Categories

Tag: Policy

POLICY: California Policy Update By John Irvine

With support apparently growing for the Schwarzenegger plan in California, opponents are already laying the groundwork for a legal challenge. The Financial Times (UK) quotes business sources as saying lawsuits are  "all but inevitable" if the plan passes in Sacramento. That could tie the effort up in court "for years" — perhaps even until after the 2008 elections. According to the newspaper, challengers are likely to use a strategy based on the one used to overturn Maryland’s "Wal-Mart law" last month. 

"Jack Bovender, chairman and chief executive of HCA, the big hospital group, underlines the legal problems faced by such state efforts. "we’re pleased that some states have recognized the gravity of the issue of the uninsured. However, a patchwork of state plans is problematic because of potential problems with ERISA (The Federal benefits law.) That 1974 statute, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, in effect nationalized employer health plans to spare companies the cost of complying with conflicting state benefits.

"Legal challengers are (also) likely to claim that the plan imposes a disguised tax and so should require a two thirds vote of the  legislature, since California law mandates a super-majority for tax increases. Alternatively, opponents will try to use the Erisa law."

POLICY/POLITICS: Spitzer calls a spade a spade w/UPDATE

Eliot
Eliot Spitzer calls a spade a spade in his speech about reforming healthcare in New York. He goes after two of the biggest subsidized sacred cows: 1) Medicaid costs which are double the national average. In fact New York spends more on Medicaid in total than California, with a much lower population. 2) Subsidies to teaching hospitals in the form of fake graduate medical education payments.

… health care decision-making became co-opted by every interest
other than the patient’s interest.  Government abdicated its
responsibility to set standards, demand results and hold institutions
receiving billions in state tax dollars accountable to the State and to
the people those institutions serve. 

Let me give you a few examples:

Take the Berger Commission.  This was a process that should never
have been necessary in the first place.  In most industries, when the
demand for a specific service falls permanently, as has the demand for
long stays in hospitals, supply inevitably follows.  Yet because of
wasteful State subsides and the State’s failure to make strategic
choices, tax dollars have been spent on empty hospital and nursing home
beds instead of insuring our 400,000 uninsured children.  Now we face
dramatic instead of gradual change to rationalize a system in desperate
need of reform.

These changes are painful – and we will use every effort to
implement them in a way that is sensitive to patients, communities and
workers.  But because of the State’s inability to confront the status
quo, these are the kinds of hard choices we must now make to increase
health care quality and decrease health care costs. 

Another example of institutions driving the system is the way the
State pays for graduate medical education.  New York’s Medicaid program
has spent more than $8 billion over the last five years on graduate
medical education – $77,000 per graduate resident in 2005 compared to
similar states like California that spent just $21,000 per resident. 

This education is critically important, but we’re currently funding
it in an excessive and irrational way that isn’t directly correlated to
the actual students being taught – thus costing the State exorbitant
amounts of money in what amounts to general subsidies to teaching
hospitals.  In fact, when we looked closer at this broken formula, we
discovered that many of those dollars are going to pay for phantom
residents and doctors who don’t even exist.

The same lack of accountability has also been evident in the special
subsidies the State gives hospitals to underwrite labor costs.  In
January 2002, with hundreds of millions in new revenue on the table for
health care, the time was ripe for a debate on how best to invest this
money.  But instead of a public debate, the State committed billions of
dollars in new spending to underwrite a portion of the increased costs
of the hospitals’ pending labor agreement. 

As a result of this deal, well over $3 billion alone was pumped into
the health care delivery system with little to no accountability.
Don’t get me wrong: labor costs are real, and the need for training is
real.  What made this a poor choice instead of a wise investment is
that the money was not based on the number of patients served and it
didn’t create a robust system of accountability for institutions that
were growing out of control.

Good luck, Governor. Given who you’re taking on, you’re going to need it! Go read the whole thing.

UPDATE: Some just excellent discussion on this in the forums. JD writes in to comment: "I actually think Spitzer can (mostly) pull it off, though he is
directly confronting both SEIU (Local 1199 has 300,000 members in NY, I
think) and HANYS (the New York hospital association, which has massive
clout). Of these, my guess is that 1199 will be more open to compromise
for the sake of true structural reform. They are showing themselves
more and more willing to think outside the box, find win-win solutions,
and all that. HANYS, not so much. But we’ll see.
As for health plans (my area), it is still too soon to tell how
they’ll react. They won’t like the Medicaid premium freezes, though one
of Spitzer’s key cabinet members (Deborah Bachrach) was an
advocate/lobbyist for the PHSP association. PHSPs are local non-profit
Medicaid-only plans, most of which are owned by hospitals. Collectively
they have over a million members in the state. This and other
appointments mean that Spitzer’s policies are going to be informed by
people who know the ins-and-outs of both the payer and provider side,
and so we are unlikely to see misguided efforts to "bleed the bastards"
which will accomplish, exactly, nothing."

RP writes "…for every dollar we manage to cut from our Medicaid program, we will be
giving up 50 cents in federal contributions. Perhaps we should, but a
lot of that money goes to NYS residents whose health care jobs (about
10% of total jobs here in New York City, for example) might disappear
or whose wages and salaries would be cut."

POLICY: NCPA–the Manchurian think-tank?

Most people think that John Goodman’s shop NCPA is made up of libertarians and conservatives—and their leaders and their donors apparently hope so. That’s what one of their number told me at the Vegas conference this week, where true to form they were all desperately pushing HSAs.

And they seem to mean it. After all they fired one of their number (Bruce Bartlett) because he criticized W for not being a real conservative and apparently because a donor was going to pull $100K in funding if he wasn’t canned!. By the way, a gig at NCPA isn’t a bad one to have. Apparently Bartlett was getting $172K a year, and between Goodman and his wife who also works there are on well north of $600K!

So I was a little bemused when my editor at Spot-on, Chris Nolan, got a blast email from them last week. See, Chris is a professional and she changed whatever wonky title I cam up with. now the article was called Risky Business: Bush’s Health Plan and it became the second highest rated story in Google News when you searched on “Bush’s health plan”. She’s smart that Nolan woman!  There were over 6,000 pageviews of that article alone. Apparently enough to stun NCPA into action. Chris got this email:

From: "Kelley Tway"Date: January 25, 2007 12:46:34 PM PST
To: cn****@*****on.com

Subject: Response to critics of Bush health plan
            

Almost immediately after President Bush announced his health care initiative critics in the media and on Capital Hill objected to the standard tax deduction, arguing it will lead to an erosion of employer-based health care as employees, particularly healthy employees, will be lured out of their employer-based coverage to seek coverage in the individual market.
            

The belief that employees would choose an individual, private health plan over their employer-provided coverage indicates a misunderstanding of how employer plans work. All employers pay at least one-half of the health plan premiums – most pay about two-thirds. So a group plan would have to be incredibly wasteful (i.e. expensive) for an individual plan to look more attractive than their employer’s coverage. With a level tax playing field, the employer still pays at the very least half of the premium, while an employee would pay 100% of the premium for an individual plan. So, which is the more attractive option?
 
            

The standard tax deduction simply makes insurance more affordable for those who don’t receive insurance through an employer.
 
            

Please let us know if you have any question about this or would like a response to any other criticism of the Bush health plan.
 

Kelley Tway
Media Relations Coordinator,Health Care
National Center for Policy Analysis
972-308-6488
ke*********@**pa.org 
 

or
 
Sean Tuffnell
Director of Communications

National Center for Policy Analysis972-308-6481
Se***********@**pa.org
 

I must admit I thought that was pretty funny. So I dashed off this quick reply to communications honcho Kelley Tway:
   

KelleyDon’t be scared–you can email me directly. I don’t bite, well not that hard.
    
    As to your "employers will pay for health insurance" line. It’s just not true given that virtually all employer based plans are relatively generous & expensive–especially compared to the individual market.
    
   

Where in the proposal does it say that employers have to pay for health insurance for employees? Nowhere of course. That would be "pay or play"–something only lefty Democrats like Arnie and Mitt Romney think is a good idea. If you make it attractive for employees to forgo their presumed current $7500 worth of employer-provided plan, ask for a small cash raise, take the deduction, and to leave the employer plan–then why won’t they do it? That’s what $7,500 deduction means when a 25 year old can buy a HDHP in California for well under $1,500 a year. Have you guys stopped believing in market forces?

If not it’s disingenuous to think that this proposal won’t make younger and healthier people leave employer based insurance.
  And if enough of them do it, of course that will eventually put the employer insurance plans in the same spot that the rest of the cream-skimmer underwriters whom you guys so ardently support (and who fund you) have put the individual insurance market–screwed.
    
    But like you I believe that we shouldn’t have an employer-based insurance market. But don’t worry, with reforms like this, the complete pissing-off of the middle class is closer and so is the consequent Medicare for all/single payer plan. Obviously you guys are keen to see that–as it’s the logical outcomes of your policies!
  — Matthew Holt

I haven’t heard back yet, of course.  Despite the fact that they were inviting “questions”.

But was I wrong? Perhaps I hadn’t delved into the mire of the proposal enough? If so I’m clearly not the only one. Because that very next day the organ of the Republican right the WSJ ran a piece called Bush Health Plan Shifts Onus to the Consumer which included this little nugget:

At a White House briefing on Tuesday, Joel Kaplan, deputy chief of staff for policy, acknowledged that the proposal could accelerate the trend of employers dropping insurance, but emphasized that workers left without coverage would, thanks to the new tax deduction, have the means to "buy insurance in the individual market in a way that they can’t now."

Really, who is NCPA trying to kid when it suggests that it’s not interested in promoting people buying individual insurance in a fully underwritten market. And given the state of the individual market that they want to introduce consumers into (more of that anon via some interested digging Don McCanne’s been doing), they’re just going to create more and more pissed off consumers—of the age and socio-economic status where an extension of Medicare will be a very appealing vote-getter.
So you’ve got to assume, that must be what they actually want? In which case I can see the movie now. Starring Frank Sinatra or maybe Denzel Washington as John Goodman, it’s The Manchurian Think-Tank!

POLICY/POLITICS: Bush’s Health Plan

Bush_table
I’m up over at Spot-on discussing the basics of Bush’s Health Plan. Go read and return to comment.


I was awakened during my slumber through the State of the Union by a
mention from President George Bush of a health care proposal that I
almost agreed with.


No, I haven’t come around on health savings accounts, and association health plans.
Nor did I join the Republicans in their standing ovation for
malpractice reform. The Bush proposal that woke me up was the creating
a tax deduction for health insurance that would apply to everyone.
Potentially this really matters, and inside it is the germ of the right
idea. But I guarantee you that most Americans won’t have a clue where
this came from, and why it made it into the president’s speech.

Let me explain a little. Health insurance for the vast majority
of Americans (60%+) comes from their employers. 99.9% of Americans
think that this is a natural relationship that costs them nothing and
they, in general, have no idea what it costs their employer. This is
though a historical accident, with its roots in a wage freeze policy
during WWII when employers added benefits to attract workers because
they couldn’t raise pay rates. The idea became fixed after the Supreme
Court ruled that health benefits didn’t count as taxable income.


So, today, you’re better off getting insurance paid for by your
employer than taking the cash, getting taxed and buying the same
insurance yourself. Lately self-employed people have also been able to
deduct their health insurance costs so the only saps left paying for
health insurance with post-tax dollars are those who are not
self-employed, don’t get it from their insurers and actually buy it
themselves.


You may think that’s not very fair, and you’d be right. Which is why Bush’s proposal is interesting.Go on, Continue …

POLITICS: Obama seems to be coming at Clinton from the left

Rt_obama_070116_sp_1
Although he’s regarded as a sell-out by Harpers, Obama seems to be taking the sensible tack that Hillary Rodham Clinton won’t survive the Democratic primaries based on her pro-Iraq war vote and her incrementalist health care strategy. Today he called for universal care by the end of the next Presidential term.

The AP report seems to think that makes him the same as Hillary and Dennis Kucinich. That’s just ignorance of the press. Clinton has been explicit about doing this incrementally and Kucinich has been explicit about wanting single payer. Obama is, my guess, too smart to lay out any specifics. But an incremental reduction over 10 years in the uninsured rate (as AHIP favors, for example) is not the same as universal insurance by 2010.

POLICY/PHARMA/HEALTH PLANS: Michael Cannon doesn’t understand market incentives

Michael Cannon (sensible libertarian, Cato Institute) has noted that Those Who Sell Out Will Eventually Be Punished.  What he means is that once the pharmaceutical industry did the “deal with the devil” in 2003 for the creation of Medicare part D, it was only so long before real price controls will be instituted by the government. That’s because at some point the seat of power will be inhabited by those working on behalf of constituencies who dislike having their faces ripped off, as opposed to those looting the Federal treasury on behalf of the rippers-off of faces. Now that a mealy mouthed effort at negotiation has been passed by the new Democratic Congress—one that will be quickly vetoed anyway—the first signs of this “punishment” are coming.

Of course he could have said this about 1965. In fact many members of the AMA & AHA said just that at the time and bitterly opposed Medicare. Then they enjoyed 15 years of incredible rising incomes with no efforts to stop them before DRGs et al in the 1980s. And even then their incomes continued to rise for another 15 years, and haven’t rally stopped. So punishment can take a long, long time in coming.

And that is just the point. Who was the MMA passed in aid of? It was passed for the senior management at the companies it benefited—people like Hank McKinnell, Bill McGuire, Larry Glasscock. And what did they see after it was passed? Their stock prices rise when the program cut in for them (04 for United and the managed care cos, 05 for Pfizer and the pharmas) which of course sent the value of their retirement packages go through the roof ($200 mill for McKinnell, $1.6Bn sh for McGuire, I believe). That’s a pretty good market incentive if you ask me! I’m surprised Michael’s one of those Keynsians worried about the long run. After all none of the people “selling out” gave two hoots about it; they believe in the power of market forces.

Of course, there will be a long run, and Michael is kind of right. But it’s not those doing the selling out who will be punished. It’s the successors of McKinnell, McGuire et al who will have some cleaning up to do.

POLICY: The libertarian bickering conintues!

More bickering between Jon Cohn, me, and the sensible libertarians Arnold Kling & Clark Havinghurst over at Cato Unbound . It’s a follow up to the articles we all wrote, and now Kling replied to all three of us, we’ve all replied back, and he’s replied back too….all extremely good stuff!

POLICY/HOSPITALS: (Google) Mapping NYC Health Care Disparity: 1985-2007, by Mike Connery, The Opportunity Agenda

About 9 months ago research director of The Opportunity Agenda, Brian Smedley, guest-blogged on THCB about a New England Journal of Medicine study. his colleague Mike Connery wrote to me to tell me about this:

Yesterday, as part of our Health Equity program, we rolled out a new tool that I think you’ll find very interesting. The tool is a new website designed to visually illustrate the economic and racial disparities that exist in New York City’s health care system, and drive all New Yorker’s of conscience to take action by emailing their elected officials. It’s a Google Map mash-up that takes data on NYC hospital closures between 1985 and 2007, and overlays it on an interactive city-wide map that can display either the racial or economic demographics of the Five Boroughs during three periods: 1985, 1995, and 2005. 

Using this tool, visitors can visually see how hospital closures disproportionately impact poor neighborhoods and communities of color.  Text on the sidebar guides the user through each decade and demographic overlay, explaining the changing conditions of the city and the impact that closures have on underserved communities.But the site is more than just a visual resource, it is also a data-rich resource for researchers that contains a variety of reports and fact sheets (as well as data on the patient demographics, payer source, and quality scores for each hospital), a community forum for health care advocates and New Yorkers, and an activism tool that encourages New Yorkers to write to their elected officials in support of creating a health care system that works equally for all. 

All data on the site is from the census bureau, the New York State Department of Health and the New York State Planning and Research Cooperative System.  The data were analyzed by Darrel Gaskin of the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. The Opportunity Agenda, in partnership with a coalition of NYC health care advocates, assembled this map in response to the activities of The Berger Commission (aka the hospital closures commission), whose recommendations are now sitting on Gov. Spitzer’s desk. You can find more info on the Berger Commission here.

When we talk about health care policy in America, very rarely do we mention the roles that class and race play in determining our access to and the quality of health care that we receive. Hope you find the tool interesting and useful.

assetto corsa mods