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: 43,730
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: 43,730
Major policy wonk interests: health care, Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid, election integrity
- 2015 (6)
- 2014 (58)
- 2013 (94)
- 2012 (105)
- 2011 (9)
- December (9)
- Older Archives
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 (0 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)
On the eastern edge of St. Joseph, Mo., lies the small city's only hospital, a landmark of modern brick and glass buildings. Everyone in town knows Heartland Regional Medical Center — many residents gave birth to their children here. Many rush here when they get hurt or sick.
And there's another reason everyone knows this place: Thousands of people around St. Joseph have been sued by the hospital and had their wages seized to pay for medical bills. Some of them, given their income, could have qualified to get their bill forgiven entirely — but the hospital seized their wages anyway
Nonprofit hospitals get huge tax breaks — they are considered charities and therefore don't pay federal or state income tax or local property tax. In exchange, they are obligated to provide financial assistance or "charity care" to lower-income patients.
Some nonprofit hospitals around the country don't ever seize their patients' wages. Some do so only in very rare cases. But others sue hundreds of patients every year. Heartland, which is in the process of changing its name to Mosaic Life Care, seizes more money from patients than any other hospital in Missouri. From 2009 through 2013, the hospital's debt collection arm garnished the wages of about 6,000 people, according to a ProPublica analysis of state court data.
Posted by eridani | Mon Dec 22, 2014, 03:30 AM (25 replies)
A commodity is something you can have only if you have the money. It makes our health care vastly more expensive in two ways.
If you don’t have money, you can’t pay to treat problems when they are still cheap to treat, as in the case of the Maryland boy whose mother didn’t have $85 to extract an infected tooth. The infection spread to his brain, and the people of Maryland paid $230,000 to try to save his life. He died anyway.
On the other hand people who do have money (or good insurance) are oversold on unnecessary care. We spent $750 billion on unnecessary health care in 2011, about a third of all health care expenses. Invasive procedures that are unnecessary can result in injury or even death.
Health care policy is unique in that it is the only social issue where the morally right thing to do is also the cheapest thing to do.
Posted by eridani | Sat Dec 20, 2014, 04:29 AM (7 replies)
Posted by eridani | Tue Dec 16, 2014, 05:11 AM (2 replies)
“It’s definitely a better picture than when we look at the U.S. population generally; that’s a pat on the back for Medicare,” said Robin Osborn, director of the fund’s International Health Policy and Practice Innovations program and lead author of the study. Previous research has shown that “Medicare is more protective than all the different insurance plans people have under age 65,” she said.
The bad news first:
■ Our older population is sicker. We lead the list in the proportion of people over 65 who have two or more chronic diseases (68 percent report hypertension, heart disease, diabetes, cancer, etc.) and who take four or more prescription drugs (53 percent). Only a third of seniors in the United Kingdom have multiple chronic conditions. (The survey didn’t include residents of nursing homes or other care facilities.)
“One thing we know contributes to this is not having an ongoing, stable source of health insurance throughout your life,” Ms. Osborn said. Before they became Medicare-eligible, American seniors may have forgone preventive treatments or let conditions worsen because they couldn’t afford care.
■ Older Americans still struggle to pay for health care. Nineteen percent said that in the past year, cost was a barrier that prevented their seeing a doctor, undergoing a recommended test or treatment or filling a prescription. In only one other surveyed nation (New Zealand, at 10 percent) did that proportion reach double digits.
Among American seniors, 21 percent had out-of-pocket medical expenses that topped $2,000 and 11 percent had problems paying their medical bills. In Norway and Sweden, 1 percent had problems paying; in Germany, 3 percent.
“As good as Medicare is – it provides excellent coverage over all – it still isn’t as protective as the coverage people get in other countries,” Ms. Osborn said. Its deductibles and cost-sharing requirements still leave many Americans scrambling to afford drugs and doctors – which also cost more here.
Posted by eridani | Sat Dec 13, 2014, 11:25 PM (9 replies)