Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
eridani
eridani's Journal
eridani's Journal
April 19, 2013
http://www.healthinsurance.org/blog/2013/04/18/medicare-advantage-or-disadvantage/
If you’re being courted by a private insurance company to enroll in one of its Medicare Advantage plans, don’t sign on the bottom line until you’ve read a recent report by a researcher at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). The real bottom line you need to understand is that the insurer might want to keep you enrolled only as long as you’re relatively healthy. When that changes, you just might find that you’re no longer considered a valued member and that the traditional Medicare program is a much better deal for you.
The study, published recently in the Medicare and Medicaid Research Review, confirmed what some who are familiar with the Medicare Advantage program, including me, have suspected: when people enrolled in MA plans become critically ill, many realize that the only way they will get coverage for the care they need – and at a facility of their choice – is to return to the traditional Medicare program.
Former health insurance industry exec Wendell Potter says he believes his mother Pearl, left, is alive today because she was disenrolled from a Medicare Advantage plan that would have failed to cover costs of care that Traditional Medicare covers.
It may come as a surprise, but one of the reasons the Medicare program costs taxpayers more than it should is that the federal government has for years been overpaying insurance companies to participate in the Medicare Advantage program. (Medicare Advantage plans – typically HMOs and PPOs – are private alternatives to traditional Medicare.) Congress created the program after private insurers insisted that not only could they meet the medical needs of senior citizens and the disabled more cost effectively than the government, they could do so and still make a profit.
Wendell Potter: Medicare Advantage – or DISAdvantage?
http://www.healthinsurance.org/blog/2013/04/18/medicare-advantage-or-disadvantage/
If you’re being courted by a private insurance company to enroll in one of its Medicare Advantage plans, don’t sign on the bottom line until you’ve read a recent report by a researcher at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). The real bottom line you need to understand is that the insurer might want to keep you enrolled only as long as you’re relatively healthy. When that changes, you just might find that you’re no longer considered a valued member and that the traditional Medicare program is a much better deal for you.
The study, published recently in the Medicare and Medicaid Research Review, confirmed what some who are familiar with the Medicare Advantage program, including me, have suspected: when people enrolled in MA plans become critically ill, many realize that the only way they will get coverage for the care they need – and at a facility of their choice – is to return to the traditional Medicare program.
Former health insurance industry exec Wendell Potter says he believes his mother Pearl, left, is alive today because she was disenrolled from a Medicare Advantage plan that would have failed to cover costs of care that Traditional Medicare covers.
It may come as a surprise, but one of the reasons the Medicare program costs taxpayers more than it should is that the federal government has for years been overpaying insurance companies to participate in the Medicare Advantage program. (Medicare Advantage plans – typically HMOs and PPOs – are private alternatives to traditional Medicare.) Congress created the program after private insurers insisted that not only could they meet the medical needs of senior citizens and the disabled more cost effectively than the government, they could do so and still make a profit.
April 17, 2013
Hospitals make money from their own mistakes because insurers pay them for the longer stays and extra care that patients need to treat surgical complications that could have been prevented, a new study finds.
Changing the payment system, to stop rewarding poor care, may help to bring down surgical complication rates, the researchers say. If the system does not change, hospitals have little incentive to improve: in fact, some will wind up losing money if they take better care of patients.
The study and an editorial were published Tuesday in The Journal of the American Medical Association. The study authors are from the Boston Consulting Group, Harvard’s schools of medicine and public health, and Texas Health Resources, a large nonprofit hospital system.
The study is based on a detailed analysis of the records of 34,256 people who had surgery in 2010 at one of 12 hospitals run by Texas Health Resources. Of those patients, 1,820 had one or more complications that could have been prevented, like blood clots, pneumonia or infected incisions.
Hospitals Profit From Surgical Errors, Study Finds
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/17/health/hospitals-profit-from-surgical-errors-study-finds.html?_r=0Hospitals make money from their own mistakes because insurers pay them for the longer stays and extra care that patients need to treat surgical complications that could have been prevented, a new study finds.
Changing the payment system, to stop rewarding poor care, may help to bring down surgical complication rates, the researchers say. If the system does not change, hospitals have little incentive to improve: in fact, some will wind up losing money if they take better care of patients.
The study and an editorial were published Tuesday in The Journal of the American Medical Association. The study authors are from the Boston Consulting Group, Harvard’s schools of medicine and public health, and Texas Health Resources, a large nonprofit hospital system.
The study is based on a detailed analysis of the records of 34,256 people who had surgery in 2010 at one of 12 hospitals run by Texas Health Resources. Of those patients, 1,820 had one or more complications that could have been prevented, like blood clots, pneumonia or infected incisions.
April 15, 2013
On April 10, 2013, President Obama submitted his Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 budget to the Congress. This budget proposes a total spending level of $3.78 trillion in FY 2014 and calls for over $1 trillion in budget reductions that include some unacceptable proposals. This paper summarizes some of the key proposals affecting seniors in the President's FY 2014 budget. Additional information about Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid is available on the National Committee's website (www.ncpssm.org ) or by calling 1-800-966-1935.
Social Security
Unlike previous budgets, the President’s FY 2014 budget targets Social Security benefits as a means of reducing the deficit. Despite the fact that Social Security has the financial resources to pay all benefits through 2033, Social Security benefits are targeted in this budget for substantial cuts by adopting the “chained” consumer price index (CPI) for the purpose of calculating Social Security cost-of-living adjustments, or COLAs.
The Administration characterizes this switch as a technical adjustment. However, using the “chained” CPI will substantially reduce the Social Security benefits of current and future beneficiaries. The amount of the reduction is substantial. If it is adopted, a typical 65 year-old would see an immediate decrease of about $130 per year in Social Security benefits. At age 95, the same senior would face a 9.2 percent reduction—almost $1,400 per year.
While all beneficiaries will feel the impact of this change, its effect will be greatest on those who draw benefits at earlier ages (e.g., military retirees, disabled veterans and workers) and those who live the longest. These are often women who have outlived their other sources of income, have depleted their assets, and rely on Social Security as their only lifeline to financial stability.
Seniors and others receiving benefits recognize that the current COLA already undercounts the higher inflation they experience because they spend a disproportionate amount of their income on health care. A lower COLA will make it increasingly difficult for current and future generations to make ends meet.
Would this new “chained” CPI be more accurate? We do not think so. And despite words to the contrary, the White House also knows this new formula is not more accurate for seniors, which is why it has promised exemptions and benefit “bump-ups” to try and soften the impact. But it still leaves millions of seniors facing benefit cuts, breaking the promise President Obama made to protect America’s middle class families.
An especially problematic aspect of the “chained” CPI proposal in the President’s budget is that it disproportionately affects communities of color. African American retirees would be negatively affected by the cuts stemming from the “chained” CPI because they rely heavily on Social Security benefits for retirement income. And because, on average, they have shorter life expectancies than other Americans, they would benefit less than other Americans from the benefit bump-ups that are proposed for people who have been on the rolls for many years.
Clearly, it will be up to members of Congress to set fiscal priorities that actually represent the needs of the average citizens they were elected to represent. The vast majority of Americans, of all political parties, oppose cutting Social Security and Medicare to reduce the deficit. The National Committee calls on all members of Congress to reject the Administration’s proposals to cut seniors’ Social Security benefits.
The President’s budget includes a number of legislative proposals that, unlike the “chained” CPI, would strengthen the Social Security Administration’s (SSA) ability to administer the Social Security program. Among them are proposals to allow SSA to develop and test improvements to the disability insurance program, provide assured and adequate funding for program integrity activities, and extend the period of time during which individuals admitted to the U.S. on humanitarian grounds can receive Supplemental Security Income.
We are pleased to see that funding to restore the mailing of annual Social Security statements has been included in the President’s request. These statements provide workers with information about the Social Security program, including a benefit estimate as well as information about the amount of wages that have been reported to a worker’s Social Security earnings record. Provision of these statements to the 156 million workers who are supporting Social Security with their contributions is required by law.
SSA's Administrative Funding
With SSA's enormous workloads and challenges, the President is requesting $12.3 billion for SSA's FY 2014 appropriation for administrative funding, a seven percent increase over the 2012 enacted level. The President's budget request for SSA in FY 2014 exceeds the agency’s recommendation by $68 million, and establishes a new funding source, allowing a more dependable revenue stream for conducting Continuing Disability Reviews and Supplemental Security Income Redeterminations. The National Committee applauds this proposal, which will help to ensure that only those eligible for benefits receive them and which will achieve significant deficit reduction. However, if this new funding source is not approved, it is critical that the agency be funded adequately through existing funding sources to fulfill its service and stewardship responsibilities.
Medicare
The National Committee opposes proposals in the President's budget which would shift additional costs to Medicare beneficiaries. Over half of Medicare beneficiaries had incomes below $22,500 per year in 2012, and they are already paying 27 percent of their average Social Security check for Part B and D cost-sharing in addition to paying for health services not covered by Medicare. Medicare beneficiaries with annual incomes over $85,000 for individuals and $170,000 for couples are paying higher income-related premiums. We do not share the Administration's view that people will make wiser choices about using health care services if they have to pay more of the cost. Rather, we agree with research which shows that these additional costs could lead many seniors to forego necessary care, which, in turn, could lead to more serious health conditions and higher costs.
The President’s budget includes the following four proposals which would increase costs for future beneficiaries.
1. The President's budget proposes to apply a $25 increase in the Part B deductible in 2017, 2019, and 2021 for new beneficiaries. This increase would be in addition to the current Medicare Part B deductible that beneficiaries pay which, along with general revenues, funds Part B physician and outpatient services. This proposal is estimated to save approximately $3.6 billion over 10 years.
2. The President's budget proposes a home health copayment for new beneficiaries beginning in 2017. A $100 copayment per home health episode would be applicable for episodes with five or more visits not preceded by a hospital or other inpatient post-acute care stay. This proposal is estimated to save approximately $730 million over 10 years.
3. The President's budget proposes a Part B Premium surcharge for new beneficiaries who purchase “so-called” near first-dollar Medigap coverage. The surcharge would be equivalent to about 15 percent of the average Medigap premium (or about 30 percent of the Part B premium) for new beneficiaries who purchase Medigap policies with particularly low cost-sharing requirements, starting in 2017. Many seniors of modest means depend on such Medigap plans to ensure they have predictable and lower out-of-pocket costs. Other Medigap plans would be exempt from this requirement while still providing beneficiaries options for protection against high out-of-pocket costs. This proposal is estimated to save approximately $2.9 billion over 10 years.
4. The President's budget proposes to further increase income-related premiums under Medicare Parts B and D. Beginning in 2017, the Administra¬tion proposes to restructure means-testing in Medicare Parts B and D by increasing the amount of income-related premiums, and maintaining the income thresholds associated with income-related premiums until 25 percent of beneficiaries under Parts B and D are subject to these premiums. A Kaiser Family Foundation study found that this proposal would affect individuals with incomes equivalent to $47,000 for an individual and $94,000 for a couple. This proposal is estimated to save approximately $50 billion over 10 years.
The President's budget includes numerous proposals to strengthen Medicare's financing and improve the quality of care provided to beneficiaries. We support many of these proposals, including:
• Building on provisions in the Affordable Care Act that will provide better care to Medicare beneficiaries and reform Medicare payments to physicians.
• Supporting initiatives to prevent, detect and recover improper payments, including fraud, waste and abuse.
• Allowing Medicare to receive the same rebates as Medicaid for brand name and generic drugs provided to beneficiaries who receive the Part D Low-Income Subsidy, beginning in 2014.
• Increasing manufacturer discounts for brand name drugs from 50 to 75 percent in 2015, effectively closing the coverage gap “donut hole” for brand name drugs in 2015, five years sooner than under current law.
• Promoting lower pharmaceutical costs by providing for faster development of generic versions of biologic drugs, and prohibiting "pay-for-delay" agreements between brand name and generic pharmaceutical companies that delay entry of generic drugs into the market.
Medicaid
The National Committee is pleased that the President’s budget does not make major structural changes to the Medicaid program. Medicaid pays for about 62 percent of all long-term services and supports and many older adults and people with disabilities depend on the program for their health care needs.
The President's budget maintains funding for the Qualified Individual program and extends the program through December 31, 2014. The QI program pays for Medicare Part B premiums for qualified beneficiaries with limited income. Specifically, the QI program provides States 100 percent federal funding to pay the Medicare Part B premiums of low-income beneficiaries with incomes between the 120 and 135 percent of the federal poverty level.
Administration for Community Living
The President's budget includes $2 billion for the Administration for Community Living, which administers the Older Americans Act programs, as well as other programs to support independent living for seniors.
Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)
The President's budget includes $3 billion for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which is a reduction from current funding. Many older adults, individuals with disabilities and low-income families receiving LIHEAP are struggling to meet basic needs, and should not have to choose between buying food and medicine or paying for home energy.
Government Relations and Policy, April, 2013
National Committee to Protect Social Security and Medicare statement on Obama's budget
The President's FY 2014 Budget and Its Effect on SeniorsOn April 10, 2013, President Obama submitted his Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 budget to the Congress. This budget proposes a total spending level of $3.78 trillion in FY 2014 and calls for over $1 trillion in budget reductions that include some unacceptable proposals. This paper summarizes some of the key proposals affecting seniors in the President's FY 2014 budget. Additional information about Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid is available on the National Committee's website (www.ncpssm.org ) or by calling 1-800-966-1935.
Social Security
Unlike previous budgets, the President’s FY 2014 budget targets Social Security benefits as a means of reducing the deficit. Despite the fact that Social Security has the financial resources to pay all benefits through 2033, Social Security benefits are targeted in this budget for substantial cuts by adopting the “chained” consumer price index (CPI) for the purpose of calculating Social Security cost-of-living adjustments, or COLAs.
The Administration characterizes this switch as a technical adjustment. However, using the “chained” CPI will substantially reduce the Social Security benefits of current and future beneficiaries. The amount of the reduction is substantial. If it is adopted, a typical 65 year-old would see an immediate decrease of about $130 per year in Social Security benefits. At age 95, the same senior would face a 9.2 percent reduction—almost $1,400 per year.
While all beneficiaries will feel the impact of this change, its effect will be greatest on those who draw benefits at earlier ages (e.g., military retirees, disabled veterans and workers) and those who live the longest. These are often women who have outlived their other sources of income, have depleted their assets, and rely on Social Security as their only lifeline to financial stability.
Seniors and others receiving benefits recognize that the current COLA already undercounts the higher inflation they experience because they spend a disproportionate amount of their income on health care. A lower COLA will make it increasingly difficult for current and future generations to make ends meet.
Would this new “chained” CPI be more accurate? We do not think so. And despite words to the contrary, the White House also knows this new formula is not more accurate for seniors, which is why it has promised exemptions and benefit “bump-ups” to try and soften the impact. But it still leaves millions of seniors facing benefit cuts, breaking the promise President Obama made to protect America’s middle class families.
An especially problematic aspect of the “chained” CPI proposal in the President’s budget is that it disproportionately affects communities of color. African American retirees would be negatively affected by the cuts stemming from the “chained” CPI because they rely heavily on Social Security benefits for retirement income. And because, on average, they have shorter life expectancies than other Americans, they would benefit less than other Americans from the benefit bump-ups that are proposed for people who have been on the rolls for many years.
Clearly, it will be up to members of Congress to set fiscal priorities that actually represent the needs of the average citizens they were elected to represent. The vast majority of Americans, of all political parties, oppose cutting Social Security and Medicare to reduce the deficit. The National Committee calls on all members of Congress to reject the Administration’s proposals to cut seniors’ Social Security benefits.
The President’s budget includes a number of legislative proposals that, unlike the “chained” CPI, would strengthen the Social Security Administration’s (SSA) ability to administer the Social Security program. Among them are proposals to allow SSA to develop and test improvements to the disability insurance program, provide assured and adequate funding for program integrity activities, and extend the period of time during which individuals admitted to the U.S. on humanitarian grounds can receive Supplemental Security Income.
We are pleased to see that funding to restore the mailing of annual Social Security statements has been included in the President’s request. These statements provide workers with information about the Social Security program, including a benefit estimate as well as information about the amount of wages that have been reported to a worker’s Social Security earnings record. Provision of these statements to the 156 million workers who are supporting Social Security with their contributions is required by law.
SSA's Administrative Funding
With SSA's enormous workloads and challenges, the President is requesting $12.3 billion for SSA's FY 2014 appropriation for administrative funding, a seven percent increase over the 2012 enacted level. The President's budget request for SSA in FY 2014 exceeds the agency’s recommendation by $68 million, and establishes a new funding source, allowing a more dependable revenue stream for conducting Continuing Disability Reviews and Supplemental Security Income Redeterminations. The National Committee applauds this proposal, which will help to ensure that only those eligible for benefits receive them and which will achieve significant deficit reduction. However, if this new funding source is not approved, it is critical that the agency be funded adequately through existing funding sources to fulfill its service and stewardship responsibilities.
Medicare
The National Committee opposes proposals in the President's budget which would shift additional costs to Medicare beneficiaries. Over half of Medicare beneficiaries had incomes below $22,500 per year in 2012, and they are already paying 27 percent of their average Social Security check for Part B and D cost-sharing in addition to paying for health services not covered by Medicare. Medicare beneficiaries with annual incomes over $85,000 for individuals and $170,000 for couples are paying higher income-related premiums. We do not share the Administration's view that people will make wiser choices about using health care services if they have to pay more of the cost. Rather, we agree with research which shows that these additional costs could lead many seniors to forego necessary care, which, in turn, could lead to more serious health conditions and higher costs.
The President’s budget includes the following four proposals which would increase costs for future beneficiaries.
1. The President's budget proposes to apply a $25 increase in the Part B deductible in 2017, 2019, and 2021 for new beneficiaries. This increase would be in addition to the current Medicare Part B deductible that beneficiaries pay which, along with general revenues, funds Part B physician and outpatient services. This proposal is estimated to save approximately $3.6 billion over 10 years.
2. The President's budget proposes a home health copayment for new beneficiaries beginning in 2017. A $100 copayment per home health episode would be applicable for episodes with five or more visits not preceded by a hospital or other inpatient post-acute care stay. This proposal is estimated to save approximately $730 million over 10 years.
3. The President's budget proposes a Part B Premium surcharge for new beneficiaries who purchase “so-called” near first-dollar Medigap coverage. The surcharge would be equivalent to about 15 percent of the average Medigap premium (or about 30 percent of the Part B premium) for new beneficiaries who purchase Medigap policies with particularly low cost-sharing requirements, starting in 2017. Many seniors of modest means depend on such Medigap plans to ensure they have predictable and lower out-of-pocket costs. Other Medigap plans would be exempt from this requirement while still providing beneficiaries options for protection against high out-of-pocket costs. This proposal is estimated to save approximately $2.9 billion over 10 years.
4. The President's budget proposes to further increase income-related premiums under Medicare Parts B and D. Beginning in 2017, the Administra¬tion proposes to restructure means-testing in Medicare Parts B and D by increasing the amount of income-related premiums, and maintaining the income thresholds associated with income-related premiums until 25 percent of beneficiaries under Parts B and D are subject to these premiums. A Kaiser Family Foundation study found that this proposal would affect individuals with incomes equivalent to $47,000 for an individual and $94,000 for a couple. This proposal is estimated to save approximately $50 billion over 10 years.
The President's budget includes numerous proposals to strengthen Medicare's financing and improve the quality of care provided to beneficiaries. We support many of these proposals, including:
• Building on provisions in the Affordable Care Act that will provide better care to Medicare beneficiaries and reform Medicare payments to physicians.
• Supporting initiatives to prevent, detect and recover improper payments, including fraud, waste and abuse.
• Allowing Medicare to receive the same rebates as Medicaid for brand name and generic drugs provided to beneficiaries who receive the Part D Low-Income Subsidy, beginning in 2014.
• Increasing manufacturer discounts for brand name drugs from 50 to 75 percent in 2015, effectively closing the coverage gap “donut hole” for brand name drugs in 2015, five years sooner than under current law.
• Promoting lower pharmaceutical costs by providing for faster development of generic versions of biologic drugs, and prohibiting "pay-for-delay" agreements between brand name and generic pharmaceutical companies that delay entry of generic drugs into the market.
Medicaid
The National Committee is pleased that the President’s budget does not make major structural changes to the Medicaid program. Medicaid pays for about 62 percent of all long-term services and supports and many older adults and people with disabilities depend on the program for their health care needs.
The President's budget maintains funding for the Qualified Individual program and extends the program through December 31, 2014. The QI program pays for Medicare Part B premiums for qualified beneficiaries with limited income. Specifically, the QI program provides States 100 percent federal funding to pay the Medicare Part B premiums of low-income beneficiaries with incomes between the 120 and 135 percent of the federal poverty level.
Administration for Community Living
The President's budget includes $2 billion for the Administration for Community Living, which administers the Older Americans Act programs, as well as other programs to support independent living for seniors.
Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)
The President's budget includes $3 billion for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which is a reduction from current funding. Many older adults, individuals with disabilities and low-income families receiving LIHEAP are struggling to meet basic needs, and should not have to choose between buying food and medicine or paying for home energy.
Government Relations and Policy, April, 2013
April 13, 2013
Comment by Don McCanne of PNUP: The intent of today's message is not so much to use this opportunity to once again bash one of the nation's largest private insurers (even if appropriate), but rather it is to demonstrate the perversity of one more example of placing the business interests of the insurer over the interests of patients.
Even though this court decision was in favor of a physician barred from Anthem Blue Cross's network of physician providers, it confirms the principle that private insurers should be improving patient access to health care rather than impairing it, as in this now all too common instance of limiting access by narrowing their networks of health care professionals and institutions.
Once again, this demonstrates the irrationality of imposing expensive, intrusive, private third party administrators between patients and their health care professionals.
In a universal, publicly financed and publicly administered health care system, such as a single payer national health program, the third party - the government - covers all reasonable health care services and products provided by any legitimate health care professional or institution, with enough oversight to prevent deviancies such as fraud or price gouging.
Judgment against Anthem for retaliating against a doctor who advocated for patients.
Private health insurance adds no value whatsoever and should be abolished.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-anthem-doctor-verdict-20130410,0,2796259.story
In a rare case, a Los Angeles jury awarded $3.8 million in compensatory damages to a Porter Ranch doctor who contended insurance giant Anthem Blue Cross retaliated against him for being a strong patient advocate.
The jury ruled late Monday in favor of Jeffrey Nordella, 58, an urgent-care and family-practice doctor who alleged that Anthem barred him from its network in 2010, when he applied to be a preferred provider. The damages could climb higher Friday, when the 12-person panel reconvenes and considers punitive damages against Anthem, a unit of insurance giant WellPoint Inc.
The jury found that Anthem, the state's largest for-profit health insurer, violated Nordella's right to "fair procedure," and the company did so with "malice, oppression or fraud." That latter finding prompted the hearing Friday in Los Angeles County Superior Court to determine punitive damages.
This case comes as health insurers, in a bid to hold down costs, are increasingly dropping doctors and hospitals and promoting smaller networks. Insurers typically try to negotiate lower rates with the fewer providers left in the network, who get higher patient volume in return.
The jury ruled late Monday in favor of Jeffrey Nordella, 58, an urgent-care and family-practice doctor who alleged that Anthem barred him from its network in 2010, when he applied to be a preferred provider. The damages could climb higher Friday, when the 12-person panel reconvenes and considers punitive damages against Anthem, a unit of insurance giant WellPoint Inc.
The jury found that Anthem, the state's largest for-profit health insurer, violated Nordella's right to "fair procedure," and the company did so with "malice, oppression or fraud." That latter finding prompted the hearing Friday in Los Angeles County Superior Court to determine punitive damages.
This case comes as health insurers, in a bid to hold down costs, are increasingly dropping doctors and hospitals and promoting smaller networks. Insurers typically try to negotiate lower rates with the fewer providers left in the network, who get higher patient volume in return.
Comment by Don McCanne of PNUP: The intent of today's message is not so much to use this opportunity to once again bash one of the nation's largest private insurers (even if appropriate), but rather it is to demonstrate the perversity of one more example of placing the business interests of the insurer over the interests of patients.
Even though this court decision was in favor of a physician barred from Anthem Blue Cross's network of physician providers, it confirms the principle that private insurers should be improving patient access to health care rather than impairing it, as in this now all too common instance of limiting access by narrowing their networks of health care professionals and institutions.
Once again, this demonstrates the irrationality of imposing expensive, intrusive, private third party administrators between patients and their health care professionals.
In a universal, publicly financed and publicly administered health care system, such as a single payer national health program, the third party - the government - covers all reasonable health care services and products provided by any legitimate health care professional or institution, with enough oversight to prevent deviancies such as fraud or price gouging.
April 10, 2013
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/10/1200768/-GOP-campaign-chairman-calls-chained-CPI-trying-to-balance-the-budget-on-the-backs-of-nbsp-seniors
From the Repuclican House leadership
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/republicans-chained-cpi-obama-budget-89864.html
The usual suspects have naturally been hollering about this for weeks.
What pops up on the 1st page when you Google "House + budget + chained CPI"
From the Republican Campaign Committeehttp://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/10/1200768/-GOP-campaign-chairman-calls-chained-CPI-trying-to-balance-the-budget-on-the-backs-of-nbsp-seniors
Well, I thought it very intriguing in that the budget really lays out kind of a shocking attack on seniors, if you will. And we haven't seen all the detail yet, and we'll look at it, but I'll tell you, when you're going after seniors the way he's already done on Obamacare, taking $700 billion out of Medicare to put into Obamacare, and now coming back at seniors again, I think you're crossing that line very quickly here in terms of denying access to seniors for health care in districts like mine, certainly, and around the country. I think he's going to have a lot of pushback from some of the major senior organizations on this and Republicans, as well.
From the Repuclican House leadership
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/republicans-chained-cpi-obama-budget-89864.html
House Republican leaders did give Obama credit for including something known as “chained CPI” in the spending plan, which would slow the rate of growth for Social Security benefits. They were on message in calling for Obama to help them enact policies they agree on, without coming to terms on a large-scale deficit busting package.
The usual suspects have naturally been hollering about this for weeks.
April 10, 2013
What chained CPI will do to each of the five income quintiles of SocSec beneficiaries
Here is what happens to SocSec beneficiaries quintile by quintile. The lowest quintile will get slightly increased benefits which will still leave them mired in poverty. That is to say real poverty, not the fake Census Bureau "poverty," which is calculated by figuring the cost of a minimal food basket (itself consisting of items not readily available in food deserts) and multiplying that number by three. It is a fantasy world in which rent, utilities and medication expenses don't exist.
The second and third quintiles will be driven INTO real poverty. The fourth quintile will have most of its discretionary income eliminated, staying slightly above real poverty The highest quintile will see serious cuts to discretionary income. As a result, businesses relying on this income will continue to disappear.
Our economy is still a depression economy. I get that the Repukes will not allow Obama to enact any kind of the stimulus spending that would help us make progress on the still deep post-crisis job deficit, but why in fucking hell would anyone sane propose trashing the stimulus spending done by retirees? Is the solution to permanent 8% unemployment supposed to be having grandma and grandpa pushing their grandkids of of jobs just to survive?
April 6, 2013
Alliance for Retired Americans statement on Social Security cuts--petition link included
This is a message from WA State ARA President, Mike Warren:
“Brothers and sisters, we have heard from multiple news sources that the president is offering the chain CPI in exchange for some minimal tax increases. The speaker has already suggested that the change in the CPI is necessary to maintain solvency of the Social Security system and has nothing to do with raising taxes.
We, in Washington, cannot let this insult to seniors, people of disability, and disabled veterans stand without a fight.
The Alliance for Retired Americans has provided a link to contact the president and register our concerns.
Please share this with your members and ask them to take action right away by going to http://bit.ly10CYEd9
Or go to our Facebook page at www.facebook.com/washingtonalliance or go to www.retiredamericans.org and you can find the petition there.
The following statement was issued today by Edward F. Coyle, Executive Director of the Alliance for Retired Americans.
“Today’s press reports that President Obama will include cuts to Social Security cost of living adjustments (COLAs) and Medicare in his budget proposal next Wednesday are very disturbing.
“The use of the chained CPI to calculate cost of living adjustments is simply not fair. It is not an insignificant tweak; it constitutes a significant benefit cut. Worse, it cuts benefits more with every passing year. It will do real damage to seniors and people with disabilities – in the present and future.
“Not only does the current cost of living adjustment formula not keep up with inflation for seniors, it does not accurately account for the large health care cost increases faced by seniors and people with disabilities. The chained CPI would further underestimate the cost of living adjustments for seniors. We need a higher COLA, one that accurately reflects beneficiaries’ costs, not a lower one.
“Our members are very upset that the President is willing to compromise on this issue of Social Security, one that certainly does not belong in budget discussions since Social Security by law cannot contribute to the federal deficit.
“Our 4 million members are watching closely and remaining hopeful that Washington finds a way to do the right thing – that certainly doesn’t mean wrongly balancing the budget on the backs of our seniors.”
The President’s proposal includes cutting Social Security COLA by using the chained CPI. This would do real damage to Seniors and people with disabilities, current and in the future. The chained CPI:
o is a benefit cut
o cuts benefits more with every passing year
o hits today’s Social Security beneficiaries
We need a higher COLA – not a lower one. The current COLA does not adequately account for large health care cost increases faced by seniors and people with disabilities
It is important to send President Obama and the White House a message that this is not acceptable. Go to this link http://bit.ly10CYEd9 and send your message NOW!
We will be asking, in the very near future, for you and your members to take actions as the budget issues progress. Please check your email or our Facebook page at www.facebook.com/washingtonalliance.
April 4, 2013
A new fight is brewing over health insurance companies letting millions of Americans renew their current coverage for another year — and thereby avoid changes under the federal healthcare law.
That may offer a short-term benefit for certain consumers and shield some of those individual policyholders from potentially steep rate increases. But critics say this maneuver could undermine government efforts to remake the insurance market next year and keep premiums affordable overall.
At issue is a little-known loophole in President Obama’s landmark legislation that enables health insurers to extend existing policies for nearly all of 2014. This runs contrary to the widespread belief that all health insurance must immediately comply with new federal rules starting Jan. 1, when most provisions of the law take effect.
“Insurers are onto this, and the big question is how many will try to game the system,” said Timothy Stoltzfus Jost, a law professor and health policy expert at Washington and Lee University.
Some of the nation’s biggest health insurers are looking to take advantage of this delay, and Arkansas officials are encouraging companies to do this by resetting customers’ renewal dates for the end of December. There’s also concern that some insurers and agents could rush to sell more individual policies before year-end so they could be extended in 2014.
Some policy experts are expressing concern about this practice for fear that insurers will focus on renewing younger and healthier policyholders and hold them out of the broader insurance pool next year. Their absence could leave a sicker and older population in new government insurance exchanges, driving up medical costs and premiums there.
Insurers see way to dodge federal healthcare law next year
http://www.healthcare-now.org/insurers-see-way-to-dodge-federal-healthcare-law-next-yearA new fight is brewing over health insurance companies letting millions of Americans renew their current coverage for another year — and thereby avoid changes under the federal healthcare law.
That may offer a short-term benefit for certain consumers and shield some of those individual policyholders from potentially steep rate increases. But critics say this maneuver could undermine government efforts to remake the insurance market next year and keep premiums affordable overall.
At issue is a little-known loophole in President Obama’s landmark legislation that enables health insurers to extend existing policies for nearly all of 2014. This runs contrary to the widespread belief that all health insurance must immediately comply with new federal rules starting Jan. 1, when most provisions of the law take effect.
“Insurers are onto this, and the big question is how many will try to game the system,” said Timothy Stoltzfus Jost, a law professor and health policy expert at Washington and Lee University.
Some of the nation’s biggest health insurers are looking to take advantage of this delay, and Arkansas officials are encouraging companies to do this by resetting customers’ renewal dates for the end of December. There’s also concern that some insurers and agents could rush to sell more individual policies before year-end so they could be extended in 2014.
Some policy experts are expressing concern about this practice for fear that insurers will focus on renewing younger and healthier policyholders and hold them out of the broader insurance pool next year. Their absence could leave a sicker and older population in new government insurance exchanges, driving up medical costs and premiums there.
April 3, 2013
Comment by Don McCanne of PNHP: It is already clear that the structure of the private health insurance market that is perpetuated by the Affordable Care Act will continue to fail us - providing us only care that is too expensive and leaves too many out. Not even a competing "robust public option" can alter that. Now is the time to enact a single payer plan - an improved Medicare for all.
Let's hope that the editorial board of The Salt Lake Tribune - and all other influential observers of the health care scene - will recognize sooner rather than later that the private insurance industry has failed us once again and has to go.
Salt Lake City Tribune: Next up, single payer
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/56079343-82/care-health-insurance-cost.html.cspThe Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act should be seen as what it is: One last opportunity for the private health insurance market to prove that it can offer a service that covers the millions of Americans who were previously left out, at a cost that we--as individuals, employers andtaxpayers--can afford.
If that is a goal beyond the grasp of the existing system, then it needs to be finally swept aside in favor of something that will meet those needs.
But this is, or should be, the private health insurance industry's last chance. If Obamacare fails, a return to the cold-hearted free market is not a realistic or humane choice.
An entity with the chops to bargain down the actual cost of care is necessary. At the very least, a robust public option, an idea President Obama bargained away in the creation of the ACA, must be provided. Better still would be a single-payer plan--Medicare for all.
If that is a goal beyond the grasp of the existing system, then it needs to be finally swept aside in favor of something that will meet those needs.
But this is, or should be, the private health insurance industry's last chance. If Obamacare fails, a return to the cold-hearted free market is not a realistic or humane choice.
An entity with the chops to bargain down the actual cost of care is necessary. At the very least, a robust public option, an idea President Obama bargained away in the creation of the ACA, must be provided. Better still would be a single-payer plan--Medicare for all.
Comment by Don McCanne of PNHP: It is already clear that the structure of the private health insurance market that is perpetuated by the Affordable Care Act will continue to fail us - providing us only care that is too expensive and leaves too many out. Not even a competing "robust public option" can alter that. Now is the time to enact a single payer plan - an improved Medicare for all.
Let's hope that the editorial board of The Salt Lake Tribune - and all other influential observers of the health care scene - will recognize sooner rather than later that the private insurance industry has failed us once again and has to go.
April 2, 2013
Randolph Paul probably thought about taxes — and their role in our society — as deeply as any American of his time. Paul lived and died taxes, literally. In 1956, he slumped over and passed away while testifying about tax policy before a U.S. Senate committee.
<snip>
Two years after the war, back in private practice, Paul published his masterwork, the ultimate distillation of his thinking about tax policy. His new book, Taxation for Prosperity, presented a carefully argued case for continuing high wartime tax rates on peacetime high incomes.
By “well-planned taxes,” Paul meant progressive taxes, steeply graduated levies that kept as much money as possible in the pockets of “people in the lower brackets.” Lower-income people, Paul explained, “have a higher propensity to spend.” Their spending keeps “the wheels of industry turning.”
For people in higher income brackets, by contrast, a “well-planned” tax system meant high tax rates.
“The people with high incomes can best afford to contribute to the support of the government,” as Paul noted, “and the failure to impose substantial taxes in the upper brackets would seriously injure the morale of the rest of the taxpaying public.”High taxes on people of high income, Paul continued, also “perform the valuable service of preventing more saving than our economy can absorb,” soaking up the excess that would otherwise wind up devoted to destabilizing speculation.
Why We Tax: A Timely Reminder for Tax Day
http://www.nationofchange.org/why-we-tax-timely-reminder-tax-day-1364829791Randolph Paul probably thought about taxes — and their role in our society — as deeply as any American of his time. Paul lived and died taxes, literally. In 1956, he slumped over and passed away while testifying about tax policy before a U.S. Senate committee.
<snip>
Two years after the war, back in private practice, Paul published his masterwork, the ultimate distillation of his thinking about tax policy. His new book, Taxation for Prosperity, presented a carefully argued case for continuing high wartime tax rates on peacetime high incomes.
By “well-planned taxes,” Paul meant progressive taxes, steeply graduated levies that kept as much money as possible in the pockets of “people in the lower brackets.” Lower-income people, Paul explained, “have a higher propensity to spend.” Their spending keeps “the wheels of industry turning.”
For people in higher income brackets, by contrast, a “well-planned” tax system meant high tax rates.
“The people with high incomes can best afford to contribute to the support of the government,” as Paul noted, “and the failure to impose substantial taxes in the upper brackets would seriously injure the morale of the rest of the taxpaying public.”High taxes on people of high income, Paul continued, also “perform the valuable service of preventing more saving than our economy can absorb,” soaking up the excess that would otherwise wind up devoted to destabilizing speculation.
Profile Information
Gender: FemaleHometown: Washington state
Home country: USA
Current location: Directly above the center of the earth
Member since: Sat Aug 16, 2003, 02:52 AM
Number of posts: 51,907
