Category: Uncategorized

Abortion Coverage Is About Math As Well As Politics

Nov 12, 2009• 16

By Al LEWIS

Let us start by acknowledging that those who think abortion is a sin must be respected, and not forced into a risk pool that covers abortion. Let us also acknowledge that those who are pro-choice need to acknowledge that abortion (except in the case of rape or incest or potential significant harm to the mother) is a personal choice (albeit usually as a result of an accident) rather than a health issue in the narrow sense of the word.

Therefore, leaving all the politics aside and just focusing on the question of what should be covered in a basic benefit, it is not unreasonable to require an actuarially appropriate rider to cover abortion.

What would that “actuarially appropriate rider” be? Probably only a dollar or two a month to begin with. Figure that there are 800,000 abortions per year. They cost maybe $1000 apiece. That’s $800,000,000. Divided by the 21-65 year-old health-insurance-buying population, we are talking about roughly $4/year. Next, figure some self-selection into the rider, so that people with the rider might, on average, think they have (for instance) three times the probability of an unwanted pregnancy than people without the rider, which is why they get the rider. Therefore their likelihood of abortion is three times higher than the average on which the above calculation was based. So that $4 becomes $12/year or $1/month, to begin with.

The Best Health Care Idea All Year

Nov 11, 2009• 23

By ROBERT LASZEWSKI

Out of almost nowhere has come momentum for a proposal to create a bipartisan entitlement and tax commission to draft proposals to control the long-term costs of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. The idea would require the Congress to quickly vote the recommendations up or down via a super majority vote.

The idea isn’t new–proposals for a such a commission have been around for a longtime.

What is new is the bipartisan enthusiasm that is growing–particularly in the Senate. Coming out of the Budget Committee, and Chairman Kent Conrad and Ranking Republican Judd Gregg, the idea is picking up bipartisan steam with, among others, Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell expressing general support for the idea.

A number of Senators have threatened to tie their votes to raise the deficit ceiling to establishing such a commission.

If the recent Democratic health care bills have made one thing crystal clear it is that the Congress is wholly incapable of dealing with cost containment under present circumstances.

Robert Laszweski has been a fixture in Washington health policy circles for the better part of three decades. He currently serves as the president of Health Policy and Strategy Associates of Alexandria,
Virginia. Before forming HPSA in 1992, Robert served as the COO, Group Markets, for the Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. You can read more of his thoughtful analysis of healthcare industry trends at The Health Policy and Marketplace Blog, where this post first appeared.

Medicare’s Biggest Change in 40 Years on the Horizon?

Nov 11, 2009• 2

By Vince Kuraitis

Earlier this week CMS issued a typically cryptic Announcement indicating that they were shelving the Medicare Medical Home Demonstration (MMHD) and instead would focus on the recently announced Multi-Payer Advanced Primary Care Initiative (MAPCI). My blog post from Tuesday provides details and asks the question “What does all this mean?”

Medicare’s Biggest Change in 40 Years?

CMS’ Announcement about the rise of MAPCI and the fall of MMHD struck me as highly significant…but all the pieces didn’t fit. I’ve spent a fair amount of time emailing and talking with colleagues this week…and the big picture is emerging…and it’s really BIG. My working hypothesis is that Medicare is on the verge of its biggest
change in 40 years:

Medicare was created as a centralized, monolithic payment model.
It’s been one size fits all, and that size is created in Washington DC.
There has been little tolerance of regional administrative variability,
and the ironic result has been high variability in regional costs and
quality.
Medicare seems poised to do a 180. It’s signaling movement toward
supporting state-based, multipayer initiatives — where Medicare is at
the table and influential, but not in control. It’s a recognition that
health care is local and that unique solutions will be needed in
different regional markets. The Obama administration is demonstrating
strong support for the Patient Centered Medical Home (PCMH) and
Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) as important building blocks in
this transition.Continue reading…

Dave Durenberger on Lieberman

Nov 11, 2009• 2

By Matthew Holt

Former Minnesota Senator Dave Durenberger, a thinking centrist Republican (remember them?) puts out an occasional newsletter full of gems. This is today’s zinger:

The Senate has a better bill than the House, but it also has a 60-vote requirement which empowers the odd-ball “if not my way, the highway” members – like Joe Lieberman claiming that something like a public insurance plan violates his “conscience.” I guess I don’t understand Conservative Judaism.

Intermountain – Proof That U.S. Hospitals Can Improve

Nov 10, 2009• 23

By MAGGIE MAHAR

I urge everyone to read this story by David Leonhardt in this Sunday’s (November 8) New York Times. (Thanks to reader Lisa Lindel for spotting it. )

Leonhardt profiles Intermountain Healthcare, a network of hospitals and clinics in Utah and Idaho that President Obama and others have described as a model for health reform.

Leonhardt concludes:

“If you simply looked at Intermountain’s overall results — the good outcomes and low costs — you might be tempted to dismiss them as a product of the environment. Utah has the youngest population of any state, as well one of the lowest rates of alcohol and tobacco use. More than half of the state’s residents are Mormons. This homogeneity creates a noticeable sense of community, even a sense of mission, among many Intermountain doctors and nurses.Continue reading…

The Federated Health System of America

Nov 10, 2009• 4

By GLENN LAFFEL

After a spy plane confirmed the Soviet Union was building launch platforms for first-strike ballistic missiles in Cuba in October, 1962, President John F. Kennedy convened his Joint Chiefs of Staff and cabinet members to help him decide how to respond.

Kennedy managed the diverse input he received, including surreal, saber-rattling rants from Air Force General Curtis Lemay, and eventually resolved the crisis. It was the closest we ever came to nuclear war.

But the consensus-based, inclusive leadership style JFK used to resolve the Cuban Missile Crisis doesn’t seem to be working as well for President Obama as his Health Reform Express barrels towards an unknown final destination.

Take the latest cockamamie plans for the public option, for example. As the House and Senate struggle to cobble together some semblance of a bill, we hear that the end result is likely to contain a public option along with a rider that allows states to opt out of it if they so choose.This ridiculous compromise is the byproduct President Obama’s decision to let Congressional group-think generate a legislative package that (a)could pass Congress and (b)he could sign. In making this decision, Obama sacrificed his principles before the altar of political success.

Where were you?

Nov 9, 2009• 4

By MICHAEL PAINTER

I distinctly remember the first time I heard the title, “National Coordinator for Health Information Technology”. It was 2004. That’s, of course, the year that RAND released its important national report card highlighting the overall mediocre state of health care quality. You know the one that told us “it’s a flip of a coin.” I was an RWJF Health Policy Fellow working on the Hill with then Majority Leader Bill Frist’s health policy staff.

There was a flurry of staff activity regarding the president’s pending executive order pushing adoption of the electronic health record and creating a new federal health information technology, dare I say, czar. . . . But what to call this new position? To be honest, when I initially heard folks say the words, “national coordinator for health information technology,” my first thought was, “Well, that’s a mouthful.” My second was “It sort of sounds like a character from that TV show, ‘The Love Boat’”. But I kept those smart remarks to myself and quite quickly got on board—and, to be honest, never looked back.Continue reading…

Are We Too Small to Succeed?

Nov 9, 2009

By DON LINDSTROM

The logic behind the government bailouts in the financial and automobile industries goes like this: some institutions are so large and interconnected that their failure could collapse the entire economy. They are considered to be too big to fail. The notion of too big to fail implies its opposite, that some individuals and businesses are too small to succeed. Of course, that includes most Americans.

Author, commentator, and former Republican strategist, Kevin Phillips, uses the near economic collapse to illustrate current reality regarding American values. He calls the government bailouts welfare for the financial sector. Conversely, he points out that whenever topics like universal health care or national pensions arise, they are invariably described as too expensive or socialistic. The same arguments were made about the bailouts, but they did not prevail. Thus, we can afford to bail out large corporate entities in self-made crises, but we cannot afford a basic level of health care for all Americans. This has been true for nearly a century. Prior to the Great Depression, government took a hands-off approach to economic bubbles, allowing the ‘invisible hand’ to work its magic. Since that time, government has taken a hands-on approach to economic crises. In the current case, everybody must pay for the greed of a few, some of whom continue to be rewarded for their behavior. The invisible hand seems to have become the visible finger.

In contrast, universal health care has been proposed and defeated repeatedly over the past century (in 1915, 1935, 1948, and 1994). With the exception of the old and the infirm (Medicare) and the young, the disabled, and the poor (Medicaid), we as a society have not defined health care as a public good like education or police and fire services. The Social Security Act of 1965 that created Medicare and Medicaid is attributed to the masterful legislative skills of LBJ.

Unlike comedian Jack Benny, our leaders don’t have to think much about the question, “Your money or your life?” With the exception of the SSA of 1965, financial security (money) has always trumped health security (life). In effect, the acute condition (economic crisis) gets action while the chronic condition (health insecurity) does not.

For those with health insurance who have not tested its boundaries, health care is not a crisis. It might be costly. It might be time consuming. It might be infuriating to navigate the insurance and health care labyrinth. But it’s not a crisis. It will probably take a catastrophe like the collapse of the safety net hospitals before universal health care becomes public policy.

Many Americans believe the fix is in, the system is rigged. A friend refers to members of Congress as “the whores in Congress” and suggests they should wear sponsor patches like those worn by NASCAR drivers. To be fair, we the people don’t seem to have a problem with outsourcing political campaigns to the private sector. That’s the game we allow to be played in Washington.

If health care were a product, this would be the current offering. Pay twice as much as other industrialized countries, waste 30% to 40% of that payment due to a highly inefficient system, get lower overall quality (33% less value in terms of outcomes), cover only 80% to 85% of the population, and put 15% to 20% of those with insurance at risk financially if they fully use the product. According to the Business Roundtable, this product puts American business at a competitive disadvantage globally.

One wonders if Yankee ingenuity has died or has simply been co-opted by a collection of balkanized special interests. If we Americans are unable to create a sensible health care system out the current mess, we really are too small to succeed.

Don Lindstrom is a business strategy consultant. His firm recently recommended a redesign of the Florida Medicaid program. He can be reached at do*@**************nc.com.

We the Consumers

Nov 7, 2009• 32

By MARGALIT GUR-ARIE

There has been much talk lately about the Consumer movement in health care. The health insurance industry has given us the Consumer Driven Health Care (CDHC), which has gained much traction in the marketplace in the form of high deductible insurance plans, where the Consumer, having “skin in the game” now, is expected to make informed decisions on how to spend his or her money on health care services. The Consumer is empowered and in control of health care expenditures.

And then there are the various Consumer advocacy groups demanding an end to the paternalistic approach to the practice of medicine. Doctors should relinquish control to the Consumer. Consumers should actively manage their care by obtaining and controlling their medical records. Consumers should be informed by the medical establishment of the latest evidence-based best practices, timely research and costs of treatment. The Consumers will then make an informed decision aided by a myriad of peer and professional information available on the internet.

That’s a lot of new responsibilities for most of us who have no idea how much a visit to the doctor costs and even less of an idea whether or not we need that stent, assuming that we even know what a stent really is. Well, since we are Consumers now, not just passive patients, let’s see how we stack up to our brand new responsibilities.Continue reading…