0

Pelosi Backs Off Set Rates for Public Option

Published: October 28, 2009
In the history of health insurance the government negotiations with the pharmaceuticals for the President Bush presription plan rank with the most ridiculous moments in the history of this country.  To the outsider, it would seem almost as if Bush wanted to destroy both Medicare and the economy with that particular bill.  In this Part D prescription bill, the government decided to give the Pharmaceuticals whatever prices they wanted and didn’t even try to get the best prices for either the taxpayers or the government.
Now, with this public option debate going on it seems again that unless Pelosi pushes for negotiated rates where the government sets prices for various procedures, prescriptions, and so on we will be in danger of wrecking the economy even more.  The question is who benefits from negotiated rates?  The answer is everyone except the health care industry which would instead have to accept lower reimbursements but higher volume.  What is wrong with that?  Nothing silly.  Thanks Pelosi.

WASHINGTON — Under pressure from moderate-to-conservative members of the House Democratic caucus, Speaker Nancy Pelosi has decided to propose a government-run insurance plan that would negotiate rates with doctors and hospitals, rather than using prices set by the government, aides said Wednesday.

Luke Sharrett/The New York Times

Rates would be negotiated in Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s plan.

Related

Health Care Conversations

Ms. Pelosi said the public plan, which she prefers to call a “consumer option,” would compete with private insurers. But the speaker was apparently unable to muster the votes needed for the “robust” liberal version of a public plan, which she has repeatedly said would save more money for consumers and the government.

Members of the House Democratic leadership team offered these details of their bill, to be unveiled on Thursday. It would provide coverage to 35 million or 36 million people. The 10-year cost of expanding coverage would be less than the $900 billion ceiling suggested by President Obama. The cost would be offset by new taxes and by cutbacks in Medicare, so the bill would not increase the federal budget deficit in the next 10 years or in the decade after that.

The new bill, like an earlier version, retains a surtax on high-income people, but increases the thresholds. The tax would hit married couples with adjusted gross incomes exceeding $1 million a year and individuals over $500,000 — just three-tenths of 1 percent of all households, Democrats said.

Ms. Pelosi can describe the proposal as a “millionaires’ tax.” The original thresholds were $280,000 for individuals and $350,000 for couples.

The government insurance plan would negotiate rates with doctors and hospitals, as private insurers do. Payments would not be based on Medicare rates, as Ms. Pelosi had wanted. Democrats from rural areas balked at the use of Medicare rates, saying they were so low that hospitals could not survive on them.

House Democratic leaders will hold a rally at the Capitol on Thursday to promote the legislation. They hope to take it to the House floor next week, with a final vote before Veterans Day, Nov. 11.

Scores of lobbyists were “cordially invited” to attend the rally in e-mail messages sent Wednesday by Ms. Pelosi. The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, announced Monday that he too had decided to include a government plan, with negotiated rates, in the bill he intends to take to the Senate floor for weeks of debate.

House Democrats do not have firm commitments from enough lawmakers to guarantee passage of their bill at the moment. But their aggressive schedule suggests they are confident they can round up the votes they need.

Speaker Pelosi evidently fell well short of the votes needed for the “robust” public option.

A whip count, prepared Tuesday, shows that 47 House Democrats opposed that approach while 8 more were “leaning no.” That suggests that Ms. Pelosi had lined up, at most, 201 votes of the 218 she would probably need. Ms. Pelosi’s difficulties in securing votes for the most liberal version of a government insurance plan were illustrated by four members of her caucus.

Representative Ike Skelton, Democrat of Missouri, who faces a serious re-election challenge next year, said: “Health insurance reform must not include a public option. While access to health insurance ought to be expanded to reduce costs for everyone, the public option could have the unintended consequence of forcing private health insurance providers out of business.”

Another moderate Democrat, Representative Jim Matheson of Utah, said there were better ways to foster competition. He prefers nonprofit member-run cooperatives, rather than a government plan.

Representatives Kathy Dahlkemper, of western Pennsylvania, and Steve Kagen, from the Green Bay area of Wisconsin, support a public option, but believe the government plan should negotiate rates with health care providers. Aides to the two Democratic lawmakers said Medicare rates in their districts were inadequate.

The new House bill would also impose annual fees on manufacturers of medical devices like heart pacemakers and artificial hips. The fees — in effect, excise taxes — would total $20 billion over 10 years.

House Democrats borrowed this idea from the Senate. Under a bill approved this month by the Senate Finance Committee, the government would try to collect $40 billion in fees over 10 years from makers of medical devices.

The new House bill would expand Medicaid to cover childless adults, parents and others with incomes less than 150 percent of the poverty level, or $33,075 for a family of four. This goes beyond the earlier House bill and a companion measure in the Senate, which would extend Medicaid to people with incomes less than 133 percent of the poverty level ($29,327 for a family of four).

This change saves money. It is less expensive for the federal government to cover low-income people under Medicaid than to provide them with subsidies to buy private insurance.

Share this Post

Continue Reading

0

I was surprised by the inclusion of the pubic option in the bill that was released last week, as I thought that the Republicans minority and Moderate Dems had defeated it.  In fact, I was beginning to wonder why even bother reforming health care at all if there is no additional pubic option.  I received an email yesterday from a 63 year old man who was looking for health insurance after having had a heart attack and diabetes.  There is nothing I can do for him with individual health insurance at all, and my best options for him would be either a one man group, getting him on the county health plan, or hopefully getting him on the new public option plan being bandied about.

But the best thing for him and the millions in a similar situation would of course be a single health insurance plan like Medicare.  In any case who knows what will happen and I am just trying to report the news on the health care crises while educating the public about the different situations.

So here is today’s article from the Wall Street Journal where they go over the massive surprise caused by the addition of the Public Plan Option onto the House Bill.

Some of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s colleagues were surprised by his decision this week to include a government-run health-care plan in the Democrats’ bill.

But the mathematics of the Senate suggest the motives for the Nevada Democrat’s gamble: While a handful of Democratic moderates don’t like the so-called public option, the liberals who support it easily outnumber them — and at least some of them warned Mr. Reid they would oppose a bill that didn’t include the option.

[Reid] European Pressphoto AgencyPresident Barack Obama talks with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on Wednesday at a Capitol ceremony.

Democratic centrists such as Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska have expressed reservations about creating a government-administered health plan to compete with private insurers. So has Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, the lone Republican who has signaled possible support for a Democrat-led health overhaul.

Senate Republicans are united in their opposition to a public option, and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) reiterated Wednesday his view that it would drive private insurers out of business. “Supporters of the government-run plan say they’re only advocating one more option among many,” he said on the Senate floor. “What they don’t say is that the option they’re advocating would soon be the only option.”

But liberals are insisting with equal force on a public option. And they are more numerous among Mr. Reid’s caucus of 60 votes — made up of 58 Democrats and two independents usually aligned with them.

Earlier this month, 30 senators sent Mr. Reid a letter saying “a strong public option has resounding support among Senate Democrats.” and urging that any bill include one.

At a recent private meeting of Senate Democrats, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) argued that polls show strong and growing support for the public option. Mr. Sanders also organized a get-together between Mr. Reid and liberal senators.

“What we said is, ‘Look, the overwhelming majority of the people want the public option,’” Mr. Sanders said. “How are we going to tell people they must get insurance, and then force them into a private insurance company and not give them a public option? Who wants to defend that?”

Ultimately, Mr. Reid, who has met with virtually all Senate Democrats and some Republicans in recent weeks, decided to go with a public option that allows individual states to opt out.

“In the last week or so, he detected a willingness on the part of the progressives to move more to the center, while detecting a similar willingness among some moderates to make some concessions as well,” said Reid spokesman Jim Manley.

Mr. Reid needs the support of 60 senators twice — first in a vote to consider the health bill, then later to approve it. Even some Democrats who oppose the bill in its current shape may support the leader in the initial vote just to get it to the Senate floor. If so, it will kick off a weeks-long debate, including votes on numerous amendments and horse-trading to address the concerns of particular senators.

Democratic leaders hope that at the end of that process, even some who oppose Mr. Reid’s bill, like Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I., Conn.), will be on board. Mr. Lieberman has suggested he might support the initial vote on the bill.

“We all know that the bill that emerges after weeks of debate will not be the same one that leader Reid presented,” said Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.).

So far, Mr. Reid’s approach appears to be paying off, as some of the centrist Democrats are expressing a willingness to compromise.

“I don’t favor a government-run national public option,” said Sen. Mary Landrieu (D., La.) a couple of days before Mr. Reid’s announcement.

But she added, “I could be open to either a fallback, or a public option that plays on the same playing field as private business….Something like that I could maybe consider if it meant a deal at the end. But we’ll have to see.”

Share this Post

Continue Reading

Something Is Happening

Published on 29 October 2009 by echealth in Health Insurance Reform

0

From the AP Today is a news article about the House majority Dems. delivering their legislation on health care. As a citizen I am frankly happy that something is going to happen for all the people that are battling bankruptcy and medical costs due to the health insurance laws that allow the insurance companies to deny coverage and also will expand Medicaid. This is sure to end the suffering of millions of poor people and sick people that have been receiving a poor quality of health care if any at all. As we say so many times in our health insurance website, “health insurance or health coverage is a right not a privilege.”

As a health insurance broker of course I am concerned as this particular bill would end my job as the health insurance exchanges such as the one in Massachusetts is a broker-less system.  In the end, and I don’t know when I am sure we will evolve into a system that resembles those in Europe and other developed nations as our system including the one that is below is still overly complicated and more importantly, too expensive.  There is no wiggle room in our economy for trillion dollar errors anymore and I am pretty sure this plan which does not address health care costs is in fact going to raise health care costs.  The economy won’t withstand much more lax monetary policies.  A single payer system which will of course cause me to locate the unemployment line is one of the answers to our economic and medical system needs as that would definitely end the rise of health care costs.  Yes it would stifle some medical advances but the only people that have access to these advances anyways are the rich, and the elderly who in most cases are being given the best health care while the young are neglected for basic services.

WASHINGTON (AP) – After months of struggle, House Democrats rolled out sweeping legislation Thursday to extend health care coverage to millions who lack it and create a new option of government-run insurance. A vote is likely next week on the plan largely tailored to President Barack Obama’s liking.

Speaking on the steps of the Capitol, Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Congress was at a “historic moment” with lawmakers “on the cusp of delivering on the promise of making affordable, quality health insurance available to every American.”

Officials said the measure, once fully phased-in over several years, would extend coverage to 96 percent of Americans. Its principal mechanism for universal coverage is creation of a new government-regulated insurance “exchange” where private companies would sell policies in competition with the government. Federal subsidies would be available to millions of lower-income individuals and families to help them afford the policies, and to small businesses as an incentive to offer coverage to their workers.

Large firms would be required to cover workers, and most individuals would be required to carry insurance.

The ceremony marked a pivotal moment in the Democrats’ yearlong attempt to answer Obama’s call for legislation to remake the nation’s health care system by extending insurance, ending industry practices such as denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions, and slowing the growth of medical spending nationwide.

Across the Capitol, Senate Democrats, too, are hoping to pass legislation by year’s end. Legislation outlined by Majority Leader Harry Reid earlier this week would include an option for a government-run plan, although states could drop out if they wished, a provision not in the House measure.

Obama issued a statement saying House Democrats had reached a “critical milestone” on the road toward a health care overhaul, and singled out the proposed government insurance option. He also said the bill “clearly meets two of the fundamental criteria I have set out: It is fully paid for and will reduce the deficit in the long term.”

Republican reaction was swift and critical.

Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., head of the Republican Study Committee, issued a statement saying Democrats had produced a “government takeover that will limit choice, competition and innovation in health care while increasing costs and decreasing quality.” He said the measure would kill jobs, raise taxes and inflict cuts on a program of private Medicare that provides benefits to millions of seniors.

(AP) House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of Calif. pumps her fists after she announced a retooled health care…
Full Image

GOP leaders long ago decided to oppose the approach requested by Obama and taken by Democrats, and health care is expected to figure in next year’s congressional election campaigns.

Democrats issued a statement saying their 1,990-page measure “lowers costs for every patient” and would not add to federal deficits. They put the cost of coverage at under $900 billion over 10 years, a total that excludes several items designed to improve benefits for Medicare and Medicaid recipients and providers, as well as public health programs and more.

With Republicans expected to oppose the measure unanimously, Pelosi and her lieutenants worked for weeks to resolve differences within the Democratic rank and file.

The toughest of them covered the terms under which the government insurance option would function. Liberals generally wanted the government to dictate the rates to be paid to doctors, hospitals and other health care providers, with the fee levels linked to Medicare.

Moderates, fearing the impact on their local hospitals, held out for negotiated rates between the government and private insurers – and won.

(AP) House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Md. speaks during a news conference about health care,…
Full Image

Not all liberals were ready to sign on. “My inclination is not to support it,” said Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., a co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, but that represented a softening of his opposition.

Grijalva acknowledged there was an argument for progressives to vote “yes.”"The logic is to keep the ball rolling,” Grijalva said Thursday.

Democrats control 256 seats in the House, are overwhelmingly favored to win one special election next week and are competitive for another. As a result, they can afford more than 30 defections on the legislation and still prevail.

House Democrats’ campaign arm wasted no time in using the bill release as a fundraising opportunity. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee e-mailed supporters asking them to help raise $50,000 by Thursday night “so we have the resources to fight back against Republican attacks and prove that grassroots Democrats are standing strong behind health insurance reform with a strong public option.”

The legislation would be financed by a combination of cuts in planned Medicare spending and an income tax surcharge of 5.4 percent on individuals making at least $500,000 annually and couples making at least $1 million.

(AP) Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., holds a gavel used during the passage of Medicare, before he spoke…
Full Image

The bill would require nearly everyone by 2013 to sign up for health coverage either through their employer, a government program or the new exchange.

In the meantime, a temporary government program would help people turned down by private insurers because of medical problems, lawmakers said. After that, insurers no longer could refuse to provide coverage to the sick, nor could they charge more because of poor health of the insured.

The plan also calls for a significant expansion of Medicaid, the federal-state health program for low-income people. And it would impose a requirement on employers to offer insurance to their workers or face penalties.

Pelosi, D-Calif., and the leadership have yet to work out disputes over abortion services and health care for immigrants, issues that must be settled before the bill can come to a vote.

Pelosi has also said the bill would strip the health insurance industry of a long-standing exemption from antitrust laws covering market allocation, price fixing and bid rigging. Democratic officials said the bill also would give the Federal Trade Commission authority to look into the health insurance industry at its own initiative. The officials spoke Wednesday on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to pre-empt a formal announcement.

While precise figures were not immediately available, it appeared the legislation would target the drug industry for more than the $80 billion that pharmaceutical firms agreed to contribute toward health care in a deal earlier this year with the White House and key senators. But the industry managed to come away with a provision worth billions: 12 years of market protection for high-tech drugs to combat cancer, Parkinson’s and other deadly diseases.

Medical device makers also took a hit, with a 2.5 percent excise tax on sales of their products that is reported to cost the industry $20 billion over the next decade. A $40 billion fee on those businesses was included in a Senate Finance Committee-approved version of the legislation, but Reid is considering cutting it by as much as half.

Associated Press writers Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar and Julie Hirschfeld Davis contributed to this report.

Share this Post

Continue Reading

0
 

Tell Congress that Being a Woman is Not a “Pre-Existing Condition”

Did you know that being a woman is increasingly considered a “pre-existing condition” by health insurance companies?

No, we’re not kidding. Perhaps the most underreported practice of discrimination in our health care system is that women are regularly denied coverage for “pre-existing conditions” that include pregnancy, a previous C-Section, or being a victim of past domestic abuse.

Tell Congress to stop discriminatory health care practices today >

Even when women do get coverage, it isn’t cheap. More than 90 percent of the best-selling insurance plans charge women more than men, in some cases charging as much as 48 percent more for the same coverage. These pricey plans don’t even include maternity care, vital reproductive health coverage which is nearly impossible to find on the private insurance market.

This treatment of women by the health care industry is unfair, unhealthy for our families, and unsustainable. It is discrimination we can no longer accept, and Congress needs to hear from people around the country that the fair treatment of women should be an essential part of health care reform.

The health care debate is coming to a close, and Congress will soon decide whether to end discriminatory health care. Your action is needed now.

Tell Congress to support health care reform that does not discriminate against women today >

Thanks for lending your voice,

- The Change.org Team in partnership with the National
Women’s Law Center

 
Nwlc_logo
Goal: 1,000
9,504
signatures so far!

Get a widget »

Embed

 
 
 

Share this Post

Continue Reading

0

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33441437/ns/health-health_care/

No guarantees: 3 tales of insurance disaster – Dose of reality

As the mother of a toddler who survives only because of the breathing tubes up his nose, the feeding tube in his gut, and the expertise of doctors in three cities, Courtney Elliott is keenly aware of the high costs of medical care — in every sense of the word.

Until her son, Linden, 2, was born with mitochondrial disease, a rare genetic disorder, the 28-year-old Tennessee woman had no idea that a bright, energetic child could hover constantly on the edge of death.

And she certainly didn’t know that a family with good income and excellent health insurance could be devastated by out-of-pocket medical fees that top $25,000 a year.

“We were very naïve, even dumb,” said Elliott, whose husband, Isaac, also 28, is a mechanical engineer with Bechtel Jacobs Co., a government contractor in Oak Ridge, Tenn. “I didn’t even know you had medical debt if you had insurance.”

The Elliotts are not alone. They were among more than 1,200 msnbc.com readers who shared stories of medical billing disasters in response to the site’s Dose of Reality health care series. Like much of the national debate on health reform, many stories focused on the plight of the nearly 46 million Americans who face daunting bills because they have no insurance coverage at all.

‘Why do I have to suffer financially as well?’
More surprising, however, were the tales of medical debt that came from people who said they knew that health insurance was important — and took steps to make sure they had it. For three families in particular, finding out that their medical coverage wasn’t enough, that it didn’t exist when they needed it most, or that it ended with the loss of a job was as shocking as it was shattering.

“You just want to say, ‘It’s bad enough having a kid with a horrible disease, why do I have to suffer financially as well?’” said Elliott.

That distress is shared by Michele and Kevin Thomas, Detroit-area newlyweds who lost their jobs this year to a failing regional and national economy. Michele Thomas had health coverage through her job at a furniture store until she was laid off in April. She was searching for a policy she could afford on her unemployment compensation when she developed a severe gall bladder infection and needed emergency surgery. Now the pair, still searching for work, face $15,000 in bills they can’t pay.

Those worries are echoed by Duane Thayer, a 51-year-old Colorado man who fell off a ladder putting up Christmas lights last year and nearly severed his left foot. He thought he had coverage for nearly $500,000 in medical bills, but he says the insurance company denied his claims, in part for a single late payment and in part because they said the surgery he’d had for a club foot as a child counted as a “pre-existing condition.”

Most coverage comes from jobs
About 159 million people in the United States got their health insurance last year through employer-sponsored health insurance, according to the latest data from the Kaiser Family Foundation. Another 14 million people bought insurance through private plans. Most of the rest who have insurance are covered by the government through Medicaid or Medicare.

For most customers, that system works just fine. But for some, simply having health insurance is no guarantee they can pay for health care, noted Len Nichols, a health economist at the nonpartisan New America Foundation. He’s a vocal advocate for insurance reforms now being crafted in Congress, so long as they make U.S. health care cheaper, more accessible and higher quality than it is now.

In part, the push for health reform is aimed at fixing a health insurance system that can financially ruin Americans who face sudden illness or injury. In 2007, nearly two-thirds of all bankruptcies in the U.S. were tied to medical debt, and nearly 80 percent of those who filed for protection were insured at onset of illness, according to a June study in the American Journal of Medicine.

“Basically, no one’s coverage is secure,” said Nichols. “A large number of people have not had a disaster in the health care system, so they don’t know how bad it is. It could happen to any of us at any time.”

For three families who responded to msnbc.com, it already has. Here are their confirmed tales of medical billing disaster.

Sick child ravages family finances
Before their second child was born, Courtney and Isaac Elliott shunned most things medical and didn’t understand why anyone wouldn’t. They had a healthy little girl, Aniyah, now 5, and good insurance provided by Aetna through Isaac’s job.

“I ate all organic and I never took any medicine and I had a medication-free birth,” said Courtney Elliott, who goes by the nickname “Courey.” “I had my baby at home.”

Linden arrived on Dec. 15, 2006, a dark-haired, dark-eyed baby who within days revealed severe problems. He had trouble breathing and needed surgery to correct a malformed larynx.

He couldn’t swallow well, and breast milk wound up in his lungs instead of his stomach. Within weeks, he needed to be fed solely through a tube. Other puzzling problems emerged as well: He couldn’t regulate his body temperature, he had trouble with motor skills, his bowels didn’t work right.

Results of a muscle biopsy confirmed his parents’ worst fears: Linden had mitochondrial disease, a rare genetic disorder that often leads to severe disability — and death.

“He could live 10 years or he could live 10 days,” Elliott said of Linden’s prognosis.

The disease results from the failure of the mitochondria, the part of human cells responsible for processing oxygen and energy.

It’s a devastating medical diagnosis that conjures for parents an endless cycle of care. And it’s a devastating financial diagnosis as well.

“It’s not possible, emotionally or financially, to prepare to have a child as ill as Linden,” said Linden’s specialist, Dr. Mary Kay Koenig, assistant professor of pediatric neurology at the University of Texas Medical School at Houston.

The family must travel from Tennessee to Texas at their own expense three or four times a year to see Koenig, one of the nation’s few specialists in mitochondrial disease.

At first, the family thought the medical expenses would be no problem. Isaac Elliott earns $72,000 a year at Bechtel Jacobs and his generous insurance covers 100 percent of services after initial co-payments.

But like many families coping with chronic illness, the Elliotts were surprised to learn that the co-pays for Linden’s condition would be extensive, unrelenting  — and a constant financial drain.

“Each time he has a tube change, it’s $150. Each hospital visit is $250. Each emergency room visit is $100. Each surgical procedure is $100,” Elliott said. “In the past 30 days, we’ve had two ER visits, a hospital stay, his prescriptions.”

The Elliotts spend at least $2,000 a month on out-of-pocket costs for Linden’s care, and often more. That leaves little for anything but the most basic family expenses — and sometimes not even those.

“I didn’t pay my electric bill this month and I didn’t pay my gas bill this month,” admits Elliott, who must stay home to take care of Linden. “We live paycheck to paycheck.”

They’ve managed to buy a tidy house in a vine-covered east Tennessee neighborhood thanks to a no-down-payment loan, but their furniture is well-worn and sparse. They rarely eat out, except when they’re in the hospital, and they confine family outings to free trips to playgrounds or parks.

There are times, Elliott adds, when she can’t afford all of Linden’s medications, even with generous help from relatives.

“There’s no worse feeling than having to weigh your child’s needs vs. what you can afford,” she said.

Still, Linden is hardly the sum of his symptoms. The sturdy, 34-pound toddler has a quick smile and verbal skills that test at a 4-year-old’s level.  His vocabulary includes words like “duodenum,” and he proudly shows off his stuffed ape, Chunky Monkey, who also sports a hospital bracelet and a tube in his tummy.

When he gets a little wild, Linden will hitch a ride on his IV stand, scooting with one foot, then rolling down a hospital hallway.

When the deep dimples fade, however, there are often flashes of pain. Linden tires quickly, retreating to the comfort of a pacifier and his mother’s arms.

“Owie!” the toddler cries as a nurse tests his blood to prepare for surgery. “I don’t like pokes!”

An operation on Oct. 12 was aimed at installing a port in Linden’s shoulder to allow fast regulation of his blood sugar. Without it, his glucose level has been vacillating wildly, creating constant risk of coma — or death.

Elliott says she never knows whether to expect a normal day or an emergency. Some children with mitochondrial disease have lived to adulthood, but others die very young.

“I think it’s very difficult for me as a mom to know that there’s nothing I can do,” she said. “I can try my best and he still might die. That is just an incredibly powerless feeling.”

On top of all that worry is the crushing financial burden.

“That’s the kicker,” she said. “You got the crappy end of the lottery and you got a medically fragile child and you’ll have to fight for his life. And now, we’re going to drain you financially, too.”

Health reform could ease the Elliott’s financial worries, if not the medical concerns, said Nichols, the health economist. The proposals under consideration mandating that virtually everyone purchase health insurance could boost the pool of potential payers and allow new limits on out-of-pocket costs.

For the Elliotts, such limits could be far lower than the $25,000 or more a year they now pay.

“You could afford that because you could get everybody in the pool,” Nichols said. “To make the pool reflect the whole population, it’ll be, on average, cheaper.”

Any change would be welcome, said Elliott, who supports a government-funded public health insurance option.

“If my husband were to lose his job, we’d be broke in a week,” she said, adding later: “So few people understand they could be next.”

Lost job, lost insurance
In the spring, as unemployment rates in the Detroit region topped 22 percent, triple the national rate, 38-year-old Michele Thomas became one of the casualties of a spiraling economy. She was laid off from her job at a furniture store in April, four months after her husband, Kevin Thomas, 43, left his job as an apartment security worker after an intruder threatened him with a gun.

Kevin Thomas had health insurance through a $400-a-month private policy. Michele had good coverage through her work, but that ended when she lost her job. Living only on her unemployment payments of $774 every two weeks, she was still searching for an affordable policy in August, when the pain in her stomach started.

For several days, Thomas tried to ignore the symptoms, but when she started vomiting blood at 1 a.m., her husband insisted on taking her to an emergency room.

“I said, ‘Honey, I don’t have insurance. We can’t go to the ER,’” Thomas said.

When she got there, doctors quickly determined she had a gallstone the size of a golf ball and needed emergency surgery, plus two days’ recovery.

“When we heard ‘surgery,’ we were really panicking,” she said.

Thomas came through the operation well, but with a $19,000 hospital bill to show for it. Even with the hospital’s no-insurance discount of $7,500, the bill topped $12,000. And when Thomas got home, she found $3,000 in past medical bills that should have been covered by her previous employer — and weren’t.

Now the couple, married less than a year and still out of work, face $15,000 in bills they can’t pay. It likely will scuttle their plans for a down payment on a house and will force them to postpone having children, even as their biological clocks tick louder.

“Every day, we look in the mail and think, please, please, don’t let this get any higher,” she said.

Thomas hadn’t thought much about health reform before this situation, but now it seems clear that the system has to change.

“I’m hoping that Washington and Congress are listening to individuals, actually listening to the common man,” she said.

Nichols said reform proposals now in Congress could offer hope to the Thomases and others.

“In the new world, if you lost your job, you would be able to go into the health insurance exchange, and because your income is dropped, you would be eligible for subsidies,” he said.

Although the health reform bills being considered each include some form of an insurance exchange, wary insurers are waiting for the details that could spark fierce opposition.

“It’s not over, friend,” said Nichols, who expects a tough fight to continue. “This is going to be Armageddon.”

Thomas said she’ll pay more attention to explanations of the exchange and other proposals because the consequences of the current system are devastating.

“I don’t think anyone should go broke or bankrupt paying for the medical care they need,” she said.

Catastrophic injury, coverage denied
Duane Thayer of Highlands Park, Colo., learned the hard way that a single misstep — both physically and financially — can quickly lead to medical disaster.

For years, Thayer, 51, took his Christmas cue from actor Chevy Chase, stringing at least 10,000 festive lights. That’s what he was doing last Nov. 8 when the ladder slipped, sending the information services director plummeting to the ground. As he fell, his left foot caught in the ladder, nearly amputating the limb.

“All the bones had severed and all the skin was gone,” said Thayer. “They tried to put it back together, but it fell apart.”

The damage required five surgeries and nearly a month in the hospital. Through it all, Thayer assumed he was covered through an $843-a-month COBRA health insurance policy that he kept after being laid off from a technology job in late 2007.

Although he got another job, working for the Visiting Nurse Association in Denver, Thayer turned down that insurance in favor of the more expensive COBRA policy because he thought the coverage was better.

In February, after four months of covered care for his extensive injuries, Thayer was notified by his insurance provider that they were revoking nearly $300,000 paid toward medical bills that eventually totaled about $500,000.

When Thayer called for an explanation, he said he was told that his policy was being canceled retroactively to October because of nonpayment — and because he’d had surgery to repair a club foot problem as a child.

“She said it was a pre-existing condition,” he said.

Thayer’s bank records show that he missed a payment in October but later made that payment and subsequent payments after his injury. Records show that Ceridian, the COBRA administrator, debited his bank account — and then returned the funds, after his injury.

Thayer acknowledged the missed payment; he said he had to bail his 19-year-old son out of a sudden financial mess. But he said he quickly made up for the lapse and continued to try to pay the premiums after his injury, especially since his medical bills appeared to be covered.

“I was a few weeks late with ONE payment after timely payments for over a year — not to mention having paid every month for 30 years to other insurance companies — and they kill my coverage,” Thayer said. “This is so wrong. My mistake was to have my accident.”

Three insurance entities were involved in Thayer’s medical coverage: TSYS, the former employer that extended COBRA coverage; Ceridian, the administrator that coordinated payment; and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Georgia, the insurance company that provided it.

Representatives for all three companies said that Thayer’s missed payment automatically invalidated his policy starting in October 2008 — and that he was notified of the termination.

But none could explain why his bills continued to be paid for four more months. And none could say why Thayer would have been told his coverage had been denied because of a pre-existing condition.

But Thayer insists he knows what he heard.

“They are absolutely saying that I am lying. And why would I do this? What gain would there be for me to do this?” he said. “Personally, this never made sense, not even for insurance companies. How possibly could they hold me to a congential condition that occurred literally 45 years ago?”

Thayer’s situation is not unique, said William Shernoff, a consumer rights lawyer in Claremont, Calif., who has written several books about insurance payment problems. Under federal COBRA law, insurance coverage may be terminated after a late payment, but it’s not required to be. Often insurers will continue to accept late payments and extend coverage — until a large claim is filed.

“Once somebody has had an expensive procedure, most carriers do go back to find any loopholes to get out of paying, that’s very common,” Shernoff said.

Health reform proposals now being considered in Congress may prevent insurers from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions, like Thayer’s childhood surgery. But Shernoff said scrutinizing late payments and other loopholes may get even worse.

“They’re not going take less profit,” Shernoff said. “If you shut one door, they open another. There will be more exclusions, more deductibles, more co-pays.”

That’s not encouraging to Thayer, who fears that a year after nearly losing his foot, the monetary fallout may turn out to be truly crippling.

“Right now the emotion that best applies is abject fear and worrry,” Thayer said. “I am terribly concerned about all the collection calls I am receiving, worried about holding onto my home and finding a way not to file for medical bankruptcy, fearful that if my appeal is not successful, what will happen to my family financially.”

Thayer, who follows politics closely, said he’s been disappointed so far in both parties’ handling of the health care overhaul.

“The irony is that I never expected to have a front-row seat in the health care reform debate,”  he said.

Share this Post

Continue Reading

0

WASHINGTON, Oct 26 (Reuters) – The U.S. healthcare system is just as wasteful as President Barack Obama says it is, and proposed reforms could be paid for by fixing some of the most obvious inefficiencies, preventing mistakes and fighting fraud, according to a Thomson Reuters report released on Monday.

The U.S. healthcare system wastes between $505 billion and $850 billion every year, the report from Robert Kelley, vice president of healthcare analytics at Thomson Reuters, found.

“America’s healthcare system is indeed hemorrhaging billions of dollars, and the opportunities to slow the fiscal bleeding are substantial,” the report reads.

“The bad news is that an estimated $700 billion is wasted annually. That’s one-third of the nation’s health insurance and health care bill,” Kelley said in a statement.

“The good news is that by attacking waste we can reduce healthcare costs without adversely affecting the quality of care or access to care.”

One example — a paper-based system that discourages sharing of medical records accounts for 6 percent of annual overspending.

“It is waste when caregivers duplicate tests because results recorded in a patient’s record with one provider are not available to another or when medical staff provides inappropriate treatment because relevant history of previous treatment cannot be accessed,” the report reads.

Some other findings in the report from Thomson Reuters, the parent company of Reuters:

* Unnecessary care such as the overuse of antibiotics and lab tests to protect against malpractice exposure makes up 37 percent of healthcare waste or $200 to $300 billion a year.

* Fraud makes up 22 percent of healthcare waste, or up to $200 billion a year in fraudulent Medicare claims, kickbacks for referrals for unnecessary services and other scams.

* Administrative inefficiency and redundant paperwork account for 18 percent of healthcare waste.

* Medical mistakes account for $50 billion to $100 billion in unnecessary spending each year, or 11 percent of the total.

* Preventable conditions such as uncontrolled diabetes cost $30 billion to $50 billion a year.

“The average U.S. hospital spends one-quarter of its budget on billing and administration, nearly twice the average in Canada,” reads the report, citing dozens of other research papers.

“American physicians spend nearly eight hours per week on paperwork and employ 1.66 clerical workers per doctor, far more than in Canada,” it says, quoting a 2003 New England Journal of Medicine paper by Harvard University researcher Dr. Steffie Woolhandler.

Yet primary care doctors are lacking, forcing wasteful use of emergency rooms, for instance, the report reads.

All this could help explain why Americans spend more per capita and the highest percentage of GDP on healthcare than any other OECD country, yet has an unhealthier population with more diabetes, obesity and heart disease and higher rates of neonatal deaths than other developed nations.

Democratic Senator Charles Schumer said on Sunday that Senate Democratic leaders are close to securing enough votes to pass legislation to start reform of the country’s $2.5 trillion healthcare system.

Share this Post

Continue Reading

2

A health reform bill that includes some variation of a public insurance option is likely to land on President Obama’s desk late this year or early in 2010, according to two lobbyists who represent industry trade group America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP).  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) late on Oct. 22 conceded that she likely would not have the 218 votes needed to include a “robust” public option — which would pay providers 5% more than Medicare — in the final House bill.

A weaker version, which would require the public insurer to negotiate with providers, or a “trigger” mechanism that would create a public option if health insurers fail to expand coverage and lower costs, is now seen as more likely. A final House bill could be completed before the end of October. During an Oct. 22 session at AHIP’s annual State Issues Conference in Washington, D.C., Steve Champlin, vice president at lobbying firm The Duberstein Group, told attendees that Democrats in the House and Senate will likely pass a health reform bill because they “do not want to be responsible for the failure of [President] Obama’s principal initiative.” The bill, he added, will likely pass by a narrow margin and without any support from Republicans. Any Republican who supports a Democrat-led reform proposal, he asserted, would be “giving comfort to the enemy who is down.” In the session that followed, however, AHIP President and CEO Karen Ignagni touted AHIP’s  strong support for bipartisan health reform.
While the reform bill approved this summer by the Senate Health, Education Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee includes a robust public health insurance option, Dan Meyer, another Duberstein Group lobbyist, suggested that the final Senate bill would more closely resemble the Senate Finance Committee’s more moderate version. Meyer served in the George W. Bush White House as deputy assistant to the president for legislative affairs. However, both Meyer and Champlin predicted the final bill would have some type of public insurance option.  Champlin suggested that the White House and Democratic lawmakers have misinterpreted Americans’ dissatisfaction with the status quo as a call for substantial change to the existing health insurance model. To help ensure Americans accept such change, Champlin asserted that the White House decided to vilify the insurance industry to create an enemy. “When they attack insurance companies, what they’re saying is substantial change is coming.”

Share this Post

Continue Reading

Peter Schiff Speaks Out

Published on 26 October 2009 by echealth in The Economy

0

Peter is usually much more vehement and outspoken when he recommends the investment of betting against the US economy and its currency. However the guy is running for the Senate seat in Connecticut and can’t appear to be very outspoken about the fact that living in America and investing here is the equivalent of burning your life savings in a fire.  At this point I recommend the dollar for shorting and am long in any currency that is not economically tied to ours.  Even Europe scares me.

That being said if you live in Connecticut I would advise you to support Mr. Schiff as when the decline of America occurs we will best served by having someone in office to be able to say, “I told you so.”

I think that Ron Paul although very admirable is too much on the fringe as his associations with Alex Jones leaves me wondering as to his mindset.  The guy believes in aliens and conspiracies.


For the most part, the value of the dollar is given cursory attention by the financial media. Typically, its movements are assigned an importance on par with much less determinative metrics such as natural gas futures and construction permits. It’s only when major milestones are reached that anyone really takes notice of the dollar. We are living through one of those times.

The great dollar rally of 2008-2009 has come full circle. When the financial crisis exploded in its full ugliness in mid-2008, the dollar, which had steadily declined over the previous four to five years, put in a rally for the record books. By March 2009, as investors across the world sought safety from the financial storm, the index had surged more than 25%. Since then, the dollar has steadily declined to the point where nearly all those gains have vanished. In short, the panic rally has given way to the long term trend.

So, as the dollar index makes fresh 52-week lows on a nearly daily basis, discussion on the greenback is heating up. And while real insight on the topic is hard to find, the debate centers on the battle between two conventional opinions – both of which are wrong.

The first camp, which is generally supportive of government intervention in the economy, argues that dollar’s decline is a positive for both the economy and the stock market. The second camp, which tends to fall on the more conservative end of the political spectrum, views the dollar’s decline as a problem but feels that tough talk and slightly higher interest rates are all that is needed to restore ‘King Dollar’ to its throne.

First of all, a weak dollar is no better for Americans than a lower paying job is for a worker. And although I would prefer that the dollar remain strong, I know that currency values are a function of supply and demand, not wishful thinking. The past years of reckless monetary and fiscal policy have created conditions that must push the dollar down. Vastly expanded debt levels and monetary expansion have created a greater supply of dollars, while poor investment performance and diminished industrial capacity have lessened the demand for dollars.

The regrettable truth is that while the weak dollar will help rebalance the global economy, it is not a panacea for the U.S. The fall is no more worthy of celebration than a student celebrating falling grades on his report card. If the dollar does not recover eventually, Americans will suffer diminished living standards. To avoid this we must make difficult reforms now. If we continue our current policies, we run the risk of a complete dollar collapse. Far from helping to solve our problems, this would be a true nightmare scenario.

On the other side of the argument, those who correctly equate a weaker dollar with a weaker America mistakenly believe that mere posturing by officials or trivial rate hikes would be sufficient to restore the dollar’s lost vitality. We are long past that point. The best we can do now is to accept the penalty of a weaker dollar as punishment for our prior failures, and start building for the future.

To save our currency, the Fed must get very aggressive with interest rate hikes and rein in the supply of dollars that have flooded the world over the past few years. The federal government must also do its part by cutting spending, which means no more stimulus and no more bailouts. Undoubtedly, these actions will have unpleasant economic and political consequences. A student who studies harder may have to miss a party or two. A simple analogy, but unfortunately it is that simple.

Even in the unlikely event that our political leaders take these courageous steps, the near-term trajectory of the dollar may still be uncertain. A dollar rally that results from higher interest rates and a narrowing federal deficit may soon fade as the recessionary forces that such moves would unleash act to weaken the dollar once again. But at least we would be building a foundation upon which the dollar could eventually find some footing.

With a restructured economy, higher savings, more capital investment, lower government deficits, and higher interest rates, the United States would once again attract international investment. Funds would flow here not out of fear, as they did last year, but out of confidence. The dollar’s strength would not rest on the willingness of foreign governments to buy our debt, but the willingness of foreign consumers to buy our products.

Only then could King Dollar regain its throne.

Share this Post

Continue Reading

Tort Reform

Published on 26 October 2009 by echealth in Health Insurance Reform

0

It is time to discuss Tort Reform, this issue to me is the one of the most glaring problems in the health care debate because it is the easiest to fix!  If I woke up and had a missing leg after a routine breast augmentation I would be very angry.  However, I make mistakes all the time and if I was in danger of being sued with every typo for instance I would simply not write or write less.  I understand that everyone makes mistakes and to try to sue for an unfair amount (which juries seem to always give) is simply ridiculous.

These juries have no idea of the damage they cause with every multi-million dollar settlement.  Now in the case of a doctor being drunk or otherwise intoxicated that can be viewed as malicious otherwise these cases need to have a maximum period.  The average American makes around 40k per year but if that same American has a wart surgery where he wakes up and finds out that they amputated his legs there is no reason he should get to become rich.  He wasn’t rich before and its not like he can’t earn a living with no legs.

If this were the case why wouldn’t the American government give multi million dollar settlements to soldiers who come back with a missing appendage?

I can ‘t really explain how ridiculous these judgements can be and my only thought is that as the dollar collapses during the health care debate one of the contributing factors is certainly the legal profession.  Most of these cases only help the lawyers.

In a piece for the New York Times, Philip K. Howard, Common Good’s founder and chair, provided this argument for health courts:

America needs special health courts aimed not at stopping lawsuits but at delivering fair and reliable decisions. A special court would provide expedited proceedings with knowledgeable staff that would work to settle claims quickly. Trials would be conducted before a judge who is advised by a neutral expert, with written rulings on standards of care.

With a special health court, damages would consist of all lost income and medical costs, plus “pain and suffering” based on a set schedule depending on the severity of the injury. All information about each incident, including details learned in settlements, would be compiled and disseminated so that doctors and hospitals could learn from their errors. Proponents of special health courts have estimated that the total cost of such a new liability system would be about the same as the existing system—less than 2 percent of America’s total health care costs. One benefit would be that the quicker, streamlined system would compensate far more people, with drastically lower legal costs. Most important, it would restore faith in the reliability of medical justice.

Share this Post

Continue Reading

0

Here is yet another health discount company that is being busted.  The local, state, and federal governments are not doing a thing to stop this and what is so annoying is that they could very easily stop this nonsense.  Any new health insurance company should have to pass a rigorous inspection and should not be allowed to sell health insurance or discount plans until they pass a simple test.  Two times a year the states should run a premium vs. complaints ratio test to see if the company is still in compliance with some kind of minimal standard.

These companies themselves are to me the worst kind of fraud. Worse then Madoff.  What is so ridiculous is that this is people’s lives they are playing with.  Of all the businesses to go into this is without doubt the most insane.

If you are reading this and suspect you have a discount plan please call me @ 888 803 5917 or fill out our health insurance complaint form so that I can report on it to other consumers and stop them from suffering from the same situation.   Additionally, I can file a complaint on your behalf with the state of Florida or wherever you  live and get your money back.   Help save someone from these companies.

If you are a currently a member of United American, Mega, Midwest National, Cinergy, ALR, or anyother health insurance plan that is suspect now is the time to cancel.

Mary Lloyd’s husband was lying in the intensive care unit of an Arizona hospital when she got a good look at their new health insurance card for the first time.

Then she got the shock of her life. The card read: “This is NOT an insurance card.”

For the retired couple from East Bethel, it was the beginning of a financial nightmare that left them with at least $50,000 in unpaid medical bills. They discovered that the new “health plan,” they signed up for in January, for $499 a month, wouldn’t pay for any of his medical care.

“I was royally duped,” said Mary Lloyd, a painful admission from a woman who spent 27 years as a clinic and hospital manager. “I understand health care, and I understand health insurance,” she said. “That’s why I was so mortified that this happened to us.”

No one knows how many customers have fallen into this trap. But dubious health plans are “spreading like poison oak all over the country,” says James Quiggle of the Coalition Against Insurance Fraud, a nonprofit watchdog in Washington, D.C.

Consumer advocates say companies are taking advantage of the recession and the growing number of uninsured people — 1 in 5 American adults under age 65 — to sell “health coverage” that evaporates when customers try to use it, or provides far less than promised.

Just last month, Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson sued two out-of-state companies for allegedly misleading customers with phony claims about their health plans; and ten more investigations are underway, she said.

“Here, they’re targeting people who are pretty sophisticated, and who really asked all the right questions,” Swanson said. People believe them, she said, because they’re “so desperate to find affordable coverage.”

Share this Post

Continue Reading