The best health care system you can't afford

Submitted by Prometheus 6 on February 2, 2005 - 3:21am.
on Economics | Health

Study Ties Bankruptcy to Medical Bills

By REED ABELSON

Sometimes, all it takes is one bad fall for a working person with health insurance to be pushed into bankruptcy.

Hundreds of thousands of Americans file for personal bankruptcy each year because of medical bills - even though they have health insurance, according to a new study by Harvard University legal and medical researchers.

"It doesn't take a medical catastrophe to create a financial catastrophe," said Elizabeth Warren, a Harvard law professor who studies bankruptcy and is one of the authors of the study.

The study, which is scheduled to appear today on the Web site of Health Affairs, an academic journal, provides a glimpse into a little-researched area connecting bankruptcy and medical costs. About 30 percent of people said they filed for bankruptcy because of an illness or injury, even though most of them had health insurance when they first got sick.

Many lost their jobs - and their insurance - because they got sick, while others faced thousands of dollars in co-payments and deductibles and for services not covered by their insurance.

One person cited in the bankruptcy study, for example, broke a leg, missed a couple of months of work and then had $13,000 in unpaid medical bills, though his employer-based health plan had already paid for much of his care, Ms. Warren said.

Another respondent to the survey was able to pay for hospital stays for lung surgery and a heart attack but could not return to his old job. When he found a new job, he was denied coverage because of his pre-existing conditions, which continued to require costly medical care and contributed to his bankruptcy.

Policy analysts say these findings underscore the limitations of the nation's current system of providing health insurance largely through employers. Some argue that even for those with insurance, benefits can be ephemeral.

"You can lose it because it's tied to employment," said Joseph Antos, a health policy researcher with the American Enterprise Institute, who said people were also at risk if their employers went out of business.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Submitted by dwshelf on February 16, 2005 - 11:31am.

Well, yeah:
See how to show that 50% of bankruptcies are caused by medical problems.

To start with, count gambling. Substance abuse.

Submitted by Prometheus 6 on February 16, 2005 - 11:56am.

From the post I see how to imply that less than 50% of bankruptcies are caused by medical problems.

I close with an illustration that tries to put the major flaws of this study in perspective and the policy recommendations that have been drawn from it. Suppose that I wanted to find out how many Americans filed bankruptcy because of tax problems. I then interviewed bankruptcy filers and checked their financial records, and counted as a "tax-caused bankruptcy" anyone who either (1) paid $1,000 or more in taxes during the past two years, or (2) anyone who said that if he didn't have to pay taxes he wouldn't have had to file bankruptcy because he would have had more money for his other bills. I suspect that under that criteria I would find a pretty substantial number of "tax-caused bankruptcies." I then conclude that, as a result, we shouldn't make people pay taxes if they believe it might make them file bankruptcy, and that any unpaid tax obligations should get a blanket discharge in bankruptcy (unlike current law, which makes them largely nondischargeable).

Do you realize this is the type of reasoning that allows folks to say they were unfairly excluded from some highly competitive school because of affirmative action?

Submitted by dwshelf on February 16, 2005 - 12:26pm.

Do you realize this is the type of reasoning that allows folks to say they were unfairly excluded from some highly competitive school because of affirmative action?

The quoted assertion claims that in cases where there are several causes of some bad result, explaining the result by simply one of them is bad logic. Particularly so when you have a standard of cause which allows some decidedly minor causes to be considered.

If this is what you mean, there's no doubt that's a bad argument in all contexts.

==
But just consider the difference between "50% of bankrupcies are caused by gambling and substance abuse" vs "50% of bankruptcies are caused by medical problems", with both claims based on the exact same underlying data.

Submitted by Prometheus 6 on February 16, 2005 - 2:30pm.

Makes me glad I didn't link to anything claiming 50% of bankruptcies are caused by medical problems.

But why should I consider that difference when no one raised the possibility of 50% of bankrupcies being caused by gambling and substance abuse? The Volokhian said gambling and substance abuse were among the things classified as medical problems in the study.

Among the self-identified factors that are listed as "medical" causes of bankruptcy in Exhibit 2 of the article are the following: illness or injury, birth/addition of new family member, death in family, alcohol or drug addiction, uncontrolled gambling. First, it is surely open to question whether uncontrolled gambling or a death in the family really should count as a "medical" problem. More generally, the category "illness or injury" is very broadly defined in the study, and there is no apparent limit on the time frame over which the illness or injury occurred, or the severity. So classifying all of these factors as medical problems that have "caused" bankruptcy certainly seems open to question.

Submitted by dwshelf on February 16, 2005 - 9:08pm.

Makes me glad I didn't link to anything claiming 50% of bankruptcies are caused by medical problems.

Indeed not, and I was negligent in suggesting you had. The "researcher" cited in your link was the same researcher who apparently testified before congress regarding 50%. Your link says 30%.

But why should I consider that difference when no one raised the possibility of 50% of bankrupcies being caused by gambling and substance abuse? The Volokhian said gambling and substance abuse were among the things classified as medical problems in the study.

Arguments from ideosyncratic word definition should be rejected as insincere. Defining "medical" the way this researcher did, and then trying to use the calculation to support a political agenda regarding medical insurance is being less than truthful.

Submitted by Prometheus 6 on February 16, 2005 - 9:24pm.

Arguments from ideosyncratic word definition should be rejected as insincere.

You propose the destruction of the Republican Party.