Search News


Browse Archives

News

Students Missing in Health Plans

October 14, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

WASHINGTON – The Senate Finance Committee approved its bill Tuesday to overhaul the American health care system, pushing Democrats’ reform efforts closer to reality, but still leaving plenty of ambiguity in the plan to be worked out by Congress and the White House.

One issue still unresolved is what, if any, provisions the final legislation (which, it’s widely agreed, will end up looking a lot like the Finance Committee’s bill) will make for college students and campus-based health plans. As it exists after clearing committee, the Senate bill seems, perhaps inadvertently, to leave no room for college-provided student insurance plans.

“Congress simply isn’t thinking about college students’ health care,” said Jim Turner, president of the American College Health Association. “They’re not trying to be malicious, I don’t think, but the legislation could unintentionally be eliminating student health insurance programs.”

The Finance Committee’s bill classifies plans under two categories: employer-based group plans and individual policies purchased through an insurance exchange. College-issued plans are neither. Instead, they’re classified by an exemption to Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) which, Turner said, defines them as “limited duration products.”

Last week, Turner and Doyle Randol, ACHA’s executive director, wrote to Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), chairman of the Finance Committee, asking for clarification “that nothing in the proposed legislation is intended to, nor will inhibit or preclude the continuance of college sponsored (or college self-insured) student health insurance plans and that colleges will retain the ability to mandate comprehensive coverage levels for their students.”

Jim Mitchell, director of Student Health Services at Montana State University and spokesperson for the Lookout Mountain Group, which advocates for student health care, said his organization is also concerned that there's “no room for student insurance to exist” under the committee’s bill. He expressed a sentiment similar to Turner’s, saying that the omission of student health plans “is an unintentional consequence as they’re trying to craft a very complex bill.” Now, like Turner, he simply wants Congress “to craft language that will keep student plans going.”

Student insurance plans were offered at 71 percent of four-year private non-profit colleges, 82 percent of four-year publics and 29 percent of two-year publics during the 2007-08 academic year, the Government Accountability Office reported in March 2008.

In 2006, the same analysis found, 67 percent of college students aged 18 to 23 received insurance through employer-sponsored plans (most likely their parents’), while 6 percent were covered by public insurance plans like Medicaid. Another 7 percent had coverage through non-employer private plans, including student insurance programs. The remaining 20 percent were uninsured.

Jim Boyle, president of College Parents for America, said the priority should be to ensure that private employer-based plans be accepted at campus health centers since there are, perhaps, 10 college students covered by those plans for every one covered by a student plan.

“Many colleges are beginning to require that students buy their health plans, or are at least not accepting any other private insurance at their campus health centers,” he said. “They’re asking these students and their families to pay twice for coverage just to ensure that the student will be able to be treated on campus rather than having to go to the emergency room of the hospital down the road. It’s an issue that sits under the umbrella of college costs, which everyone’s concerned about.”

Another point of concern in the Finance Committee’s bill is the creation of “young invincible” policies, catastrophic-only policies available to people under 25 for less than the cost of a comprehensive plan, which are aimed at young people who think they're healthy enough not to need insurance,

Mitchell, of Lookout Mountain Group, said young invincible plans “wouldn’t really give students the support they need … they’re low-quality but would probably cost about the same as more comprehensive student health plans.”

The plans wouldn’t cover prescription drug costs, care for chronic illnesses or emergency room visits, all common health care needs for college students generally included in student health plans. Based on his research, the plans would likely cost between $1,200 and $1,500 annually, while many student insurance plans cost between $1,500 and $1,800. “For a little bit more money with a campus plan, you’d be getting a lot more.”

Ari Matusiak, a co-founder of Young Invincibles, a health reform group advocating for 18 to 34 year-olds, said such plans would be “insurance they can afford but insurance in name only,” and wouldn't give students the coverage they need. “There cannot be a distinction between young Americans whose parents have insurance and those who don’t and have to turn to these lower-quality plans just to have anything at all.” His group would like to see more comprehensive, low-cost plans available for students and recent graduates who can’t get coverage elsewhere.

But for students whose parents are insured, coverage under those plans would make the most sense, Matusiak said just hours after speaking at a Tuesday press conference at which Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) announced the House bill will allow young people to stay covered under their parents’ plans until age 27. Current age limits vary state-by-state, but most are several years lower than 27. “If there’s any provision that matters most to college students, it’s that one,” he said. “Most college students are covered by their parents’ plans and want to be covered under those plans since they come with little or no cost to them.”

Because of the current state of the job market, he added, “as college students are getting their diplomas, one thing that is becoming increasingly clear is … they may experience a time of uninsurance because they’re between school and whatever comes next.” The ability to stay on a parent’s plan gives them an easy source of coverage.

Boyle, of College Parents of America, applauded that movement, too. “I think President Obama wants to see parental coverage extended up through the late 20s and I think that makes a lot of sense,” he said.

ACHA’s Turner said his group supports provisions to help students stay on their parents’ plans. But, he added, “I’ve heard anecdotes that students are losing their health insurance because parents are losing their jobs. If a school can continue to offer a comprehensive insurance plan that is reasonably priced, that is critical to covering students who are otherwise losing their coverage.”

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Students Missing in Health Plans

  • Self-serving comment by Jim Turner
  • Posted by Sherman Dorn , Professor at University of South Florida on October 14, 2009 at 5:30am EDT
  • I understand that those who run overpriced college-student-only health plans want to keep their jobs, but Jim Boyle's point is correct: in a world where far more students will have outside health insurance, national legislation should not cater to this remnant of in loco parentis arrangements. On-campus health facilities need to take all insurance, and the goal should be coverage in reasonably-sized pools... which college-student-only plans never are.

  • Perhaps not so self-serving?
  • Posted by Jane , Graduate School Director at Medium Public on October 14, 2009 at 9:00am EDT
  • Sherman's comment fails to take into consideration the interests of graduate students across the country. In this case, college insurance plans are not taking "the place of a parent" unless those parents are self-insured. This is not a money-making business. College insurance plans provide a much-needed resource to undergraduate students and graduate students who couldn't otherwise afford their own plans and/or may only be covered under parental catastrophic plans.

  • Posted by Greg on October 14, 2009 at 11:15am EDT
  • From the GAO report:

    About 20 percent of college students aged 18 through 23 (1.7 million) were uninsured in 2006, and certain groups of students—such as part-time students, nonwhite students, and students from families with lower incomes—were more likely than others to be uninsured. The characteristics of uninsured students are consistent with those of the uninsured found in the general U.S. population.

    Why should this be a separate issue? It seems to me that by fixing the main problem, this problem will then be fixed?

    Greg

  • Unintended Consequences
  • Posted by Charles , Professor at State U on October 14, 2009 at 1:00pm EDT
  • Two issues to think about: 1) if student health centers have to start billing a huge variety of health insurance companies for services, they are going to have to increase the size of their administrative staffs; 2) I'm hoping that covering students till age 27 isn't limited to students enrolled in college until that age; we are already seeing younger students refusing to apply for graduation even though all of their degree work is done because if they graduate without a job they lose the health coverage they get from their parents since they are no longer a student.

  • If not X, then Y ... Young invincibles
  • Posted by Jeremy Engdahl-Johnson , Townhall Leader at Healthcare Townhall on October 14, 2009 at 2:15pm EDT
  •  

    On the one hand, political and economic necessity may make young invincible policies a good idea. On the other hand, we're diluting the health insurance pool. More at http://www.healthcaretownhall.com/?p=1630

  • good to see
  • Posted by conor king , Australian HE analyst on October 15, 2009 at 5:00am EDT
  • It is positive that everyone commenting seems to agree that having coverage is important for all students (and probably all Americans). The impression around the world based on media reports is that a large proportion of Americans (or at least their politicians and media) think leaving people without good health care coverage is much better than any risk of Government involvement in health care.

  • It's also good to see, conor king,
  • Posted by DFS on October 15, 2009 at 12:00pm EDT
  • That the majority of the world believes such is the case here in the USA.

    Anything is better than the intrusion of the government.

    To quote Bastiat: "When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it."

  • Poor strategy
  • Posted by Allen on October 21, 2009 at 11:00am EDT
  • It is important to note that we provide care to all students at our health center regardless of insurance coverage and that multiple insurance plans are not a barrier to getting care at the centers, contrary to what has been reported in the article. Health Centers typically provide great services at low cost, but their services are limited, so students will typically also need to be able to access the local medical providers. Second, some parents plans are lousy and do not provide comprehensive coverage or have large co pays or deductibles which can be a barrier to care for students. Third, parent's insurance can have some significant limitations when students are far from home. Coverage may be for emergencies only which limits the ability of students to get continuing care and stay in school. HMO's and networks which are meant to control and reduce cost for employers sometimes impact the ability to access care in the local community. This is a problem for students. Fourth, some students don't want to be on their parent's policy because they would rather not tell mom and dad about the trouble they have gotten into. Thus, they may forgo care which could result in more serious health consequences. Lastly, most grad students at my University get the student health insurance program at no cost as part of their stipend. For roughly $1600 they get a $1 million dollar plan, mental health coverage ($1 million) and a drug program.. The plan after a modest deductible provides a 100% benefit in the local area to eliminate the need to balance bill students. It is a plan to be proud of and few employer's plans that I have seen can match it for the price and comprehensiveness of the coverage. Congress should encourage the creation of more college health centers and comprehensive student plans because they work and they meet the specific needs of students unlike parent plans, or the proposed government plan.