You recall my piece about whether the public plan would be set up to be adversely selected against like historically Medicare has been. Well this week Paul Starr did a rather better job on the same topic.
It’s Not Just Doctors in Short Supply
Policy-makers involved in healthcare reform are making a mistake in disproportionately emphasizing our current doctor shortage while neglecting serious shortages of care providers in other fields of health. Rather than continuing a failed, piecemeal approach, the nation needs to establish a multi-professional, multi-disciplinary, national planning body charged with carrying out a comprehensive and coordinated national health workforce policy. National healthcare reform cannot be realized without effective national health workforce reform.
Op-Ed: A Social Democrat Weighs in on a Government Health Plan
I was born into a Berkeley family of Social Democrats—my father studied Swedish economic policies—then I trained in social-democratic Economics in Scandinavia, before cutting my career teeth in a Norwegian Labor Party think tank. I thereby personify the threat trumpeted by Republicans: the sinister spread of Social Democracy.
So I am cheering wildly for establishing a federally owned health plan, right? Wrong.
Not that I’m particular opposed, either: It’s just not a big deal. Either way, new government-run plan or not, there won’t be much impact on our nation’s enormous health care problems. Our health care dilemmas—high costs, poor access, and mediocre outcomes–stem from much more fundamental issues than who sits on the board of yet another insurance plan.
These include the perverse incentive structures for key decision makers in the industry, including insurers, providers and patients. Insurers earn money by serving the well rather than the ill who need their assistance most, providers don’t become rich by managing care over time but by medically over-treating the critically sick, and consumers are incented to both stay out of the insurance pool until they’re sick and to seek medical help late.Continue reading…
More bad press for Insurers. Will anyone care?
Jon Cohn notes that Wendell Potter, a former PR executive with Cigna and Humana. will be appearing before a Senate Commerce Committee today. Note the word “former”.
Trudy Lieberman has an interview with Potter where he repeats what we already know:
Lieberman: How do companies manipulate the medical loss ratio?Potter: They look at expensive claims of workers in small businesses who are insured by the company, and the claims of people in the individual market. If an employer-customer has an employee or two who has a chronic illness or needs expensive care, the claims for the employee will likely trigger a review. Common industry practice is to increase premiums so high that when such accounts come up for renewal, the employer has no choice but to reduce benefits, shop for another carrier, or stop offering benefits entirely. More and more have opted for the last alternative.
The bleedingly obvious
It makes no sense for small businesses to provide health insurance to employees. This testimony from a small business owner to the House Tri-committee yesterday shows it. (Same is true for all employers but none save Ron Wyden dare say that).
Health insurance should be paid for by some form of taxation (VAT, income tax or payroll tax) that is in proportion to businesses and individuals profitability/income, and small businesses (and big ones) should be left to do whatever it is they do. I cannot fathom how NFIB manages to convince its members otherwise, but it does appear that there’s a crack in that dike with various small business groups coming out in support for real health reform.
Having said that, I don’t think there’s too much likelihood that a typical low wage business will get much help anytime soon.
Bringing the Prius into American Medicine
President Obama has repeatedly promised
that providing every American affordable access to quality health care
won't cost more money than we'll save through reform, but he's recently
raised the stakes even further. Health care reform, he has said, would
"foster economic growth" and "unleash America's economic potential."
Is that realistic?
A Declaration of Health Data Rights
THCB & Health 2.0 are happy to be a small part of a very important declaration, made today by a mix of patients, physicians, technologists and concerned citizens. It’s a Declaration of Health Data Rights, and it’s extremely important because access to usable data is a very pressing problem in the health care system, and one that we have the opportunity to solve if we bake the concept into regulation and practice now, as electronic health data becomes more pervasive. Here’s the declaration:
- Have the right to our own health data
- Have the right to know the source of each health data element
- Have the right to take possession of a complete copy of our individual health data, without delay, at minimal or no cost; If data exist in computable form, they must be made available in that form
- Have the right to share our health data with others as we see fit
More information about how you can support this declaration, how it was created, a FAQ and what you can do to get involved is all at www.healthdatarights.org
A Dream of Reason
The dream of reason did not take power into account…Modern medicine is one of those extraordinary works of reason…But medicine is also a world of power.
-Paul Starr, The Social Transformation of American Medicine, 1984
Today’s unveiling of a Declaration of Health Data Rights is an important action, long overdue, that represents a collaborative effort by a group of health care professionals – activists, entrepreneurs, technologists and clinicians – all colleagues we hold in high esteem.
The Declaration’s several points arise from a single, simple premise: that patients own their own data, and that that ownership cannot be pre-empted by a professional or an institution. And there lies its power, especially in the context of early 21st Century health care. It is a transformative ideal that currently is not the norm. But we join our colleagues in declaring that it should be.Continue reading…
“Meaningful Use” – If You Have to Define It, Is It?
I have a good friend at Duke University
– Dr. Ed Hammond. (Ed has been involved in advancing electronic
health information for quite some time – probably longer than he'd like
to remember.) Ed once told me that to get a perspective on how
long we – (our nation) has been assessing the potential of automating
health information you'd have to go back to the introduction of Medicare
in 1965 when President Johnson signed the legislation and officially
enrolled Harry Truman as the first Medicare beneficiary.
Time to Revisit Wyden-Bennett?
With the Washington insiders at politico.com
reporting this weekend that health care reform appears to be in “real
jeopardy,” and the Senate Finance Committee so uneasy that they have
decided to delay reform bill markup until after the July Fourth recess,
it’s increasingly clear that an approach of layering more and more
fixes onto the present system isn’t going to work.