Yesterday we wrote this about the New York Times article on Tier 4 pharmaceuticals:
Defenders of the Tier 4 system will say that health premiums will become unaffordable if these costly treatments … are paid by insurance. There’s some truth to that. But here’s the problem with that argument: The function of insurance is to protect individuals from expenses they can’t afford. Once you start withdrawing that protection, it’s a misuse of language to describe the product you sell as “health insurance” …if it isn’t really “insurance” anymore, what are they offering?
Yesterday’s post was called “When Is Health Insurance Not Insurance?” The New York Times ran an editorial about Tier 4 drugs today. Here’s an excerpt:
The insurers say that forcing patients to pay more for unusually high-priced drugs allows them to keep down the premiums charged to everyone else. That turns the ordinary notion of insurance on its head. Instead of spreading the risks and costs across a wide pool of people to protect a smaller number of very sick patients from financial ruin, insurers are gouging the sickest patients to keep premiums down for healthier people.
Coincidence? We report, you decide. But if the New York Times wants some more help with their editorial page then, believe me, I have some more suggestions …