Categories

Above the Fold

POLICY/POLITICS: It’s all the illegal Austrian socialist’s fault

It’s all quite amusing. You wouldn’t know it, but there are no problems with health care in California, and what Arnie did yesterday was a display of showing his true feelings—a combination of handouts to illegal aliens and an introduction of European socialism.

At least that’s what you’d think if your only source was reading the Los Angeles Times reader comments about the proposal. Methinks that the FreeRepublic or Michelle Malkin crowd was sent over there….

(BTW I’ll be writing more about the Arnie plan at Spot-on tomorrow, but I wrote most of what I think the result will be there last week)

HEALTH PLANS/POLICY: And it’s a right, and a left, and another right–I’m not sure he can take any more…

You’d think the LA Times’s Lisa Girion would have had the human decency to stop beating up the health insurance industry. It’s getting close to the time when the referee should step in to save the insurers from further punishment. But oh no, it’s haymakers landing on the chin time after time.

This time she uncovers another little nuance about why the individual insurance market is such a disaster—entire classifications of occupations are automatically disqualified. Good article, go read it.

I’m reminded of two things. One, back in 1991 Mary Ann O’Sullivan then (I think) of Health Access gave a speech in which she described exactly the same thing. She quoted one insurer denying used car salesmen insurance because “you just can’t trust those people!”

Two, I paraglide, and on the paragliding list in a discussion about how to make sure that your health insurance covered paragliding we got a beautifully naive question from a recent immigrant from (I think) Hungary where the national paragliding association groups together and buys health insurance for its members. He suggested that the US national association did the same thing as the Hungarians! Some of us on the list suggested that this might not be the best way to go about finding affordable insurance.

0107_health_brand_250x250

TECH: Nerd med student builds “the GMR, An EMR That Doesn’t Suck”

Graham Walker, Stanford med student and blogger, is such a nerd that he’s built what he thinks is a better interface for an EMR–trying to make it a true desktop work-tool using Web2.0 type tools.

I’m not an expert on EMR interfaces, other than knowing most docs don’t like them, so go to his web site, and take a look at the movie demo. This may be how progress gets made.

Anyway, go take a look if the EMR in actual use is your bag.

TECH/CONSUMERS/BLOGS: Information Therapy and Other Ways to Change the World

Josh Seidman, the President of the Center for Information Therapy, and someone I must confess to knowing and liking, has descended into the mire and started his own blog. He told me that a friend had suggested it to him—I told him his friend can’t have liked him very much!

The blog is called Information Therapy…and Other Ways to Change the World. I must also confess that I’m partly responsible for the recent entry on PHRs as I’ll be a presenter with Josh at a webinar for the Center on PHRs and Information Therapy which is coming up on Tuesday January 23. The idea is that we’d generate a little interest and get a few potential new members for the Center to listen in. I was hoping to invite THCB readers to fill out the crowd. But within 12 hours of sending out the announcement, they’d had more than 100 sites sign up, which means that we’ll have to do it twice at least, and I’m not sure there’ll be room for any more.

I’d like to think that Josh and I are such a draw that we’re responsible for the crowd. But I tend to think that (in my view 6 years too late!) the PHR is finally starting to get the attention it deserves. If you are really keen to attend, send Dorothy Jeffress at the Ix Center an email, and she’ll see if she can squeeze you in.

TECH/CONSUMERS/HEALTH PLANS: Not much employer backing for HSAs

Those of us who feel that the CDHP movement is largely being used as cover by employers for reducing the benefits (i.e. compensation) that they’re paying employees will not be too surprised by this new analysis. The source, Vimo, though is somewhat surprising for two reasons. First, it’s a little technology start-up that’s providing comparison shopping for health, and second—as is clear when you listen to the interview I did with CEO Chini Krishnan—they are more than favorably disposed to the notion of individuals doing their own shopping for not just health insurance but all types of medical goods and services. So it’s hard to imagine them benefiting from bad news about HSAs. Yet what they’ve discovered, confirming research done by the more usual suspects such as HSC,  is that as employers convert their benefit offerings over to the HDHPs, they are not funding their employees’ HSAs.

Here’s the key part from their analysis:

First, the difference (in numbers) between HDHP (3,168,000) and HSA (820,000) means that there are a lot of individuals within the group and individual markets who aren’t opening HSAs, even though they’re entitled to them. Second, HSA asset levels are also lackluster. The same AHIP study lists the average HDHP deductibles as HDHPs $2,378 for single coverage and $4,760 for family coverage. The average HSA balance in the Inside Consumer Directed Care survey ($1,180) is less than fifty percent of the average deductible for single coverage.The simple fact is that HSA creation and asset levels are lagging HDHP enrollment by a significant margin.

And realistically given that some people are funding their full HSAs, given that the average is well below half the maximum, the median HSA account probably contains close to $0. What’s going on then? Well Vimo knows the answer.

Certainly there are immediate and significant savings available when companies or individuals migrate to HDHPs. This cost differential can be pocketed as a one time gain, or it can be used to fund most or all of the HDHP deductible by depositing the difference into an associated Health Savings Account. It would seem that many employers are opting for the one time gain.

If you’re in a business which depends on these accounts and CDHPs being adopted by a bunch of happy consumers, you can see that there is plenty of potential for angst amongst employees who discover that the move to the CDHP is basically telling them that they have to dip into their own pocket for something the company used to provide. In what is a very considered and well  put-together report—which I’d recommend you read all of—Vimo discusses the impact of this “transfer” on both consumers and employers. And true to their business model they are squarely on the side of looking out for consumers and employees.

I approve of them telling the truth, even if it’s a truth that opponents of the CDHP movement will highlight. After all, if this thing is done wrong, the longer term political consequences may be a future in which there is no such thing as a high-deductible plan or HSA—and that will leave Vimo with a whole different business problem.

POLICY/POLITICS: Iraq, planning and the VA

In a op-ed in the LA Times, called The battle of Iraq’s wounded Linda Bilmes points out that the number of wounded servicemen and women from the Iraq war/occupation is incredibly high relative to the 3,000 deaths. Something like 50,000. And once the current generation is discharged from the army, the VA —which is already stretched— is going to be overwhelmed.

I’ve just read Imperial Life in the Emerald City which is a mind-blowing account of exactly how screwed up the initial occupation of Iraq was. Not only was there no plan of any form before the invasion for what the occupation ought to be like, but the only people who were thinking rationally in advance about what it should have been like (in State and other departments) were forcibly prevented from getting involved. I thoroughly recommend the book (by WaPo reporter Rajiv Chandrasekaran).

But, as if you needed to know after their “preparations” for occupied Iraq and Katrina, it’s for sure that this Administration has done no planning for the wave of disabled veterans that’s about to hit the VA. Now that they finally control the purse strings, let’s hope the Democrats can do better.

POLICY/PHYSICIANS: A National Health Service for those without medical insurance in the United States by Walter Bradley

Walter Bradley is the Chairman of the Department of Neurology at the school of Medicine at the University of Miami. He has written a long piece (available here) on how he thinks we should solve the uninsurance problem. Here’s the short version:

Introduction

We all know that the United States health care system is in trouble. The US spends over $2 trillion a year on health care, almost 17% of the GDP. By comparison, Switzerland, Germany and Canada spend about 10% of their GDP on health care, while United Kingdom spends less than 8%. Despite this, the 2005 Commonwealth Fund International Health Policy Survey of sicker adults from six countries, Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the US reported that "(t)he United States often stands out with high medical errors and inefficient care and has the worst performance for access/cost barriers and financial burdens." Moreover, the US lags well behind many other countries in indices of quality of care. In 2005 the US ranked 42nd among the world’s nations in infant mortality, with 6.50 infant deaths per 1,000 live births, behind such nations as Singapore (2.29), Sweden (2.77), France (4.26), Canada (4.75) and United Kingdom (5.16), and was 29th among developed countries in maternal mortality. In 2004, 46 million people (15.7% of the US population, about one-fifth of them children) were without any form of health insurance. Many of these have been without health care for years, though others are between jobs that provide health care coverage. In addition another 50 million people in the US have inadequate health care coverage and would be bankrupted by a serious illness.

Most people without health insurance do not have primary health care and only obtain medical care when they suffer an illness that is sufficiently severe as to take them to the Emergency Department of a public hospital. The stroke or heart attack costs the public hospital and the local taxpayers much more than would the control of blood pressure by a primary care doctor.

Health insurance premiums are skyrocketing. In 2004 the annual premium of an employment-based group plan for a family of four averaged $9,950 and workers are contributing an ever-increasing amount to these premiums. The percentage of people with employment-based health insurance in 2004 was 61 percent and is likely to fall further in the coming years as employers strive to reduce health insurance overheads.

The current system of health care for the medically indigent is fragmented, expensive and inefficient. The exact cost of health care for the uninsured in the US is difficult to assess because it is fragmented between Medicaid, the public hospitals, physicians and the insured public. In fact, the US may well be spending more per capita on health care for those without health insurance through these various sources than it does for those with insurance.

I propose a comprehensive cost-effective system of medical care for those without health insurance, the National Health Service for the Uninsured (NHSU). The creation of the NHSU would not immediately address all the ills of the US health care system, but it would provide health care for those without medical insurance, improve the overall health of US citizens, and introduce cost-saving systems that might eventually help the overall US health care system.

An integrated system of health care for the medically indigent in the United States, the National Health Service for the Uninsured.

This proposal for the provision of improved health care to those without medical insurance envisions no change in the current system of fee-for-service medical care, which would continue to provide for the 80% of the population with private health insurance or Medicare. As now, these patients would continue seeing their own doctors and the health insurance programs would reimburse the doctors, hospitals, laboratories, etc. for the medical services they provide.

The National Health Service for the Uninsured (NHSU) would replace the current fragmented "non-system" for the 16% of the US population that is currently without health insurance. The NHSU would be a comprehensive, cost-effective federal program. It would be an integrated health care system for the uninsured based on a new primary care physician network, and the staff and facilities of public hospitals that contracted to join the program. The NHSU would provide medical services from the family practitioner to the specialist, from ambulatory care and home health services to the hospital and nursing home services. It would provide laboratory services, medications and durable medical equipment, and the services of allied health professionals for all covered patients. When fully operational, the NHSU might approach revenue-neutrality for the US as a whole if it were funded centrally by redirection of monies currently going to provide inefficient and costly indigent care through federal, state and local funding. It has been suggested that the incremental annual cost to the federal government of providing health care for the medically uninsured to the level of that provided by insurance-based and government-based coverage would be $34-69 billion annually. However, the cost to Society of shorter lives and poorer productivity of 50 million people without health insurance has been estimated to be $65-130 billion per annum.

Continue reading…

POLICY/POLITICS: Health care reform all the rage

Arnie is yakking about health care. Over at Spot-on where I’ll be penning a weekly column this year (honest!) I explain why it’s mostly much ado about nuttin’.

Well you can’t trust these people, can you? No sooner than I’d spent all last year explaining why the time wasn’t quite right for health care reform by 2008
,
then just because they eke out a small electoral win, the Democrats—and
every non-loony conservative Republican—comes out with their own health
care reform plans.The new Congress hasn’t even found out where to molest the pages and already Senator Ron Wyden has introduced a comprehensive plan to eliminate employer-based health insurance,
and transform it to a highly regulated individual market.  Not to be
beaten to the punch, AHIP, the insurance industry lobbying group, has
announced a universal insurance plan
that doesn’t get us close to universal insurance, but miraculously
involves lots of government subsidies for insurance companies. Even
more bizarrely, Kaiser Permanente, which signed on to the AHIP plan
despite the distaste with which they must view some of the other
members of the AHIP board, introduced their own separate plan for California. Continue

assetto corsa mods