Hometown: Washington state
Home country: USA
Current location: Directly above the center of the earth
Member since: Sat Aug 16, 2003, 02:52 AM
Number of posts: 44,032
Hometown: Washington state
Home country: USA
Current location: Directly above the center of the earth
Member since: Sat Aug 16, 2003, 02:52 AM
Number of posts: 44,032
Major policy wonk interests: health care, Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid, election integrity
- 2015 (10)
- 2014 (58)
- 2013 (94)
- 2012 (105)
- 2011 (9)
- December (9)
- Older Archives
Today, March 26, the House of Representatives passed the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (H.R. 2). While the Center for Medicare Advocacy believes it’s in the best interest of Medicare beneficiaries to find a permanent solution to the broken physician payment formula called the “Sustainable Growth Rate” (SGR), this Bill is not the answer. Unfortunately, the SGR replacement package passed by the House is not sufficiently balanced; it asks too much from beneficiaries without providing enough in return. It asks nothing from pharmaceutical or insurance companies. It furthers Medicare’s march toward privatization by increasing costs for beneficiaries for traditional Medicare and Medigap plans.
Of the portion of the SGR package that will be offset, roughly half (approximately $35 billion of the total $70 billion over 10 years) would come from Medicare beneficiaries through changes that will increase their out-of-pocket costs for health care, including:
Adding deductibles to Medigap plans purchased by new Medicare beneficiaries starting in 2020;
Further means-testing premiums for higher-income beneficiaries; and
Overall increases in Part B premiums.
While the SGR package would make the Qualified Individual (QI) program permanent, which we strongly support, and would minimally increase and temporarily extend important funding for low-income education and outreach, it does not address other issues that serve as barriers to care for beneficiaries. For example, instead of repealing the annual outpatient therapy caps, the anemic exceptions process is merely extended for another two years, and instead of addressing hospital observation status, the bill simply further extends enforcement of the so-called “two-midnight” rule.
In short, Medicare beneficiaries would pay too much, with too little in return. Major industries pay nothing, and stand to gain a great deal. As the SGR bill now moves to the Senate, we hope further balance and improvements for beneficiaries can be made.
For more information, see the Center’s March 24th Press Release here: http://www.medicareadvocacy.org/analysis-of-sgr-legislation-from-the-center-for-medicare-advocacy/.
Posted by eridani | Fri Mar 27, 2015, 07:20 AM (3 replies)
Score another one for CA!
Authorities have revoked the tax-exempt status of nonprofit Blue Shield of California, potentially putting it on the hook for tens of millions of dollars in state taxes each year.
The move by the California Franchise Tax Board comes as the state's third-largest health insurer faces fresh criticism over its rate hikes, executive pay and $4.2 billion in financial reserves.
The highly unusual action comes after a lengthy state audit that looked at the justification for Blue Shield's taxpayer subsidy.
Now, a company insider has sided with critics. Michael Johnson, who resigned as public policy director last week after 12 years at the company, said the insurer has been "shortchanging the public" for years by shirking its responsibility to Californians and operating too much like its for-profit competitors.
Comment by Don McCanne of PNHP: Many of us in California were very upset when Blue Cross of California converted to a for-profit (WellPoint, then Anthem) and immediately changed its behavior to fulfill its responsibilities to its shareholders as a profit-making business. We immediately saw “insurance innovations” that redirected its business goals from taking care of patients to taking care of shareholders.
It was particularly disappointing to see non-profit Blue Shield of California adopt similar insurance innovations in order to remain competitive in the California insurance market. From the perspective of health care “consumers,” Blue Shield and Blue Cross remained virtually indistinguishable.
Blue Shield of California has annihilated the dream of those who believed that the United States could adopt a universal system of private, non-profit insurance companies like they have in Switzerland. There are many serious problems with the Swiss model, but some believed that a market of well-regulated, non-profit insurers would make optimal patient care a priority. Blue Shield of California has now demonstrated to us that this pipe dream would only become another nightmare in the saga of private insurance markets in the U.S.
Posted by eridani | Thu Mar 19, 2015, 05:25 AM (3 replies)
It is not only possible, but financially and economically advantageous to implement a publicly financed healthcare system in Vermont, according to an open letter signed by more than 100 economists and delivered Thursday to lawmakers at the Vermont State House.
"As economists, we understand that universal, publicly financed health care is not only economically feasible but highly preferable to a fragmented market-based insurance system," reads the letter, whose signatories include Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research; Richard Wolff of New School University; and Julie Nelson of the University of Massachusetts-Boston.
It continues: "Health care is not a service that follows standard market rules; it should be provided as a public good. Evidence from around the world demonstrates that publicly financed health care systems result in improved health outcomes, lower costs and greater equity."
In December, Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin abruptly abandoned his much-lauded plan to create a single-payer healthcare system in the state, saying moving forward with the proposal would be too costly.
But the economists' letter, presented in tandem with a report (pdf) from the the Vermont Workers' Center and the New York-based National Economic and Social Rights Initiative (NESRI), shows that that universal health care can be implemented—affordably—in Vermont within the next few years.
"By moving from private, market-based insurance to public financing of universal care," said Anja Rudiger of NESRI, "we flip the way we pay for care: people contribute based on their ability, so that low- and middle-income people pay a small
Posted by eridani | Wed Mar 4, 2015, 03:22 AM (3 replies)
In addition, the complexity of plans, each with its own marketing, paperwork, enrollment, premiums, rules and regulations, also contributes to an enormous administrative cost overhead.
I spoke about this with James G. Kahn, M.D., MPH, who is a researcher at the Philip R. Lee Institute of Health Policy at the Univ. of Cal., SF, and senior author of a recent study analyzing grotesquely excessive administrative costs of insurance companies and how it diverts several hundred billions of dollars annually from actual hands-on medical treatment.
What appears as wasteful to the normal person such as the enormous resources devoted to complicated billing and other insurance related activities (BIR), as documented by Dr. Kahn, is considered as income and revenue by insurance companies because they charge for these excesses.
Thus, extravagant squandering of funds and resources is endemic to the business model of insurance companies and precisely because it adds to their bottom line, there is no incentive to eliminate the bureaucratic discombobulation.
Healthcare economics scholar Uwe Reinhardt expressed his exasperation even before ACA in his Nov. 19, 2008 testimony to U.S. Senate Finance Committee: “900 billing clerks at Duke with 900 beds. Not sure we have a nurse for each hospital bed but we have a billing clerk. It’s obscene.”
This chronic problem has grown with ACA.
Posted by eridani | Wed Mar 4, 2015, 01:41 AM (6 replies)
Blue Shield of California used to sell policies to individuals in every county in the state, according to the Department of Managed Health Care, one of California’s two teams of health insurance regulators. But by 2014’s open enrollment period, Blue Shield had pulled out of 250 zip codes throughout the state, including four entire counties: Alpine, Monterey, Sutter, and Yuba.
The gaps are particularly felt in the top third of the state, where thousands of residents now have only one choice of insurer if they want to buy a health plan on the exchange.
Blue Shield of California declined an interview with NPR. But in a written statement, the company reported that it’s not selling in certain areas of California because it could not find enough health providers willing to accept a level of payment that would keep premiums low. According to the statement, the company also is not selling in areas where there is no contracted hospital within 15 miles.
Comment by Don McCanne of PNHP: Blue Shield of California has pulled out of 250 California zip codes in the Covered California program (California’s insurance exchange under the Affordable Care Act), citing inability to negotiate low prices with the local health care providers.
Nonprofit Blue Shield of California and for-profit Anthem Blue Cross were the only Covered California insurers in many zip codes in the state. It is ironic that the for-profit Blues plan - Anthem Blue Cross - has continued to serve areas where coverage is more difficult, whereas the nonprofit Blues plan - Blue Shield - has pulled out. So much for the theory that nonprofit Blues plans are public service models while for-profit Blues are primarily profit-making business models. They have become the same animal, with the for-profits leading the way.
Blue Shield blames regulatory guidelines requiring that patients have access to care. By refusing to contract with the local providers, patients would have been required to travel long distances for care - a violation of the Affordable Care Act.
Some might blame Blue Shield for demanding rates that were too low to adequately cover costs, whereas others might blame the providers for demanding rates that provided excessive profits, but the primary blame does not lie with either party. It is the model that uses private insurers as financial intermediaries that is defective and should be blamed.
Contrast that with Medicare, which is a public insurer that administers the rates to be paid. Medicare is not setting rates to ensure that the government is profiting off of the program. Rather it is setting rates to be sure that the health care delivery system is adequately funded so that it will be there when patients need it.
It is true that Medicare rates are not always optimal, but that is because it is only one payer in a dysfunctional, multi-payer system which makes rate setting much more difficult. If Medicare were the only payer for the entire nation, it could set rates with much greater precision, paying legitimate costs and fair margins.
Although the Blues had their day as health insurers serving in the public interest, those days are long gone. It is time for a single payer, improved Medicare for all.
Posted by eridani | Fri Feb 27, 2015, 07:16 AM (4 replies)
Why High Risk Pools (Still) Won't Work
As the new Congress convenes and the Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments in the King v. Burwell case challenging tax subsidies for insurance purchased through the federally facilitated marketplaces, proposals to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA) are resurfacing. Many of these rely on high-risk health insurance pools to cover people with preexisting health conditions.
In fact, the risk pools are suggested as a viable alternative to the ACA's ban on preexisting condition exclusions in the individual market and the marketplaces. My recent analysis of high-risk pools, however, explains why these entities simply are not a realistic alternative to coverage requirements under the ACA. In a nutshell, high-risk pools:
1. are prohibitively expensive to administer,
2. are prohibitively expensive for consumers to purchase, and
3. offer much less than optimal coverage, often with annual and lifetime limits, coverage gaps, and very high premiums and deductibles.
Comment by Don McCanne of PNHP: Those who wish to repeal or at least drastically reduce the provisions of the Affordable Care Act realize that they must come up with a replacement.
Most of the proposals would grant much greater flexibility to insurance products while reducing regulatory oversight. The problem that creates is that individuals with high medical expenses tend to be shut out of the insurance market. To ensure coverage for these individuals, high-risk insurance pools have been proposed.
This article and the brief that it is based on explain why high-risk pools are not a satisfactory solution. The premiums are unaffordable, and the pared-down benefits are unsatisfactory. These over-priced plans do not provide the financial protection that patients with chronic disorders need.
Even with the Affordable Care Act, enrollment in the temporary high-risk pools had to be closed early because they proved to be too expensive, threatening depletion of the allotted funds. They provide poor coverage at a very high cost.
With a single payer system this problem disappears. Funding is based on ability to pay, through the tax system, and not on the basis of anticipated medical expenses. Everyone receives the care they need, regardless of their health status. The fragmented plans supported by the repeal and replace people cannot do that.
Posted by eridani | Sat Feb 21, 2015, 04:57 AM (0 replies)
By Don McCanne, PNHP
This week the Forum Club of Sun City Palm Desert (a California retirement community) held a forum on single payer health care. Forum Club Secretary Mike Wedekind, a Canadian, spoke on Canada’s single payer system, and I spoke on the problems with the U.S. system that would be amenable to enactment of a single payer system.
Since it was an after-dinner meeting, I expected the usual laid-back audience with a few partaking of postprandial snoozes. On the contrary, we received great feedback from the attendees. Many attending were snowbirds - relatively affluent and generally politically conservative Canadians who maintain a winter residence in this desert community.
After we each spoke for twenty minutes, the attendees met at round tables to discuss various aspects of U.S. and Canadian health policies. Then a moderator from each table presented their quite astute observations.
I spoke individually with several of the attendees. Even though the Forum Club is explicitly non-partisan, I received no negative comments about a single payer system for the United States. In fact, the reason that I decided to write this commentary was the response of the Canadians. Though most seemed to be politically conservative, there was absolutely no indication that they thought that somehow their single payer system was deficient, especially compared to ours, except for a problem with queues for some elective services such as joint replacement. There was no mention of the need to privatize health care since they already have a private health care delivery system. They certainly see no need for intrusive, wasteful private insurers, other than to provide supplementary benefits outside of their Medicare.
It made me wish that it was as easy to converse on this topic with conservatives here in the United States. A poll last month revealed that 23 percent of Republicans already support “an expanded, universal form of Medicare” (as do 79 percent of Democrats and 45 percent of Independents).
Everyone should give some thought as to what the message might be that resonates with the Independents and Republicans who are supportive, but, above all, what is it that causes Canadians across the political spectrum to be so supportive of their Medicare? We have to deliver that message here in the United States.
Posted by eridani | Sat Feb 14, 2015, 06:53 AM (104 replies)
Email from Medicare advocates--
This week, the White House released the President’s proposed fiscal year (FY) 2016 budget. Similar to years past, there are proposals that the Center endorses and proposals that cause us concern.
On the positive side, proposals we support include several that would yield savings on prescription drugs, including a new proposal that would give the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) the authority to negotiate drug prices for biologics and high cost drugs in the Part D prescription drug program. The budget would also close the Part D Donut Hole three years earlier (by 2017) than is currently planned under the Affordable Care Act. In another new proposal, the current 190-day lifetime limit on inpatient psychiatric hospital days would be eliminated, reducing a long-time barrier to true mental health parity in the Medicare program.
Among the proposals we oppose are many provisions that would shift additional costs to Medicare beneficiaries, including adding a copayment for certain home health visits, increasing the Part B deductible, further income-relating (“means testing”) Part B and D premiums, and adding a surcharge to Medicare supplemental (Medigap) policies that offer cover all or most out-of-pocket expenses. We are also concerned about proposed changes to the Medicare administrative appeals process.
For more analysis by the Center, see http://www.medicareadvocacy.org/the-presidents-proposed-fy-2016-budget-the-impact-on-medicare/.
On February 3rd, the Kaiser Family Foundation published a summary of the Medicare-related provisions in the President’s budget, available at http://kff.org/medicare/issue-brief/summary-of-medicare-provisions-in-the-presidents-budget-for-fiscal-year-2016/.
Posted by eridani | Thu Feb 5, 2015, 05:36 PM (0 replies)
Note that the phrasing is Medicare for All. If you say "government" health care, the numbers drop.
A majority of Americans support a single-payer, Medicare-for-all healthcare system, a new poll shows.
The results showed that just over 50 percent of the 1,500 likely voters surveyed indicated support for a single-payer system. Almost 80 percent of Democrats supported such a plan, while 25 of Republicans did.
The findings were first shared with The Hill by the Progressive Change Institute, an arm of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee.
The new poll comes on the heels of Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin's abandoning what was seen as a trailblazing plan to create a single-payer healthcare system in his state. The move was derided by Dr. Andrew D. Coates, president of Physicians for a National Health Program, who said, "Vermonters throughout the state understand that an equitable health care system must be truly universal and must remove all financial barriers to medically necessary care. They recognize that a public single payer is an essential incremental step toward these goals."
"The time for a single-payer system is now. Our patients in every state urgently need it," Coates added.
Posted by eridani | Wed Jan 21, 2015, 09:08 AM (3 replies)
Quality and affordability of care were generally rated as better with Medicaid coverage, while private coverage was seen as offering better access to and more respect from providers. These views represent a nuanced but reasonable comparison of Medicaid versus private health insurance and are consistent with some of the empirical evidence in this area. Recent studies indicate that Medicaid provides low-income adults with better financial protection than does private coverage, while lower reimbursement rates in Medicaid have been linked to lower physician participation rates in that program compared to private coverage. Favorable views toward Medicaid were most common among racial and ethnic minorities, people with lower education and income, and those in worse health.
Medicaid, the federal-state program for poor and disabled Americans, is a frequent political target, often described as substandard because of its restricted list of doctors and the red tape — sometimes even worse than no insurance at all.
But repeated surveys show that the program is quite popular among the people who use it.
When asked to consider it alongside other big, popular government programs, Medicaid compares favorably, said Robert Blendon, a public health professor at Harvard who studies public opinion on health care issues and was a co-author on the recent study. “It’s only when you compare it to Medicare, which is so much more popular than 96 percent of what the federal government does, that it looks unimpressive,” Mr. Blendon said.
Comment by Don McCanne od PNHP: Low-income patients strongly support the Medicaid program. It provides better financial protection than does private insurance, and they perceive the care to be of high quality. Their primary concern is that “private coverage was seen as offering better access to and more respect from providers” than does Medicaid.
When asked whether it was better to have Medicaid or to be uninsured, there was strong agreement that Medicaid patients have higher quality of care, have greater access to doctors, are treated with better respect, and, especially, are better able to afford the health care that they need, than are the uninsured.
In fact, according to Harvard’s Robert Blendon, Medicaid compares quite favorably to other popular government programs, though the support is “unimpressive” when compared to the support for Medicare.
Unfortunately, the politicians in many states do not seem to care. Even though the federal government would provide most of the funds, they would rather leave these people uninsured. Obviously, they could care less about the opinions of this low-income population that lacks political clout.
Why would Medicare be more popular than Medicaid? Medicare that is supplemented with Medigap, retiree plans, or Part C plans removes financial barriers to care, thus providing a similar level of financial protection as Medicaid - with the exception that Medicaid covers long term care as well. Medicaid does have the stigma of a welfare program whereas Medicare is considered to be an earned right available to all qualified by age or disability. The greatest reason that Medicare is preferred is that the patients have free choice of their physicians, including specialists.
Under what system would a low-income patient fare best? One in which the welfare stigma is removed, and everyone is treated equal. One in which financial barriers such as large deductibles and coinsurance are removed. One in which patients have free choice of their health care professionals and hospitals. One in which a high standard of quality is the norm for all. In other words, low-income patients would fare best is a system that would work well for all of us - a single-payer, improved Medicare for all.
Posted by eridani | Fri Jan 2, 2015, 09:17 PM (5 replies)