Bennett Highlights the Importance of Consumer Choice in Health Care
Washington, DC—Joint Economic Committee Chairman, Robert F. Bennett, held a hearing today on “Expanding Consumer Choice and Addressing ‘Adverse Selection’ Concerns in Health Insurance.” The hearing examined how employers and insurers can offer better choices to consumers in practice without producing the sort of adverse consequences sometimes predicted in theory.
“Health insurance coverage is just a means to an end. The real objective is better health and better outcomes from medical treatment,” said Bennett. “But improving the value of insurance that’s available to a diverse population of consumers is an important part of that process. Increasing their choices, rather than reducing them, is the direction we need to go.”
Bennett invited a panel of witnesses experienced in different aspects of the health coverage debate who discussed what really happens in insurance markets in the pooling and pricing of risks and sorted out real problems from imagined ones. Some of the conclusions advanced by several witnesses included:
·Employers and insurers can offer more choice of insurance in practice without causing the adverse consequences predicted by some in theory.
·There is little evidence that employers in general have difficulty in continuing to offer coverage to people who become high risks.
·Risk adjustment by private sector intermediaries could encourage greater insurer competition and more health plan choices in the mid-sized employer market.
“Health insurance coverage is just a means to an end. The real objective is better health and better outcomes from medical treatment,” said Bennett. “But improving the value of insurance that’s available to a diverse population of consumers is an important part of that process. Increasing their choices, rather than reducing them, is the direction we need to go.”
Bennett invited a panel of witnesses experienced in different aspects of the health coverage debate who discussed what really happens in insurance markets in the pooling and pricing of risks and sorted out real problems from imagined ones. Some of the conclusions advanced by several witnesses included:
·Employers and insurers can offer more choice of insurance in practice without causing the adverse consequences predicted by some in theory.
·There is little evidence that employers in general have difficulty in continuing to offer coverage to people who become high risks.
·Risk adjustment by private sector intermediaries could encourage greater insurer competition and more health plan choices in the mid-sized employer market.
