

17. $16,300 debt $453/month; $375k debt $10,416/month, for worst case family of 5.

Or for an individual instead of family of 5, $8,150 debt = $226 a month. $75k debt = $2083 a month.

You seriously don't believe that a whole lot of people could handle the former (max deductible figure) who could not possibly handle the latter (being responsible for the full amount)? These are amounts comparable to car payments.

(Monthly figures calculated by dividing total payment due by the 36 interest free payments accepted by most hospitals.)

And these assume someone has the worst possible ACA coverage. Many people have better coverage, with smaller deductibles.

I'd prefer MFA personally, but being responsible only for the ACA deductible is still a whole lot better than being responsible for all of it.

[BeckyDem]

18. Well, we agree on one thing. MFA is preferable.

[RB TexLa]

11. I'm sure Greg Abbot here in Texas will reject this. When rejecting expansion of Medicaid he said it

was based on his moral values. Moral values don't change so I'm sure he's being brave and standing up to "socialism."

[thucythucy]

3. "Medicare for all" will still force people to pay

for 20% of their hospital and other bills, unless they buy supplemental, private insurance.

A public option, based on Medicaid--not Medicare--would be a far better solution to this problem.

Which is what Vice President Biden is proposing.

[BeckyDem]

4. Not the version Warren and Sanders propose.

Medicare for ALL 2020

[thucythucy]

19. Well, then calling it "Medicare for All"

is a misnomer.

"Medicare Plus for All"? "Medicare 2.0 for All?"

Calling the plan "Medicare for All" raises the immediate objection I just raised. Bad marketing--which may be among the reasons why the candidates supporting these plans faired so poorly at the polls.

BTW--I was a Warren supporter. I'm quite disappointed that her campaign got so little traction.

[thesquanderer]

8. Do you have a link regarding Biden's public option proposal being based on Medicaid?

I had not seen that, and a quick google search (and check of the Biden web site) did not turn it up.

As for the rest, as already alluded to, while MFA is conceptually similar to Medicare in that it is a single payer system that covers everyone, the details are quite different from current Medicare, in terms of what is covered (more) and how it is paid for. It would no longer require people pay 20% of their hospital bills and so forth.

[thucythucy]

20. I haven't been able to recall where i read that

and may be mistaken.

This article has a pretty good rundown on some of the details of the Biden plan:

https://www.vox.com/2019/7/16/20694598/joe-biden-health-care-plan-public-option

It mentions that the public option would be on a level with "gold plans" offered under Obamacare, which would be great.

Also--not to forget--a big part of Obamacare as passed would have been the expansion of Medicaid to include more people. My understanding is the USSC made this optional for states, with the result that GOP controlled states opted out.

I like the Biden plan because it seems far more realistic politically, and allows for a more gradual shift to a mixed health care system something along the lines of what Germany has now. And--like Social Security--it is amenable to expansion and improvement. Social Security began entirely as a retirement plan tied to employment--only for those workers who reached 65. It was expanded in the 1950s to include people who had to retire early due to non-work related disability (SSDI), and then in the 1970s to include people who were never able to enter the workforce due to disability (SSI).

As difficult as it may be, this sort of incremental change is how reforms like this tend to happen in our system. Besides which, as this article explains, the Biden plan is really quite a bit more radical than people generally realize.

I'll keep trying to find the Medicaid reference. I should keep notes when I find these things.

Best wishes.

[SheltieLover]

5. K&R

Think about all the $10/hr essential employees with zero benefits! 🤬

[Crunchy Frog]

16. Those numbers seem way low, especially for people who need ICU care. n/t