Insurance Companies Should not Provide Coverage for Anorexia

Or they should... either way, it should be up to them.

I recently read an article in Newsweek suggesting that states require insurance companies to cover treatment for Anorexia and other eating disorders. While I agree that Anorexia is a serious disorder, I wholeheartedly disagree with the thinking that laws should require insurers to cover specific illnesses.

Marisa Meiskin had been battling anorexia for some time when her parents decided to take drastic action. They selected a private treatment facility with an intense five-step program "against a backdrop of picturesque rolling hills and complete with an equestrian program, yoga and music therapy." Marisa spent four months recovering there, and now has regained a normal life as a healthy teenager. The only problem? The program cost $30,000 a month, of which approximately 1/4 was covered by Aetna. This left Marisa's parents with about $90,000 of debt.

According to Newsweek, the solution is to simply have states require insurers to provide coverage for Anorexia and other similar illnesses. That way, families will not be taxed with the financial burden that comes as a result of having children with an eating disorder. This is an extremely oversimplified way of thinking about the problem and a great example of why America's health care system is broken. Allow me to point out two flaws in this reasoning and an alternative viewpoint:

First, by requiring insurers to cover specific illnesses, the government is making a judgment that the total cost of treating that illness should be spread over all insurance policy holders. In addition to my belief that the government has no place to make these kind of decisions, not all people are at risk for eating disorders. Why should I be forced to pay for anorexia coverage when I know there is no risk of me ever battling that illness?

Second, the proposed solution makes the flawed assumption that all people should have access to the most advanced possible health care. Can you think of any other service where this is the case? Medical professionals generally uphold an ethical obligation to serve all in need. I believe it is reasonable to assume that services will continue to be available for less wealthy patients in the absence of a regulated system.

The problem with the current system is that it does not allow me to shop for what I want and pay for what I get. Like most people, my health coverage is partially covered by my employer. I have exactly two options for coverage, of which the only difference is the deductible and the percentage covered. I have very little flexibility to customize the type of coverage that I am offered.

In a free market system, if coverage for Anorexia (or any illness) is something the market needs, then it will be provided at an appropriate price. If the price of coverage is expensive and the treatment does not apply to a large percentage of people, that it will be offered as an optional service rather than part of the base package. Requiring insurance carriers to cover specific illnesses is like raising the price of auto insurance and saying it now covers watercraft, even if you don't own one. Would that make sense?

As a healthy individual who averages one doctor visit per year, my policy is very profitable for the insurer, and my premium should be low. My premium is already over $2,000/year, and Newsweek and the Meiskin's believe that my premium should go up further to cover the cost of their daughter's anorexia treatment.

Sorry but I cannot agree.




This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.