Pros and Cons of Tying Healthcare to Employment: A Retired CEO’s Perspective
Introduction
As a retired CEO from a large company that grew from a single entity to a family of 30 companies, I have often reflected on the changes in how healthcare is managed and the impact of tying it to employment. Over time, my views on the matter have shifted, and I now see that healthcare provisions, such as free or heavily subsidized access to care, bring a range of benefits and concerns. This article explores the pros and cons of tying healthcare to employment, using my personal experiences as a backdrop.
The Lucky Break
With each new acquisition, I made a bold move to ensure our employees had better healthcare coverage. Nearly immediately, we instituted a plan with no premiums, deductibles, co-pays, or maximums, and covered pre-existing conditions. This resulted in a significant boost in disposable income for our employees.
“Damn, I love doing that!”
The Pro: Unnecessary Tests as a Guarantee of Early Detection
One ostensible con is often the performance of 'unnecessary' tests. Critics argue that such tests are costly for healthcare facilities and done merely as a form of defensive documentation (CYA), providing no real value to the patient. However, after reaching an age where I myself began to question the value of such tests, I came to realize a different perspective.
Until around the age of 40, I would have agreed with the critics. But as I benefited from multiple 'unnecessary' tests, I learned that these tests are critical for early detection. For instance, at age 40, I underwent a mammogram as recommended, which revealed dense tissue and calcium deposits that were indicative of a higher risk of breast cancer. Further tests and biopsies were conducted, all aimed at catching any potential cancer early, thus making treatment easier and increasing the likelihood of recovery.
The key is understanding that these tests are performed because the patient has a higher chance of developing a condition, even if that chance is relatively low. While some experts might advocate reducing such tests to cut costs, I believe the emotional and physical benefits of knowing the risks and having them addressed outweigh the potential savings. What if catching cancer early saves not just one life, but many?
The Con: The Debate Over Prioritizing Public Health
On the other hand, the argument against providing such extensive coverage is often framed from a public health perspective. Critics argue that the funds spent on 'unnecessary' tests for individuals who might not benefit could be better spent on more significant public health measures for a larger population. For example, instead of spending on frequent mammograms for me, the cost could be used for public awareness campaigns or for access to better medical equipment for other women.
While this argument has merit, it is crucial to consider the individual perspective. I, as the one paying, see the value in tests that provide peace of mind and potential early detection. Forcing individuals to accept a higher risk might seem like a viable solution in the short term, but it could lead to more treatment and distress in the long run.
Conclusion
In conclusion, tying healthcare to employment has its advantages, particularly in the form of extensive and early detection of health risks. However, the decision to prioritize such measures or shift towards more cost-effective public health interventions is a complex one that requires careful consideration of individual and societal needs. As a retired CEO, my experience has taught me that the individual benefits of knowing your health status cannot be underestimated.
For healthcare to be truly effective, it must balance individual choices and public health needs. It's a discussion that continues to evolve, and it's important to keep exploring the best ways to meet the diverse needs of a population.