CBO: Medicare cost-cutting programs haven't worked
Thursday, 26 January 2012 20:01
The Hill.com
By Sam Baker - 01/18/12 03:28 PM ET
Programs designed to cut Medicare spending and improve the quality of healthcare have mostly failed, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
The findings are a blow to existing Medicare projects as well as a key goal of the healthcare reform law.
There is widespread support, in Congress and among economists, for the broad ideal that Medicare would save money if it paid for better outcomes instead of more procedures. But 20 years of trying to shift the program in that direction have yielded little to no progress, CBO said Wednesday.
CBO analyzed six programs designed to improve care coordination for patients with chronic diseases. They either made no difference or were actually more expensive than the traditional payment system.
The CBO report also looks at four “value-based purchasing” demonstrations, in which doctors received financial incentives to improve quality. One of those programs successfully saved money; the others had no effect.
“Demonstrations aimed at reducing spending and increasing quality of care face significant challenges in overcoming the incentives inherent in Medicare’s fee-for-service payment system, which rewards providers for delivering more care but does not pay them for coordinating with other providers,” CBO said.
The healthcare law includes several programs designed to improve care coordination and improve quality, including a new type of integrated health system known as accountable care organizations. Like many of the programs assessed in the CBO study, the heathcare reform initiatives either offer bonus payments to participating doctors or give them a share of any savings to the Medicare program.
Republican Candidates Get Lucky on Health Insurance
Updated: January 12, 2012 | 1:23 p.m. January 12, 2012 | 11:32 a.m.
AP Photo/Eric Gay, Pool
Republican presidential candidate and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (center), former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (left), and Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, all have a lot of choices for health insurance, unlike most Americans.
Mitt Romney's rivals may enjoy repeating his line that he likes "being able to fire people who provide services to me," but when it comes to health insurance, he has the luxury of choosing among several coverage options, thanks to the health care reform law he signed in his home state.
Romney, like all his rivals for the Republican nomination, says he would like to repeal the 2010 health care reform law, privatize parts of Medicare, and create a system in which more people shop for health insurance on the individual market. But that’s not the option most of the candidates have taken for their personal health care—which is not surprising, considering that the individual market is generally the most restrictive and most expensive place to buy health insurance.
The Romney campaign refused to say where he gets his health care coverage. But because of the health care reform law he signed as governor of Massachusetts, he is lucky to live in one of the few states with good insurance options for a 64-year-old unemployed man with a wife who has a preexisting health condition: multiple sclerosis. Massachusetts law, like a provision of the national health care law set to go into effect in 2014, requires insurers to offer coverage to all comers and limits the amount they can raise premiums because of a customer's age or health history. The Romneys have a choice of 41 private health plans, with premiums ranging from $997 to $1,026 a month.
“His experience in Massachusetts would be profoundly different from any other state,” said Sara Iselin, president of the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts Foundation and the former commissioner of the Massachusetts Health Care Finance and Policy Division.
Only one other candidate buys his insurance on the individual market. Rick Santorum, the 53-year-old former senator from Pennsylvania, is enrolled in insurance that “is totally private, and not related to his time in Congress,” his spokesman, John Brabender, said in a phone interview. And if Republicans succeed in their stated goal of repealing "Obamacare," Santorum likely won’t be firing his insurer any time soon. One of the first pieces of the health reform law to go into effect was a ban on denying coverage to children with preexisting conditions. His youngest daughter, Isabella, suffers from a rare genetic disorder that requires ongoing and costly treatment, just the sort of preexisting condition that makes her look like a poor insurance risk. All insurance plans issued after March 23, 2010, must cover children up to age 19, regardless of prior illnesses.
Many of the Republican presidential nominee hopefuls enroll in public-employee benefit programs that give them the advantages of large-group pricing—and heavy taxpayer subsidy of their premiums. Newt Gingrich, 68, is enrolled in Medicare and buys his own supplemental insurance from Blue Cross Blue Shield, according to his campaign. Paul, 76, as a member of Congress, gets his insurance coverage from the federal-employee benefit program, his campaign says. Rick Perry, 61, gets his insurance from the state of Texas, a benefit he can continue to receive for the rest of his life. (According to the TexasTribune, Perry is already collecting a state pension, even while he earns his salary as governor.)
Huntsman’s campaign also declined to say what type of plan the former governor has. At 51, he is the youngest in the field, making his options for individual coverage better than the others. Utah has its own insurance exchange, but the choices are slim for individual customers, especially when compared with the Massachusetts Connector health exchange. The Utah Health Exchange website merely offers individual insurance shoppers links to five insurance company websites that provide individual coverage in the state. The exchange also lacks many of the consumer protections that Massachusetts offers.
Several of the candidates qualify for multiple government plans. Perry and Paul could apply for benefits through the Veterans Affairs Department because of their military service. Santorum will eventually qualify for the federal-employee benefit plan. Paul is eligible for Medicare. (It is a strange twist that Paul, the candidate most committed to dismantling public benefit programs, finds himself eligible for health benefits from three of them; for his part, he has saidpublicly that he doesn’t use the insurance he has.)
The candidates are lucky to have large personal fortunes and access to public insurance plans. Unlike Massachusetts, most states have no requirement that insurers take customers with health problems, and many allow them to vary pricing tremendously based on age. (And let’s be honest: These guys are not spring chickens.)
“It is difficult for the average person to get coverage in the individual market, but we’re not talking about average people, in a number of ways,” said Paul Fronstin, the director of health research at the Employee Benefit Research Institute, a think tank funded by the business community.
Fronstin said that until the health care reform law kicks in in 2014, insurance companies in most states can deny anyone based on potential preexisting conditions. The cost of coverage in the individual market, which can run as high as $15,000 for a year of family coverage, can also be prohibitive. But the biggest difference between the candidates and the general public is a history of holding public office.
“You’re talking about people who have had public service, and public service tends to have the most-generous retiree health benefits at this point,” Fronstin said.
One goal of the health care reform law is to set up state insurance exchanges so that individuals in every state will have access to an array of choices like those currently available to the Romneys. If any of the candidates succeeds in repealing that law, shopping around for insurance and firing companies that don’t perform are likely to get harder, not easier.
January 11, 2012 — Repealing Medicare's sustainable growth rate (SGR) formula for physician pay — a goal that always seems just out of reach — poses a dilemma for lawmakers that could make the measure even harder to pass.
The dilemma is described in a study issued last month by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), an arm of the Library of Congress. It states that passage of an ambitious "doc fix" to the Medicare reimbursement crisis would force lawmakers to choose whether Medicare beneficiaries or taxpayers in general would suffer financially from one of the measure's overlooked consequences.
The SGR formula had called for a 27.4% cut in Medicare rates on January 1, but Congress voted in late December to extend the deadline to March 1. Exasperated by continual short-term postponements of scheduled cuts since 2003, organized medicine has lobbied Congress to replace the SGR formula with one more equitable for physicians.
Democrats and Republicans alike pay lip service to repealing the SGR formula, but the high price involved deters them from following through, especially in a Congress leery of deficit spending. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has estimated that junking the SGR and freezing Medicare rates for 10 years would cost roughly $300 billion over that time frame.
Such a measure, expensive as it is, would impose a little-discussed penalty on seniors. Increasing Medicare's budget for physician reimbursement would drive up the premiums owed by beneficiaries in traditional fee-for-service Medicare, according to the CRS study. By law, beneficiary premiums must equal roughly 25% of the total cost of the Medicare Part B program, which pays for physician and outpatient services. A premium increase, which represents more revenue for the government, is factored into the $300 billion cost of SGR repeal as calculated by the CBO.
Congress could spare seniors the higher Medicare premiums by attaching a "premium hold-harmless" provision to an SGR repeal bill. However, this provision would increase the cost of repeal by approximately 25%, based on past CBO calculations. So a $300 billion doc fix would swell to $375 billion.
The CRS has been warning Congress about the relationship of SGR repeal and beneficiary premiums for several years. When medical societies such as the American Medical Association and the American College of Physicians refer to the cost of eliminating the SGR formula, they typically cite the $300 billion figure, which assumes the premium increase for seniors.
Will Savings From Military Pullbacks Finance SGR Repeal?
A congressional conference committee composed of Senate and House members from both parties may convene as early as next week to begin hammering out legislation to stave off the 27.4% Medicare pay cut set for March 1. Another item on its agenda, and more controversial, is extending unemployment benefits and a cut in the Social Security payroll tax for another year. Lawmakers could not reach common ground on these issues in December 2011 and settled for a 2-month deal instead. They left it to the conference committee to resume where they left off.
Doc-fix plans now circulating in Washington, DC, range from postponing the massive pay cut for another year or two to repealing the SGR outright. Some lawmakers have proposed offsetting the $300 billion cost of a repeal with savings gleaned from the United States' military pullback in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Do No Harm- And Keep An Eye On Costs
Sunday, 15 January 2012 20:18
Kaiser Health News
Jan 11, 2012
The American College of Physicians hit a nerve when it released an updated ethics manual calling for doctors to provide "parsimonious care" – in other words, "to practice effective and efficient health care and to use health care resources responsibly."
This recommendation, included in the Jan. 3 Annals of Internal Medicine special supplement, drew immediate reaction – and not just because of its use of the infrequently heard "parsimonious." It's been viewed as a definitive statement of medical ethics directed at the organization's 132,000 members – physicians who practice internal medicine and its related specialties, among them cardiology and oncology, that often involve expensive procedures. And, the guidance comes at a time when health care costs are central to the national policy debate.
Lois Snyder, director of ACP's Center for Ethics and Professionalism, says the focus on practicing efficient medicine is not new – it's been a part of the ethics manual since its first edition in 1984 and the word "parsimonious" first appeared in the manual's fourth edition. "We're pleased its getting attention now," she said.
So why all the buzz? "I think the atmosphere is different this time around," said Snyder. "People are more conscious of these issues."
For instance, in an accompanying editorial, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel described the manual as "truly remarkable" because, in very certain terms, it represents an important shift by "advocating the principle of cost-effectiveness." Emanuel, previously a health policy advisor to the White House Office of Management and Budget, now is at the University of Pennsylvania.
Still, behind the ACP's ethical statement, there lies a difficult matrix of practical concerns. Some worry that this type of cost consideration ultimately hampers patient care. Others point to aspects of the health care system – ranging from the way physicians are trained to the lack of information and awareness they have about the costs of treatments and procedures – that interfere with their ability to undertake this kind of stewardship.
Kaiser Health News talked with physicians and health policy experts about this notion of "parsimonious care." Their edited comments follow.
Dr. Glen Stream President, American Academy of Family Physicians
I applaud the American College of Physicians. I do believe that physicians have an ethical responsibility to be good stewards of what are always going to be, in one way or another, limited medical resources.
We as a country have for a long time operated our healthcare system without that awareness and we’re getting to the point where our health care system literally costs more than we can afford. The other aspect is that we as a country have always thought that more was better – more medical treatment, more testing, more whatever it might be, but there's a very strong body of medical evidence that over testing and over treatment can actually negatively impact people’s health. I think that being cost conscious is always going to improve patient outcomes. It's just embedded in how people practice. I know that physicians sometimes have difficulty reconciling that societal, ethical responsibility with the patient in the examination room, but I think that over time we will definitely see that those two are aligned.
Peter J. Neumann Director of the Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health at Tufts Medical Center; and professor, Tufts University School of Medicine
On balance, it's a good thing. We’re confronting cost issues, whether we say so or not, and I think that saying so and trying to come to terms with it and giving some guidance on it is better than not. These are not easy issues, of course. Things like this tend to add to a much larger debate on practice, curriculum and training. Change goes slowly and gradually but I think that this type of event helps that process.
Daniel Callahan President Emeritus, the Hastings Center, a nonpartisan bioethics research institute.
Just by mentioning the importance of cost-effectiveness, the policy breaks important new ground. The cost problem is getting worse all the time. We’ve got to find a way to break that logjam.
I would hope Congress would find a way to rethink the issue. There's a very powerful tradition against taking costs into account. Medicare is the first place that's got to be done. We need a lively and professional discussion that avoids making it purely political. I’ve been writing about rationing for some 20 years. However, I've been told many times that you can’t use that word in Washington – neither Democrats nor Republicans want to get near it.
Susan M. Wolf McKnight presidential professor of law, medicine & public policy, University of Minnesota.
The manual appropriately recognizes that part of providing good care is providing effective care and efficient care that's evidence-based. But I do have concerns about the statement in the manual that the physicians should consider data on cost-effectiveness, because the manual doesn’t really explore what that means. Cost-effectiveness analysis is complex, and what is cost-effective on an aggregate basis may not be what is best or even cost-effective for this patient. So to say that physicians should consider data on cost-effectiveness, doesn’t really give enough guidance in my view.
I'm also concerned that the manual discusses insurers’ ethical obligations without explaining the source and nature of those obligations. When the manual says that insurers have no obligation to underwrite treatment approaches that are relatively cost-ineffective, the manual again raises more questions than it answers. When insurers underwrite, they're underwriting not just for an aggregate patient population but for a range of individuals, and should consider whether a treatment may be justified in certain cases. Physicians should consider this too.
Rep. Jim McDermott, D- Wash. Member of Congress; psychiatrist.
This ... is a very hopeful sign, because using resources thoughtfully and efficiently is essential to good care. It is time to acknowledge that routinely piling on every procedure, drug and medical device that our medical complex has developed is often damaging to patients – both to their health and to their finances. Our national dialogue about constraining health costs has tended to focus on our ability to meet our commitments in Medicare and other programs. But millions of Americans are underinsured and uninsured, and must pay their medical bills out of pocket – these expenses can mount so quickly that a patient must either forego care or face crushing medical bills. Encouraging efficient use of resources is not merely a matter of protecting the taxpayers and other large payers, it also can prevent driving households into medical bankruptcy.
Dr. Allen Lichter CEO, American Society of Clinical Oncology.
We want to remove the stigma that is often associated with considering what treatment is going to cost. Most of us were schooled to say "We do everything we can and cost is no object." That was a lot easier to say 30 and 40 years ago when that care didn’t cost as much. We now recognize that cost is a critical factor in health care and in oncology care.
About 40 percent of cancer patients report exhausting most, if not all, of their savings as they go through cancer treatment. Cancer is a leading cause of bankruptcy in this country. It is just no longer appropriate for us to say that costs are inconsequential and should not be considered. This is part of the doctor-patient relationship; this does not interfere with it. Costs are quite substantial. Bringing that information in as part of the discussion is as important as the physical or emotional side-effects.
Jessie Gruman President and founder, Center for Advancing Health, a nonprofit organization that conducts research and seeks to increase public engagement in health and health care.
I think it's a positive sign. The cost of care is increasingly important to all of us. It’s such a patronizing notion to think that we don't already consider the cost of medical intervention, or that we shouldn’t have the choice to consider the cost of medical care. We've been hampered by a history of not talking about the cost of care and by not having information about cost.
Rep. Michael C. Burgess, R-Texas Member of Congress; physician.
It’s really the word “parsimonious.” If there’s a problem in their statement, that’s it. Of course we need to be efficient, of course we need to be conscientious. The word itself carries a connotation that is going to give people pause if it’s a precursor to rationing.
Dr. Don Goldmann Senior vice president, Institute for Healthcare Improvement, an independent, nonprofit organization; and professor, Harvard Medical School.
I use the word parsimonious all the time – just to get that off the table. I think it’s a very good word for describing a sensible, non-wasteful approach to anything.
It’s not really a big change in direction. Most clinical practice guidelines used by medical professionals are framed either explicitly or implicitly with some idea about the cost effectiveness of various alternatives. That said, most providers on the front line have not traditionally had a mechanism to evaluate and compare the cost and effectiveness of various treatments.
The true cost and effectiveness of a given treatment should be made available and utilized by clinicians as part of their decision making process. What I would love to see is increased pressure on the health care industry to be transparent about the true cost of what they’re making available to their providers and not make it so obscure that you can’t figure it out.
Dr. Diane Meier Director, Center to Advance Palliative Care; and professor of geriatrics and internal medicine, Mount Sinai School of Medicine.
It recognizes that physicians have a role in helping the public understand the limits of modern medicine. My concern with telling doctors to be more “parsimonious” is that it doesn’t provide physicians and other clinicians with the supports they need to do that, which are systems issues. For instance, physicians need protections from lawsuits. Many policy makers say that tort reform wouldn’t have much impact on health care spending but unless physicians are protected from this very remunerated medical legal lawsuit industry, they are going to keep on making decisions that have nothing to do with parsimony.
The second thing is that physicians never get any training or very rarely get any training in how to educate patients and families about benefits and burdens in health care and how to help patients and families understand probabilities and risk. What physicians are currently trained in is how to do procedures, tests, interventions, and quite frankly, many of us think that is the only way we have to signal our care for our patients. Doctors need to be taught other ways to signal caring and I think we ignore those aspects of doctoring at our peril as our health care budget demonstrates.
Dr. Otis Webb Brawley Chief medical officer, American Cancer Society.
I hear the political pundits, many of whom don't understand medicine, and even some people in medicine … they talk about the rationing of medicine. What we really need to have is a conversation about the rational use of medicine. When I say rational, we need to think about cost and likelihood of effectiveness, this does not mean that some very expensive [care] should be rejected, but means costly [care] that’s not likely to help the patent should be rejected.
[Teaching cost concern to medical school students] has been done, but it has not been as widespread as it should be. It’s starting to become more and more an issue, and it’s starting to get on a lot more curricula at medical schools.
Sarah Barr, Jessica Marcy, Stephanie Stapleton, Christian Torres and Andrew Villegas contributed to this article.
There's a busy year ahead for health care reform as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, commonly referred to as the Affordable Care Act, continues to reshape America's health care system. It became law in 2010.
"The broad consensus is that we need to move away from an outdated fee-for-service system that rewards volume and toward a system where doctors and hospitals are rewarded for improving quality, value and health outcomes," says Robert Zirkelbach, spokesman for America's Health Insurance Plans, or AHIP, an industry trade group.
While this year's five major reforms lay the groundwork for a more efficient and sustainable health care system, "from the patient perspective, a lot of this is behind the scenes," says Dr. Glen Stream, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians.
One change some consumers will welcome: a rebate check from those health insurers that failed to spend a sufficient portion of premiums directly on patient care last year.
A giant wrecking ball still hangs over this construction site, however: the Supreme Court decision on a 26-state constitutional challenge to the health reform. The justices will take up the issue in late March and are expected to rule by late June.
Here's what lies ahead for health care reform in 2012.
Accountable Care Organizations
On Jan.1, the Affordable Care Act started providing a financial incentive for physicians, hospitals and health care providers that voluntarily join together to form Accountable Care Organizations, or ACOs, and coordinate care for patients with original Medicare. Under the law, those that demonstrate improved quality and outcomes in care, lower costs and patient priority will share the savings with the Medicare system.
ACOs are expected to save Medicare $960 million over three years, according to HealthCare.gov.
"This addresses one of the main issues, which is the excess cost that we have compared to other first-world countries," says Dr. Stream.
Today, more than 50 percent of Medicare patients have at least five chronic conditions, which may include diabetes, arthritis, hypertension and kidney disease, according to HealthCare.gov.
Zirkelbach says ACOs can both drive down the costs of working with multiple doctors and improve care.
"We have a readmissions crisis in this country, particularly in Medicare where 30 percent of patients that are discharged from hospitals end up back in the hospital within 30 days," he says. "A lot of that has to do with the fact that there is no incentive to ensure that they're getting the appropriate follow-up care."
ACOs are designed to change that.
Fewer disparities in health care
Effective: March 2012
Not all Americans have equal access to or similar outcomes from health care, according to HealthCare.gov. Depending on your race, ethnicity or income level, you may have a higher incidence of certain diseases, fewer treatment options and reduced access to care and insurance.
Countering decades of disparity is a tall order, but the Affordable Care Act aims to do so by accelerating data collection, funding community health centers, increasing racial and ethnic diversity in the health care professions and, by 2014, providing affordable health insurance for all through insurance exchanges.
"More and more health plans are tracking (these) data to first identify and then help address these gaps in care," says Zirkelbach.
"It's a huge issue," says Anna Lambertson, executive director of the Kansas Health Consumer Coalition, a statewide advocacy group in Topeka, Kan. "Health disparities include women's access to health insurance and being charged higher premiums because of gender. If we can find a way to help people navigate the health care system so they are not going to the ER to receive routine care, we can actually lower costs."
Insurance rebates
Effective: June 1, 2012
The biggest impact from health care reform consumers may feel in 2012 is actually the result of an initiative that began last year called the medical loss ratio, or MLR. This formula requires health insurance companies to spend at least 80 percent of their premiums on direct medical care or quality improvement or 85 percent for large group-based plans. Those that don't meet the mark must provide a rebate to policyholders.
"The rebates start June 1, and they have to have them issued no later than August 1," says Laurie Sobel, senior attorney for Consumers Union. "The National Association of Insurance Commissioners estimates that Americans would have received nearly $2 billion if MLR had been in effect in 2010."
Zirkelbach's AHIP constituents aren't delighted with the MLR. "Those so-called administrative expenses are going to the types of investments and programs that patients want, that improve care and prevent fraud and make the system work better, like ACOs," he says.
However, Sobel applauds the MLR.
"It's going to provide a lot of relief for consumers," she says. "We're seeing some movement with insurance companies actually lowering premiums or holding down increases in anticipation of this rule."
Electronic records
Effective: Oct. 1, 2012
Health care remains one of the few industries still tied to paper records. The new law kicks off a series of changes to usher in electronic records.
"We're missing some serious tools here," says Mark Savage, senior attorney at Consumers Union, who has been working on electronic records since 2009.
"The analogy I use is: What if the Federal Reserve Board did not have electronic access to the economic information in the various banks during the financial crisis?" he says. "And what if all the information they requested got faxed back to them, which is what doctors are doing? It would have been a nightmare."
Dr. Stream says the savings from nonduplication of services alone could be staggering.
"Say a patient comes to me with a painful knee, and I take an X-ray. And tomorrow, their knee is worse, and they go to the emergency room. If the ER physician can't see the X-ray I did yesterday, they're going to do another X-ray. The patient is going to get double X-ray exposure and double expense," he says. "If you can make that information available, it helps both on cost and patient safety."
Value-based purchasing
Effective: Oct. 1, 2012
Another piece of health care reform that starts in 2012 under the law is Medicare's new Value-based Purchasing program, or VBP, which is designed to improve the quality of patient care by linking provider payments to the cost and quality of the care they provide.
It also requires that hospital performance statistics be made publically available for the first time.
"VBP is a broad category that incorporates a lot of things like bundle payments," says Zirkelbach. "For instance, in defined situations like a knee replacement, instead of paying a doctor for every service they provide to replace a knee, they get paid a lump sum to replace somebody's knee. So there's an incentive for them to do it as efficiently as possible while also providing high-quality care, as opposed to a fee-for-service arrangement where there is an incentive to do more tests and procedures because there is more money involved."
Dr. Stream calls VBP the payment paradigm of the future.
"The idea is: Pay better for quality medical groups and doctors who have low infection rates (and) high scores on quality measures for care of diabetes, asthma, heart failure, low hospital readmission rates," he says. "We should be paying for quality -- meaning value -- as opposed to just volume."
In 2010 I struggled with my rising Healthcare insurance for my family business- smallgroup of 2 +our kids. It was- then $1650 per month, but we worked and paid it and still stimulated the economy--- Then thanks to Obamacare in 2011 it went up to painful $2511 per month- I guess the government really wants to provide for us because THEY(forcing insurance to cover all basic care for everyones entiled care) are making it impossible for people to care for themselves. I was raised to even do with less as long as I was self sufficient- I guess those days are coming to an end under this administration-- November can't come soon enough
There's a crockofshit for ya --- NobamaScare is going to save Medicare 300 million dollars over the next 3 years...WOW !!!...That must be frikkingniggaNobamanomics cuz the demoNcraps stole 500 BILLION from Medicare to pay for frikkingniggaNobamaScare...What a bunch of dunces !!!
The government has no business in making laws that affect health care. Look at the mess in Medicare, Medicaid and the care of our vets using the VA. Several years ago the government passed a law that hospitals and doctors had to treat patients based on DRG's or diagnosed related groups. This regulated the time and treatment a person using Medicare and medicaid could stay ion the hospital according to their diagnosis. I don't think people in insurance offices should tell a doctor how long a patient can stay in the hospital according to the patient's diagnosis, This limits the doctor's treatment. Under Obamacare things will only get worse.
Why don't we just give everyone Medicare? The fact is, the government is already covering the health care costs for the most expensive people in this country (the elderly and the disabled). Just look at the cost disparity in Medicaid, 91% of Medicaid spending goes to the disabled and the elderly (when the elderly also qualify as poor). For the majority of Americans, total health care costs amount to about $600 a year. We are paying these ridiculous amounts in insurance premiums because of the overhead in private insurance (12-25% vs. 3% for Medicare), and people who don't have coverage and wait until they have to go to the emergency room. Hospitals are already absorbing the cost of the uninsured by charging the rest of us $200 for an ace bandage. Medicare costs less, provides the same coverage, and has been able to keep their rate of cost increases below that of private insurance because of the size of their risk pool. If it saves money while providing comprehensive coverage to all citizens, why not expand it to include more? And imagine the economic boom if small businesses no longer had to worry about providing health insurance for their employees.
Obamacare is simply another method by Big Brother to invade the privacy and pocket books of Americans. It is nothing more than a "framework" for controlling our health in order to control every facet of our lives.
No reform is going to work, "if" you do not have the user of the system, making the rationing decision. And the user of the system WILL NOT make that rationing decision, "if" they do not have to pay for the service they use.
My insurance plan has raised the deductible to $2500 per person and cut what they will pay from 80% to less than 60% once we reach the deductible , and increased the premium another 20%. $7,000 a year for our family of 4. Got to love the "Hope and Change". I can't afford another term for Mr. Obama.
I have the same story...went to my doc last Nov...did labs...first time I've ever gotten a bill to pay a percentage of those labs....and it's a big percentage....Obama promised this wasn't going to happen...
Glad you liked it. Would you like to share?
Sharing this page …
Thanks! Close
Showing 10 of 17 comments
Add New Comment
You must login to comment.