From The Conversation Newsletter: The killing of a UnitedHealthcare executive in New York City on Dec. 4 was a challenging story to cover for newsrooms, particularly in the first moments and days following the tragedy. The Conversation’s focus is finding scholars to provide context, nuance, explanation and analysis on the world around them, including on important breaking news stories. But it wasn’t clear what kind of context readers most needed about the killing or what larger trend scholarly research and analysis could shed light on to make sense of the event.
It was a brazen killing in midtown Manhattan, to be sure, so do we need to examine gun laws or the spread of so-called ghost guns, which the shooter used? It seemed likely that the executive was targeted because of his job at a health insurance company, so do we write about health care policy? Or does that imply some sort of justification or ascribe a motive to the suspect, who wrote a manifesto lambasting the health care industry?
One thing was clear: The shooting drew an outpouring of vitriol from Americans upset about health insurers, so much so that many seemed to sympathize with the shooter – or at least show no sympathy for the victim, a father of two.
In a story published Friday morning, we asked Simon Haeder, an expert on health care policy at Texas A&M University, to explain what’s behind this anger toward U.S. health insurers and reflect on the industry’s broader problems.
“In the United States, insurers play a crucial role in connecting – and at times disconnecting – patients with the care they require,” Haeder writes. “Ultimately, many if not most of the frustrations Americans experience with health care have their origins in a poorly designed system that is highly inefficient and offers countless opportunities for profit.”
More here.
