Stanley Feld M.D., FACP, MACE Menu

Results found: 230

Permalink:

Senate Republicans Are Making Repeal and Replace Harder Than It Should Be

 Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

I think the Republican establishment in the senate is trying to undermine President Trump’s agenda.

It would be easy to repeal and replace Obamacare if the reasons for its failure where publicized. The main reason is that it does not align the initiatives of most of the stakeholders. The cost of administration is a close second.

Obamacare is about redistribution of wealth and control over the healthcare system. It ends up penalizing the middle class the most because of premium increases.

People like entitlements because they are free. Someone else is paying for them.

Politicians want to keep their jobs. They do not want to upset people who receive these entitlements.

“But the revisions may well alienate the Senate’s most conservative members, who are eager to rein in the growth of Medicaid and are unlikely to support a bill that does not roll back large components of the current law.

Even with more moderate Republicans on board, party leaders would have a very narrow margin for passage on the Senate floor.”

The healthcare insurance companies do not want to lose money selling healthcare insurance. They are getting out of the healthcare market because, by their calculations, they are losing money.

The Republicans establishment in the Senate want to continue to provide subsidies to the healthcare insurance industry.

Congress needs the healthcare insurance industry’s ability to provide administrative services whether it is for Medicare, Medicaid, health insurance exchange coverage (Obamacare) or private insurance.

The government’s goal is to provide enough financial incentives for the healthcare insurance industry to provide affordable healthcare insurance coverage while saving money.

President Obama subsidized the healthcare insurance industry for any perceived losses through the Obamacare reinsurance program. Then President Obama reneged on the agreement. He only paid 12% of what was owed according to the insurance industry’s calculations..

Democrats want a single party payer system. They want everyone on Medicare or Medicaid. It is simple. The result is the government provides healthcare insurance for everyone. Everyone receives first dollar coverage. This would be the mother of all entitlements.

The single party payer system would also provide the government with tremendous power over the people. It would control consumers’ freedom of choice.

Along with this simple single party system comes a complex bureaucracy with all the inefficiencies that I have described previously.

Consumers would be chained to the inefficient healthcare system. The inefficiencies in the system have been graphically demonstrated by the VA Healthcare System and its ever increasing costs.

It would be nice if a single party payer system were efficient and affordable. Canada has a universal healthcare system. Canadians who are not sick and do not need their healthcare system believe the Canadian system is great.

They ignore the fact that the Canadian provinces are paying 50% of their GNP to provide free healthcare to all Canadians.

Canada’s health-care wait times costing patients many millions in lost time, wages”

Ontarians wait longer for health care than citizens of other universal health-care countries”

The fact is single party payer systems do not work for all the stakeholders.Both Democrats and Republicans are missing the essential point about what would work to provide an affordable healthcare system that aligns the incentives of all stakeholders.An essential element is to develop a system that encourages consumers of healthcare to be responsible for their health and have control over their healthcare dollars.

The Senate’s present revision does not consider this. The Senate is considering the needs of the healthcare insurance industry and not the needs of consumers.

The Senate should be considering the following in order to repeal and replace Obamacare.

  1. My Ideal Medical Savings Account should be instituted immediately. It will provide financial incentives for consumers as well and incentives to maintain health.

Self-management of chronic disease is essential for a healthcare system to become affordable. My Ideal Medical Saving Account provides that financial incentive.

1. The Ideal Medical Saving Account will provide instant adjudication of medical care claims.

  1. The ideal Medical Savings Accounts will encourage patient responsibility for their health, the care of their disease and their healthcare dollars.
  2. The Republican Party should establish an organized system of disease management education for persons with chronic disease. The education system should be designed to be an extension of physicians’ care. It should not be a free-standing education system. Physicians should be provided with incentives to set up these educational systems.

http://stanfeld.com/chronic-disease-management-and-education-as-an-extension-of-physicians-care/

  1. A system of social networking with physicians and their patients should be developed. The government could provide the template for physicians and their team.

http://stanfeld.com/social-networks-patient-education-and-the-healthcare-system/

The networks could be physicians to patients networks, patients to patients networks, patients to their physicians’ healthcare team networks. These networks need to be an extension of the physician’s care. All encounters should be imported to the patient’s chart with certain restrictions.

  1. Social networking between physicians should also be developed.
  2. Integrated care systems with generalists to specialists must be developed for both treatment and cost transparency for the physicians and patients.
  1. There must be instant communication between physicians and patient via an effective electronic medical record. The EMR must be a teaching tool for physicians. It must not be a tool to judge physicians’ care and penalize them. The EMR should be cloud based. Maintenance and upgrades should be free and seamless. Physicians should be charged by the click.

http://stanfeld.com/?s=EMRs

  1. Tort Reform is an essential element in a healthcare system that would work and be affordable. It would decrease the cost of over testing. It would also decrease the cost of malpractice insurance and legal fees. These cost are built into the cost of care. The cost of care would be reduced significantly. http://stanfeld.com/?s=tort+reform

The goal of effective healthcare reform should be to align all the stakeholders’ incentives. Patient incentives should be at the center of this alignment.

Align patient 1

Align government

Obamacare did not bother to try to align any of the primary stakeholders’ (patients and physicians) incentives. In fact Obamacare destroyed the patient/physician relationship.

The house bill to repeal and replace Obamacare touches on some alignment.

The senate is fighting about issues that are not significant in aligning all stakeholders’ incentives.

The healthcare system will not be repaired until all the stakeholders’ incentives are aligned. Healthcare policies must be put in place to align those incentives.

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:

Hillary Clinton On Healthcare Reform

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP, MACE

The next two blogs will review the published position on healthcare of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

Obamacare has not been a big issue in the presidential campaign yet. It will become a big issue in mid October when the new premium schedules will leak to the press and by the November 1 publication of premium date healthcare will be a full-blown campaign issue.

Obamacare is on the verge of failure. Democrats are starting to talk up a Public Option as the Obamacare salvation. The Public Option is not going to save Obamacare.

The healthcare Co-Ops were supposed to provide a competitive force for the healthcare insurance companies to keep down the premium costs. However, 17 out of 22 have failed. The other five will fail before the end of the year.

The Public Option is a federally controlled competitive force. However, because of healthcare insurance companies distrust for the Democrats and Obamacare few insurance companies will show up to compete.

The presidential campaign has been such a circus that our attention has been diverted from healthcare.

The failure will be noticed when the new premiums are published on November 1, 2016, five days before we go the polls.

This late date has been set deliberately by the Obama administration in order not to give Americans enough time to respond with anger toward Democrats and the potentially new Hillary Clinton administration and vote her down.

Hillary Clinton’s website’s first sentence in her preamble on healthcare says it all.

“As your president, I want to build on the progress we’ve made with Obamacare.

She will build on Obamacare. Obamacare is a failure by all measures once we see through President Obama, Paul Krugman, and Ezekeil Emanuel’s lies. Why would anyone want to build on that failure?

Hillary supports President Obama’s call for a near tripling of the size of the National Health Service Corps. It will also triple the cost with not evidence that it will be successful.

“ I’ll do more to bring down health care costs for families, ease burdens on small businesses, and make sure consumers have the choices they deserve.”

 It sounds like President Obama’s empty promise.

  1. If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor.
  2. If you like your insurance company you can keep your insurance company.
  3. If you make less than $250,000 dollars a year you will not pay one red cent more in taxes.

 “And frankly, it is finally time for us to deal with the skyrocketing out-of-pocket health costs, and particularly runaway prescription drug prices.”

This statement is important but is minor compared to what needs to be done.

The main body of Hillary Clinton’s position paper says the same thing. It does not give any details on how she will accomplish any of her promises.

Her campaign and the traditional media led by the New York Times have attacked every one of Donald Trump’s proposals because they claim he does not spell out how he would accomplish them.

Below are her website healthcare policies.

Defend and expand the Affordable Care Act, which covers 20 million people.

 In 2016, Obamacare’s Health Insurance Exchanges insure only ten million people.

Most of those 10 million have a pre-existing illness. These people could not buy healthcare insurance on the private market. Eighty-five percent of those people receive government supplements. There has been no increase in Obamacare enrollment since 2014. There has been a lot of lying about enrollment yearly.

It would be less expensive if a system of care were developed to provide these people with medical care without the bloated bureaucracy and falsely promised insurance benefits.

The expansion of Medicaid eligibility decreased the uninsured an additional 10 million. With Hillary Clinton’s plan to increase Syrian immigration to 500,000 a year and provide them with Medicaid the failure of Medicaid will be accelerated.

Medicaid is another failed government program. Medicaid patients have difficulty finding a physician and have decreased access for medical care.

Bring down out-of-pocket costs like copays and deductibles.

Hillary Clinton offers no plan on how she is going to accomplish this.

Reduce the cost of prescription drugs.

Again, there is no explanation for how she is going to reduce these high costs.

Protect consumers from unjustified prescription drug price increases from companies that market long-standing, life-saving treatments and face little or no competition.

Promises, promises, promises with no explanation of a plan. It sounds great but there is no plan explaining fulfillment.

Fight for health insurance for the lowest-income Americans in every state by incentivizing states to expand Medicaid—and make enrollment through Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act easier.

President Obama and his administration have told us over and over again that it is easy to enroll in Medicaid and Obamacare. The Obama administration even pays enrollment navigators $48 an hour.

Expand access to affordable health care to families regardless of immigration status.

Hillary Clinton clearly has no regard for cost. She also wants to expand the immigration of Syrians to 500,000 per year. When this happens the cost of Medicaid will explode.

The federal government will eventually try to dump those costs on the states. Most states have budget deficits that have to be cured now.

Taxpayers will be forced to endure both federal and state tax increases for a failed federal program.

President Obama’s original promise is that the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) will be budget neutral.

Expand access to rural Americans, who often have difficulty finding quality, affordable health care.

Hillary Clinton pledges to explore cost-effective ways to make more health care providers eligible for telemedicine reimbursement under Medicare and other programs.

Please notice she is only exploring the possibility of telemedicine reimbursement. Americans have heard empty promises before.

Defend access to reproductive health care. 

Hillary will work to ensure that all women have access to preventive care, affordable contraception, and safe and legal abortion. This is not a promise. How she will accomplish this goal is not outlined.

Double funding for community health centers, and supports the healthcare workforce: 

This is an initiative that is part of Hillary Clinton’s comprehensive healthcare agenda.

She is going to double present funding for primary-care services at community health centers over the next decade.

This is another ideological plan whose effectiveness has not been proven.

The goal of community healthcare centers is to provide low-level care for illness. It does not promote a patient/physician relationship or patient responsibility. It does not provide patient choice.

It is another step to commoditize medical care.

There you have it. Hillary Clinton’s healthcare policy as described on her website.

It is an extension of President Obama’s failed healthcare policy of the last 7 years. There is no mention of patients or their responsibility for their health or healthcare.

None of these proposals will lower the price of healthcare or increase the quality of care.

Hillary Clinton’s proposals will increase spending on a failed program (Obamacare) that has increased America’s deficit.

Hillary Clinton believes: Together these steps will get us closer to the day when everyone in America has access to quality, affordable health care.”

I believe Hillary Clinton does not know what she is talking about. I know the American people are seeing what is happening to our healthcare system.

If you want more of Obamacare with its tremendous costs to individuals and the American people along with the lack of improvement in medical care vote for Hillary Clinton.

Hillary Clinton is a tax and spend progressive democrat who does not think about what consumers need. Her attitude is that consumers are not smart enough to choose.

She believes that the federal government knows best.

There is nothing in her healthcare plan to Repair the Healthcare System.

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

All Rights Reserved © 2006 – 2015 “Repairing The Healthcare System” Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

Permalink:

The Folly of Obamacare

Permalink:

Obamacare Is Increasing Health Savings Account Participation

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

Patients’ responsibility for their health and their healthcare dollars is one of the most important elements in a functioning and cost effective healthcare system.

Despite the fact that my ideal medical savings account (MSAs) would be more effective than health savings accounts (HSAs) in encouraging patient responsibility for their health and healthcare dollars, health savings accounts are flourishing because of Obamacare is costly and has taken freedom of choice away from individuals.

Devenir is a HSA Mutual Fund that accepts and invests HSA trust contributions and invests those contributions. Devenir just published a study that showed that:

1. As of June 30, 2015, the number of HSAs had climbed 23% from the previous year to 14.5 million.”

  “2. Account balances jumped 25% to approximately $28.4 billion over the same time period.”

In 2010 the year Obamacare was passed, there were 5.7 million HSAs with balances totaling $7.7 billion.

The Obamacare bronze plan is the least expensive federal health insurance exchange plan. Its coverage is poor and it has a high deductible that most people cannot afford.

The premium and deductible are only good for patients with pre-existing illnesses that have no other place to purchase insurance. That is the reason the demographic for enrollees from healthcare.gov is so poor.

The government is loosening the noose on HSAs even though it is still restrictive.

“For the 2016 tax year, you can make a deductible HSA contribution of as much as $3,350 if you have qualifying high-deductible self-only coverage or as much as $6,750 if you have qualifying high-deductible family coverage. If you are age 55 or older as of the end of 2016, the maximum deductible contribution goes up by $1,000.

For 2015, the contribution caps are the same, except the maximum deductible contribution for family coverage is $6,650. These amounts are increased by $1,000 if you were 55 or older as of December 31, 2015. You have until April 18, 2016, to make an HSA contribution for the 2015 tax year.”

You must have a qualifying high-deductible health insurance policy — and no other general health coverage — to be eligible for this HSA contribution privilege. For 2015 and 2016, a high-deductible policy is defined as one with a deductible of at least $1,300 for self-only coverage or $2,600 for family coverage.

For 2016, qualifying high-deductible policies can have out-of-pocket maximums of as much as $6,550 for self-only coverage and $13,100 for family coverage. For 2015, these amounts are $6,450 and $12,900, respectively.

If you are eligible to make an HSA contribution for a tax year, the deadline is April 15 of the following year (adjusted for weekends and holidays) to open an account and make a contribution for the earlier year.”

The government has increased the maximum deductible in 2015 and continues to increase in 2016.

For the 2016 tax year, you can make a deductible HSA contribution of as much as $3,350 if you have qualifying high-deductible self-only coverage or as much as $6,750 if you have qualifying high-deductible family coverage.

“ If you are age 55 or older as of the end of 2016, the maximum deductible contribution goes up by $1,000.”

More large companies are Increasingly offering workers high deductible health saving account. However, the employee is responsible for the high deductible and most of the plans are 70/30 coverage after the deductible is reached up to a maximum of $10,000.

Most large and small employers can afford to pay all or some of the high deductible and buy reinsurance for first dollar coverage beyond the deductible.

Both large employers and small employers are offering their employees health savings accounts. The full insurance premiums have become so high that employers are shifting the burden to employees by having the employee pay the deductible and the employer paying the reinsurance.

UnitedHealth has about 40 individual high deductible plans with 70/30 copays over the limit of the deductible. The maximum out of pocket cost is $10,000. The premium for a young married couple without kids is from $125 to $350 per month depending oo the deductible chosen. The premium increases with the number of children.

A great advantage to these plans now is that UnitedHealth has already negotiated the physicians’ and hospitals’ fees for you. The uninsured would pay retail price for the same services.

The cost to small to large companies is relatively difficult to find in an online search.

Most companies are self-insured and would not fall under the rigid coverage rules of Obamacare. The company can decide on the amount of the deductible they would pay for the employee.

The point of all this is health saving accounts are not as good as my ideal medical saving account. HSA’s do not provide enough incentive for employees or individuals to manage their health or healthcare dollars wisely as an MSA would.

A large defect in Obamacare is patients do not have incentive to be wise shoppers of their healthcare. They have restricted choice. They have little incentive to stay healthy because they have an entitlement program available that will take care of their expenses. There is no financial incentive for them to try and reduce the cost of healthcare.

If the consumers managed their health and healthcare dollars well the cost of healthcare would drop because the complications of chronic diseases would decrease to at least 50%.

If Republicans are looking for an alternative plan to the liberals’ and progressives’ inevitable march to a singe party payer system most of the infrastructure is already in place.

Only small modifications to the HSAs have to be made by the congress and the President and America would be on its way to a free market healthcare system.

This alternative healthcare system would align all of the stakeholders incentives including the government’s incentives, if the Obama administration did not want to increase its power by having more control over its people and its people’s freedom of choice.

My ideal Medical Saving Accounts would be democratic and cover everyone.

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

 All Rights Reserved © 2006 – 2015 “Repairing The Healthcare System” Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

Permalink:

The New Medicaid

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP, MACE

President Obama let the regulation to increase Medicaid reimbursements to the level of Medicare reimbursement expire because it failed to accomplish its goal. The goal was to get more physicians to accept Medicaid.

The Obama administration has proposed new federal regulations for Medicaid managed-care plans.

These regulations pledge the program's beneficiaries will have adequate access to a doctor. The pilot programs for these new regulations have been completed.

Two years ago six states made a deal with the Obama administration. Arkansas, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania were willing to cover families earning up to 138% of the federal poverty level as long as it was on the states' terms.

Each state relies on private insurers, which are required to come up with qualified health plansthat meet the standards of Obamacare.

While Medicaid plan “purchasers” are almost totally subsidized, five of six states require some of these very low-income beneficiaries to make financial contributions that range as high as 2% of their income.

The idea is that everyone has some skin in the game. The plans also focus on setting up health savings accounts for beneficiaries and establishing wellness programs.

“While these are common features in many of today's corporate-sponsored plans (with only limited evidence to support claims that “more skin in the game” and wellness incentives hold down costs), these elements discourage enrollment by people who are scrambling to keep food on the table and a roof over their heads.”

I think the Obama administration is making another complicated mistake. There is not enough incentive in the program for Medicaid patients to try to save money for the government.

There is not enough incentive for physicians to sign up to accept Medicaid.

The Obama administration is using surveys of Medicaid beneficiaries.

Their response is not much different from the perceptions of Medicare beneficiaries and the privately insured.”

“But closer examination, experts say, reveals that beneficiaries' satisfaction is boosted by the additional access that comes from visiting hospital emergency departments and government-subsidized community health centers.”

 The Obama administration now proposes to hold Medicaid managed-care plans to the network adequacy of Medicare Advantage and Exchange Plans.

The six states, Arkansas, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania, have been doing this along with offering higher-than-Medicaid rates to primary-care physicians to attract more of them to their networks.

A reduction in cost starts by managing patients in ways that encourage them to visit the doctor's office instead of the Emergency Department.

It does not have an element of encouraging patient responsibility or providing indigent patients with financial incentives to be financially responsible for their health or health care.

The same mistake is made over and over again. It is focused on providing patients healthcare coverage. The Medicaid Advantage healthcare coverage plans make Medicaid patients dependent on the government. It does not provide incentives for Medicaid patients to be responsible for themselves.

The healthcare insurance companies are planning to have a field day at the expense of the Obama administration. It seems like the Obama administration does not care how much the new plan costs.

The Obama administration is overlooking the important point. Healthcare coverage cannot work as long as patients are dependent on the government. Patients must be given financial incentives to be responsible for themselves.

All of the healthcare insurance companies that participate in the government supported medical insurance plans are aware of the impending changes in Medicaid.

These insurance companies bid for the administrative services contracts in each state.

The government makes the rules for engagement but the individual healthcare insurance companies bid for the contract.

It is totally logical for all the healthcare insurance companies attempted to merge. If these insurance companies were permitted to merge it would make Medicaid, Medicare and private insurance unaffordable to all.

The healthcare insurance industry sets the prices for administrative services.

The price increases would lead to citizen protest. It would lead to total government takeover of the healthcare system and a single party payer system.

Insurance merge

 

http://money.cnn.com/2015/06/22/investing/health-insurers-mergers-cigna-anthem/

 

The CMS has released a sweeping proposed rule (PDF) intended to modernize the regulation of Medicaid managed-care plans.

 CMS plans call for health plans to dedicate a minimum portion of the rates they receive toward medical services, a threshold known as a medical loss ratio.

At the very last minute the Obama administration is proposing an 85% threshold for Medicaid managed-care plans, the same as the government’s regulations for large group plans in the private market. 

The formula is MLR= incurred expenses /premiums earned.

Private insurance and Medicare are subject to an 85% MLR. It means that 85% of the premiums earned must go to direct medical care. Seventy five percent means only 75% must go to direct medical care and 25% can go to expenses as opposed to 15%.

  MLRatio

The healthcare insurance industry also defines direct medial care expenses such as network formation, insurance salesmen’s commissions and other into the direct medical care column. 
 
As of 2015, plans doing business with Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program are the only health plans that aren't subject to an MLR.

The Medical/Loss ratio is one large source of profit to the healthcare insurance industry for two reasons.

Each expense allowed goes into the incurred claims column. The insurance industry builds a cost plus profit into each expense.

  1. The more required services (Obamacare requirements) rendered by that insurance company the more fee for those services which include profit goes into the incurred claims column.
  2. Each expense allowed goes into the incurred claims column. The insurance industry builds a cost plus profit into each expense.
  3. The more premiums collected the more goes into expenses in the incurred claims column.
  4. The lower the percentage (85% to 75%) of the Medical/ Loss Ratio profit to the healthcare insurance company.

 An arbitrary cap on health plans' administrative costs could undermine many of the critical services—beyond medical care—that make a difference in improving health outcomes for beneficiaries, such as transportation to and from appointments, social services, and more,” interim AHIP CEO Dan Durham said in a statement."


The MLR that the CMS has proposed for Medicaid plans is a suggestion rather than an enforceable mandate.

Medicaid managed-care enrollment has soared by 48% to 46 million beneficiaries over the past four years, according to consulting firm Avalere Health. By the end of this year, Avalere estimates that 73% of Medicaid beneficiaries will receive services through managed-care plans.

"This proposal will better align regulations and best practices to other health insurance programs, including the private market and Medicare Advantage plans, to strengthen federal and state efforts at providing quality, coordinated care to millions of Americans with Medicaid or CHIP insurance coverage.”

America's Health Insurance Plans immediately said applying an MLR to Medicaid managed care fails to reflect much of what these managed care plans do to hold down costs.

 In essence the new Medicaid proposal will also fail if the healthcare insurance industry merges and the impending fight over the MLR continues.

 The cost of healthcare insurance will increase for the private sector, Medicare and Medicaid.

The fault lies in President Obama's lack of understanding in who should drive the healthcare system. Consumers should drive the healthcare system not the government.

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

Please have a friend subscribe

Permalink:

When Will We Ever Learn

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

When will President Obama ever learn?

His ideology blinds him to the facts. I vividly remember him telling John Kerry and Barney Frank not to worry about not having a Public Option.

Barney Frank said we need a Public Option for the Affordable Care Act to work. The only way Obamacare could work is by ending up with a single-payer system.

 

 

President Obama had a clandestine “Public Option” built into Obamacare.  

Progressives believe deeply in their ideology. They do not consider past history, present reality or facts. 

All progressives have to do is look at what is happening to socialized medicine all over the developed western world.

It is failing even as some people believe it is succeeding.

 The Commonwealth Fund (a private progressive foundation) with a focus on healthcare is certain that a single party payer system is the only viable healthcare system.

The report ranked healthcare systems throughout the developed western world.  In its published ranking the National Health Service of Great Britain was considered the best medical system among the 11 of the world's mostadvanced nations, including Canada, France, Germany, Switzerland and Sweden.

 The United States came in last.

 Few have the time or patience to read the complete report or pick out the defects in the study.

Most people reads the summary. The summary in this study is not close to the evidence presented.

 

The Commonwealth Fund’s rankings of countries are contradicted by objective data about access and medical-care quality in these countries in peer-reviewed academic journals.

The Commonwealth Fund’s methodology is defective. Its conclusions relied heavily on subjective surveys about "perceptions and experiences of patients and physicians."

Kenneth Thorpe made an important point by examining differences in disease prevalence and treatment rates for ten of the most costly diseases between the United States and the ten European countries with a single payer system.

He used surveys of the non-institutionalized population age fifty and older. Disease prevalence and rates of medication and treatment are much higher in the United States than in these European countries.

Why would that be?

There are many reasons for this finding. The main one is the availability of care in the United States compared to the ten socialized western countries.

Another is lifestyle and incidence of obesity in the United States. Both lead to the onset of chronic disease and increased treatment.

 “Efforts to reduce the U.S. prevalence of chronic illness should remain a key policy goal.”

“Americans are diagnosed with and treated for several chronic illnesses more often than their European counterparts are.”

Americans diagnosed with heart disease receive treatment with medications and procedures more frequently than patients in Western Europe.

In the past local peer review was all that was needed along with confidence in the treating physician’s judgment. This confidence in physicians’ judgment has been destroyed by excessive media sensationalism. The real percentage of abuse is small and easily discoverable by peers and the use of the new social media.

Cancer treatment survival rates in America are far greater than the survival rates in Britain, and countries in western Europe.

The reasons for the higher cure rates are the availability of early detection and treatment.

Cancer treatment costs are high. The government should look into the reasons for this high cost and try to lower the cost.

The Commonwealth Fund’s report does not consider any of these factors.

The NHS has a waiting list of 3.2 million people for admission to the hospital. In London alone over 500,000 patients are on a waiting list for diagnosis and treatment.

A large percentage of patients triaged as urgent after being diagnosed with suspected cancer have a 62-day wait time to receive therapy.

The British Health and Social Care Act 2012 authorized the use of the small private sector of healthcare to help the NHS with its problems.

The share of NHS-funded hip and knee replacementsby private doctors increased to 19% in 2011-12, from a negligible amount in 2003-04. Each year there is an increase in NHS funded care by the private sector.

It sounds like the VA Healthcare System’s solution to its problems.

Englishmen who can afford private care and private healthcare insurance to avoid the NHS are switching to private insurance even though they have to pay $3,500 for each man, woman and child in a family into the NHS.

The single party payer system (NHS) is struggling with unsustainable costs even though we hear from progressives how great socialized medicine is in England.

The key ingredient missing in all these systems is patient responsibility for their health and their healthcare dollars. Both are powerful motivators to healthy living and detecting disease early.

There are big problems in Canada that have been undisclosed in the United States.

There were two articles in American newspapers in 2011 that applaud the Canadian system.

 Article 1. Debunking Canadian health care myths – The Denver Post                                                                                                                         

Article 2. Everything you ever wanted to know about Canadian health care in one post. Washington Post

Both articles are opinion articles and lack concrete evidence. The articles contain both misinformation and disinformation.  

The Fraser Institute is a well-respected Canadian think tank. Its research is considered accurate with a libertarian slant.

Its 2011 report contradicts the statistics in these articles on the Canadian government healthcare costs.

 Article 1. “Ten percent of Canada's GDP is spent on health care for 100 percent of the population. The U.S. spends 17 percent of its GDP but 15 percent of its population has no coverage whatsoever and millions of others have inadequate coverage. In essence, the U.S. system is considerably more expensive than Canada's.”

Article 2.  “In 2009, Canada spent 11.4 percent of its Gross Domestic Product on health care, which puts it on the slightly higher end of OECD countries.”

This is not true according to the Fraser report. Six of ten Canadian provinces are on track to spend half of their revenues on health care, according to the Frazer Institute. To be specific, in 2011, health care spending consumed 50% GDP in Canada’s two largest provinces, Ontario and Quebec.

“Total federal, provincial and territorial government health spending has grown by 8.1 percent annually, while the national GDP in Canada rose by only 6.7 percent during the same period.”

 The provincial governments have raised taxes and rationed care, while increasing patient wait times.  

“Provincial drug plans have also more often refused to pay for most of the drugs that are certified as “safe and effective” by Health Canada.”

“Unsustainable rates of growth in health care spending crowd out the resources available for other purposes including education, public safety, and economic growth-enhancing tax relief,”

One has only to think about the Obama administration’s initial propaganda and the stunning reality we are facing presently.

The VA is now asking for additional funding to clear up the disaster.

The problem is entitlements are too expensive for a government.  Entitlements do not work because governments cannot legislate behavior by directives. Individuals must be responsible for their health and healthcare dollars.

The other problem is government entitlement programs generate a large bureaucracy. The bureaucracy stimulates the development of inefficiencies and corruption. The new bureaucracy practically guarantees failure of the entitlement.

The Government can help people be responsible for their health with incentive programs.

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

 

 

 

Permalink:

Another Trap From Ezekiel Emanuel and President Obama

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

President Obama and Ezekiel Emanuel set a trap in the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) for all Americans including middle class and upper class wage earners. 

The administration has claimed that 7.1 million people have signed up on the exchanges as of March 31, 2014. It is now 10 days after his April 1st claim.

I doubt that we are going to have a breakdown of the enrollees. I doubt that we are going to hear anything about the Rand Corp survey showing that only 875,000 people actually signed up for insurance that did not have insurance previously.

I have not heard any demands for those numbers from the traditional media or congress. It looks like President Obama got away with another one to the American people.

Ezekiel Emanuel M.D. is one of the main architects of Obamacare.

President Obama’s promised the American people that you can keep your doctor if you like your doctor and if you like your plan you can keep your plan. President Obama knew it was a lie before Obamacare was passed. Dr. Emanuel admitted as much in his multiple television interviews

Americans are starting to see another lie beginning to unfold. President Obama promised that his health insurance exchanges are a free market solution to promote competition.  It looks like he knew that this was not true before Obamacare was passed.

If you recall both John Kerry and Barney Frank said the Affordable Care Act would not work unless we have a single party payer system. They said the bill must contain a “Public Option.” 

 

 

http://youtu.be/-522hcm3woA

President Obama said, “don’t worry. We don’t have the votes. Also, we don’t need a “Public Option.”

He should have added, “We don’t need a “Public Option” the way the bill is written.”

The truth is a “Public Option” and a single party payer will happen by default as implementation of Obamacare proceeds.

In his recently published book, “Reinventing American Health Care” Ezekiel Emanuel predicted; by 2025, “fewer than 20 percent of workers in the private sector will receive traditional employer-sponsored health insurance.”  

With all the changes President Obama has made without congressional approval, it is obvious that each change will help Obamacare get to a single party payer system more quickly.

There must be a public outcry by the public to stop its loss of freedoms especially freedom of choice of physicians and choice of care.

All the stakeholders are confused about Obamacare at this point.

Many patients have lost insurance. If President Obama did not waive the corporate mandate and the small business mandate many more would be uninsured right now.

Many who think they are insured are not insured. Many physicians do not know if they are going to get paid. Insurance companies do not know if they are going to make money.

If the mandate were in place for all those that received waivers, there would have been a gigantic public outcry that would have sunk Obamacare immediately.

The mandate’s delay decreases the number of people directly affected all at once.

If a person is not directly affected by Obamacare, the long-term implications of the law are ignored. It is difficult to have a public outcry.

Dr. Emanuel’s book is subtitled; How the Affordable Care Act Will Improve Our Terribly Complex, Blatantly Unjust, Outrageously Expensive, Grossly Inefficient, Error Prone System.”

All of the above are true. The healthcare system has been driven to this level of dysfunction because one action by one stakeholder leads to an unintended consequence which in turn leads to another untended consequence and another stakeholder’s reaction.

It is clear that government must set up concise rules that level the playing field for all the stakeholders.

All President Obama has to do is to discontinue the mandate for large corporations year after year. The large employers will drop its employer sponsored healthcare insurance for its employees. Having no other choice these employees will go to the health insurance exchanges to get the cheapest insurance.

“Dr. Emanuel argues that in the next two or three years, “a few big, blue-chip companies will announce their intention to stop providing health insurance.”

I believe this was the plan before the law was passed. It forces people into the “Public Option” without there being a “Public Option” in the law.

“Dr. Emanuel says that few small businesses will join the SHOP exchanges set up for them and that most of those that offer coverage now are even more likely than big companies to drop the coverage since those who employ fewer than 50 workers face no mandate.”

Enrollment in the health insurance exchanges to non-covered employees will increase if the price is right. The price has been right for the government subsidized people. The premiums are much higher for the employees that do not qualify for government subsidy.

“Dr. Emanuel thinks is fine.”

Many employees previously covered by the employer-sponsored plans will receive government subsidies.

The healthcare insurance furnished by the health insurance industry for both private insurance plans and government plans will still be price at non-subsidy prices for the government.

The government subsidy will result cause greater government deficits and/or an additional tax increase.

Employees who previous received healthcare coverage from employers received those benefits with pre-tax dollars.

Now they are going to pay for healthcare insurance with post tax dollars.

Employers received a tax deduction for the employer sponsored healthcare plan’s insurance payments.

Both employees and employers will be losing In Dr. Emanuel and President Obama’s system.

The winner is the government by collecting more taxes. The biggest loser is the consumer earning over $50,000 a year.

The next step is for government to stop calling the subsidized private insurance healthcare coverage.

“President Obama should call it something like it “Medicare G.” Obamacare will have achieved another entitlement without calling it a “Public Option.”

Why doesn’t the Obama administration concentrate on eliminating fraud, abuse, and waste in the healthcare system?

Why doesn’t it concentrate on making the healthcare system more efficient?

Why doesn’t it promote the patient/physician relationship?

Why doesn’t it concentrate on making the healthcare system more patient friendly?

Why doesn’t it put the patients in control of their healthcare dollars and promote patient responsibility for their health and healthcare?

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

Please have a friend subscribe

 

 

 

 

 

Permalink:

Bigger Problems Ahead For Obamacare

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP, MACE

Accountable Care Organization are supposed to be the organizations that reduce Obamacare’s healthcare costs.

Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) were supposed to be operational in 2012 throughout the United States.

ACOs are supposed to provide financial incentives to health care organizations in order to reduce costs and improve quality of medical care. There are too many defects in the ACOs’ infrastructure to improve the financial and medical outcomes.

At a conceptual level, the incentive for ACOs is to increase efficiency and avoid overuse and duplication of services, resources, and facilities. In this model, ACO members (physicians and hospital systems) would share the savings resulting from the coordination and integration of care.

Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) are not designed to decrease the waste in the healthcare system.

Waste occurs because of:

1. Excessive administrative service expenses by the healthcare insurance industry that provides administrative services for private insurance and Medicare and Medicaid. A committee is writing the final regulations covering Medical Loss ratios for President Obama’s healthcare reform act. The insurance industry regulations are far from curative.

2. The excessive administrative waste in hospitals and hospital systems leading to outrageous nontransparent hospital fees.

3. The lack of patient responsibility in preventing the onset of chronic disease. The obesity epidemic is an example.

4. The lack of patient education to prevent the onset of complications of chronic diseases. Effective systems of chronic disease self- management must be developed.

5.The use of defensive medicine resulting in over testing. Defensive medicine can be reduced by effective malpractice reform.

ACOs are not a market-based system. They do not put patients at the center of their medical care or permit patients to choose their medical care.

The government assigns patients to certain ACOs. The government controls the healthcare dollars and is at the center of patients’ medical care decisions directly and indirectly.

Consumers/patients are the only stakeholders in the healthcare system that can demand that this waste be eliminated. “They with walk will their feet” if given the chance.

Keith Smith M.D. and the Surgery Center of Oklahoma have proven that consumers desire choice and making their own medical care decisions with the Surgery Center’s transparent prices and their light administrative costs.

Patients must control their healthcare dollars and be responsible for their care in order to Repair The Healthcare System.  Consumers/patients will make sure prices become competitive. Patients in control of their healthcare dollars will not allow duplication of services.

In order to truly Repair The Healthcare System a system of incentives for patients and physicians must be created.

 “In theory, ACOs provide financial incentives to health care organizations to reduce costs and improve quality. In reality, given the complexity of the existing system, ACOs will not only fail; they will most likely exacerbate the very problems they set out to fix.”  

ACOs shift the risk of patient care away from the healthcare insurance industry  to physicians and hospital systems.

Most physicians are reluctant to assume accountability for patient outcomes.  Physicians recognize that much of the outcome is directly under the patients’ behavior and adherence to recommended therapy.

ACOs remove the consumer/ patient from being responsible or accountable for their medical care. ACOs undermine any attempt to create a truly accountable healthcare system that can drive down costs.

There are also grave uncertainties and practical issues in distributing savings between the hospital system and physicians. There is a long history of hospital systems taking advantage of physicians’ skills and intellectual property.

Many physicians and hospital systems are concerned about the shifting of risk and the lack of control over this risk.

 “The Mayo Clinic says it will not be part of a critical piece of national health care reform under the government's proposed rules.”

“ The Mayo Clinic announced that the proposed regulations “conflict with the way it runs its Medicare operations.” Mayo treats about 400,000 Medicare patients a year. The bottom line is that Mayo figured out that they would assume too much risk, lose too much money and relinquish too much control over its processes to the federal government.”

ACOs are really HMOs on steroids. There is too much risk that neither physicians nor hospitals can control. Neither consumers or physicians nor hospital system liked HMOs.

 This same sentiment is reflected in statistics released the Leavitt Partners Center for Accountable Care Intelligence. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Obama administration are spinning these numbers the same way they are spinning the figures for Obamacare enrollment.

Chart 4: Accountable Care Organizations by State; Source: Leavitt Partners Center for Accountable Care Intelligence

Aco by state-Chart-4

 California leads all states with 58 ACOs followed by Florida with 55 and Texas with 44.  ACOs are primarily local organizations, with 538 having facilities in only one state.

 

Chart 5: Accountable Care Organizations by Hospital Referral Region; Source: Leavitt Partners Center for Accountable Care Intelligence

Aco by region-Chart-5

 The number of ACOs, again, is of secondary importance to the number of covered lives.  Nationally, approximately 6 percent of the population is estimated to be enrolled in an ACO.

Chart 6: Estimated Accountable Care Organization Covered Lives by State; Source: Leavitt Partners Center for Accountable Care Intelligence

Aco covered lives-Chart-6

Chart 7: Estimated Accountable Care Organization Covered Lives by Hospital Referral Region; Source: Leavitt Partners Center for Accountable Care Intelligence

Aco covered lives by region-Chart-7

President Obama and his administration must be living in some fantasy world. It does not matter what the Obama administration is saying adoption of ACOs by physician groups and hospital systems is poor.

The call for forming ACOs started in 2010. The government tried to stimulate the formation of ACOs with sizable grants. It has not worked very well.

Many of the formed ACOs are not functioning in a cost effective manner. In ACOs that are sharing cost saving with the government the fighting between the hospital systems and physicians is just beginning.

Patients in ACOs are starting to feel the dysfunction.

The delivery of medical care under Obamacare and the ACOs are in big trouble.

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

Please have a friend subscribe

 

 

Permalink:

How Are Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) Doing?

Stanley Feld M.D.,
FACP, MACE

 In a word the formation
of Accountable Care Organizations is doing poorly.

If one believes the CMS
press releases one would believe the formation of ACOs is doing well.

In the past, I have gone
into great detail on why I believe Accountable Care Organizations will fail.

I believe physicians and
hospital systems should be accountable for outcomes but only the outcomes they
can control.

They should not be
accountable for outcomes they cannot control.

ACOs are really HMOs on
steroids.
Risk is transferred from the government to the healthcare providers.

HMOs failed in the 1980’s
and 1990’s because physicians and hospital systems realized that they could not
evaluate risk or manage risk.

It is impossible for
providers (physicians or hospital systems) to control patients’ behavior in
adhering to treatment for their disease.

It is almost impossible for
the government to commoditize reimbursement accurately for diseases unless the
government can weigh the risk of poor disease outcomes.

No one has figured out
the way to accurately risk weight the outcome of a patient’s disease and
treatment.

CMS believes by
increasing the number of cod
es in ICD-10  to 68,000 codes vs. ICM-9 18,00 codes, the old coding system, the
government will be able to weigh risk leading to accurate cost assessment.

I believe this is a
fantasy of healthcare policy wonks working for the Obama administration.

Many physician groups
and hospital systems believe they will lose money taking on these risks. These
are the groups that are holding back and not forming ACOs.

It is the reason the
Mayo Clinic and the Cleveland Clinic have refused to form ACOs.

Nevertheless on January 1st CMS proudly announced that
it has nearly doubled the number of ACO programs in the country by adding 106
new ACOs to the existing 148 programs for a total of 254 programs to date
.

The CMS announced its latest and
largest round of accountable care organizations
 under the Medicare
shared-savings program.

I would not be as proud as CMS is to applaud this level of
participation in the ACO program. ACOs are the keystone of Obamacare.

Complete national participation is supposed to occur by January
2014.

There are a total of 254 ACO’s signed up in 50 states or 5.08 ACO’s
per state.  There are many more potential
ACOs per state than 5.08 per state.

CMS said half of ACOs are physician-led and
care for less than 10,000 Medicare enrollees.” 

This is not a good sign.
The success of the ACO program is defined as shifting the risk of medical care to
hospital systems and physicians.

What is the problem?

The problem is obvious.
The definition of insurance is,

“Insurance is the
equitable transfer of the risk of a loss
, from one entity to another in
exchange for payment. It is a form of
risk management
primarily used to
hedge against the
risk of a contingent, uncertain loss.”

“An insurer, or insurance carrier, is a company selling the
insurance; the insured, or policyholder, is the person or entity buying the
insurance policy. The amount to be charged for a certain amount of insurance
coverage is called the premium.

Risk management,
the practice of
appraising and controlling risk, has evolved as a discrete field of
study and practice.”

Risk management is far
from an exact science. Risk management depends on a large number of people
paying premiums who are not at risk for disease.

Obamacare’s goal is to
have all the low risk consumers pay for the higher risk consumers.

However, President Obama
has provided low risk consumers an out. The penalty for not participating is
modest compare to the cost of the insurance. If a low risk consumer gets sick
he can immediately join the health insurance exchange program without
restrictions.

The increased cost of
illness is compounded when a large number of patients have chronic diseases.

A contributing factor to
developing chronic disease is obesity.

America has a national
obesity epidemic.

Patients with Diabetes
Mellitus are vulnerable to multiple diseases such as hypertension,
hyperlipidemia, kidney disease, eye disease and vascular disease.

Each might be at a
different stage of progression. The risk for costly complications is different
for each at each stage of disease progression.

The diabetic might or
might not adhere to the treatment regime outlined. It is difficult to risk
weight these patients. It is risky to take the responsibility for the medical
care outcomes for these patients.

In reality the principle
risk managers are consumers.

Healthcare policy
experts have not practiced medicine. They either do not understand these risks
or they want to place the risk with physicians and hospital systems and provide
undervalued reward.

Many medical outcomes are
dependent on patient responsibility for managing their own risk. Patients must
participate in their own care to receive maximum benefit and the best medical outcomes.

Patients must become
professors of their disease.

 

There are many reasons ACOs will fail

1. ACOs
do not empower consumers to be responsible for their own medical care. 
Healthcare should be consumer driven with consumers controlling their healthcare
dollars. They will then make informed choices about their care and insurance
coverage.

2. ACOs create artificial
incentives to improve quality medical care and provider performance.

3.  Consumer driven healthcare creates real
incentives to promote price competition by physicians and hospital systems. True
competitors will constantly work to improve their products, attract
consumers, and ultimately increase market share.  

In a systems of ACOs consumers do
not play a role in stimulating completion. Consumers are passive recipients of
treatment from an assigned ACO.

4. Most physicians are reluctant
to assume accountability for patient outcomes.  Physicians recognize that
most medical outcomes are directly under consumers behavioral control.

5.  ACOs structure does not include consumers’
incentive to be responsible or accountable for their own medical care.

 ACOs undermine any attempt to create a truly
accountable healthcare system that can drive down medical costs.

6. ACOs do not encourage provider
accountability.  ACO’s shared savings incentive
does not seem to be adequate for the risk assumption.  

 Providers will continue to
be paid for each service they perform until the government provided
funds run out for that ACO.

7.  There are also grave uncertainties and
practical complications of distributing government funds and savings if any
between the hospital system and physicians on the hospital systems staff.

 8. ACOs create an
unfair competitive advantage for large organizations that are hospital system centric.
Eligibility requirements are vague and ambiguous. The eligibility
requirements suggest that larger organizations have an unspoken
eligibility advantage.

 9.  This is the reason
hospital systems are trying to form ACOs. Hospital systems think they will make
money. I believe hospital systems will lose money. The government will have to
supplement payment for hospital systems to stay afloat.

10. When hospital systems lose
money they will fight with their staff physicians over the distribution of
government reimbursement.

 The cost of hospital services will then
skyrocket further. Consumers will be the losers.

11. Groups of independent
practitioners as well as other types of small and mid-sized practices may
lack the infrastructure, information technology facilities, or other resources
needed to qualify for ACO eligibility.

12.  They will be forced to join hospital systems.
Hospital systems have a long history of taking advantage of physicians
skills and intellectual property.

 Tension between hospital systems and staff
physicians will be created. Hospital systems’ ACOs will crumble. The cost of
medical care will continue to increase further.

These are just a few of the reasons ACO’s will fail.

No matter how hard CMS tries to change the narrative
these are some of the reasons explaining the lack of hospital and physician participation
to this point.

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