Top College News Subscribe to the Newsletter

USF shelves health care reforms, waits for national impact

Published: Monday, October 10, 2011

Updated: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 01:10

For Assistant Vice President for Student Affairs Alan Kent, endless political discussions on health care reform can be boiled down to one question asked during September's CNN Tea Party Debate at the Florida State Fairgrounds.

Republican presidential candidates stood at their lecterns as moderator Wolf Blitzer asked Ron Paul what should happen to someone who has not purchased health insurance, yet is in need of medical attention. Someone in the audience shouted, "Let them die."

"So that's the debate," Kent said. "Should we force people to buy health insurance? Some people believe that this is America and you shouldn't force people to do anything, but then you have to live by those consequences. So, if someone's in a car accident on the highway and they don't have health insurance, do we just let them die on the side of the road, or do we bring them in to the emergency room and treat them?"

It's a question that doesn't have an easy answer, Kent said.

The Affordable Care Act, which was signed into law March 2010 and is now coming into effect, requires all U.S. citizens to have health insurance by 2014 or face tax increases, with some exemptions, according to whitehouse.gov. Yet, USF's initiative to mandate that all students purchase health insurance has now been "taken off the table," Kent said.

In February, Student Health Services used the Student Government election ballot to gauge student opinion on a policy that would make health insurance an enrollment requirement.

The policy, which was rejected by students, would have allowed those without health insurance to include it in their cost of tuition, meaning scholarship money and financial aid could be used to pay for a plan. Those who already had health insurance wouldn't have been affected by the policy, Kent said.

"It's clear that the student body, at this point, despite our efforts to educate them, is not in favor of it," he said. "And I understand that, because it's another charge, another cost. Tuition has gone up, fees have gone up (and) if we mandate health insurance, that's another cost. For some people, there's not enough financial aid to cover their costs now. "

Susanna Perez-Field, office manager of Student Health Services, said the University conducted a National College Health Assessment that surveyed 1,100 students. Based on the data, roughly 22 percent of undergraduate and 13 percent of graduate students are uninsured.

"What this means is that we have, probably, 10,000 students on campus, at least, that have no insurance," Kent said.

Yet, mandating health insurance is not the only solution to lowering costs.

Currently, only 330 students have voluntarily purchased USF's health insurance plan, Perez-Field said, in addition to about 2,000 graduate, medical and international students who are either required to purchase the plan or are offered coverage "as part of their contract."

Likewise, "utilization costs haven't been as high as they were for the past two or three years," Perez-Field said. In 2010, USF's health insurance increased in cost from $1,600 to $2,400 per year with a 140 percent loss ration, Kent said. Because the students who purchased the plan usually used it frequently, UnitedHealthcare paid out $1.89 for every dollar they received from users.

Now, Perez-Field said USF's loss ratio is about 55 percent, less than the 80 percent insurance companies usually anticipate, and plans cost about $1,806.00.

Kent said he hopes the new data helps the University negotiate lower insurance rates in the future. For now, USF will watch the Affordable Care Act to "see if that impacts things."

Though the act implements many reforms, Kent said the one that will benefit students the most is the ability to stay on their parents' insurance plan until age 26, an option he said is "definitely still cheaper" than trying to purchase a plan.

"I would like to believe that, if that plan goes into effect and students would have to be covered, that more of them would sign up for the (USF) plan, which hopefully would reduce the rates," Kent said. "But we can't predict that."

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

1 comments

Pat Jack
Thu Aug 9 2012 18:31
"Wolf Blitzer asked Ron Paul what should happen to someone who has not purchased health insurance, yet is in need of medical attention."

I understand that certainly you are aware that Congressman Dr. Ron Paul is an OBGYN that has delivered over 4,000 babies into this world. Surely you also know that Dr. Congressman Ron Paul throughout his medical career has often given freely of his time to individuals with no health insurance, even to the point of saving their lives, and their delivering baby's lives, at his own expense, on more than a few occasions.

Perhaps a more appropriate premise question might be, "How was healthcare provided to persons BEFORE their was health insurance, when those persons were unable to pay for health insurance?" And looking directly at infant mortality and child mortality rates in the United States as compared to other 1st, and yes, 2nd world nations today, I think we can find cause to examine this issue.

Did you notice what Ron Paul's answer to to Wolf's question was, or was he simply drowned out by the heckler you quote? Upon review of the video clip you reference, Congressman Dr. Paul's answer was quite straight forward, although it is an extremely complex issue of course that takes considerable study of health insurance issues. Are we to insinuate that what the heckler says is based on their expertise of this issue, or of Congressman Dr. Ron Paul's historical stance on this issue?

The REAL question is put to each of us as individuals, WHO will pay for the healthcare of others and how much are you willing to pay. If this were ONLY a voluntary system, the healthcare mandate, as you and I know, would fail, because nobody wants government health care, unless it is free. So if nobody wants to pay, the only way is to threaten the removal of liberties and freedoms from an individual to coerce, or threaten, or intimidate, yea, harm them seriously perhaps even imprison them for refusal to participate in government "forced" healthcare.

In the scenario and polling your news paper makes, it is ALL of the other students who foot the bill for the program at large, when we know that what the college charges for Student Health Insurance comes nowhere near to covering the actual cost of the program, so ... obviously, students who do NOT participate in the Student Health Insurance program certainly are already paying for it in increased tuition hikes, etc ... So the dynamic of this parallel you use as micro-metaphor is a good place to start and clearly, you would have to point a gun to the heads of many of those students to get them to part with their money to pay for services for other persons. When one argues the guilt and emotion the heckler espouses, then I have to ask how much money the heckler has used to pay for other person's health care and to make an accounting of that lest he slander a fine physician who has used his life and medical career to set an example of not only charity, but sacrifice on behalf of others.

That is not the America that most Americans want to live within, that is Communist China, that is Communist Russia, and that is a totalitarian system which steals money from those that make it, without their consent, and gives it to healthcare companies and large, corporate "fat cat" hospital companies, etc ... to "provide" government health care and yes, it is an exquisitely complicated issue that no heckler of a distinguished physician and long time Congressman can answer, nay, even support any supposition with which to base any argument for the sake of any report.





log out