Tag: Medicare

Convergence and the Death of the Public Option

Dec 10, 2009• 9

By TIM GREANEY

So maybe the two parties are coming together on health reform after all. Last night we learned that after days of “secret talks” among the “gang of ten” the Democrats have reached agreement to restructure their health care proposal. The changes are significant:

– ditch the already-watered-down public option plan;

– create a new insurance exchange “option” for individuals and small groups consisting of a nonprofit plan as negotiated by the Office of Personnel Management;

– expand Medicare eligibility to cover uninsured individuals aged 55-64.

What does the Democrats’ “public option ultralight” compromise have in common with Republicans’ alternative universe? Well, consider the latter’s proposal to open interstate competition for all health insurers–a move they promise will immediately lower health care costs. Besides being shameless attempts to offer simple solutions to complex problems, the two proposals are guilty of the same fundamental misunderstanding of health insurance. Simply put, they both ignore a critical economic truth of health insurance today: insurers require a provider network of hospitals and doctors or must have market leverage in order to negotiate for lower provider prices and for controls on excessive volume.

Making (sh)it up as they go along

Dec 9, 2009• 9

By Matthew Holt

So today’s news is that the gang of ten have come up with something. (If you haven’t been following along, the gang of ten are the five “liberal” Democrats and the five DINOs asked by Harry Reid to come up with something to break the deadlock and get some type of compromise that will pass the Senate). More details are here from Brian Beutler at TPM

So it might vanish like a Clinton-era trial balloon, or it might be a stayer, but the core of the new concept is to allow the 55–64 crowd to buy into Medicare, and to ask/allow/mandate a non-profit insurer(s) to provide a substitute public option. Exactly what the second point means is unclear to me. It may turn out to be some collapsing of Kent Conrad’s notion of the cooperative with an extension of the Federal Employees’ Plan (presumably minus the for-profit carriers) and somehow cramming that into the exchange. Of course providing something like the choice among private plans that Federal Employees now get was at the heart of Ron Wyden’s plan. We’ll see if it can last a couple of days scrutiny, or the wrath of the House Democrats.

The Medicare buy-in seems both sensible politics and half-decent policy.

The Leaning Tower of Jello: Why No-one Believes Health Reform will be Deficit Neutral

Dec 1, 2009• 42

By JEFF GOLDSMITH

President Obama has promised not to sign any health reform legislation that increases the federal deficit. This promise recognized rising public concern about an Argentinean fiscal trend that, unchecked, could leave us with $19 trillion in federal debt in a decade.

Without that pledge, given the current economic climate, health reform would be one dead mackerel.

Some clarifications are essential here. I’m a Democrat and fervent Obama supporter. I voted for him twice (and that was just in the Virginia primary). I’m proud of our President. He has first class economic and healthcare teams. He deserves credit for not postponing health reform. He’s right: it’s simply not tolerable, morally or economically, for a wealthy nation to continue having close to 50 million uninsured people.

This Just In

Nov 20, 2009• 4

By ARON BOROS

Yesterday, but the U.S. Treatment Services Task Force announced that leeches aren’t a particularly good treatment for most ailments. While noting that leeches might still be useful for certain specific circulation disorders, the USTSTF recommended against their use in other situations, like treating fever and abdominal pains.

Although the Task Force has no power to make anyone do anything, Rep. Dave Camp (R-Mich) was heard on NPR’s Morning Edition saying, “Some people discounted the idea that the government would actually put people to death … this actually is really showing how the insidious encroachment of government between the patient and their doctor plays out.” Camp neglected to address the facts: (1) overuse of leeches is expensive, and science-based recommendations about appropriate use would save the government money without harming patients, and (2) bloodletting can lead to negative side effects, such as upsetting the body’s natural humoral balance.

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…

State of Health Care Quality: Some States Better Than Others

Oct 23, 2009• 6

Peggy O’Kane has been running the NCQA for longer than she might care to remember. NCQA is an independent, non-profit organization whose mission is to improve the quality of health care everywhere, but it’s best known for creating the HEDIS measures that rate health insurer and provider performance. I’ve been a fan of Peggy since I met her in the mid-1990s. Today she shows she’s still fighting the good fight. This is her first contribution to THCB —Matthew Holt

Suppose you’re one of the 22 million Americans living with diabetes and you have to decide where you want to live. Your choices: Providence, Rhode Island, or Houston, Texas. Providence is pretty and you’d have easy access to lobster dinners and weekends at the Cape. But Houston is warmer in the winter and just a hop, skip and a jump from a weekend in Cancun. A hard decision but you’re leaning toward Houston because, let’s face it, you hate shoveling snow!But then you take a look at the 13th annual State of Health Care Quality Report by the National Committee for Quality Assurance (plug alert: I run the place) and you find out the quality of care for diabetics is nearly 11 percentage points better in New England than it is in the South Central region of the U.S. and you begin to reconsider. In fact, you look at the newest data released October 22 and you find that the quality of care in the Texas region of the country is consistently the worst while care in New England is almost always the best. Providence here I come!

Here’s the problem: Most people don’t have a choice of moving from Texas or Oklahoma or Alabama to Massachusetts, Connecticut or Rhode Island. They have to live with the health care system they have. For a diabetic, those 11 points can translate into more kidney problems, loss of vision, toe or foot amputations or, heaven forbid, a shorter lifespan.The thing is, it doesn’t have to be this way. True, care isn’t going to be identical in all parts of the country. And, true, the population of Dallas may have a lot more health problems than the people in Hartford. But 11 points is too big a gap to explain away with demographics.

Hiding In Plain Sight: Using Medicare To Solve The ‘Public Option’ Conundrum

Oct 21, 2009• 53

Barack Obama_addresses_joint_session_of_congress_2-24-09 As Senate and House Committee versions of health reform move toward unified legislation and floor votes, the most complex political challenge is how to resolve the “public option” controversy. While one would have thought weightier issues such as the shape of Medicare reform, the taxation required to support coverage subsidies, or the presence or absence of mandates would have been pivotal in this debate, the seemingly peripheral issue of a Medicare-like “public option” might be the hill on which health reform dies.

The reasons are almost completely political. The Democratic base wants to end private health insurance. Single payer advocates view the public option as a down payment on an entirely public health financing system. Public option advocates believe that the plan’s bargaining power will drive private insurers out of business. (I’ve argued in a previous blog posting that, without fully understanding what they are doing, these single payer advocates are probably right.)Continue reading…

Op-Ed: Our Misplaced Faith in High-Tech Medicine

Oct 13, 2009

Merrill Goozner

By MERRILL GOOZNER

The following essay appeared on the website of the Hastings Cente r, which is running a colloquium on the values behind health care reform.

“One could make a good case that improvements in education and job creation could be a better use of limited funds than better medical care.” – Daniel Callahan, “Medical Progress: Unintended Consequences”

The president emeritus of the Hastings Center opens his insightful essay with the observation that the American people’s faith in medical progress is boundless. In this short comment, I want to expand on his thoughts by reexamining the cardinal tenets of that faith, since they embody a set of values that distract us from building a society that promotes good health, an infinitely more difficult task than building a better sick care system.Continue reading…

Medicare and Health Reform: Part II

Oct 7, 2009• 21

baucus

By THOMAS GREANEY

In his closing remarks to the Senate Finance Committee last week, Senator Baucus pointed with special pride to the effect the Committee’s reform bill will have on shaping the health care system in the longer run:

One point I want to make… is about delivery system reform. We are starting here in this bill to finally reform our delivery system so it’s based much more on quality and patient focus, moving ever so slowly, but inexorably, from fee for service….which causes a lot of the waste in our system. We’re not going to see savings, the benefits, to the system for a while… but after four, five, six years from now, we’re going to see the real benefits of reform.Continue reading…