Categories

Tag: Policy

From Chatter, To Ideas, To Action: Humana’s Change Now 4 Health Campaign

You may be dubious that a big health insurer has much to add to the policy debate. But buried inside many of the giants are some interesting people indeed. Case in point Humana and its attempt to start an open discussion about reform. Here’s Fard Johnmar to give his perspective.

In late 2003, Congress funded a potentially powerful initiative designed to engage ordinary Americans in a dialogue about health reform.  This project, The Citizens’ Health Care Working Group (CHCWG), was funded along with the controversial Medicare Part D program.  It was designed to ignite a national public debate about how to improve the US health system so that “every American can obtain quality, affordable healthcare coverage.”  Beginning in 2005, 14 people, handpicked by the US Comptroller General held a series of meetings with ordinary Americans (the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) served as the 15th member).  In addition, thousands of Americans chimed in online with their ideas for changing the system.  They made the following recommendations: -Establish Public Policy That All Americans Have Affordable Healthcare-Guarantee Financial Protection Against Very High Healthcare Costs-Foster Innovative Integrated Community Health Networks-Define Core Benefits & Services For All Americans-Promote Efforts To Improve Quality Of Care & Efficiency-Fundamentally Restructure The Way End-of-Life Services Are Financed & ProvidedIn September 2006, the Working Group delivered its recommendations to President George Bush.  In March, the president responded by rejecting CHCWG’s proposals.  HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt explained the president’s decision, saying that Bush agreed with many of the Working Group’s goals.  However, he “supports an approach emphasizing consumer choice and options . . . rather than mandates and government intervention.” Fundamental Healthcare Reform: Forever Stuck On Neutral? Bush’s response to the Working Group’s proposals highlights a key barrier to fundamental healthcare reform.  There are serious differences between many groups on how to radically change the system, which creates almost insurmountable logjams.  As William Roper, dean of the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, observed in the latest edition of Health Affairs: “The lesson of time, at least in quarter-century increments, is that the United States is fundamentally conservative in its view on changing its healthcare system.  Despite talk then and now by health policy elites about ‘fundamental reform,’ most changes in the U.S. healthcare system have been incremental.”  I agree with Roper.  Unfortunately, fundamental change will remain stuck on neutral for the foreseeable future.  Yet, we still have urgent problems that demand answers and the clock is ticking – in more ways than one.  In another essay published in this month’s edition of Health Affairs, Leonard Schaeffer suggests the usual suspects are running out of time to shape policy.  He thinks, “budget hawks and national security experts will eventually combine forces to cut health spending, ultimately determining health policy for the nation.” We must not allow this nightmare scenario to come to pass.  Although CHCWG Hit A Brick Wall, Is People Power Still The Answer? Although CHCWG failed to gain traction, getting the masses involved in reform efforts is a good idea.  However, we need to quickly move from attempting to broadly shape health policy to immediately implementing concrete ideas for change.  Fortunately, enterprising individuals, corporations and government agencies from across the country are chipping away at the system’s problems.  Unfortunately, these ideas often do not catch on nationwide because we don’t know about them.  This is where Humana comes in.  On November 19, the health company will officially launch Change Now 4 Health (CN4H), a broad, grassroots coalition committed to improving the nation’s healthcare system through immediate action.  Although launched in the shadow of CHCWG, Humana is not reinventing the wheel.  Rather it is: -Using Web 2.0 tools including blogs and online forums to form communities of change-oriented individuals to address specific problems-Doing its best to encourage rapid action rather than more recommendations for change that may or may not be implemented by policymakers -Using the wisdom of crowds to focus national attention on solutions to our shared problems -Allowing the community to come up with ideas rather than trying to control the conversation Of course, the biggest question is whether Humana can credibly manage this effort.  If it were trying to control CN4H from above, the answer would be no.  Instead, the company is doing something revolutionary (for the health industry).  It is providing the platform for CN4H, but leaving it up the community to determine its own direction.  Humana is putting its trust in the collective expertise of the public to determine its own course. How Will CN4H Move Beyond Talk To Action? Ultimately, Humana hopes to generate concrete ideas by facilitating three levels of online dialogue about reform:-Level 1 – High Level Issues: Humana has recruited a number of individuals (I am one of them) to develop blogs on key problems facing the health system.  While we are being compensated for our time, Humana is leaving editorial control of the blogs to us.  My blog focuses on how we can help consumers make better health decisions.  Humana has not edited or censored any of my blog posts. –Level 2 – Concrete Ideas For Change: This month, Humana will launch a series of online forums where individuals can discuss ideas for change.  –Level 3 – Idea Submission & Discussion:  To encourage public comment, Humana will produce an online form where people can submit their ideas for changing the system – today.  These ideas will be funneled into the bulletin boards and discussed on the community blogs.  Also, community participants will be able to vote on ideas. Spreading Ideas For Change Humana has committed to help spread the ideas generated by the community in a number of ways.  Most importantly, the company will fund the production of an e-book, tentatively titled “50 Ideas For Changing Health Today.” The fifty ideas receiving the most votes by the community will be featured in the book.  This free publication will be made available on the CN4H Website and major online book retailers, such as Barnes & Noble.com and Amazon.com.  Humana will also distribute the book to stakeholders in both the public and private sectors.  CN4H: Putting The Wisdom Of Crowds To Work I decided to become involved with this effort for many reasons.  (And, although it is nice to be compensated for some of my time, money had very little to do with it.)  Most importantly, I am a firm believer in the power of the wisdom of crowds to solve the most complex and vexing problems – health reform certainly qualifi
es.  In addition, I have been frustrated that previous efforts to change the health system have resulted in a lot of sound and fury, but very little action.  We need reform now, and our collective wisdom and intellect can make a real difference.  I encourage everyone reading this post to: –Visit The CN4H Community Website: Currently, the site features blog posts, but Humana will be deploying additional tools and features at and after the program’s launch –Spread The Word:  We are relying on the online community to shape the program.  Please help us by spreading the word about CN4H –Discuss, Submit & Vote On Ideas: Help make the e-book “50 Ideas For Changing Health Today” a reality by discussing, submitting and voting on ideas generated by the community I look forward to seeing what we can do together. 

Man Bites Dog: Candor in Washington, By Michael L. Millenson

Something odd happened when the health policy establishment gathered in Washington last Thursday to celebrate the 25th anniversary of Health Affairs and honor founding editor-in-chief John Iglehart on his retirement. Perhaps because so many of the participants knew each other so well, the Health Policy Summit was marked by genuine thoughtfulness and persistent outbursts of candor.

In the former category, former-Bush-administration-all-purpose-expert Mark McClellan gave a closely reasoned keynote calling for a health care system that functioned as a “learning organization” for the advancement of evidence-based medicine.  Unfortunately, the dense content was difficult to fully follow in a paper read off with the pace and inflection of a husband assuring his wife he’d remembered to pick up all the groceries.

In the candor category, Gail Wilensky, a high-ranking official in Bush I, noted that the health care reform proposals of the Republican candidates at this point in the primary season did not represent serious attempts at universal coverage. HCA CEO Jack Bovender, identifying himself as a life-long Republican, was even blunter.  Asked what he liked about the Republican proposals, he replied: “Nothing.” Bovender then rattled off a three-point plan for universal coverage that he thought Republicans could support.

Nor did the Republicans have a lock on political non-pandering.

Continue reading…

POLICY: Dogs and sores at the Gray Lady, yet again

I thought that the NY Times was getting better, honestly. After all Gina Kolata, a major offender in the dogs licking sores series of last year, did feature Jack Wennberg this summer. But then recently the Times published an op-ed written by a big Pharma PR flack. At least that was an op-ed, even if it should have been on the op-ed pages of the WSJ. Now, we have “economic view” on health care written by Greg Manikw, the former chief Bush economic adviser who appears to be reinventing himself as a Romney flack. Manikw has some interesting ideas about carbon taxes (which of course never saw the light of day while he had any influence in the Administration), but why does the Times “economic view” on health care means regurgitating a bunch of Manhattan Institute talking points?

For that matter, if he’s an economist, why isn’t Manikw making any attempt at balance? And why is the Times letting him get away with this. As I said, it’s not the WSJ.

OK, so what are the points he makes. Standard Manhattan talking point stuff, so let me add the standard talking point answers.

Continue reading…

Woodstock of the Wonks: The Health Policy Establishment Honors One of its Own – Michael L. Millenson

Ha25yr
You might call it the Washington Woodstock of the Wonks.

Hundreds of members of the health policy establishment gathered in the nation’s capital last Thursday to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the premier health policy journal, Health Affairs, and honor editor-in-chief John Iglehart on his retirement from the position he’s held since the journal’s founding. How a publication whose first issue is dated Winter, 1981 can celebrate a 25th anniversary on the eve of Winter, 2007 was a question that went unanswered. On the other hand, when’s the last time numbers coming out of Washington actually added up?

Continue reading…

POLICY: And a little more from Health Affairs

My favorite parts of the magazine are the book reviews and the letters. One book, the reviewer loves; another (with a different reviewer) not so much. Cue letters, is my guess. (Inside joke. I’m sorry)

Meanwhile, it’s about time Health Affairs made its charts a) more easily understandable, and b) ready for online publication. (This editions are not even readable in some cases). We’ve learned something about communication of complex data in the last 25 years and it’s about time the magazine that is the bible of health policy caught up.

POLICY: State-sponsored terrorism, courtesy of the DEA

This from a May 2001 discussion article in The Guardian about the new definition the Bush Administration introduced

Using the definition preferred by the state department, terrorism is: "Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant* targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience."

<SNIP>

The key point about terrorism, on which almost everyone agrees, is that it’s politically motivated.

Despite Californians voting for Prop 215 in 1996 and in every survey since clearly being in favor of medical marijuana, this is how the DEA treats those running dispensaries. It violently raids their homes with massive firepower, takes their money, assets and possessions, and destroys their families by taking away their children. And of course this is designed—for purely political purposes—to send a message to anyone wishing to protest the Federal government’s insane policies, or trying to help patients. Both of which are legal under state law.

If that’s not terrorism under the Administration’s definition, then I don’t know what is. When we get a change of Administration the DEA needs to be abolished. And we need, at the least, a Truth and Reconciliation Commission where those involved in its policies and actions can confess their sins. I have no idea how these people sleep at night.

POLICY: Socialized fire departments & trading up

Michael Millenson’s excellent and biting piece on the willingness of Orange Country Republicans to accept socialized fire departments has provoked great response. But of course this being America, even the concept of us “all being in this together” for a devastating disaster isn’t quite true.

Friday’s LA Times has an article about private home insurers running a “concierge-level” fire protection service for those in very expensive homes, and it appears that in some cases the intervention of the private firemen was the difference between saving a $3-5m home and it burning down like the one across the street.

There are obvious comparisons to the privatization of police forces—both the growth in special security companies and the over-staffing of police in tony towns compared to the under-staffing in poorer towns where there’s way more crime. And it does seem unfair that in the midst of the crisis some people got better treatment.

But I don’t think the private firemen completely defeat the concept of social insurance for health care. If you think about it, this is exactly what happens in the UK. Everyone pays into the pool according to their ability to do so. No one is sent a bill for fire protection or health care from the socialized provider, whatever their need. But in the UK and in many universal insurance companies countries, you can trade up to buy supplementary insurance that allows you to jump the queue in certain cases—a little like having the private fire guy come and spray extra retardant on your roof. But the main fire department will still be the ones coming to try to save your house when the fire actually gets into your backyard.

Of course the danger here is that everyone of any means gets the private fire insurance, and then decides that they don’t need to pay for the socialized fire department. Then, if you can’t afford private fire insurance, your house will be left to burn down—while what’s left of the underfunded socialized fire department does its best while overwhelmed by demands from the rest of the poor saps who couldn’t afford private coverage.

And that’s essentially what we have in health care now.

Massachusetts Health Care Reform : The Canary in the Coal Mine

Advocates for health care reform have been keeping an eye on Massachusetts, hopeful that its new health reform law will serve as a pilot program for the nation.

I’m much less hopeful than I was two days ago.

Yesterday I attended the Massachusetts Medical Society’s Eighth Annual Leadership Forum where I was one of four speakers. This year, the Society (which owns The New England Journal of Medicine)  focused on the cost of health care –with a special emphasis on funding universal coverage in Massachusetts. The new was not good. While the citizens of   Massachusetts believe that everyone has a right to health care (when polled 92% say “yes”), no one wants to pay for universal coverage.   When asked “if the only way to make sure that everyone can get the health care services they need is to have a substantial increase in taxes [should we do it] 55% said “no.”

One speaker at the forum recalled a man who explained why taxpayers shouldn’t have to pick up the bill: “The government should pay for it.” (He didn’t disclose who he thinks “the government” is. )Continue reading…

HEALTH PLANS: Health Plans Behaving Badly

I spent Monday lecturing a bunch of health plans about their bad behavior and how that had to change or they’d eventually be put out of business. So how might that not play out? Here’s my best guess up at Spot-on. It’s called Health Plans Behaving Badly.

It’s not been too pretty a picture for America’s health insurers lately. Sure they’re still turning decent profits, but for the past two years their stocks have barely been matching the S&P 500 Index. What went wrong? Well, you can blame Wall Street. The Street is concerned with two things. Money now and money later.

Since 2001 the big health plans have managed to increase the percentage they keep of fast-growing health care premiums (which have been going up at 3 to 4 times the rate of inflation), a number known to stock analysts as the as the MLR. It used to be that for most big insurers roughly 82-87% of premiums went out the door to pay for actual doctors, hospitals, drugs et al. Now the MLR is generally below 80%, and in some cases below 75% meaning less money’s out the door and more is on the bottom line of the health plans.

But the health insurer party that’s been going on for most of this decade may be coming to an end. But perhaps being busted by the cops and being told to tidy the house might be the best thing that ever happened to the insurers. Let me explain.

Read the rest and come back here to comment as ever.

assetto corsa mods