I received an invitation to join the American Association of Retired People (AARP) back in the mid-80s, several years before I graduated from college.  They sent me one of those plastic “membership cards” you sometimes get with solicitations via mail and it had my name stamped right on it.  I carried that sucker in my wallet for years as a gag.

Now that I’m getting a little older, I realize that the next time I get an AARP offer will probably be about the time I actually qualify for one.  That’s a little disturbing, to tell yout the truth.

And “disturbing” is a good segue to a discussion of our current healthcare problem in America.  The cost of medical care is mind-boggling and I think that even the most conservative and liberal folks around can agree that we have a real problem.  There are too many people without insurance or who are under-insured.

I’d like to think that we’d all like to see people carrying adequate insurance to protect their financial interests and to guarantee necessary medical treatment.  That should be true whether you’re head over heels in love with a single payer system or if you’re a laissez faire buff who’s ready to see the government walk away in favor of market solutions.

The AARP seems to have a strong interest in a better system, too.  They’re always lobbying for reforms they believe will better serve their membership base.  They’ve been actively involved in Medicare issues for years and have become a formidable lobbying force.

The AARP also offers insurance policies to its members.  There really isn’t such a thing as “AARP health insurance” in a strict sense, though.  The organization has actually forged relationships with insurance companies like UnitedHealth Gruop and offers their policies to the membership.  So, while people are actually buying a policy through a different provider, it’s still often referred to as “AARP health insurance“.  These sales constitute somewhere between 25% and 35% of AARP’s revenues.

All of this seems perfectly reasonable on its face.  The AARP sticks up for the interests of its members in terms of legilsative reform AND offers them what the organization believes to be quality insurance projects.

When you consider things a bit more closely, however, this arrangement may very well represent a conflict of interest.

In 2006, for instance, critics accused AARP of softening its support for drug reimportation reform that would make it easier for Americans to purchase prescription medications in Canada in order to save money.  Some argued that the AARP’s seemingly modified stand on the issue stemmed from a recognition that its own financial interests would be ill-served by great re-importation.  As one observer questioned, “Is it a major conflict of interest for AARP to claim to be a benevolent spokesperson for older consumers, when the “issues” are extremely important to their financial well-being?”

Many feel that the AARP has failed to support the right kinds of Medicare reform over the years.  The alleged reason?  A significant percentage of AARP health insurance sales involve products designed to “fill the gaps” in Medicare coverage.  If Medicare were properly repaird, critics argue, AARP would stand to a lose a lot of business.

It’s not hard to see the potential for conflict of interests, even if you don’t believe the AARP has yet failed to support its members best interests.  There’s a natural potential tension between marketing insurance products and lobbying the government for reform of the healthcare systems.

An NPR story pointed out just how tricky the situation can be when discussing 2007 efforts to deal with the health care crisis:

“And its new contracts are making AARP’s politics even more awkward. As part of its deal with United Healthcare, AARP will become the largest single sponsor of private Medicare health plans under a program called “Medicare Advantage.” Yet the group is lobbying to reduce payments to those Medicare plans, which analysts say are being overpaid by the government.”

I’m not ready to echo the sentiments of long-time AARP foe and former Senator Alan Simpson.  Simpson was quoted as saying, “If there was a sublime definition of conflict of interest, it would be AARP from morning to night.”  I’m not at that point,  but his words do remind us to look closely at what the AARP does and why they might do it.  It may not always be a matter of benovolence for its membership.