For Profit Insurance
-
Does the New Senate Health Care Bill Get the Job Done?, Conclusion
-
5 Steps to Get Americans on Board With Health Reform
-
Does the New Senate Health Care Bill Get the Job Done?, Pt 1
Is National Healthcare Reform Repeating Massachusetts' Mistakes?
Published November 10, 2009 @ 06:00AM PT
So where are we, as a nation, on health reform? You can compare the plans currently in play in an excellent summary here. But I can sum it up in two words: Massachusetts 2.0. Remember, MA was the first state to require all residents to have health insurance, with hardship exceptions. This was coupled with an employer mandate. It now has the highest percent insured population in the country, 97.4%. It is also drowning in healthcare costs, and looking for ways to cover them. The basis of its model: expand private insurance and use public insurance as a safety net. That has a familiar homey (or should I say House-y) ring to it, doesn’t it?
Given that Obama has studiously avoided talking about, much less praising, the MA effort, it’s ironic that Congressional efforts have mirrored this universal coverage pilot so closely. For instance, MA took the Congressional approach of tackling coverage first, and costs later. Nearly five years after its inception, MA universal healthcare is encountering steep resistance to proposed measures that would bend the cost curve, like Pay For Performance programs. As a result, insurance premiums continue to rise. They are expected to go up 10% for 2010. That’s not a good omen, as both chambers of Congress rely primarily on Medicare reimbursement cuts and pilot P4P programs to achieve cost savings.
More ominous yet, doctors in MA are cherry-picking patients based on their insurance plans. In MA as everywhere else, there is a shortage of primary care physicians. When demand is greater than supply, power shifts to those who provide the service. The complexity of the insurance behemoth wasn’t addressed during the MA overhaul, and it was in fact strengthened by a coverage mandate that did nothing to decrease insurance administrative bureaucracy. So doctors continue to pay for their correspondingly large administrative staff by preferentially seeing private plan patients. Some actually refuse to see poor patients on state-subsidized public plans.
House Light Hits Predatory Insurers and Complicit GOP
Published November 05, 2009 @ 06:00AM PT
Well at least one of the two manager’s amendments to the final version of HR 3962 could be useful. It addresses the “Wall Street Effect”, most obviously in a section entitled Sunshine on Price Gouging by Health Insurance Issuers. The Wall Street Effect was observed when banks and credit card companies were told regulations would be tightened the beginning of 2010 – they promptly raised rates and found all sorts of fees and penalties they could assess customers prior to that. Expecting private insurers to do the same thing when faced with health reform legislation, John Dingell created preemptive strikes to ward off predatory rate spikes.
His amendment also gives states more insurance oversight power, including up to $1 billion in regulatory grants. Insurers can also be kicked out of Exchanges for bad behavior, similar to non-profit BlueShield of California losing its risk pool participation rights next year for deliberately overcharging members. While risk pools and overcharging go together like peanut butter and jelly, Blue Shield was charging 1.5 to 3 times what the other two insurers in the pool were. This was in direct opposition to state law that premiums be no more than 125% of regular market rates. Worse, it was getting reimbursed similar to the other insurers for its supposed losses.
This sort of bad behavior has a ripple effect. You see, Blue Shield also conveniently used its inflated risk pool rates as the basis for HIPAA insurance rates (an option for those whose COBRA benefits have run out.) Since California law caps HIPAA rates at the average of risk pool rates, Blue Shield was able to milk yet more profit (oops, I mean surplus) from people with no other insurance options. Speaking of having no options, perhaps the most amusing inclusion in Dingell’s amendment is the explicit exclusion of illegal immigrants from participating in the temporary national risk pool. Like they could afford it anyway?
Many Roads to Divide and Conquer Healthcare
Published November 04, 2009 @ 06:05AM PT
Have you noticed throughout the healthcare reform debate that most everyone seems unable to see the forest for the trees? We get hung up on illegal immigrants, abortion, the disabled, the poor, the pre-existing conditions crowd, the young, the old, the military, the employed, the self-employed, the government-employed, retired union members, small businesses, and large businesses. So much minutia, so little time. What if didn’t have to be like this?
As we know, there’s a plan for everything. Over 65 or disabled? There’s Medicare and perhaps CLASS. In poverty? There’s Medicaid. Slightly over the poverty line? We’ve got an Exchange for you. Eligible child? Try S-CHIP. Employed? Let’s hope your employer offers one of the 1,300 high-cost private health plans. Self-employed or unemployed? Good luck with that, try the Exchange. Got a pre-existing condition? We’ve got a risk pool with a waiting list that you can’t afford anyway. Work for the government? You’re in luck – it’s got the widest selection of health plans available in the US! All this complexity and division puts patients themselves at a decided disadvantage.
Why Do We Need a Public Option Anyway?
Published November 03, 2009 @ 06:00AM PT
Political games are alive and well in Washington, D.C. First the House releases HR 3962, a disappointing bill with an optimistic and completely misleading name – the Affordable Health Care for America Act. Then the GOP decides it’s an opportune time to release its own bill, which House leader John Boehner says will lower cost and expand access by “making the current system work better” with less government intrusion into the private sector. Sounds great John, only, well, there is no system … and that whole government intrusion line? Well, that brings me to my point. Why do we need a public option again?
It seems politicians on both sides of the aisle have lobbyist-induced amnesia on that aspect. Democrats hope including a public option – no matter how weak and ineffective (a more expensive alternative to private plans that covers 2% of the population? Please!) – is all it takes to please the public, even if it’s designed to fail. Meanwhile, Republicans decry government intervention and propose tweaks around the edges of our disastrous healthcare mess that conveniently avoid touching the profit-driven culprits themselves. In other words, the US has heart disease and our D.C. representatives suggest blood transfusions, an artificial knee replacement and a flu shot.
Case in point: the central aspects of the GOP bill are tort reform, insurance pools, and inter-state policy purchases. Two of the three are already in place in many states – they haven’t budged healthcare costs significantly (tort reform achieves 10% reductions in malpractice insurance, per the CBO.) Tort reform is a good idea anyway, but not for cost curve reasons. The third proposal, while useful, doesn’t help much when insurance costs are out of control nationwide.
Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a senior policy adviser to John McCain’s presidential campaign, knows that now. The same man who touted a $5,000 insurance tax credit per family as the answer to our insurance woes now remains unemployed and his $1,000 per month COBRA is running out. He’s shopping the individual insurance market at age 51 and with a pre-existing condition that insurers cite in denying coverage. Think he’s a bit worried? All politicians should be placed in that situation; maybe they would get a clue.
Anyone familiar with T.R. Reid’s body of work on international universal healthcare systems knows that a public option isn’t a part of many of them (gives “socialized medicine” a rather hollow ring, doesn’t it?) There is a single public payer in some (Canada), multiple private insurance payers in others (Germany, Switzerland) and some countries use a combination (England.) What’s the difference then? Very simply, their ‘private insurers’ are non-profit corporations governed by iron-clad regulations: no loopholes, no kickbacks, no lobbyist favors, no profit or surplus beyond required reserves.
Why is that? Insurers are there to provide payment for the care of country residents, with no deliberate and systematized waste and no tricks. Patients are not pawns in a giant profit mill. Now, does this sound like the situation in the US? It seems like the banks and the healthcare industry own Washington, D.C. While Joe Public pays for congressional salaries and benefits (with fantastic health plan choices), lawmakers actually work for Joe Lobbyist. So whatever regulations are placed around the health insurance industry, we can rest assured they will be weak and full of holes by design.
Making sure people are covered and making sure that coverage is affordable are two different things, a distinction neither party has addressed satisfactorily. A strong public option is just one of two methods to keep private insurer prices and practices in line, regulation being the other. But if regulation is to be the answer, we need a representativectomy and a lobbyist exterminator to spray the capital. That seems unlikely. As Nancy Pelosi “mistakenly” left Kucinich’s state single payer amendment out of HR 3962 (as of scheduling this post, it hadn't been reinstated), we can’t vote with our feet by becoming interstate medical refugees. So I’m still pushing for a strong public option.
Photo http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2579/3883236444_edbc207a32.jpg // CC BY 2.0
It's Annual Enrollment Time: Brace Your Wallet
Published November 02, 2009 @ 05:00AM PT
Halloween tricks were a warm-up. While Congress argues partisan, special-interest driven healthcare reform politics these next few weeks, many employees will be faced with a stark reminder of the need for reform. Yes, November is here – annual enrollment time for 60% of insured Americans. It is rapidly becoming known as “spend more, get less” time for group health plan participation.
Now, Joe Lieberman thinks healthcare reform is going too far, that a public option is “just unnecessary” and private health plan premiums will go up. He’s threatening to join a Republican filibuster because of his “concerns.” Uh, Joe? Don’t you dare. Those premiums have already gone up, with medical costs rising three times as fast as inflation. Premiums are skyrocketing with no public option, and AHIP has promised they will continue to do so. So if you filibuster to strip the people of their power, Joe, we will strip you of yours within the Senate.
But back to reality outside the Beltway. Group health plan premiums have risen 131% in the last 10 years, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. Employee contributions have risen 128%. Since 2006, the percentage of individual insured employees responsible for deductibles of $1,000 or more has more than doubled, from 10 to 22%. Companies still offering health benefits in 2009 downsized them – 86% now offer only one plan. That group ironically includes Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida, whose 5,000 employees will now be offered only a high-deductible plan. Meanwhile AHIP is decrying government involvement in healthcare due to supposed lack of consumer choice.
Understand Healthcare Reform in 2 Easy Steps
Published November 01, 2009 @ 05:00AM PT
If you’re tired of ignorant political sound bites in the healthcare debate, I have the cure. Better yet, it’s virtually free of public and private insurance discussions, with their associated pointed fingers. The film Money-Driven Medicine explores the reasons why the US spends more than twice what the next developed country does on healthcare, with terrible health outcomes. The story is told by in-the-trenches doctors, patients and their family members, a physician healthcare improvement leader, and a medical ethicist. It’s unique, highly educational and fascinating.
Join the Watch-In! for America’s Health now through November 10 for a systemic look at what’s really driving the cost and quality of our healthcare. Find out what’s compelling our healthcare spending, and why tweaking around the edges of our public health disaster won’t change a thing. In a nutshell, our country is unique in turning patients into profit centers.
Why join the Watch-In? Because Money-Driven Medicine:
“help(s) viewers distinguish between structural change and sham reform. It will convince them that a sound, sustainable medical infrastructure is crucial not just to their personal futures but to the economy and society as a whole – why curing America’s healthcare crisis could be a matter of national life and death.”
I couldn’t have said it better myself. Make a pledge to join the Watch-In! for America’s Health today. Of course, if you can stand more discourse on the insurance industry and public versus private insurers and providers, read and watch on.
I made the mistake of watching T.R. Reid’s special, Can We Really Fix U.S. Healthcare?, about his experience exploring international universal healthcare systems, the night before the House revealed its new bill, HR 3962. As a result, I’m feeling a bit underwhelmed by Nancy Pelosi’s hard-fought victory. The LinkTV special is a summary of Reid’s book, The Healing of America, which explores both the how and the why of these healthcare systems. It’s an excellent primer on the 4 main types of healthcare systems, distinguished by who pays for and who provides the care. Watch it and be both entertained and sobered simultaneously, when you consider how far we have to go to even catch a glimpse of the best ones on the horizon.
Reid is also the creator of PBS’ special Sick Around the World, which gives an excellent summary of 5 international universal healthcare systems. No, it’s not just theory: he took his injured shoulder around the world with him, to see how each healthcare system would treat it.
But remember, before you click over to Reid’s insurer-patient-provider view of true developed nations, join the Medicine For Profit Watch-In for a refreshing, insurance-light look at some root problems in American health "care". Thanks to Change.org member CherokeeGirl for Change, who alerted me to both very worthwhile programs.
Photo http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3174/2689975613_187194cdaa.jpg //CC BY 2.0
Triggers, Politics and Party Tricks
Published October 28, 2009 @ 06:00AM PT
A public option “trigger” has received a lot of attention lately. Thankfully Harry Reid bypassed it for an opt-out solution instead, because it’s a proven Really Bad Idea. Since the Wonk Room's Igor Volsky thinks it's a fabulous idea to combine an opt-out public option with a trigger, let's put this one to bed once and for all. Following is a quick lesson in political science, so you can recognize this underhanded trick when you see it in future.
Consider: the intent of a trigger is to activate a remedy (a public option) in the event that certain conditions aren’t met by existing forces (private insurers.) Now, we wouldn’t be considering healthcare reform unless there were already significant, long-standing problems in virtually every aspect of our system-less healthcare. That includes $850 billion of waste every year, almost enough to pay for 10 years of reformed healthcare. The insurance reform gun has already fired. So why design a trigger to potentially address this urgent issue sometime in the distant future when things are even worse, perhaps catastrophically so?
The short answer is that doing nothing is the politically safe route. It’s a proven way to get re-elected by not rocking the boat. Olympia Snowe knows that, and probably hoped a trigger would allow her to claim she voted for a public option (what her constituents want) and at the same time kill it (what most Republicans want.) Under the trigger, a public plan would be created only if private insurers didn’t make “meaningful, affordable” coverage available to all Americans within “several years.” Believe it or not, none of these terms has been defined. So what would trigger a public option? You guessed it – nothing.
