There is a lot written about the downsides of fragmented health care. Most stories start out with an example of an extremely ill person, whose condition gets worse as they go from one medical specialist to another and one facility to another, taking one drug after another. The result is usually that the person suffers for a very long time until someone mercifully steps in to help coordinate care or the patient dies. No one is to blame for the person's suffering or death because they did what they were supposed to do. It's only after the fact that we find out that things should have gone better.

The good news is that there are solutions to address the horrible consequences of fragmented health care. Before the production of these solutions, a very sick person had to rely on the kindness and fortitude of family and friends to navigate a system where no one person could or would answer all of their questions. Harvard Business Review has an article here on how to improve fragmented health care. The Affordable Care Act (aka, Obamacare) also works to try and improve the delivery of health care through Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs).

What Is An Obamacare ACO?

According to Jenny Gold, writing in Kaiser Health News online, a national health policy news service that is part of the nonpartisan Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, "An ACO is a network of doctors and hospitals that share financial and medical responsibility for providing coordinated care to patients in hopes of limiting unnecessary spending." Currently, Obamacare ACOs are Medicare-based only.

Addressing the physical and mental suffering and costs of fragmented health care is one of the best components of Obamacare, even if it only addresses a small percentage of the insured. But wouldn't it be great if Obamacare addressed the fragmentation of health insurance programs instead of maintaining or add to them?

A Fragmented Health Insurance System Is A Bad Thing.

I'm not claiming that America's fragmented health insurance programs are as bad as fragmented health care. It's not. Still, fragmented health insurance is a big problem in that it separates us into groups with different levels of coverage, at varying rates and ends up costing us all more than if we were in one group. Instead, we are left with at least six groups—Disabled, Old, Poor, Veterans, Traditionally Employed and Individually Employed—each expected to carry its own financial weight. A difficult and unnecessary standard to meet and maintain...

And as much as we claim to hate health insurance companies and consider them the bad guys, unnecessary middlemen, we've bought into their model of health insurance program fragmentation. And to this very day, both President Obama and Secretary Burwell continue to acquiesce to this system.

While speaking to a crowd in Miami, President Obama stated, “we should use some of that money, some of those savings to now provide more tax credits for more middle-income families.”

And recently, Secretary Burwell said, "This is health care in the United States now." "And so what we need to do now is make sure we're working to make this system and these changes work the best they can."

So what can we do to eliminate our fragmented health insurance system? Well, we have to do a better job of convincing people that we are better off together. For instance, low-paid workers receiving workplace health insurance are probably better off purchasing individual coverage and receiving a government subsidy. Obamacare should let everyone choose which program they want to belong to, no strings attached for the individual or their employer. We also need a public option with the same tax incentives as workplace plans so that workers at all income levels can decide which program they want to join. Eventually, people may see that we are better off together than we are apart.

Bonus! Extra: Best article and flowchart you’ll find this year on how to pick a health insurance plan.

Tags: obamacare, Fragmented health care, Fragmented health insurance programs