VSP Blog

Liz is a member of VSP's Corporate Public Relations team.

Since June, the Los Angeles Times has published a continuing editorial series on Healthcare Reform.  In today’s opinion piece, “Patient Approach,” the article discusses how unintended consequences could be the result of incremental reform.  VSP is mentioned to make that point:

Excerpt:

In short, shifting to a more limited bill won’t grease the skids for healthcare reformers. Instead, advocates should redouble their efforts to build public support for a comprehensive measure. The loss of momentum could actually help their cause because the breakneck pace leading up to the August recess invited opponents to make an issue out of the process, rather than focusing on the problems in the current system and how to solve them. And it raised the likelihood that provisions of the bill would have unintended consequences because they simply hadn’t been given enough thought.

Here’s an example. To address the problems faced by uninsured or underinsured Americans, the House version of the bill would require medical insurance companies to offer an “essential benefits package,” including dental and vision care for children. Making sure that kids receive such care is a smart, cost-effective move. Most medical insurers, however, stopped providing dental and vision coverage years ago as their customers sought to cut premiums, and specialized insurance companies emerged to fill those niches. Today, more than 130 million people obtain coverage through family policies from specialized insurers, mainly Delta Dental Plans Assn. of Oak Brook, Ill., and VSP of Rancho Cordova, Calif. The House bill would pressure the insurance business to restructure in order to simplify the task of subsidizing children’s dental and vision benefits and, possibly, increase competition in that coverage. But there’s no evidence that such a change would yield better deals for consumers or improve efficiency in the system.

Read the entire editorial here.