Sick Sad System
The current national debate over health care reform is one that musicians are watching particularly closely. Certainly we're all wondering what our health insurance system will look like on the other side of the debate, but as an industry, the music business could be deeply impacted by a changed health care model.
First of all, many musicians are part of that 46 million-strong voting block that simply can't afford any insurance at all. Freelancers who bounce from gig to gig (and that's most musicians, by the way) are almost never offered benefits, even when they substitute for the same orchestra or contractor frequently. So unless they can piggy-back on a spouse's employer-based insurance plan (which frequently isn't an option, since musicians have a habit of marrying other musicians,) their only option is to purchase one of the horrendously expensive individual plans offered by private insurers. Assuming, of course, that they don't have any preexisting conditions.
Even those of us lucky enough to have full-time jobs with large orchestras (and therefore, access to pretty good insurance coverage) could benefit hugely from new controls on the system. Orchestras are the 800-lb. gorillas of the music world, yes, but as businesses go, we're pretty small. The Minnesota Orchestra employs fewer than 200 people, and that means that, when our management asks insurance companies for bids to cover us, those bids come back awfully high, because the insurance companies don't really need our business.
Contrast that with a large corporation with tens of thousands of employees: the insurance companies desperately want that large pool of policies, so they cut the corporation a break on the individual rates. Basically, the fewer employees you have, the more each individual policy is going to cost.
Then there's the fact that musicians tend to actually use our health insurance. Performance injuries are extremely common, and the kind of injuries we get tend to be the kind that require extensive rehab. So annual rate increases are often sharply higher for us than they might be at your company.
There's been talk for several years now of trying to pool together all the full-time orchestra players in the US in an effort to get one big insurance plan for all of us, but since every state has its own laws regulating health insurance, and every orchestra has its own collective bargaining agreement governing everything from how much money we make to how long the rehearsals are, no one's holding their breath for a national OrchestraCare plan.
But something's gotta change. Like so many businesses, orchestras are being financially crippled by the rising cost of insurance, and no one has yet offered a solution that can garner enough political support to become law. In fact, my understanding of the plans on the table is that the employer-based model would remain the primary insurance delivery system in most cases. That's great news for my insurance company, but it's sure not good news for me or any other musician.
First of all, many musicians are part of that 46 million-strong voting block that simply can't afford any insurance at all. Freelancers who bounce from gig to gig (and that's most musicians, by the way) are almost never offered benefits, even when they substitute for the same orchestra or contractor frequently. So unless they can piggy-back on a spouse's employer-based insurance plan (which frequently isn't an option, since musicians have a habit of marrying other musicians,) their only option is to purchase one of the horrendously expensive individual plans offered by private insurers. Assuming, of course, that they don't have any preexisting conditions.
Even those of us lucky enough to have full-time jobs with large orchestras (and therefore, access to pretty good insurance coverage) could benefit hugely from new controls on the system. Orchestras are the 800-lb. gorillas of the music world, yes, but as businesses go, we're pretty small. The Minnesota Orchestra employs fewer than 200 people, and that means that, when our management asks insurance companies for bids to cover us, those bids come back awfully high, because the insurance companies don't really need our business.
Contrast that with a large corporation with tens of thousands of employees: the insurance companies desperately want that large pool of policies, so they cut the corporation a break on the individual rates. Basically, the fewer employees you have, the more each individual policy is going to cost.
Then there's the fact that musicians tend to actually use our health insurance. Performance injuries are extremely common, and the kind of injuries we get tend to be the kind that require extensive rehab. So annual rate increases are often sharply higher for us than they might be at your company.
There's been talk for several years now of trying to pool together all the full-time orchestra players in the US in an effort to get one big insurance plan for all of us, but since every state has its own laws regulating health insurance, and every orchestra has its own collective bargaining agreement governing everything from how much money we make to how long the rehearsals are, no one's holding their breath for a national OrchestraCare plan.
But something's gotta change. Like so many businesses, orchestras are being financially crippled by the rising cost of insurance, and no one has yet offered a solution that can garner enough political support to become law. In fact, my understanding of the plans on the table is that the employer-based model would remain the primary insurance delivery system in most cases. That's great news for my insurance company, but it's sure not good news for me or any other musician.
Labels: stirring the pot, the business of music
posted by Sam at
3:35 PM
2 Comments:
Let's not forget, even within large orchestras, there are those employees who do no have access to insurance coverage.
Sam, I'm surprised the union doesn't offer something. That might be a large enough group to negotiate more reasonable costs for members. I'm thinking specifically of the bus drivers here in the TC. I think their union offers the medical insurance, not the Met Council, but I could be wrong....
I like what Obama is saying about reform because the system definitely needs reform. I'm not certain that keeping the insurance companies at their current level of profit-making is going to really be reform in the long run. Back in the 1930's when medical insurance began, it was strictly for catastrophic circumstances such as a hospitalization. All other medical expenses were paid for out of pocket by the patient and costs were lower. I read an article in "The Atlantic" that used the analogy of car insurance (not unlike Obama) and asked would you file an insurance claim when you bought gas or had a tune-up? No. Car insurance is for catastrophic circumstances that are much more expensive.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home