14 million seniors have received preventive benefits under Obama's health law in 2012

[cynatnite]

More than 14 million seniors have already taken advantage of the healthcare reform law's new preventive benefits in Medicare, the Medicare agency said Monday.

The Obama administration routinely highlights popular provisions of the Affordable Care Act as it tries to build public support for a law under which tangible benefits are scattered across several programs.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) focused Monday on a section of the law that allows seniors to receive certain preventive services, including an annual checkup, without paying a co-pay or deductible.

CMS said 14.3 million seniors took advantage of that benefit in the first five months of 2012, including more than 1 million who received an "annual wellness visit."

“Thanks to the health care law, millions of Americans are getting cancer screenings, mammograms and other preventive services for free,” acting CMS Administrator Marilyn Tavenner said in a statement. “These free preventive services are helping people in Medicare stay healthy and lower their health care costs.”

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/232027-cms-14-million-seniors-have-gotten-preventive-benefits-under-obamas-health-law-in-2012

[pipoman]

1. Still no provision

for medicare or those of us on health insurance to get the kind of preventative care congress, the president, or the wealthy can get....not holding my breath..

[cbdo2007]

2. that's a ridiculous viewpoint to be focused on. We've seen major change.

[zipplewrath]

3. Hardly "major"

People are getting screenings and check ups for free. Most of this isn't "preventative" as the article asserts. If anything is "found" there is an underlying cost to have it addressed. The check doesn't prevent anything, it merely identifies problems early. Those problems still have to be treated and the treatment costs.

Closing the donut hole was probably the largest impact on seniors, not this little bit of regulatory change.

[dkf]

6. If a $15 co pay keeps people from getting screenings then they can't afford the cure anyway.

[zipplewrath]

7. Pretty much true

My plan dumped all the copays for various "wellness" checks a few years back. Nice, but it is really only a few dollars saved. If they FIND anything, even if it just means a more extensive test, that underlying cost went way up. Its a nice thing for many, but calling this "preventative" care is a tad misleading. Most of these procedures don't "prevent" anything. Its the disease that costs money, healthy folks have always had low health care costs.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

9. Yep.

[pipoman]

11. Yep..

further the kind of preventative screenings which could save the most lives are not available to most people because their insurance will not cover those tests unless there is an accompanying covered diagnosis. They also don't usually allow people to get these types of tests (full body MRI, CT, PET, etc.) for diagnostic purposes. The wealthy, who can self pay, can and do get these tests as part of their health care regimen. Seems most famous people, if diagnosed with, say, cancer, are diagnosed early and treatment is effective. Maybe because medical technology provides the ways to find cancer when it is very tiny and before any symptoms arise, they don't provide the means for most people to access them.

[phleshdef]

13. Bull fucking SHIT "it doesn't prevent anything".

And just where in the article does it even come close to asserting that?

We are talking about early cancer detections, where early is the key to almost everything. If they detect polyps in your colon, before it becomes cancerous, that saves everyone a ton of money and pain and most likely, an avoidable death because the polyps can be removed with no additional treatment needed. The same goes for early detection of breast cancer. And the same goes for early detection of cardiovascular problems and the early detection of diabetes. Detecting any of those things early can mean the difference between having a heart attack or not having a heart attack, needing heart surgery and not needing it, having your kidneys damaged by prolonged high blood pressure vs not having them damaged or getting on a plan to regulate blood sugar levels before it has a chance to cause damage to other internal organs.

I can't believe how full of shit such a statement is. Catching a condition early is probably the most money saving and life saving thing we can do, next to preventing the condition from ever happening to begin with.

[zipplewrath]

16. Not the procedure that is covered

Very few of the procedures described prevent anything, they merely identify early a condition. But the treatment still costs money to treat, and that isn't covered at 100%. The article called this "preventive" procedures, but they are predominately diagnostic, not treatment.

[phleshdef]

17. Identifying an early condition DOES often prevent a whole hell of a lot.

Going back to my example of polyps. Yes, there is a procedure involved to remove them. But doing so before it turns into colon cancer is many, many, many times cheaper than the cost of treatment for colon cancer, after having developed.

And identifying and treating high blood pressure and diabetes, with proper medication is many, many, many times cheaper than the cost of treating the compounding consequences of those conditions if they otherwise go untreated for any long length of time.

Diagnostic procedures for early identification IS preventive. I have a feeling that you know this already, but you insist on being contrarian about it for the sake of being cynical.

[zipplewrath]

18. The monetary terms

The procedures, technically, are not "preventative" generally speaking. They are diagnostic. Without the underlying treatment, the procedures won't prevent anything. That's what I mean by the fact that screenings are not, in and of themselves, preventative. Early diagnosis allows cheaper and/or more effective treaments, but those treatments are NOT covered at 100%. Quite the opposite, the costs can escalate quickly if something is found.

Offering someone screenings and other diagnostic procedures for free, but providing little if any assistance for the actual health CARE ignores that the primary cost is the health care, not the screening. The reason that the health insurance providers, and the government, have in covering the screenings at 100% is for the reasons you outline. It is cheaper for them in the short run the quicker they identify many of these issues. People will strangely avoid a $20 copay for a diagnostic procedure. Once they know they are sick, they tend to be more willing to pay for treatments. But there are real costs associated with treatment and they aren't covered anywhere near 100%. And the copays and costs are much higher generally speaking than the $20. Prior to the rules about pre-existing conditions, and the restrictions on policy terminations, the insurance companies also had an interest in early identification so that they could terminate policies.

The HMO's originally were VERY big on early screenings and predicted all manner of savings by having annual checkups and screenings. The savings, in the long run, never materialized. The harsh reality is that in the LONG run, it is cheaper for the patient to die, than to treat them, especially long term chronic conditions that require continuous treatment.

I don't object to covering these costs at 100%. But there has always been an absurd logic here which is that the copays for many of these procedures ranged from $20 to $500 depending upon the procedures. If anything is found, the treatment can be in the thousands. People who are sensitive to a $20 copay, probably can't, or won't, afford the thousands to be treated effectively.

[just1voice]

4. "ridiculous" because they/we still pay out the ass for for-profit insurance? Actually...

it's ridiculous to live in the only industrialized country with for-profit health care. I haven't seen 1 fcking thing change so your statement "we've seen major change" only applies to a few and detracts from the main point that most people want single payer health care.

Good for the people who got physicals, what if they are sick and need for-profit health care? Ever think of that?

[cynatnite]

5. Over 6 million kids are on their parents' health care because of this law...

I'd hardly call that a few.

Also, people with pre-existing conditions that would normally not be covered are getting covered because of this law.

Not all of the provisions have even gone into effect, either.

This law is a start. It was never going to be fully supported even if it had public option or if we got a medicare for all. That is preferable, but these things always take time. It sucks, but that's how it is.

This law has made a huge difference in a lot of people's lives.

[zipplewrath]

8. Put numbers against that

This law has made a huge difference in a lot of people's lives.

Put some numbers against that. Because it was specifically designed NOT to affect the vast majority of people. It has made some small differences in some peoples situations. It has made some large impacts on a very small portion of the population. The estimates range from 7-12% increase in the insured population. Roughly half of those already qualified for some sort of government supported health insurance, but chose not to access it.

Probably the two biggest populations affected are those who are seeing their donut holes closed and the parents who have extended capability to cover their children. In the case of the children, the vast majority will never need medical care while covered by this provision. Which is why I ask what you mean by "huge" and "a lot".

The federal government saved alot of money, mostly in reduced future cost increases.

[cynatnite]

10. Well, there is the 6.6 million kids that have health coverage thanks to this law...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47739759/ns/health-health_care/t/million-adults-join-parents-insurance-last-year/

The 2010 Health Reform bill (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) began to address the coverage gap by creating discounts on brand name and generic drugs purchased within the gap range. Between now and 2020, the gap will gradually be closed to a point where it is completely eliminated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Part_D_coverage_gap#Impact_of_the_doughnut_hole_on_Medicare_beneficiaries

The facts are coming in and this law has helped a lot of folks. Pre-existing conditions are being covered, lifetime caps aren't allowed, insurers aren't allowed to charge co-pays for low level preventative care for new plans, and insurers are prohibited from dropping policyholders.

Of course, there is much more and other aspects that have not taken effect.

This is not perfect and no one ever said it was. It's a start. I've got family and friends who have felt a direct impact from these changes. They were against this, but have changed their minds when they reaped the benefits.

IMO, I do think eventually (hopefully in my lifetime) this will evolve to a one payer type of system with insurance companies offering supplemental insurance. No insurance system will ever be what people want it to be.

This gets more people covered and there is no arguing with that success.

[zipplewrath]

12. Few numbers

As I say, there's not a lot of numbers there. 7 - 12% additional coverage, and 6 million kids (out of a population of 300 million people) isn't "huge" by any measure. And the vast majority of those 6.6 million will never received health care at all (their too damn healthy).

It was a federalization of health care regulation, not much more. It was specifically designed to affect as few people who were already insured as possible. It was a far cry from what was needed and it was based upon GOP proposals intended to prevent universal health care from becoming a reality.

Single payer is coming, as soon as this system collapses of its own weight, which will probably be in about 20 - 25 years. Even the White House estimates that health CARE costs will continue to rise at about 7% per year for the foreseeable future. That's unsustainable. Once enough people can't afford either the insurance, or the underlying care, the system will collapse.

[cynatnite]

14. How can it be designed to affect as few as possible...

When millions are already feeling it before all the provisions take effect?

Do you know how many Americans have pre-existing conditions? Do you know how many people with serious illnesses there are? These people are going to directly feel the impact of this law if they haven't already.

I do understand why so many were unhappy with this and I was, too. This was handing the insurance companies millions of patients, but the benefits cannot be ignored and they should not be minimized either.

The positives should be used to show the potential benefits of having a nation with complete health care coverage. I think that the only way it will happen is this law remaining in place and letting it reach it's full potential. In 5 - 10 years, it's possible that we could have a healthier nation which will directly impact costs.

I don't know if the system will collapse or not. There are always naysayers who do a lot of hand-wringing.

I do know that once you have a population that at the very least is getting preventive care, it makes an impact on their health and on the forseeable financial future. That's what people need to see. Eventually, whether this law stays in place or not, it will happen.

I do agree single payer is coming and IMO, this is the start of it.

[zipplewrath]

15. It was the stated goal

Under Clinton, there was a successful attack that "you were going to lose your health insurance". So it was a stated goal that they affect people who already had health insurance as little as possible. Pre-existing and insurance maximums affect a very small percentage of the insured. And these features were deemed necessary so that you could have a mandate at all.

The benefits of this law are limited, and come with some extreme negatives. 7% inflation is unsustainable and that's not hand wringing, that comes from the White House itself. The numbers could actually be higher.

But the population won't be getting significantly more health care than before. The portions of the population that couldn't afford the insurance, won't be able to afford the care either. This bill did little to assure access to CARE, merely obligated insurance. You won't see a significant change in the health of the nation due to this law.