Maybe we should have a public-public partnership on health, not a public-private one? by @DavidOAtkins

Maybe we should have a public-public partnership on health, not a public-private one?

by David Atkins

This is the sort of thing that happens when you do ill-advised public-private kludges instead of commonsense Medicare-style deals between the public and their government:

The California health exchange says it's been giving the names of tens of thousands of consumers to insurance agents without their permission or knowledge in an effort to hit deadlines for coverage.

The consumers in question had gone online to research insurance options but didn't ask to be contacted, the Los Angeles Times reported Saturday (http://lat.ms/1jyABXS ).

Officials with Covered California, the exchange set up in response to the federal health law, said they began providing names, addresses, phone numbers and email addresses if available this week in a pilot program. They said they thought it would help people meet a Dec. 23 deadline to have health insurance in place by Jan. 1.

The state doesn't know exactly how many people are affected by the information sharing. Social Security numbers, income and other information were not provided to the agents, exchange officials said.

The pilot program meets privacy laws and was cleared by the exchange's legal counsel, Peter Lee, executive director of Covered California, told the Times.

But some insurance brokers and consumers weren't pleased with the state's initiative.

"I'm shocked and dumbfounded," said Sam Smith, an Encino insurance broker and president of the California Association of Health Underwriters, an industry group.

"These people would have a legitimate complaint," said Smith, who added he had been given two consumer names.
It's not the biggest deal in the world, but it is a problem. Privacy is at far greater risk when the government is forced to rely on private services that should be a one-stop efficient contract between the people and their elected government.


.