Stanley Feld M.D., FACP, MACE Menu

Medicine: Healthcare System

Permalink:

Nation’s Health Care Bill Predicted To Double By 2020

 Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

Massachusetts has experienced a sixty percent increase in healthcare costs since “Romneycare” was enacted in 2006.  The total cost of medical care in 2005 was $350,100,000. In 2009 the total cost of care had risen to $587,900,000. This represents an annual growth rate of 13.7% per year.

The Medicare Office of the Actuary reported it expects healthcare costs to increase from the $2.6 trillion dollars in 2011 to $4.6 trillion dollars by 2020 under President Obama’s Healthcare Reform Act.

“The Medicare Office of the Actuary estimated that health spending will grow by an average of 5.8 percent a year through 2020, compared to 5.7 percent without the health care overhaul. With that growth, the nation is expected to spend $4.6 trillion on health care in 2020, nearly double the $2.6 trillion spent last year.

I believe the Medicare Office of the Actuary growth rate estimate of healthcare costs is low. Obamacare is about expanding healthcare coverage for the uninsured. It is actually about driving the entire population into a “Public Option” which will be subsidized by the federal government. President Obama’s goal is to have total government control over the healthcare system.

The total rate of growth of healthcare costs will be greater than 5.8% per year. President Obama is not going to be able to decrease costs by insuring at least 30 million more people. Obamacare has done nothing to restrain the healthcare industry’s billing policies. The healthcare industry’s profit will escalate even further as the federal deficit escalates.

President Obama declared that Accountable Care Organizations, Pay4Performance and Electronic Medical Records would reign in costs. I believe this is a pipe dream.  These programs are in the developmental stages and have an excellent chance of failing as the entitlement expands.

President Obama has continued to ignore an important healthcare cost generator.  Defensive medicine generates between $300 billion and $700 billion dollars a year in costs. Tort Reform if done correctly could decrease the cost of defensive medicine to the healthcare system markedly.

“The federal health law, which will expand coverage to 30 million currently uninsured Americans, will have little effect on the nation's rising health spending in the next decade, a government report said today.’

I hope the American people do not let President Obama trick them again with his demagogary. Last week he told us he was going to decrease the federal deficit by 4 trillion dollars in ten years. It is not true because he is going to increase the federal debt by 9 trillion dollars or 4 trillion less than he had planned. Deficit spending continues unabated.

 Everyone has to watch closely. He is bankrupting the country.

 White House Deputy Chief of Staff Nancy-Ann DeParle tells us not to worry. "The bottom line from the report is clear: more Americans will get coverage and save money and health expenditure growth will remain virtually the same,"

 

She stated that the new programs that administration officials said they hope to implement would change the way Medicare and Medicaid pay doctors and hospitals. (ACOs, Pay4Peformance and EMRs). Doctor’s and hospitals are only part of the problem. A bigger part of the problem is the administrative service providers (healthcare insurance industry) expenses, the cost of government bureaucracy, and the increase in defensive medicine

“Meredith Rosenthal, a health economist at Harvard School of Public Health, said it is difficult to predict what impact the health law will have on slowing national health spending.  "Many of the components of the law that are intended to control costs are still in draft form,"

The key to President Obama’s deception to the American people is to distract Americans from connecting the dots. Fifty per cent of employers will drop employer sponsored insurance programs and pay the penalty. Employees will buy insurance through the state insurance exchanges. States are refusing to participate in the insurance exchanges. The federal government is picking the ball up for the states and will have total control over the insurance exchanges.

Baby Boomers are joining the Medicare roles in increasing numbers by the minute. The cost of Medicare will escalate. Seniors are not going to be able to find physicians who accept Medicare because President Obama is going to decrease reimbursement by thirty percent January 1, 2012.

President Obama believes physicians are the problem. He refuses to believe the reality of the dysfunctional healthcare system. All the stakeholders are the problem. Some stakeholders donate more to his reelection than others. He has a strong record of playing favoritism to those that support him.

Americans are waking up to his tricks. The healthcare system has to be reformed. He has the wrong approach. I hope the electorate does not fall for his charm again. 

The opinions expressed in the blog “Repairing The Healthcare System” are, mine and mine alone.  

 

 

 

 

  • Janmar Delicana

    Dear Dr. Feld,
    It’s a great pleasure to read your blog. I find your post very informative. Thank you for sharing your insights.
    As a reader, I consider your writing to be a great example of a quality and globally competitive output. It would be a great thrill and honor if you could share your genuine ideas and knowledge to our community, Physician Nexus. With this you can gain 1000 physician readers from over 62 countries on Nexus.
    We would love for you to visit our community. It’s free, takes seconds, and is designed for physicians only – completely free of industry bias and commercial interests.
    Best,
    Janmar Delicana
    On behalf of the Physician Nexus Team
    http://www.PhysicianNexus.com

  • Thanks for leaving a comment, please keep it clean. HTML allowed is strong, code and a href.

Permalink:

RomneyCare: Does It Work?


  Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

 In 2010, Massachusetts State Treasurer Timothy P. Cahill, an independent candidate for governor, offered a wide-ranging and scathing criticism of the state’s universal health care law (RomneyCare). “ It is bankrupting Massachusetts and will do the same nationally, if a similar plan is passed in Congress.”

I predicted this result when the RomneyCare was passed in 2006. Mitt Romney can deny the results of his plan all he wants. The results are the results and it is his plan. It was an ill-conceived plan. His plan was the model for Obamacare. The media forgets that the (CMS director) Dr. Don Berwick and his untested “idealism” was the architect of both plans.

“We haven’t done anything about driving down costs,” Cahill said. “We haven’t helped small business. We haven’t changed the way we pay for health care and the way we deliver it.”

“The real problem is the sucking sound of money that has been going in to pay for this health care reform,”

Timothy Cahill pointed out that the Obama administration had subsidized the state Of Massachusetts plan so it looked good. All of RomneyCare’s defects were camouflaged.

And I would argue that we’re being propped up so that the federal government and the Obama administration can drive its healthcare reform plan through Congress.”

Commonwealth Connector, the independent state agency established to help residents find health insurance, has “totally failed” to create competition and connect people with affordable insurance. Cahill pointed out that 68% percent of the residents RomneyCare serves receives subsidies from the state.

Patients do not have ownership in and responsibility for their illness. The state of Massachusetts does. It is logical that there would be a rise in costs and overuse. Romneycare creates another uncontrolled entitlement.

The state's health care reform law dramatically reduced the number of uninsured individuals.  At the same time federal, local and state funding for safety-net hospitals was dramatically reduced. In Massachusetts, the thinking was the uninsured, now insured, would go to private facilities for their healthcare needs.

There would be less need for safety-net facilities. The state of Massachusetts could then save money by decreasing funding for these facilities.

Massachusetts’s survey data showed the opposite. The survey of data between 2005-009 found:

  • The number of patients receiving care at Massachusetts Community Health Clinics (CHC) increased by 31.0%,
  • The share of CHC patients who were uninsured fell from 35.5% to 19.9%.
  • Nonemergency ambulatory care visits to clinics of safety-net hospitals grew twice as fast as visits to non–safety-net hospitals from 2006 to 2009.
  • The number of inpatient admissions was comparable for safety-net and non–safety-net  hospitals.
  • Most safety-net patients reported that they used these facilities because they were convenient (79.3%) and affordable (73.8%).
  • Only 25.2% reported having had problems getting appointment elsewhere.

 Our findings indicate that, although health care reform substantially increased the number of people with health insurance in Massachusetts, the demand for services from safety-net facilities (CHCs and hospitals) also grew, particularly for ambulatory care. 

“CHCs have become an even more important source of primary care, perhaps because of increasing difficulty obtaining care from other primary care physicians' offices.”

 

Surveys are a tool of social science and are not necessarily scientific proofs. They have a tendency to miss important findings within the data.

 The state and federal governments have subsidized 68% of the uninsured. Private physicians’ offices in Massachusetts are overcrowded. The insured now have first dollar coverage. Patients overuse the system by seeking more medical attention raising the costs of care.

In Massachusetts patients have speculated with physicians’ appointment times. Physician appointment times have been sold on the secondary market.

In Massachusetts some insurance reimbursements are so low that physicians do not accept certain insurance policies. Patients then have to go to the safety-net hospitals.

Special reimbursement deals have been made with certain physician groups and hospital systems. The Boston Globe has published these deals in the past.

 The total money spent by the state has increased beyond affordability. The increase is the result of overuse of the healthcare system. Patients have no skin in the game.

Revenue 1 8 11 11

 The losers have been patients, the state and small businesses. The winner is the healthcare insurance industry. 

Americans will see the same results with ObamaCare.

The opinions expressed in the blog “Repairing The Healthcare System” are, mine and mine alone.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Thanks for leaving a comment, please keep it clean. HTML allowed is strong, code and a href.

Permalink:

Some of Obamacare’s Complicated Mistakes

 

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE 

President Obama appointed Dr. Donald Berwick as head of CMS during the congressional recess last August. It was my impression it was a one-year appointment. He does not seem to be leaving anytime soon.

 President Obama made this appointment to avoid congressional hearings and the publicity of disapproval.

 Dr. Berwick’s goal for healthcare reform is a single party payer. He also believes in redistribution of wealth. I believe Obamacare will be repealed either by the Supreme Court or the next election.

 CMS’s execution of their initiatives is poor.

 Dr. Berwick believes in increasing bureaucratic structures to administer central control over physicians and their patients by regulations and penalties. 

 Accountable Care Organizations are not a bad idea if they could work. They would increase the measurability of good care. There are too many organizational barriers in the way of execution of ACOs.

Physicians and hospital systems will be fighting with each other over distribution of reimbursement and quality care judgments. Family practitioners and internists will be fighting with specialist over the distribution of reimbursement. I do not believe physicians will be satisfied with a salary determined by hospital systems.

Patients will suffer as access to care decreases. Federal funds will be wasted and the federal deficit will increase further.

ACO’s are in really HMO’s on steroids. Patients were dissatisfied with HMOs in the late 1980s to early 19990s.

The Pay4Performance formula creates penalties and not incentives for physicians and hospital systems. There are no incentives or penalties for patients’ performance.

Health Insurance Exchanges are supposed to be a way to increase insurance availability for patients who are uninsured. It is in really the “Public Option” in disguise. The Exchanges will turn out to be very costly. They will increase the federal deficit as well as state budget deficits.

 The states are objecting to the Health Insurance Exchanges for two reasons. The federal government is trying to shift the economic burden to the states while decreasing state control over of their insurance policies. HHS has even threatened to take total control of the Health Insurance Exchanges. 

 

Electronic Medical Records remain too costly for physicians. EMRs are not completely functional despite President Obama’s $100 billion dollar subsidy. Most hospitals and physician offices are trying to comply with the government mandate. The subsidy is not enough to purchase the best EMR.

No one has acted on my suggestion to put the ideal EMR software in the cloud and charge hospitals and physicians by the click. A fully functional universal Electronic Medical Record would be available instantly at an affordable cost.

These are some of the layers of complexity. I predict these initiatives will not be fulfilled by 2013. There are too many new things to adjust too all at once. All the initiatives need a reason for total cooperation.

Making things worse is the requirement to use ICD-10 to file claims. 

ICD is a claims coding formula going into its tenth iteration in 2013. It is much more complex than ICD-9.

 “The differences between the two versions are significant. Whereas ICD-9 CM provides approximately 13,000 diagnosis and 3,000 procedure codes, the version of ICD-10 diagnosis and procedure codes to be deployed in the United States are roughly 68,000 diagnostic codes and 87,000 procedure codes.”

 In January 2009, HHS and CMS mandated ICD-10 codes be used by all healthcare plans, providers, and clearing houses for all diagnosis and inpatient procedures effective October 2013. It seems like there would be enough time to adjust. However, healthcare system adjustment will be huge.

“ICD-10 is one key piece to the overall success of the larger puzzle. More granular

Data will better reflect the patients’ condition and help us manage their care better. At least, that’s the idea.”

I do not think ICD-10 will happen in 2013. These initiatives are federal mandates. They have two things in common. They rely heavily on IT, both for transactions and analytics, and they impose significant changes on organizational workflows, specifically those of clinicians.

 Any workload changes are difficult to adjust to. Too many changes at once are lethal to an initiative.  Dr. Berwick’s timing introducing the changes will be lethal to the changes. When this change comes at physicians from so many different angles they become passively aggressive and resist change. 

 ACOs, Electronic Medical Records and Health Insurance Exchanges fulfillment is behind schedule. ICD-10 will also be behind schedule.

 CMS has declared the ICD-10 compliance date will not be moved.

 The vast majority of respondents (72%) believe ICD-10 will have a positive impact on quality in the long term.

• While they see the long-term benefit, many respondents (41%) also believe ICD-10 will strain physician relationships.

 • Most (60%) expect short-term cash flow to be negatively impacted both in terms of project resources and lost revenue. 

• Only a third of the respondents believe payers will be ready by October 2013 and most believe physician cooperation will be their biggest barrier.

 Although the knowledge that ICD-10 is coming has sparked action by healthcare leaders—most (84%) have started their ICD-10 projects—as a group, less than a third (29%) have moved beyond the assessment phase into implementation.

 ICD-10 is creating many levels of complexity to coding. It will require an increased office staff along the care continuum. The staff must learn and use the new diagnostic and procedure codes. It will also require someone to assign appropriate codes that reflect physicians’ notes. Someone will be needed to create an appropriate claim for the medical encounter. ICD-10 will increase overhead as reimbursement decreases. It is naïve to believe the EMR will automatically accomplish this

Unquestionably, ICD-10 introduces an added layer of complexity to the multitude of challenges for physicians and hospital systems that are already at hand as a result of Obamacare.

 ICD-10 puts revenue at risk for the sake of data the government might use misuse.

 I predict physicians will not participate fully. The physician shortage will intensify as more people enter the healthcare system and fewer physicians are available to treat Medicare patients.

The opinions expressed in the blog “Repairing The Healthcare System” are, mine and mine alone. 

 

 

 

  • Thanks for leaving a comment, please keep it clean. HTML allowed is strong, code and a href.

Permalink:

Pretenses, Pretenses, Pretenses

 

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

During the last few weeks I have discussed the problems with Medicare Part
B, D and F.

The problems are the result of abuse of the healthcare system by the various secondary stakeholders protecting their vested interests. The stakeholders use their resources to influence our elected politicians. The peoples’ votes should be their only influence.

Politicians take the money from these various lobbying groups because they need the money to campaign for re-election. Media advertising is not cheap.

“The media exercises its greatest influence during elections . Candidates who lack an effective media strategy are likely to be destined for failure.”

“Candidates routinely spend 80 percent of their “war chests” on television and radio advertising. In larger states such as California, Texas, and New York, television advertising is the only way for candidates to reach the tens of millions of voters. In 2000, political novice John Corzine spent a mind-numbing $60–80 million of his own money — most of it on television commercials — to win a Senate seat in New Jersey.”

These two outstanding sound bites summarize the issue:

“The media is the message. Marshell McCluen.”

‘If you tell a lie enough times, it becomes the truth. Carl Sandberg.”

I can imagine the number of jobs created in advertising and in the media during the election season. The media are not willing to relinquish jobs and revenue for unbiased reporting.

President Obama has already been funding his reelection campaign on the taxpayers’ dime. His goal is to raise $1 billion dollars. The goal of the $1 billion dollars contributed by donors implies the purchase by these donors of political influence to support their vested interests.

The traditional media has not been criticized this practice. Campaign advertising is a large part of the traditional media’s yearly revenue. The media is cautious about criticizing large donors for fear of losing the campaign advertising revenue.

The voices of American voters are being drowned out by special interest money. Millions of dollars are poured into campaigns each election, and the amount continues to climb. Instead of turning to their constituents, members of Congress look to wealthy individuals and businesses to fund their campaigns.

Public Citizen is working hard to change the current system of campaign finance so that members of Congress are responsible to their voters, not to their contributors.  

President Obama has been beholden to these special interests. He has used trick plays to fulfill his obligations to his donors. He has disguised his intentions by claiming he is doing everything for the interest of the little guy.

I have difficulty believing anything President Obama says anymore. I also have difficulty believing Democrats and most Republicans in congress.

The recent raising of the debt limit tied to deficit reduction is a case in point.

It is a total fake.

Let us assume a person makes $50,000 a year. He spends $150,000 a year. That means he spends $100,000 a year more than he makes. He must go to the bank to borrow the $100,000.

Will any bank lend him $100,000?  No! He would have to prove how he would pay the $100,000 back.

He promises the bank he will reduce his “deficit spending” of $100,000 by 10% a year over the next ten years. That means that next year he will spend $90,000 more than he earns. He will only have to borrow $90,000.  In ten years I would increase his deficit by 680,000 rather that the 1,000,000 if he did not promise to decrease his deficit spending by 10% a year for 10 years. The banker would still say no.

The United States is not decreasing its deficit or balancing the budget with this latest deal. It is increasing the deficit will decreasing the “deficit spending.” The net effect is creating more debt.

 Why the deal is a fake. President Obama and the congress are not interested is being serious about being fiscally responsible. President Obama has faked out the American public once again.

There are many things government can do for the American public.  Everyone would agree that corporate interests, if given a chance, would take advantage of the public’s interest and the government. The government must protect the public from corporate interests and itself.

It can be accomplished by aligning corporate interests with the public’s interests. The use of force and penalties (price controls) always fail.

An example is food inspection and the Cargill turkey scandal. How are the complex food safety regulations enforced? They were not enforced in the turkey scandal. The inefficiencies and possible corruption that exist in government bureaucracy made the regulations impossible to enforce.

Did the government correct the deficiency? I think not. Last year’s hamburger scandal should have created the incentive and opportunity to correct the deficiency.

Would the pharmaceuticals companies step out and not sell the antibiotics to Cargill? They have not.

How does this relate to the dysfunctional healthcare system?

Why is Medicare so expensive and healthcare costs rising so fast?

Growth of Medicarice. 8 4 2010png

 Physician fees are not rising. Why penalize physicians? Healthcare insurance fees are rising. Bureaucratic infrastructure is increasing, as it is becoming less efficient. As this is happening the waste, fraud and abuse is mounting.

The only way to get out of the healthcare mess is to let consumers own, control and be responsible for their healthcare dollars. Social networking will be the driver of consumers’ demand for independence from government control.

The government bureaucracy’s role must be to create appropriate rules to protect the consumers from abuse.

The conundrum is the government’s bureaucracy is the biggest part of the problem

Government must also create educational programs to help consumers make wise choices.

 Consumers should be given incentives to make wise healthcare decisions.  

Increased government control will only create a bigger government mess.

 The opinions expressed in the blog “Repairing The Healthcare System” are, mine and mine alone.

 

  • Thanks for leaving a comment, please keep it clean. HTML allowed is strong, code and a href.

Permalink:

Easy Things to Do To Fix Medicare Part D

 

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE 

Twenty seven million individuals were enrolled in Medicare Part D as of December 2009. The government spent $51 billion to subsidize Medicare Part D in 2009. The $51 billion dollars spent is in addition to seniors’ premiums and co-pays. The government subsidy was $1,889 per individual subscriber. 

Who is making the money?

 “A provision in the Medicare Modernization Act (MMA), known as the "noninterference" provision, expressly prohibits the Medicare program (the government) from directly negotiating lower prescription drug prices with pharmaceutical manufacturers.”

 This was a gift to the healthcare insurance industry by the government as a result of intense lobbying efforts. 

Over 300 private plans (Medicare Plan D sponsors) enter into negotiations with pharmaceutical manufacturers separately to deliver Medicare Part D benefits.

Medicare Part D eligible seniors are forced to deal with an overwhelming number of private plans with varying formularies, premiums, deductibles, and co-pays in order to receive prescription drug coverage. The differences in prices are available but it is difficult to make comparisons.

The government negotiates directly with the pharmaceutical manufactures for the VA system. The VA system pays 42% less than Medicare plans for prescription drugs. The high volume contracts save money for the government and are lucrative to the pharmaceutical companies.

The various Medicare Part D plans cover about 85% of the most popular 200 drugs on average. The VA’s national formulary covers 59% of the most popular 200 drugs.

If Medicare Part D negotiated the same drug prices as the VA, the government would be able to decrease its subsidy $510 per beneficiary per year or a total of $14 billion per year (2009 prices).

Research by respected economist Dean Baker shows that the federal government and Medicare beneficiaries would save $600 billion between 2006 and 2013 if Medicare were allowed to directly offer a Part D benefit and to negotiate prices with pharmaceutical manufacturers. 7Such significant savings could be used to close Part D's donut hole and to lower cost-sharing for Medicare beneficiaries.

There are reasons for the twenty-six percent difference in formulary. Either the government-negotiated prices are too expensive and deemed marginally more effective than the drug ordered or the less expensive drug is determined to be just as effective. 

The judgment is made by the procurement system that negotiates price.

Is the cheaper drug as effective for a particular patient? This decision should be made by the patients’ physicians and patients and not by bureaucrats. It should be the patient’s choice to pay the difference. 

The procurement systems bureaucrats could be wrong.  

If the government negotiated for all the Medicare Part D participants the government’s purchasing power should be greater than the VA system. Its negotiated price would be better. The savings should reduce the government’s Medicare Part D subsidy significantly.

President Obama sort of understood this concept. He included the government’s right to negotiate drug prices in his Healthcare Reform Act. He subsequently removed the provision from his Healthcare Reform Act in exchange for the healthcare insurance industry’s and the pharmaceutical industry’s support of “Obamacare.” Seniors and the Medicare Part D program have lost.

It is obvious that there is much fraud, waste and abuse in Medicare Part D. February 2011; the Government Accounting Office published an example of CMS bureaucratic inefficiency and waste.

The Government Accounting Office (GAO) has designated Medicare as a high-risk program. The size, nature, and complexity of the Part D program make it particularly vulnerable risk to fraud, waste, and abuse. The GAO and the Inspector General of HHS requires all Part D sponsors (healthcare insurance industry) to have programs to safeguard Part D from fraud, waste, and abuse.

 CMS is responsible for managing and overseeing the Part D program. CMS regulations require Part D sponsors to have compliance plans that must include measures that detect, correct, and prevent fraud, waste, and abuse. 

 Congress asked the GAO to examine the extent of CMS's implementation of the oversight of Part D sponsors' (healthcare insurance industry) compliance programs to avoid fraud and abuse.

  CMS bureaucrats have written extensive documents containing many rules and regulations to combat waste, fraud and abuse.  CMS then outsources the Medicare Part D audit to Medicare Drug Integrity Contractors (MEDICs) to support its Medicare Part D audit efforts.

 The 2010 audit was supposed to be finalized in early 2011. It has not been completed as of July 30,2011.

CMS officials reported that they conducted only 33 audits out of 290 Medicare Part D sponsors (Healthcare insurance industry) in 2010.

“The 33 sponsors represented 11 percent of Part D sponsors, 56 percent of plans, and covered 62 percent of enrolled beneficiaries in 2010 according to agency officials. As of February 2011, CMS had not made all audit findings available but had taken formal enforcement actions against several sponsors resulting from the on-site audits according to agency officials.”

 “As of December 2010, officials reported that the agency had issued five marketing and enrollment sanctions and one contract termination action based, in part, on the results of these audit findings noting failure to comply with CMS compliance plan requirements.” 

 It is hard to imagine how many deficiencies exist among the other 257 Medicare Part D sponsors not yet audited. How long should these audits take? How severe will the penalties be? How can seniors know if their Part D plan is sound?

CMS has not been able to audit or enforce its own regulations that are suppose to protect seniors from fraud and abuse efficiently and effectively.

What can possibly go wrong with ‘Obamacare” with 256 new bureaucratic agencies and many thousands of new regulations?

The only healthcare system that could work is a consumer driven healthcare system with alignment of all the stakeholders’ interests.

Unfortunately, that is not going to happen anytime soon. Seniors are starting to take things into their own hands.

After investigating several Canadian pharmacies, my wife and I paid $624.77 for a three-month supply of drugs at an online Vancouver registered pharmacy. These same drugs cost us $1,208.04 buying at Walgreen's, Target, and Kmart where we shopped for the lowest prices.”

"What's the catch? If Big Pharma had its way, customs and the FDA would be confiscating all imported drugs, crying that the government can't guarantee their safety."

"But that just isn't the case. Your pharmaceuticals come in the same sealed packages you get at your corner drugstore."
 

"Anyway, it would be politically incorrect to arrest grandma for trying to make ends meet. Some members of Congress even encourage the practice by listing Canadian pharmacies on their Web sites."

The Wal-Mart $10 prescription fee for generic drugs also works if your physician accepts generic substitution. 

A reader sent me a link to a website. http://babayoga.drugcutpillsrx.com/?camp=priagiji

 I reviewed the web site. It is based in San Francisco. The site offers large discounts on branded and generic medication. It is much less expensive than Medicare Part D. Senoirs could afford to buy the medication without using up credits toward the donut and use Medicare Part D only when needed.

It is going to take proactive approaches by seniors (consumer driven) to force the government to serve their vested interests and not the vested interests of the healthcare insurance industry and the pharmaceutical industry.

The opinions expressed in the blog “Repairing The Healthcare System” are, mine and mine alone.

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Thanks for leaving a comment, please keep it clean. HTML allowed is strong, code and a href.

Permalink:

Problems With Medicare Part D

 

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

I have discussed Medicare Part B and Part F in recent blogs. A reader asked about Medicare Part D

 

Dr. Feld 

“Please discuss Medicare Part D, the drug benefit plan available to seniors. It is very complicated and completely confusing to me.

My physician gave me a prescription for Levequin 500 mg once a day for 10 days. The pharmacist told me it would cost me $330 dollars. Medicare Part D would pay an additional $110 dollars for a total of $440 dollars.

 I asked the pharmacist if there was a generic equivalent. The answer was yes. It cost $10 dollars.

 This is unconscionable. It is highway robbery.

Sincerely

a.g.”

 

Several issues are presented in this readers note. It is essential to understand these issues. The issues are an indictment against government “controlled” programs.

On Drugstore.com the price for Levaquin500mg Tablets  is 185.98 for 10 tablets. 

"There is a generic equivalent ; Levofloxacin is a 3rd-generation fluoroquinolone antibiotic, marketed by Ortho-McNeil under the trade name Levaquin in the United States.  Levofloxacin was launched in the Japanese market in 1993". 

The generic version of Levaquin is Levofloxacin. Levofloxacin 500mg tablets cost $51.08 for 30 tablets or $17.08 for 10 tablets. Wal-Mart’s price is less at $20 for 30 tablets. 

Levaquin is marginally more potent than Cipro, which also has a generic equivalent. Wal-Mart’s price for 30 tablets of ciprofloxacin 500mg(generic Cipro) is $20.  

  I am sure the reader’s physician did not know the differences in the prices of the drugs.

The Medicare Part D benefit was created to help senior citizens pay for their medication at affordable prices. If a person has an illness that needs medication that person has to be able to afford the medication. Taking the medication is important to prevent the complications of chronic diseases. It is well established that 90% of the Medicare healthcare dollars are spent on treating the complications of chronic diseases.

Adherence or compliance with prescribed medication is only about 50%. Compliance was lower before Medicare Part D. Many seniors had to make a choice between food and medication. Many seniors still have to make the same choice.

Tzu said 2500 years ago,

Today’s battles are information battles because information shapes both perception and opinion.  Those who use it to both and attack and defend will win, those who do not will lose”.

The healthcare insurance industry controls the data for both employers and the government. It is the administrative service provider for both employers and government.  It is no surprise that it is the winner. The losers are patients and the government.

United Healthcare will pay AARP $4 billion dollars over seven years to be the only provider of AARP’s Medicare Part D plan.

Does anyone think United Healthcare does this if they thought they would lose money?  Part D is supposed to be a plan subsiding drug benefits for seniors. The government is supposed to set premiums for all seniors regardless of health risk.

Last year United HealthCare’s net income from Medicare Part D was over $1 billion dollars. United Healthcare expects this net income to increase in the future as more baby boomers qualify for Medicare Part D coverage using AARP’s exclusive United Healthcare Part D plan.

 Despite all the profit from Medicare Part D in 2008 the premium for seniors increased from $25 to $28 per month per senior in 2009. The premium started at $14 per month per senior 2006. In 2011 the premium has increased to $41 per senior per month. Medicare Part D’s premiums are paid for with after tax dollars.  United HealthCare’s profit from Part D has grown even higher.

Dennis Kucinich said. "It’s clear that they didn’t want me upsetting their multi-billion dollar applecart,"

"The health care plans of the invited candidates preserve and promote the interests of for-profit insurance and pharmaceutical companies at the expense of tens of millions of everyday Americans who either can’t afford coverage or are being over-charged for the inadequate coverage they struggle to afford."

I believe the government’s intentions were good. However, after vested interests manipulated the rules and regulations, Medicare Part D has turned out to be less effective and more costly than anticipated for both seniors and the government.

The government and seniors are being ripped off by the healthcare insurance industry. The government is doing nothing about it.

Medicare Part D premium provides coverage until prescription costs reach $2830. After $2830 the patient pays 100% of the drug cost until his out of pocket expenses reach $4550. Thereafter, the patient pays 5% of the drug costs and the government subsidies the remainder.

The co-pays before patients reach the “donut hole” varies depending on the drug and the healthcare carrier. Co-pays for generic drugs are $4. Co-pays for healthcare insurance carriers preferred  branded drugs are $25.  Co-pays for healthcare insurance company’s non-preferred drugs are $54 or more. This is the reason for the $330 dollars co-pay in the readers note.

The total costs are added to the amount credited toward patients “donut hole” even though the patient paid the co-pay.

It is confusing for intelligent people. Just image how confusing it must be for an 85 year old with some disabilities and limited income.

Consumers can buy a month supply for a generic drugs at Wal-Mart for $4 cash without a charge being made to their donut hole. Some healthcare insurance companies charge $20-40 dollars toward the donut for a $4 generic drug. The insurance company pays nothing for the drug because the consumer already paid the $4. None of these maneuvers are transparent. The healthcare insurance company controls the data.

Despite all of these co-pays and insurance premiums, the government spends $51 billion dollars a year subsiding Medicare Part D.

Something is wrong. It must be money wasted by the CMS bureaucracy, faulty CMS oversight of the healthcare insurance industry or non-transparent pricing by the healthcare insurance industry.

The opinions expressed in the blog “Repairing The Healthcare System” are, mine and mine alone.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • chiropractor greenville sc

    Massage therapy has a number of benefits for those suffering from sciatica, including increased blood circulation and muscle relaxation. As well, massage releases endorphins, the body’s natural pain relievers

  • Thanks for leaving a comment, please keep it clean. HTML allowed is strong, code and a href.

Permalink:

More On Medicare Part B’s Hidden Tax Increases


Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP MACE

Medicare Part B is not cheap!

In addition to the increase in premiums for Medicare Part B, there are additional hidden costs. These hidden costs for care could be viewed as a hidden tax.  These costs have been increasing yearly.

The government’s cost to fulfill its obligations to the Medicare entitlement program has increased yearly. The Medicare premium increases have not covered the government’s increased costs. The government has increased seniors’ Medicare deductible in order to cover some of its expense.

At the same time, the government has blamed the increased costs on increasing physicians’ fees. Physicians have not been able to increase their fees for several years.

Physicians are the most disorganized and least represented of all the healthcare stakeholders. They are the easiest to attack. Physicians’ reimbursements have, in fact, consistently been decreased.   

An increasing number of physicians are opting out of accepting Medicare. Patients pay physicians directly. The patient then submits the bill to Medicare. Medicare reimburses patients directly.

Physicians are under no obligation to accept Medicare’s allowable fee schedule when they do not accept Medicare. Physicians’ fees are generally higher than Medicare’s allowable fee. The full fee represents a further increase in the cost of Medicare coverage.

If physicians accept Medicare, they are required by law to accept Medicare’s allowable fee.

Many physicians have stopped accepting new Medicare patients. This has intensified the physician shortage for seniors. It has also resulted in decreasing access to care.    

I received a note from a reader asking me why he had to pay $182 dollars to his internist for an office visit and an x-ray. He has Medicare Part B and Medicare Part F (Medigap) insurance. He thought this coverage would pay the entire fee. He paid cash and eventually received $2.24 from Medicare.

He stated he did not have to pay anything for a previous visit.  

I asked him to send me the Medicare explanation of benefits(EOB). It   made no sense.

In studying the explanation of benefits several things became clear.

1. His internist stopped participating in Medicare.

 2.He did not tell this to the patient.

3. The internist told the patient that the $182 covered his annual Medicare deductible.

The description of Part B coverage in the Medicare manual is as follows;

“Part B: (covers Medicare eligible physician services, outpatient hospital services, certain home health services, durable medical equipment)

  • $162.00 per year. (Note: You pay 20% of the Medicare-approved amount for services after you meet the $162.00 deductible.)

Additional information about the Medicare premiums, deductibles, and coinsurance rates for 2011 is available in the November 4, 2010 Fact Sheet titled, "Medicare Premiums, Deductibles for 2011" on the www.cms.gov website.”

The patient also had Medigap (Medicare Part F). Part F covers Medicare Part B deductibles and the 20% co-pay of Medicare allowable charges. It also covers Skilled Nursing facilities allowable charges and Medicare Part A deductible plus 20% of the co-pay for Part A. Part A covers hospitalization.

“Medicare Supplement Plan F covers:

  • Basic benefits including 
    • Hospitalization: pays Part A coinsurance plus coverage for 365 additional days after Medicare benefits end
    • Medical Expenses: pays Part B coinsurance – generally 20 percent of Medicare-approved expenses – or copayments for hospital outpatient services
    • Blood: pays for the first three pints of blood each year
    • Hospice care: pays Part A coinsurance

 

In addition to the basic benefits, Plan F also provides coverage for: 

  • Skilled nursing facility care
  • Medicare Part A deductible for hospitalization
  • Medicare Part B deductible for medical and hospital outpatient expenses
  • Medicare Part B excess charges (This is the difference between what a doctor or provider charges and the amount Medicare will pay up to Medicare's limiting amount)
  • Travel-abroad medical emergency help

If this patient went to a physician that accepted Medicare, he would have been fully insured. In this case the physician did not accept Medicare. The physician omitted attaching the patients Medicare Part F coverage information in submitting Medicare Part B form for the patient.

By not accepting Medicare, physicians are allowed to collect their entire fee from patients. The physician billed the patient $182.86. Medicare allowed $164.78.

The patient’s Medicare deductible for 2011 is $162. Therefore Medicare paid the patient $2.78 for a total of 164.78. Physicians are permitted to “balance bill” when not accepting Medicare.

His physician can collect and keep the additional $28.08. If he accepted Medicare, it would be against the law to collect and keep the extra $28.08.

As Medicare continues to reduce physicians’ reimbursement, physicians, who in the past accepted Medicare, are dropping out and directly billing patients.

If this patient’s Medicare Part F information were attached to the Medicare Part B bill, Medicare would have sent the allowable fee explanation of benefits to the Medicare Part F carrier. The Medicare Part F carrier would have sent the allowable fee for his deductible of $162 to the patient.  

In 1999 the yearly deductible was $100. It increased to $110 in 2003, $124 in 2006, $131 in 2007, $135 in 2008, $133.50 in 2009 and $162 in 2010.

Additionally, Medicare Part F premiums have increased each year. It is not sensible to be without Medicare Part F coverage.

Patients must be aware of the coverage details. They must learn how to read the explanation of benefits (EOBs). They must make sure they are not overcharged or mischarged.

Part A, hospital coverage, is even more complex and confusing.  Many overcharges can be found when studying the EOBs.   

Medicare coverage is not cheap.

The opinions expressed in the blog “Repairing The Healthcare System” are, mine and mine alone.

 

 

  • Thanks for leaving a comment, please keep it clean. HTML allowed is strong, code and a href.

Permalink:

Medicare Premiums Are On The Rise


Stanley Feld M.D, FACP,MACE

President Obama’s campaign’s many promises have turned out to be false. His pledge to not raise taxes for people earning less than $250,000 has turned out to be a lie.

“I can make a firm pledge.  Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase.  Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes,” 
President Obama, September 12, 2008

Many seniors live on a fixed income. Many live on interest and capital gains from their retirement plans in addition to social security benefits.

In 2003 congress passed the “The Medicare Modernization Act. (MMA)” The act is known for establishing Medicare Part D, a prescription drug benefit managed by private insurance.

Medicare Part D has turned out to be a cash cow for the healthcare insurance industry. It has not been a tremendous benefit to seniors. Medicare Part D’s premiums have been increasing each year. Medicare Part D’s premiums are paid for with after tax dollars.

The MMA also made significant changes to Medicare Part B.  Most seniors were not aware of the changes to Medicare or implications for Medicare Part B coverage at the time of passage of the bill to law.

Millions of seniors depend on the universal, “affordable” healthcare insurance coverage Medicare provides.  

Medicare Part B premiums are based on means testing or  the modified adjusted income (MAGI.)

Under the previous law, all Medicare beneficiaries were required to pay a premium equal to about 25 percent of Medicare Part B program's total costs. The remaining 75 percent of the programs costs were financed through general revenues.

The MMA through MAGI, however, radically altered this formula by linking premiums to seniors’ income. Included in income is salary, earned interest, pension distributions, annuities, bond distributions, capital gains and social security income.

The more seniors earn from any source the more they pay in Medicare premiums.  

As a result, wealthier seniors pay a disproportionately higher premium than other seniors.

Means testing is done automatically. CMS connects to the Internal Revenue tax returns of seniors and calculates the MAGI for the following year.  

This is “redistribution of wealth” plain and simple. This means testing results in the higher income seniors paying premiums ranging from 35 to 80 percent of the Medicare program's total costs per person aside from the senior already paying into the system during his working days.

In 2011 single taxpayers with MAGI up to $80,000 pay no surcharges for their Medicare Part B. Joint filing taxpayers with MAGI up to $160,000 MAGI will not pay a surcharge.

An individual who makes over $80,000 per year had a rate increase from $98.20 to $109.80. A senior couple making over $160,000 per year experienced a rate increase from  $111.16 for each individual to $153.72 per month for a total of 317.44 per month or $3809.28 per year.

The $3809.28 is deducted from their social security distribution. The premiums are paid with pre tax dollars. Medicare Part D and Part F premiums are paid with post tax dollars.

The basic Medicare rates have increased yearly since 2007 and are scheduled to continue to increase through 2015.

President Obama raised the rates above the schedule Medicare premium for 2012 from $153.72 per person to $161.50. This represents a “hidden” tax increase by the Obama administration for people under earning under $250,000.  

It gets worse. People earning $200,000 to $300,000 experience an increase from $130.60 to $219.60 per month per individual as a result of means testing. 

Seniors in the top bracket will have their Medicare premium increased of from $169.49 to $369.36. President Obama has increased this premium $18.00 per month per individual above the scheduled increase.

The increase in Medicare premiums represent an increase in taxes for seniors that worked hard all their life in order to have extra money to enjoy retirement.

President Obama is increasing the tax on seniors with income from any source between $80,000-250,000 per year. This is contrary to his campaign pledge.  

President Obama’s fib is not surprising when we look at his attitude toward people who were productive and earned extra wealth.

 I don’t want a deal in which I am able to keep hundreds of thousands of dollars that I don’t need, while a parent struggling to send her kid to college finds they have a couple thousand dollars less in grants and student loans.”

 President Obama believes in “redistribution of wealth” with government control of the redistribution. He does not believe in economic incentives for individuals to earn money and save it for retirement.  

President Obama’s beliefs are not compatible with the American Dream. His beliefs will lead to the destruction of American’s innovative entrepreneurial spirit.

 

The opinions expressed in the blog “Repairing The Healthcare System” are, mine and mine alone.

 

 

  • Thanks for leaving a comment, please keep it clean. HTML allowed is strong, code and a href.

Permalink:

Healthcare Costs: Who Gets The Money?


Stanly Feld M.D., FACP, MACE

The National Institute for Healthcare Management Foundations report also contained data on the amounts of money each provider received for patient care.  There are important take home points in the data.

The data was obtained from newly updated figures of the National Health Expenditure Accounts (NHEA), the official estimator of health care spending in the United States.

During the period from 2005 to 2009 healthcare spending rose, and premiums for private health insurance increased an average of nearly 15 percent per year.

In the last two years private healthcare premiums rose 35%. The 35% increase occurred in anticipation of the healthcare insurance industry being forced by President Obama’s Healthcare Reform Act to provide healthcare insurance to high-risk consumers at the same premium as lower risk consumers.

Physicians have been blamed for increasing fees and over testing. The reality is physicians have experienced decreases in reimbursement for their services.

It is true some physicians over test to defend themselves from lawsuits. Tort reform is essential to decrease the practice of defensive medicine. Texas has reversed this trend with its new tort reform laws. Few other states have followed.

How healthcare dollars are distributed is revealing.

The United States spent $8,086 per person for healthcare in 2009 . Total healthcare spending as a percent of GDP reached 17.6 percent in 2009. It is expected to increase in the coming years.

In 2005, the United States spent $6,827 per person on healthcare.

 

             Who Gets The Money?

 

                   2005/person      %        2009/person      %

Hospital Care                 $ 2071               36         $2471            31

Physicians and Lab        $1417               20         $1646            20

Home Healthcare           $ 869               13          $1066            13

Rx + Medical Devices     $910                 13         $1066             13

Dental and other           $473               7           $548                7

Non Medical Expense    $1109                 16         $1289             16

 

There are many important points to be made about these numbers.  Let us assume these numbers are close to correct.

  1. Hospital services include inpatient and hospital-based outpatient, home health care connected to hospitals, nursing home and hospice care connect to hospitals, as well as the services of inpatient pharmacy and resident physicians.

The higher the obesity rates the higher the incidence of chronic disease. The higher the incidence of chronic disease the higher the complication rates from chronic disease. This results in higher utilization of hospital services. 

Each hospital service has an inflated markup. Remember the $45 dollar aspirin.

Hospitals with resident physicians are subsidies. These hospitals receive higher reimbursement than other hospitals. 

Hospitals collected 36% of the $8,086 dollars for patient care. It is obvious that reducing the number of hospitalizations for the complications of chronic disease would reduce the total cost of care.

 2. The physician and clinical services category reflect the care provided by physicians (MDs and DOs) in their offices and freestanding outpatient care settings and services billed independently by freestanding laboratories.   

It is obvious that physicians do not receive 20% of the per capita spending for medical care.

Laboratories that do lab tests, x-ray studies, MRI scans, CAT Scans and Ultrasound share reimbursement for this category. Unless physicians own the laboratories, they do not share in the reimbursement. It would be important to know the percentage of physicians that own those independent laboratories. 

Physicians own a small but growing percentage of laboratories. It is difficult for a physician or group of physicians to make a living from cognitive reimbursements alone. Physicians needs to collect ancillary laboratory fees to stay in business.  

 

Companies owning these laboratories are secondary stakeholders. They feed off the intellectual property of physicians. 

It is fair to say that physician reimbursement is half of the 20% of the dollars spent of medical care in this category. Physicians’ reimbursement for care is 10% or $708 of the $8086.

 3. $1,100 or 13% goes to other secondary stakeholders for care provided by freestanding home health agencies along with other long-term care providers include freestanding nursing homes, rehabilitation facilities and continuing care retirement communities with on-site nursing facilities (assisted living). Other non-traditional settings and providers receiving reimbursement include school, worksite health clinics, residential mental health/substance abuse treatment centers, some ambulance providers, and services provided through Medicaid home and community-based waivers.

 

There are many independent companies involved it the home healthcare business. Medicare patients utilize the majority of these services. The fees charged by the Home Healthcare agencies are high. These Home Healthcare agencies know how to pile on the services in order to receive better reimbursement. These agencies receive much more than the family practitioners who referred the patients.

 4. $1,100 of the $8086 is spent for purchases of prescription drugs, durable medical equipment and other medical products.

Pharmaceutical companies receive a large and growing proportion of the healthcare dollars spent for medical care but not the entire 13%.

How many advertisements do we see on television for electric wheelchairs totally paid for by Medicare? How about home glucose monitors? If it were not a very profitable business, we would not see so much direct to public advertisements.

5. The care given by dentists and other non-physician health care professionals including chiropractors, optometrists, podiatrists, private-duty nurses, and physical, occupational and speech therapists are included in this category.

Dentists and other non-physician healthcare professionals consumed 7% of the healthcare dollars for medical care.

 

The study is inaccurate for this category. It does not capture the actual money spent for dental care. Dental insurance usually provides poor coverage. Most dentists do not accept dental insurance and most people do not have dental insurance.

If we assume most of the cost should be attributed to the other healthcare professionals, these healthcare professionals receive as much or more than physicians.

The difference will become greater because President Obama is going to reduce physician reimbursement 30% on January 1, 2011.

 6. The last group is money allocated as direct patient care but is considered non-medical. This expense totals 16% of the healthcare dollars. It is included as a patient care expense and not overhead used to calculate premiums using the  Medical-Loss ratio formula.   

Healthcare insurers have insisted that typical business expenses to improve patient care should not be calculated into the Medical-Loss Ratio. The industry lobbied President Obama’s healthcare team and achieved its goal. 

President Obama made this deal with the healthcare insurance industry in exchange for its support of his Healthcare Reform Act. 

These non-medical care expenses are included in direct medical care. These expenses are 16% of the $8086 dollars per capita. These expenses are;

a. The cost of verifying the credentials of doctors in its networks.  

b.The cost to ferret out fraud by identifying doctors performing unnecessary operations, procedures, and tests.  

c. The cost for programs (help desks) to try that keep people with chronic diseases such as diabetes out of emergency rooms.

d.The healthcare insurance industry believes it should be entitled to expense sales commissions paid to insurance agents.

e. It wants to expense taxes paid on investments.                                         

 Healthcare insurers insist that typical business expenses should not be considered part of the Medical-Loss Ratio.   

President Obama has insisted that the Medical Loss ratio should be reduced to15% from 20-30 %. This means that the healthcare insurance industry can add an additional 15% above expenses paid for direct patient care when calculating insurance premiums.

The additional 15% is for healthcare insurance companies salaries and other expenses.

The total premium percentage the healthcare insurance industry takes off the top is 31% under present rules. Previously the healthcare insurance industry took between 35% to 45% of the total healthcare dollars paid into the system. 

 

                                    The Take Home Points

  1. The healthcare insurance industry receives an excessive percentage of the healthcare dollar.
  2. Physicians receive a surprising low percentage of the healthcare dollars.
  3. Hospitals receive a large percentage of the healthcare dollars because of pricing standards and the increasing numbers of patients with chronic disease.
  4. Ancillary stakeholders receive a greater percentage of the healthcare dollars than physicians.

 

President Obama’s Healthcare Reform Act cures very few of these problems.

 

 

 

 

  • Jacqueline Wright

    The blog is substantial. This could enlighten the minds of many American citizens.

  • Kim Robinson

    Health is wealth! so the government must give their time to resolve this healthcare problem. They say that healthy community can be very productive compared to unhealthy community.

  • Thanks for leaving a comment, please keep it clean. HTML allowed is strong, code and a href.