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: 41,717
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: 41,717
Major policy wonk interests: health care, Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid, election integrity
- 2014 (33)
- 2013 (94)
- 2012 (105)
- 2011 (9)
- December (9)
- Older Archives
One of the most important facts about health care overhaul, and one that is often overlooked, is that all changes to the health care system involve trade-offs among access, quality and cost. You can improve one of these – maybe two – but it will almost always result in some other aspect getting worse.
You can make the health care system achieve better outcomes. But that will usually cost more or require some change in access. You can make it cheaper, but access or quality may take a hit. And you can expand access, but that will increase cost or result in some change in quality.
More people being able to get care was the point of the A.C.A. It’s possible that overall health care spending may remain flat or even decrease because of other changes to the health care system, or economic factors outside the system entirely. But with respect to emergency care, prevention and procedures, we should expect that increasing access will lead to more spending, not less.
It’s understandable that supporters of the law want it to increase access, increase quality and decrease spending all at the same time, but that’s very unlikely. Trade-offs occur; we need to be honest, and prepared, for what’s likely to happen.
San Juan Capistrano, CA
The supposedly inevitable trade-offs between access, quality and cost ignore one important intervention regarding cost. The health care financing system in the United States is unique in its profound, costly administrative waste due to the highly inefficient, fragmented financing through a multitude private insurers and public programs (and no programs at all for the uninsured).
Merely changing to a universal single payer program or a national health service model dramatically reduces costs without having a negative impact on access and quality. The future trajectory of cost increases would be shifted downward - achieving that elusive bending of the cost curve. That is one way other nations provide truly universal health care at a per capita cost averaging only half of that of the United States.
In fact, the monopsonistic purchasing of a public program can actually improve quality by obtaining greater value in health care purchasing.
Some of the savings that would accrue by changing to a universal program such as an improved Medicare for all would be redirected to much needed improvements in access.
The important bottom line is that we really can achieve improved access, improved quality, and lower costs by structural reform of our highly dysfunctional financing system - a system that was only expanded by the Affordable Care Act.
This author makes a compelling case that the ACA will not decrease costs because there are trade-offs among access, quality and cost. What he ignores is that we also have another system, Medicare, operating simultaneously, that provides good access and quality and manages to limit cost with little trade-off. In addition, it serves the population that consumes the greatest share of health care. You, good reader, know the difference. This article shows, once more, why we need a single payer system for all.
Posted by eridani | Mon Jul 14, 2014, 03:47 PM (22 replies)
One small consolation of our high-priced health care system — our $2.7 trillion collective medical bill — has been the notion that at least we get medical attention quickly.
Americans look down on national health systems like Canada’s and Britain’s because of their notorious waiting lists. In recent weeks, the Veterans Affairs hospitals have been pilloried for long patient wait times, with top officials losing their jobs.
Yet there is emerging evidence that lengthy waits to get a doctor’s appointment have become the norm in many parts of American medicine, particularly for general doctors but also for specialists. And that includes patients with private insurance as well as those with Medicaid or Medicare.
Merritt Hawkins, a physician staffing firm, found long waits last year when it polled five types of doctors’ offices about several types of nonemergency appointments including heart checkups, visits for knee pain and routine gynecologic exams. The waits varied greatly by market and specialty. For example, patients waited an average of 29 days nationally to see a dermatologist for a skin exam, 66 days to have a physical in Boston and 32 days for a heart evaluation by a cardiologist in Washington.
The Commonwealth Fund, a New York-based foundation that focuses on health care, compared wait times in the United States to those in 10 other countries last year. “We were smug and we had the impression that the United States had no wait times — but it turns out that’s not true,” said Robin Osborn, a researcher for the foundation. “It’s the primary care where we’re really behind, with many people waiting six days or more” to get an appointment when they were “sick or needed care.”
The study found that 26 percent of 2,002 American adults surveyed said they waited six days or more for appointments, better only than Canada (33 percent) and Norway (28 percent), and much worse than in other countries with national health systems like the Netherlands (14 percent) or Britain (16 percent). When it came to appointments with specialists, patients in Britain and Switzerland reported shorter waits than those in the United States, but the United States did rank better than the other eight countries.
Posted by eridani | Sun Jul 13, 2014, 07:18 AM (40 replies)
By Wendy Glauser
CMAJ (Canadian Medical Association Journal), June 19, 2014
TORONTO -- With the prospect of greater pay, fewer bureaucratic headaches and the opportunity to provide better care for patients, the number of American doctors migrating north is rising, according to Canadian recruiters and Canadian Medical Association data.
Susan Craig, president of the Toronto-based physician recruiter, Susan Craig Associates, said that Canada is becoming "increasingly attractive," while John Philpott, the Halifax-based chief executive director of Can-Am Recruiting, noted "interest is doubling each year for American doctors" seeking to move north.
Increased pay is the main driver of this interest. Philpott said family physicians, pediatricians and psychiatrists can make $100,000 more in Canada, on average, compared to the U.S.
According to data from the Canadian Medical Association, the number of U.S.-trained physicians grew less than 3% from 1996 to 2005 (up from 493 to 506), but jumped 42% from 2006 to 2014 (508 to 721).
The increase would be much higher, however, if estimates distinguished between specialists and family doctors, as the majority of U.S. physicians crossing the border are in family medicine, said Philpott.
In the U.S., thanks to insurance company loopholes and technicalities, American family physicians aren't paid up to 30% of the time, whereas under a single-payer system, only about 2% of his billings don't covered, explained Dr. Sajad Zalzala, a U.S.-trained family physician who moved to Windsor, Ont., in 2012.
Posted by eridani | Sun Jul 13, 2014, 07:14 AM (0 replies)
Everyone knows — or should know — that the United States spends much more than any other country on health care. But the Kaiser Family Foundation broke that spending down into two parts, the government’s share and the private sector’s share (both measured as a percentage of total gross domestic product), then compared the results with figures from 12 other countries that are members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. And here’s the shocker: Our government spends more on health care than the governments of Japan, Australia, Norway, the United Kingdom, Spain, Italy, Canada or Switzerland.
Think about that for a minute. Canada has a single-payer health-care system. The government is the only insurer of any note. The United Kingdom has a socialized system, in which the government is not only the sole insurer of note but also employs most of the doctors and nurses and runs most of the hospitals. And yet, measured as a share of the economy, our government health-care system is the largest of the bunch.
And it’s worse than that: Atop our giant government health-care sector, we have an even more giant private health-care sector. Altogether, we’re spending about 16 percent of the GDP on health care. No other country even tops 12 percent. Which means we’ve got the worst of both worlds: huge government and high costs.
Posted by eridani | Sat Jul 5, 2014, 06:18 PM (2 replies)
Imagine getting a call from your doctor if you let your gym membership lapse, make a habit of buying candy bars at the checkout counter, or begin shopping at plus-size clothing stores. For patients of Carolinas HealthCare System, which operates the largest group of medical centers in North and SouthCarolina, such a day could be sooner than they think. Carolinas HealthCare, which runs more than 900 care centers, including hospitals, nursing homes, doctors’ offices, and surgical centers, has begun plugging consumer data on 2 million people into algorithms designed to identify high-risk patients so that doctors can intervene before they get sick. The company purchases the data from brokers who cull public records, store loyalty program transactions, and credit card purchases.
Information on consumer spending can provide a more complete picture than the glimpse doctors get during an office visit or through lab results, says Michael Dulin, chief clinical officer for analytics and outcomes research at Carolinas HealthCare. The Charlotte-based hospital chain is placing its data into predictive models that give risk scores to patients. Within two years, Dulin plans to regularly distribute those scores to doctors and nurses who can then reach out to high-risk patients and suggest changes before they fall ill. “What we are looking to find are people before they end up in trouble,” says Dulin, who is a practicing physician.
Posted by eridani | Sat Jul 5, 2014, 06:12 PM (11 replies)
My party, the GOP, is running for election this year on the slogan “repeal and replace Obamacare.”
I agree, but the question is “what will be the replacement?” My answer is Medicare for all.
From a moral standpoint, due to expansion of access to health care, the Affordable Care Act is clearly better than what we had previously. The Medicaid expansion provision, which unfortunately was made voluntary by a politicized Supreme Court, does a lot to help very low-income people who cannot afford insurance premiums.
On the other hand, of the 8 million who signed up for Obamacare nationally through the exchanges, many just switched from existing “limited” insurance policies.
In Georgia (my home), 22 percent of the population (one of the highest rates nationally) was uninsured before Obamacare.
Even if all 8 million had been uninsured, tens of millions are still without insurance and will be for the near future. This fact is especially true in red states like ours that have inexplicably chosen to turn back federal money to expand Medicaid, a purely political decision.
Further, because the Affordable Care Act is built on the defective private insurance model, it will never be very effective or efficient.
And with no Affordable Care Act public option, insurance companies will take advantage of consumers. For example, in the Albany, Ga., area, there is only one insurance company available via the exchange, Blue Cross. Incredibly, rates there are higher than they are in Beverly Hills, Calif.
So why do I want to see more government involvement in our health insurance system via Medicare expansion to everyone? Because as opposed to many government programs, Medicare works well. Based on their experience, taxpayers (especially senior citizens like me), like Medicare.
And it is efficient, cutting out marketing and overhead expenses. Medicare has overhead expenses of only 3 percent compared to 20 percent-plus for private insurance companies.
Posted by eridani | Sat Jul 5, 2014, 12:42 AM (24 replies)
or months there have been rumors that the Social Security Administration has a "secret plan" to close all of its field offices. Is it true? A little-known report commissioned by the SSA at the request of Congress seems to hold the answer. The summary document outlining the plan, which is labeled "for internal use only," is unavailable from the SSA but can be found here.
Does the document, titled "Long Term Strategic Vision and Vision Elements," really propose shuttering all field offices? The answer, buried beneath a barrage of obfuscatory consultantese, clearly seems to be "yes." Worse, the report also suggests that many of the SSA's critical functions could soon be outsourced to private-sector partners and contractors.
Posted by eridani | Thu Jun 26, 2014, 07:16 AM (77 replies)
While millions of Americans have the peace of mind that health insurance provides, more can be done to maximize choice and affordability for individuals and families. As a solution to bring more families into the marketplace:
￼Health plans support the creation of a new, lower-premium catastrophic plan.
Such a plan would offer consumers the option of coverage that has lower monthly premiums but still provides the comfort of knowing that their costs will be limited in the event of a serious illness or injury.
We believe a new catastrophic plan would further the public policy goal of affordability and call upon policymakers to expand consumer choices by allowing this lower-premium option to be offered.
Comment by Don McCanne of PNHP:
One of the worst failures of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is that, even with subsidies, the premiums and out-of-pocket expenses are unaffordable for far too many people. AHIP now proposes to make the premiums slightly more affordable by offering catastrophic plans with very high deductibles that would make accessing health care truly unaffordable for even more people (cost sharing subsidies are available only for silver plans, but coverage of the proposed catastrophic plans would fall even below the lowest-level bronze plans).
Why would they do this? Could it be that they want to capture a portion of the market of the 31 million people who will still remain uninsured after ACA is fully implemented?
Who would actually select these plans with very high deductibles but lower premiums? Those with very low incomes who would struggle even with subsidized premiums might choose these plans if they consider their subsidized premiums to be “all that they can afford.” These are individuals who would be much more likely to forgo essential health care simply because they couldn’t afford their portion of the deductibles.
Very high income individuals might select these plans to insure against catastrophic losses while deciding to self insure against more modest medical costs. The problem with this is that this is a form of regressive financing of the insurance risk pools. Since average health care costs are well beyond the means of middle income families to pay for them, wealthier individuals need to contribute more to the collective insurance pools (as they would in a single payer financing system). The AHIP proposal for low-premium catastrophic plans would allow them to contribute less than average instead.
For healthy middle-income families there is a preference for the tradeoff of lower premiums for higher-deductibles - an observation confirmed by behavior in the individual insurance market before the enactment of ACA.Families that remain healthy will come out ahead, but those families that later face significant health problems often find that they will face severe financial hardship as well - even bankruptcy.
So the insurance industry is taking a position that they can increase their market, that they will not have to pay for routine medical expenses, and that they can lower their medical losses by paying only for the comparatively few individuals with high medical expenses. Little does it matter that they have the health coverage function backwards in that the healthy and wealthy do very well but the sick and poor suffer. Limiting essential protection for the most vulnerable demonstrates again why the private insurance industry should be dismissed.
The insurance industry has been very successful in getting innovations that benefit themselves. This release by AHIP suggests that this is the beginning of another self-serving public campaign - this time to allow individuals to have (in marketing terms) "the choice of purchasing only the insurance they need” - a high-deductible catastrophic health plan.
Social solidarity takes another beating.
Posted by eridani | Wed Jun 11, 2014, 06:57 PM (5 replies)
--That’s where the money is
How to hand over $272 billion a year to criminals
Medical science is hazy about many things, but doctors agree that if a patient is losing pints of blood all over the carpet, it is a good idea to stanch his wounds. The same is true of a health-care system. If crooks are bleeding it of vast quantities of cash, it is time to tighten the safeguards.
In America the scale of medical embezzlement is extraordinary. According to Donald Berwick, the ex-boss of Medicare and Medicaid (the public health schemes for the old and poor), America lost between $82 billion and $272 billion in 2011 to medical fraud and abuse (see article). The higher figure is 10% of medical spending and a whopping 1.7% of GDP—as if robbers had made off with the entire output of Tennessee or nearly twice the budget of Britain’s National Health Service (NHS).
But the broader point is that American health care needs to be simplified. Whatever its defects, Britain’s single-payer National Health Service is much simpler, much cheaper and relatively difficult to defraud. Doctors are paid to keep people well, not for every extra thing they do, so they don’t make more money by recommending unnecessary tests and operations—let alone billing for non-existent ones.
Too socialist for America? Then simplify what is left, scale back the health tax-perks for the rich and give people health accounts so they watch the dollars that are spent on their treatment. After all, Dr Berwick’s study found that administrative complexity and unnecessary treatment waste even more health dollars than fraud does. Perhaps that is the real crime.
Posted by eridani | Fri May 30, 2014, 02:36 AM (11 replies)
2014 Aflac WorkForces Report
American workers are at the edge of a financial cliff
The economy is showing signs of improving, but Americans’ bank accounts are in need of resuscitation: Put simply, anemic pay raises combined with sharp increases in out-of-pocket health care costs have creditors knocking on many consumers’ doors.
* 66 percent of employees would not be able to adjust to the large financial costs associated with a serious injury or illness.
* 13 percent of workers are currently dealing with high medical bills.
* 49 percent of employees have less than $1,000 on hand to pay out-of-pocket medical expenses.
* 53 percent of workers would need to borrow from a 401(k) and/or use a credit card to cover unexpected medical costs.
* 8 percent say high medical bills have hindered their ability to save.
* 10 percent say high medical costs have negatively affected their credit scores.
* 13 percent have been contacted by collection agencies about outstanding medical bills.
Comment by Don McCanne of PNHP: A well functioning health care system should make all appropriate health care accessible to everyone, and paying for the system should not lead to financial insecurity. The sector of health care financing that the Affordable Care Act was designed to protect was employer-sponsored coverage, based on the belief that this was the sector that was functioning well. Yet the 2014 Aflac WorkForces Report shows that this sector often is not providing the financial security that patients need.
We should quit trying to finance health care though a multitude of private and public plans that apply to individuals based on their continually evolving personal circumstances. That approach creates tremendous costly and wasteful administrative inefficiencies. Worse, even what are supposedly the best programs - employer-sponsored health plans - too often fail to provide the financial security that patients want and need.
Medical bill related financial insecurity would disappear for everyone if we would replace our current fragmented financing system with a single payer national health program that included first dollar coverage. Since it would use progressive financing, each of us would be able to afford it.
This is a simple concept. We don’t need the Aflac duck to explain it to us.
Posted by eridani | Thu May 29, 2014, 06:07 AM (0 replies)