Stanley Feld M.D., FACP, MACE Menu

Results found: 110

Permalink:

Administrative Costs: Difference between the Medical Savings Account System and the Present System

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

In my view none of the published estimates of administrative costs to the healthcare system are correct. The latest estimate of administrative costs to the healthcare system was $150 billion dollars. I bet this estimate is only half of the administrative costs. The estimate represents only the costs the insurance companies add on to their insurance premium calculation. It does not represent the cost to the physicians to process each claim.

My estimate for the administrative cost to the physician for each office visit is $35- $40. The physicians’ administrative costs include the cost of physicians’ time to complete the paper work for each encounter as well as the cost of back office personnel for processing each claim to completion. Many claims are adjusted by the insurance company and disputed by the providers. The claims are then resubmitted for another round of non medical value added costs. The total cost to the system could represent $300 billion dollars. Three hundred billion dollar savings can go a long way to reducing insurance premiums to manageable and affordable levels. I could also go a long way toward increasing accessibility to care.

A few weeks ago I wrote about economists declaring that we can afford the cost of our excellent healthcare system. I blasted the concept as ridiculous. The economists ignore the inefficiencies and not medical value added cost to the system.

This week an article appeared titled “Running on Empty: Healthcare As the Engine of the Economy by Brian Kleeper and Alian Enthoven.
“Healthcare insiders know that the industry’s rosy prospects can continue only if its funding remains stable. Most also acknowledge that the dollars are not likely to flow as they have in the past.
The reality into the foreseeable future is that healthcare–at least beyond a narrow definition of “basic care”–will remain a voluntary buy. In fact, there’s every indication that group purchasers are quietly abandoning the market. A wealth of recent data shows that healthcare cost growth is pricing corporate and governmental purchasers out of the market for coverage.
Reports from the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Economic Analysis show that, between 1999 and 2004, premiums–the point where costs converge from throughout the healthcare continuum–grew 5.5 times general inflation, 4.0 times workers earnings and 2.3 times the growth of business income.”

Please recall that much of the increase also results from a faulty DRG system. The present system reimburses on hospital charges and not hospital costs. The DRG system contributes to the engine of the inflationary medical costs.

“The numbers are spectacular. And purchasers are responding. In September 2006, another Kaiser report on employer health benefits showed that, between 2001 and 2006, the percentage of employers offering coverage plummeted from 68 percent to 61 percent, a 10.3 percent drop over five years or a 2.1 percent annual erosion rate. During the same period, the percentage of employees with coverage dropped from 65 percent to 59 percent. Data from other sources show that certain workers–those in the private sector, service workers, retail employees–were particularly vulnerable to losing coverage.
Meanwhile, Florida’s Office of Insurance Regulation released data showing that, between 1996 and 2004, 132,000 small employers (with 50 or fewer employees) stopped offering health coverage. This represents a 53 percent drop, while enrollees in small group plans fell by 760,000 individuals (42 percent, or 5.25 percent annually). The state’s population grew by three million during this period.”

As fewer and fewer people have health insurance coverage there is less and less premium dollars in the system. At present we have 46.7 million uninsured in America, 80% of whom would buy affordable insurance if they could.

Jon Lowder’s blog entry of November 10, 2006 nailed the problem. There are precipitous enrollment drops and an increasing uninsured population.

“These precipitous enrollment drops make sense, particularly when you compare the scale of healthcare cost to earnings. The actuarial firm Milliman calculated that the total coverage costs for a family of four averaged $12,214 in 2005. But one-quarter of the nation’s workers made less than $18,800, and one-third of its families made less than $35,000. How can mainstream Americans stay in a game that’s stacked like this?”

“Most people understand the healthcare crisis in terms of its human costs: more uninsured people and underinsured people and more frequent cases of personal bankruptcy. But an equally daunting problem is that losses in coverage translate to reductions in the system’s financial inputs. This means fewer dollars are available to buy healthcare services and products.”

The situation is ominous. Nonprofit hospitals may be able to finesse shrinking revenues through cutbacks in staff, equipment or programs. But for publicly traded companies like Pfizer, United Healthcare, Medtronic or HCA, the drops in funding must negatively impact margin, stock price, market capitalization and credit.”

Worse, healthcare is 1/7th of the economy and 1/11th of its job market. If this sector develops a large demand-resource mismatch and becomes financially unstable, the disruptions could cascade to and destabilize others sectors, threatening the national economic security.

Many people who follow the healthcare crisis know all of this. Unfortunately the public is not aware of much of it. We only realize that health insurance cost more and more. We have discussed much of this previously.
However, no leader has the courage to step forward and do something about it. I have emphasized much of the leadership can be exerted at the state level by state boards that license the insurance industry,hospitals and physicians. No one has organized the people to protest. The excuse is that the healthcare system can not be fixed. It is impossible to control physicians. I believe all these excuses are smoke to cloud the solution. The facilitator stakeholders are simply holding on to what they falsely perceive is their vested interest.

“A theory of limits applies here. In a voluntary market, healthcare purchasers–employers or taxpayers–will tolerate only so much cost growth. Then they’ll recede. It is preposterous to believe the well won’t run dry.”

All of these pricing mismatches and excess non medical value added costs can be eliminated by permitting the patient to be in control of their healthcare dollar and selling pure insurance that is fairly priced. The ideal Medical Saving Accounts system represent pure insurance in the form of high deducible health insurance and motivation for the patient to become an informed consumer.

The cost of processing claim could be eliminated completely. The service claims could be adjudicated instantly with a credit card. Thousands of diverse businesses adjudicate claims on purchases instantly daily at a low cost. The use of credit cards to pay for Medical Savings Accounts could provide an instant savings of 150 billion dollars to costs in the healthcare system. The losers will be the non competitive insurance company. The winner will be the bright flexible company that puts the system in place.

Permalink:

The Ideal Medical Savings Account System

Stanley Feld M.D., FACP, MACE

Medical Savings Accounts for our discussion are tax free trust accounts that are funded by the employer, the self-employed, and the government for the employee, or the Medicare or Medicaid beneficiary. The Medical Insurance provided by the employer, the self employed, or the Medicare or Medicaid beneficiary in addition to the MSA trust account is a high deductible insurance plan. The rating on the high deductible insurance should be community rating without exclusions for preexisting illness.

The deductible is $6,000. The MSA contribution will be $6,000. If the patient does not spend the trust accounts money in the current year that money accumulates tax free until retirement. In the case of Medicare the money accumulates tax free until used at the beneficiaries discretion or is deposited in the beneficiaries’ estate. At that time the rules for traditional IRA’s apply.

It is mandatory to have insurance and the premiums will be subsidized by the government for persons that qualify. Price transparency by the insurance industry, hospitals, and physicians is also mandatory. It is the responsibility of all parties to aid the patient to become an educated consumer. If they want to purchase an unnecessary or inflated medical care product it is their decision and not the insurance industry or government’s decision. The patient pays the inflated price and not the insurance industry and the government.

This is the basic formula for the Medical Savings Accounts. It is important for this system of insurance not be contaminated by modifications made by stakeholders in order to benefit their vested interest. The formula creates a system of insurance that compels the patient to be an informed consumer. It also compels the stakeholders to be competitive for the patients’ healthcare dollar.

The result will be lower prices and increased quality. The advantages to stakeholders are obvious. It would foster individual ownership of the healthcare dollar with individual responsibility for the healthcare dollar. The result would be lowering the cost of health insurance with a high deductible. People would no longer face premium increases resulting from wasteful medical care decisions made by others. This is the famous restaurant effect discussed earlier. It would also lower the administrative costs of adjudicating bills. The charges would be adjudicated at the point of service serving to lowering the cost of insurance further.

Patients would have a vested self interest to avoid unnecessary costs because the result would be additional savings for the patient in their Medical Savings Trust Account. Also, MSAs would eliminate the barriers for the purchase of insurance by the temporarily unemployed. Patients would create a competitive medical marketplace with their individual purchasing power. We will see this happening right now with the Wal-Mart $4 generic drug policy.

The high deductible insurance would be true insurance and not the “managed cost insurance” we have presently. Managed cost insurance simply angers every stakeholder in the system. Patients would now have incentive to think about as well as learn about the risk of certain lifestyles and the need for lifestyle changes to prevent the complications of chronic diseases. The patient by avoiding the complications of chronic diseases with be earning money in their own Medical Savings Trust Account that would continue to grow tax free until retirement.

All of these incentives are free market incentives. None of the incentives force the patient to have certain behaviors. It is in their vested economic interest to make appropriate lifestyle changes and wise medical care decisions.

With pure Medical Savings Accounts the Healthcare System will be in a position to self repair.

Permalink:

How Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffett and Jamie Diamond Can Disrupt The Healthcare System

Stanley Feld M.D., FACP,MACE

Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffett and Jamie Diamond should try this disruptive approach in their venture into healthcare reform.

All the other approaches that have been tried have not worked or have become unsustainable. Most of the approaches have been unfair to consumers and the majority of taxpaying Americans.

The only way to empower all the consumers in a healthcare system is to encourage them to become responsible for their health and healthcare dollars.

I believe it can only be accomplished by providing easily understandable financial incentives for consumers to save money for themselves.

Providing financial incentives to consumers to save money for themselves can be disruptive to the present models used to pay for medical services just as Amazon has been disruptive to retail sales.

The delivery of medical and surgical care has advanced tremendously in the last sixty years.

At the same time medical care has become unaffordable and the cost of healthcare has become unsustainable.

The incidence of obesity has risen every year. Over fifty percent of Americans are obese.

Obesity begets many chronic diseases and subsequently the complications of these diseases.

Physicians can treat these complications fairly well. However the treatment of chronic disease complications are costly.

How do you decrease the incidence of obesity in America?

Physicians must attack the core causes of obesity.

Among those causes are excess food intake, lack of daily exercise, mental depression, cultural milieu and/or a combination of all of the above.

The cure of obesity depends on the ability to eliminate these core drivers. Financial incentives can get patients involved in eliminating the core drivers of obesity.

The responsibility for obese patients’ healthcare depends on patients’ lifestyle, popular cultural milieu, and patient education.

In America, it is almost impossible to buy a meal in any level restaurant without excess calories.

How do you get people to be responsible for their health and healthcare dollars?

The one key element ignored by policy makers to decrease obesity is to give obese consumers of healthcare financial incentives to concentrate on trying to lose weight.

Obamacare went in the wrong direction. It limits personal liability for their obesity. It does not promote personal responsibility

The only incentive Obamacare provided was the incentive to overuse the healthcare system.

This was especially true for patients on Medicaid. They had zero premiums and deductibles. The only deterrent to accessing medical care was physician availability.

Physicians refused to participate in Medicaid because of low professional reimbursement. Low reimbursement by the government was necessary because of the decreases in funding and participant overuse of the system.

Obamacare planned to cure the shortage of “medical providers” by increasing the number of “valid medical providers” who could bill on their own, such as nurse practitioners and certified physician assistants.

However, the defect there is that patients were not under the supervision of physicians engaged in their care. It ignores the patient physician relationship that is so important to effective medical care.

If Jeff Bezo, Warren Buffet and Jamie Diamond (BBD group) are serious about Repairing the Healthcare System for their employees as a nonprofit organization, they should consider my Ideal Medical Savings Account.

http://stanfeld.com/?s=My+Ideal+Medical+Savings+Account

The Ideal Medical Savings Accounts (MSA) are tax-sheltered accounts used to pay for non-catastrophic medical expenses. These non catastrophic medical expenses account for the bulk of the cost of medical care.

Money left from the Medical Savings Account at the end of the year is put into a consumer’s retirement account.

The MSA provides the financial incentive to not overuse the healthcare system.

Warren Buffet understands the money making potential of re-insurance. He is heavily invested in re-insurance companies.

If one of the BBD Groups employee’s gets sick and spends of all of his MSA money, reinsurance provides first dollar coverage for the illness.

The BBD Group could teach employees how to shop for price and value. Insurance companies are supposed to shop for value. However the shopping is never to the patient’s advantage. It is to the advantage of the insurance company.

 Critics always claim this is unrealistic:

  1. The claim is that patients are not smart enough to shop for price and value. 2. Are you supposed to shop around from the back of the ambulance?

 The critics’ use the ambulance argument to eliminate the possibility of consumers using their own judgment to make price decisions.

Patients are smart enough to figure out which hospital they want to go to before they get into the ambulance.

Emergency care represents only 6% of health care expenditures.

But emergency care represents only 6% of health expenditures.”

“For privately insured adults under 65, almost 60% of spending is on elective outpatient care. “

ttps://www.wsj.com/articles/the-health-reform-that-hasnt-been-tried-1507071808

The critics argument is that consumers do not know how to shop prices. Consumers are smarter than the critics think. It would be easy to teach consumers to shop prices.”

ttp://stanfeld.com/the-failure-of-the-republican-establishment-to-repeal-and-replace-obamacare/

“My Ideal Medical Saving Account provides that financial incentive to not overuse the healthcare system. All the articles about my ideal medical saving accounts are attached to this link.

http://stanfeld.com/?s=My+ideal+Medical+Savings+Accounts

 Likewise, nearly 60% of Medicaid money goes to outpatient care.”

 Medicaid patients also overuse the healthcare system.

Most Medicaid patients can understand the MSA’s financial incentive.

“ For the top 1% of spenders—a group responsible for more than a quarter of all health expenditures—a full 45% is outpatient.”

These patients can be identified as outliers and educational vehicles can be created to decrease this overuse of the system. It would save the re-insurance company a great deal of money.

In my opinion Medical Savings Account are better than Health Savings Accounts. Medical Savings Accounts take the money out of the healthcare insurance company’s hands and deliver it to consumers retirement accounts.

Both HSA’s and MSAs have the unique advantage of providing the financial incentive to for consumers to save money for themselves.

When people have savings to protect in HSAs, the cost of care drops without harmful effects on health. 

 The financial incentives decrease the overuse of the healthcare system.

According to a 2012 study in Health Affairs if even half of Americans with employer-sponsored insurance enrolled in this kind of coverage, U.S. health expenditures would fall by an estimated $57 billion a year.”

 https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hpb20160204.950878/full/

 My ideal Medical Savings Accounts provide an even a greater financial incentive and should decrease costs even further.

“ MSAs should be available to all Americans, including seniors on Medicare. Given that seniors use the most health care, motivating them to seek value is crucial to driving prices lower.”

MSAs should also apply to Medicaid recipients. The details for Medicaid recipients can be found in my article “My Ideal Medical Savings Accounts Is Democratic. “

The maximum contribution to MSAs should be raised to $6000 or $7000 dollars. If a consumer gets sick and experiences a cost of more that $6000 he should receive 100% (first dollar) coverage through the BBD group’s provided reinsurance policy. A reinsurance policy would cost the BBD Group less than $6000 a year.

The total insurance package to BBG Group employees should cost the BBD Group $12,000 rather than the present cost of $18,000.

BBD is a self insured association. The association has elimated the multiple middlemen in the present healthcare system.

 When a person with an MSA dies, the funds should be allowed to roll over tax-free to surviving family members.

This financial incentive should be included in My Ideal Medical Savings Account.

“The information that patients require to assess value must be made more transparent. 

2014 study on magnetic resonance imaging showed that price-transparency programs reduced costs by 18.7%.”

A consumer driven system would force providers to compete for patients. Information on price could easily be provided to consumers by the government and the healthcare insurance industry.

At present healthcare prices are not transparent. Consumers are not motivated to shop prices. The BBD Groups leverage with its employees would force transparency.

“The most compelling motivation for doctors and hospitals to post rates would be knowing that they are competing for price-conscious patients empowered with control of their own money.”

 In this age of technology and rapid communication telemedicine should be promoted and paid for. One way to do it is to permit physicians to practice telemedicine across state lines. It would supply instant access to expertize at an affordable cost.

Everything possible should be done to encourage consumer responsibility and provider competition.

The present tax code does the opposite. Consumers in-group plans provided by large and small corporations receive their healthcare insurance from the corporation with tax-free dollars.

The larger the corporation the more leverage the corporation has for negotiating the premiums with the healthcare insurance companies.

The BBD Groups volume of consumers would have tremendous leverage with providers.

The younger and healthier the corporate employees are the lower the premiums.

The formation of associations with large memberships of all ages would lower the cost of healthcare. Large associations would have great leverage in negotiating price with providers. They would also spread the risk.

Self- insured associations such as the BBD Group would also spread the risk and lower the cost.

Tax deductibility must be given to these “individual” insurance policy holders and association policy holders so they are, in reality, paying for healthcare insurance with pre-tax dollars the same as the corporate group plan policy holders.

These simple changes in the law would result in an affordable healthcare system that was market driven by consumers. The changes would force providers and the healthcare insurance industry to become competitive.

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

 All Rights Reserved © 2006 – 2018 “Repairing The Healthcare System” Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

 

Permalink:

Is Anyone Confused Or Convinced?

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP, MACE

Obamacare has failed. You wouldn’t know it by the massive misrepresentation by the mainstream media.

The mainstream impression is that registration during the open enrollment period for 2018 ending December 15,2017 is doing well.

I have not written a blog in about a month because there has been nothing to write about.

I have laid out my ideas about what is necessary to repair the healthcare system. It is all about personal responsibility and physician/patient relationships for both acute and chronic diseases.

It is the only way to control costs and decrease waste in the healthcare system.

Frankly, I am saddened that our representatives in congress don’t give a damn about the costs to the American people.

They simply want Americans to be dependent on government. The government wants to control Americans rather than Americans controlling the government.

Both the Republican and Democratic establishment have been brain dead on how to effectively repair our healthcare system.

Republicans had seven years to figure out an efficient system. The have controlled the house for two terms. They have controlled the senate for one term.

Then they failed. Almost 100 bills passed the house. any passed both houses and were vetoed by President Obama.

Why couldn’t they send one of those bills to President Trump?

Tom Price M.D. had some ideas on how to repair the healthcare system. However he was disposed of by claims of misuse of government funds.

There has been little published since the Republican establishment failed it its effort to repeal and replace Obamacare in November 2017.

It is unclear to me whether the Republican effort failed because it was a step in the wrong direction or the Republican establishment hates Donald Trump.

In any case the Democratic establishment is trying to blame Donald Trump for the Obamacare failure.

They claim it is Donald Trump’s fault the healthcare insurance industry is not being paid the unauthorized supplement President Obama promised but could not pay. He could not find the money.

It is the House of Representative that authorizes expenditures. The cost of those promised subsidies that were unauthorized was 88% short of the healthcare insurance industry’s claims.

The Obamacare cost overruns were gigantic. It must be remembered that the Health Insurance Exchanges only provided insurance for less than 10 million people in the individual healthcare market.

Many factors added to the cost overruns including subsidizes of over $15,000 dollars a year for these premiums in the individual market. The 2018 subsides will be over $20,000.

The healthcare system has become such a partisan issue that the truth about Obamacare’s failure is not the point anymore.

It seems that the Republican establishment is not any smarter than the Democrat establishment in trying to repair the system.

The end of the open enrollment period for 2018 is supposed to be December 15, 2017.

I posted two graphs in this post. One represents enrollment until 11/25/2017 and the second represents enrollment until 12/2/2017.

They bring out several points about Obamacare’s failure.

Seven states of the 39 states have already extended their open enrollment period. California has extended open enrollment until 1/31/2018.

On 11/25/2017 confirmed but not paid enrollment was only 2,660,938 with only 2,277,079 through Healthcare.gov and 383,859 for Medicaid.

Open enrollment projected for 11/25/2017 was 4.2 million with 2.6 million through Healtcare.gov. and 1.6 million through Medicaid.

These projected numbers were revised upward during the summer of 2017 to 4.6 million with 2.8 million through Healthcare.gov and1.8 million through Medicaid.

This represents a 500,000 person enrollment short fall for healthcare.gov. It also must be remember that 85% of the people enrolling through healthcare.gov have preexisting illnesses and are subsidized by the government.

  Chart 1 3 8

The open enrollment numbers look worse on December 2, 2017 although there is not a word of it in the mainstream media.

On 12/2/2017 confirmed but not paid enrollment was 3,491,164 with only 2,751,260 through Healthcare.gov and 709,904 for Medicaid.

Open enrollment projected for 12/2/2017 was 5.1 million with 3.5 million through Healtcare.gov. and 1.6 million through Medicaid.

These projected numbers were revised upward during the summer of 2017 to 5.8 million with 4 million through Healthcare.gov and1.8 million through Medicaid.

This represents a 1,248,840 (4,000,000-2,751,260= 1,248,840) person short fall for healthcare.gov with 13 days to go for the open enrollment period.

Chart 2

It is difficult seeing these numbers by casually studying these charts.

Obamacare is an unmitigated failure. Democrats want to throw more money at it.

Republicans do not know what to do.

I suggest they look at my blog entitled The Ideal Medical Saving Accounts are democratic.

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

Please have a friend subscribe

Permalink:

The Plan To Empower Consumers Of Healthcare

 Stanley Feld M.D., FACP,MACE

The only way to empower consumers of healthcare is to allow them be responsible for their health and healthcare dollars.

The delivery of medical and surgical care has progressed markedly in the last sixty years. Life expectancy has also increased.

At the same time medical care has become unaffordable and the cost of healthcare has become unsustainable.

The incidence of obesity has risen every year. Over fifty percent of Americans are obese. The percentage is rising yearly.

Obesity begets many chronic diseases and subsequently the complications of these diseases.

Physicians can treat these complications fairly well but the treatment of these complications comes at a high cost.

How do you decrease obesity in America?

How do you get people to be responsible for their health and healthcare dollars?

One of the key elements in decreasing obesity is to give consumers financial incentives to use the healthcare system efficiently.

ObamaCare went in the wrong direction. Its regulations—including required “essential benefits”—raised prices on these plans and limited their availability.”

The only incentive Obamacare provided was the incentive to overuse the system. This was especially true for patients on Medicaid. They had zero premiums and deductibles.

A second tool for motivating patients to consider price is large liberalized health savings accounts. These tax-sheltered accounts are generally used to pay for the noncatastrophic expenses that form the bulk of medical care.

First, equip consumers to consider prices.”

 Critics always claim this is unrealistic: Are you supposed to shop around from the back of the ambulance?

 The critics use the ambulance excuse argument to eliminate the possibility of consumers using their own judgment to make price decisions.

But emergency care represents only 6% of health expenditures.”

“For privately insured adults under 65, almost 60% of spending is on elective outpatient care. “

The critics argument is that consumers do not know how to shop prices. Consumers are smarter than the critics think. It would be easy to teach consumers to shop prices.”

http://stanfeld.com/the-failure-of-the-republican-establishment-to-repeal-and-replace-obamacare/

“My ideal medical saving account provides that financial incentive to not overuse the healthcare system. The many articles about my ideal medical saving accounts are attached to this link.

Likewise, nearly 60% of Medicaid money goes to outpatient care.”

 Medicaid patients also overuse the healthcare system.

“ For the top 1% of spenders—a group responsible for more than a quarter of all health expenditures—a full 45% is outpatient.”

These patients can be identified as outliers and educational vehicles can be created to decrease this overuse of the system.

In my opinion Medical Savings Account are better than Health Savings Accounts. Medical Savings Accounts take the money out of the healthcare insurance company’s hands and delivers it to consumers.

Both HSA’s and MSAs have the unique advantage of providing and financial incentive to save.

When people have savings to protect in HSAs, the cost of care drops without harmful effects on health. 

 The financial incentive decreases the overuse of the healthcare system.

“ According to a 2012 study in Health Affairs if even half of Americans with employer-sponsored insurance enrolled in this kind of coverage, U.S. health expenditures would fall by an estimated $57 billion a year.”

My ideal Medical Savings Accounts provide an even a greater financial incentive and should decrease costs even further.

“ HSAs should be available to all Americans, including seniors on Medicare. Given that seniors use the most health care, motivating them to seek value is crucial to driving prices lower.”

Scott Atlas has publicized the obvious. This would apply to Medicaid recipient also. The details for Medicaid recipients can be found in my article “My Ideal Medical Savings Accounts Is Democratic. “

The maximum contribution to a MSAs should be raised to $6000 or $7000 dollars. If a consumer get sick and experiences a cost of $6000 he should receive 100% (first dollar) coverage through a reinsurance policy that would cost less than $6000.

There can be many variations on this theme for the consumers benefit.

 When a person with an HSA dies, the funds should be allowed to roll over tax-free to surviving family members.  

This financial incentive should be added to My ideal Medical Savings Account.

“The information that patients require to assess value must be made radically more visible. A 2014 study on magnetic resonance imaging showed that price-transparency programs reduced costs by 18.7%.”

A consumer driven system would force providers to compete for patients. Information on price could easily be provided to consumers by the government and the healthcare insurance industry.

“The most compelling motivation for doctors and hospitals to post rates would be knowing that they are competing for price-conscious patients empowered with control of their own money.”

 In his age of technology and rapid communication telemedicine should be promoted and paid for. One way to do it is to permit physicians to practice telemedicine across state lines.

It would supply instant access to expertize at an affordable cost.

Everything possible should be done to encourage consumer responsibility and provider competition.

The present tax code does the opposite. Consumers’ in-group plans provided by large and small corporations receive their healthcare insurance from the corporation with tax-free dollars.

The larger the corporation the more leverage the corporation has for negotiating the premiums with the healthcare insurance companies.

The younger and healthier the corporate employees are the lower the premiums.

This is where the formation of associations with larger memberships of all ages fits in to lowering the price of healthcare. Large associations would have great leverage in negotiating price with insurance companies. They would also spread the risk.

If financial incentive with my ideal medical saving account was added to the price the association negotiated and the consumer paid for the premium, usage would fall and the cost of insurance would decrease.

Tax deductibility must be given to these “individual” insurance policy holders and association policy holders so they are, in reality, paying for healthcare insurance with pre-tax dollars as the corporate group plan policy holders.

These simple changes in the law would result in an affordable healthcare system that was market driven by consumers. The changes would force providers and the healthcare insurance industry to become competitive.

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

 All Rights Reserved © 2006 – 2017 “Repairing The Healthcare System” Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

Please have a friend subscribe

Permalink:

The Failure Of The Republican Establishment To Repeal and Replace Obamacare

« Describing Fake News | Main

Permalink:

How Can I Be So Misinterpreted?

Permalink:

Stop The Noise: Start Working

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP, MACE

The New York Times is filled with case reports of people helped by Obamacare.

The implication is Obamacare is successful and the Republicans do not have a better plan.

Articles appear daily defending Obamacare despite the fact that premiums and deductibles are up, access to care and coverage is down and the medical profession and consumers are despondent.

Obama Says Healthcare Law is Working Fine

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/01/health/obama-says-health-care-law-is-working-fine.html?smprod=nytcore-ipad&smid=nytcore-ipad-share

Obama Says Healthcare Law is Helping White Americans Despite Perceptions

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2014/12/29/obama-says-health-law-is-helping-white-americans-despite-perceptions/?smprod=nytcore-ipad&smid=nytcore-ipad-share

Is The Healthcare Law Creating More Part Time Work?

http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/27/is-health-care-reform-creating-more-part-time-work/?smprod=nytcore-ipad&smid=nytcore-ipad-share

Why Even Some Republicans Are Rejecting The Replacement Bill

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/07/upshot/why-even-some-republicans-are-rejecting-the-replacement-bill.html?smprod=nytcore-ipad&smid=nytcore-ipad-share

Obamacare Users Await Repeal and Replacement With Dread Anticipation

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obamacare-users-await-repeal-and-replacement-with-dread-anticipation/

All of this is “Fake News.”

I cannot understand how Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, with a straight face on national television, can say Obamacare is not failing.

Dr. Emanuel thinks Obamacare is a great deal. He is one of its authors.

His problem is he cannot prove it is great in reality.

 

 https://youtu.be/1-PRvZ_R0-0

I guess the Democrats hope is if you tell a lie enough times it becomes the truth.

The conservative media is starting to figure out how to neutralized this tactic that engenders sympathy for Obamacare. The Wall Street Journal published an article “How Obamacare Punishes the Sick.”

This article stimulates feeling against President Obama’s lies.

Republicans are nervous about repealing ObamaCare’s supposed ban on discrimination against patients with pre-existing conditions.”

 If one can disregard the fact that one case does not win a medical argument, one can start talking about what might work to create a cost effective quality healthcare system.

Obamacare and its bureaucracies have set up perverse incentives for stakeholders and against consumers.

A recently reported study by Harvard and the University of Texas in Austin demonstrated these perverse incentives.

Obamacare is supposed to help the sick. It turns out Obamacare punishes the sick with certain illness.

“But a new study by Harvard and the University of Texas-Austin finds those rules penalize high-quality coverage for the sick, reward insurers who slash coverage for the sick, and leave patients unable to obtain adequate insurance.”

Diseases such as multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, infertility and others high cost conditions are being charged higher deductibles, experiencing more prior-authorization for drugs, an increase in lesser quality substitution drugs, and often no coverage for the drugs they need.

Most of these conditions require long- term expensive medications.

Therefore consumers with these diseases cannot get treated adequately.

For example, a patient with multiple sclerosis might file a $61,000 claim.

Insurers lose money on every MS patient. An incentive is created for insurers to avoid enrolling patients with MS. The insurers then make its healthcare policy unattractive to people with multiple sclerosis.

Obamacare’s subsidy for patients with multiple sclerosis is inadequate for the cost of the disease’s care.

To mitigate that perverse incentive, ObamaCare lobs all manner of taxpayer subsidies at insurers. Yet the researchers find insurers still receive just $47,000 in revenue per MS patient—a $14,000 loss per patient.”

 

The insurer doesn’t want to loss $14,000 per patient. Patients are not stupid. They find the best coverage at the lowest price,

This insurer suffers high losses. He either leaves the market or decreases coverage. The perverse incentive leads to low quality care.

Patient with multiple sclerosis on Obamacare are not getting high quality healthcare.

Everyone losses. The government loses, the insurer loses but most of all the patient loses.

There is a better way to insure these people. In a free market system driven by my ideal medical saving accounts the creation of a high risk pool funded by all participating insurance companies in the lucrative private market spreads the risk to insurance companies and government while providing high quality care to qualified patients.

Politicians must start thinking smart.

The format of previous high-risk healthcare insurance pools was a disaster for all the stakeholders. High-risk pools can be formatted in a way that works for patients and does not contaminate the private market with spiraling insurance prices.

The Democrats ought to give up Obamacare. It is a dead horse.

Obamacare has failed for the many reasons I have pointed out in my blog over the past 7 years.

The Democrats’ knee jerk reaction would be why not just adopt a single party payer system.

The answer is look at the mess the VA system is in with it bureaucracy and apathy.

Republicans ought to stop trying to prove Obamacare is a failure.

The politicians ought to try to do something right for the people who put them in power.

They ought to get rid of Obamacare in the least disruptive way possible as quickly as possible.

I believe President Trump, Tom Price M.D., and Paul Ryan are trying to do just that with the American Healthcare Act that is being voted on the house tomorrow.

The conservative coalition in the house should get off its high horse and not shoot itself in the foot.

The opinions expressed in the blog “Repairing The Healthcare System” is, mine and mine alone.
All Rights Reserved © 2006 – 2017 “Repairing The Healthcare System” Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE
Please have a friend subscribe

Permalink:

Dear President-elect Donald Trump: Part 1

Dear President-elect Donald Trump: Part 1

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

Repairing the Healthcare System

Dear President-elect Donald Trump: Part 1

In 2008 I wrote to President-elect Obama and told him what has to be done to repair the healthcare system from a practicing physician’s point of view.

He did not listen to one suggestion.

I am going to try to help you out also. You are correct to want to repeal and replace Obamacare. It is a failure. It is also a disaster to both America’s healthcare system and economy.

The healthcare reforms you propose on you website are good so far. However they are incomplete and inadequate if your goal is to achieve a viable market driven healthcare system.

I will list the others elements with links to the documentation in future letters to you.

Patients and physicians are the two most important stakeholders in any market-driven healthcare system. They are the only stakeholders that can drive the market in an affordable way.

The insurance industry, the government, hospital systems and the pharmaceutical industry are all secondary stakeholders.

You have told a biased media that you will repeal and replace Obamacare.

They are now trying to make fun of you because of your threat to the establishment. Please ignore them.

The progressive spin machine using Ezekeil Emanuel and other surrogates are wrong when they keep repeating that neither you nor the Republican Party have not offered a viable replacement plan.

You might remind them that their plan was not very viable. What makes Ezekiel Emanuel an expert when he has never practiced medicine in a private office setting?

You and the Republican house have some very viable suggestions. Democrats refuse to read them or recognize them. They have not analyzed their economic effect on the healthcare system.

However, you do not go far enough in including the patients who are essential to drive the healthcare system. Patients must assume the responsibility for their health and care of their diseases.

Patients must be provided with treatment options and potential outcomes in order to be responsible for their health. They must also be provided with financial incentives to take care of their health.

Consumers must be in control of their health and healthcare dollars to achieve an efficient market driven healthcare system.

Obamacare treats the two most important stakeholders as economic commodities. It disregards patients’ feelings.

Healthcare policy should be built around patients’ needs and not the needs of secondary stakeholders.

The key to Repairing the Healthcare System is the promotion of individual consumer responsibility for their care. Patients must feel physicians and their healthcare team care about them.

The physician patient relationship is the most important healing element in a therapeutic equation. It can lead to patients understand and adhering to recommended treatment.

Patients must be the captains of their therapeutic team. Physicians must be the head coaches with their nurses and physician assistants being the assistant coaches.

Only then will we have an efficient and affordable healthcare system. I have written in detail about the mechanisms necessary to achieve an affordable healthcare system.

A successful and affordable healthcare system must be a consumer driven healthcare system using my ideal medical saving accounts .

Medical Savings Accounts are different than Health Savings Accounts.

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

All Rights Reserved © 2006 – 2016 “Repairing The Healthcare System” Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE