Stanley Feld M.D., FACP, MACE Menu

Permalink:

Obama Administration Continuously Declines To Renew Indiana’s Medicaid Waiver

 Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

In light of the recent alleged IRS
scandel targeting certain groups, I am reminded of the Medicaid incident in
Indiana. I believe the incident is resolved now with the Obama administration
granting a waiver to Indiana after two years of bureaucratic haggling.

In 2007 Governor Mitch Daniels (R.) was
successful in getting the Indiana state legislature to pass a Medicaid reform
plan called the Healthy Indiana Plan. It is an expansion of Medicaid. It uses a consumer-driven
health plan to encourage low-income beneficiaries to take control of their
health and healthcare dollars.

This healthcare plan is a variant of my
ideal medical saving account.

 The Healthy Indiana Plan has been very successful.

Healthy Indiana Plan has been the most
innovative and successful reform of Medicaid in the history of the Medicaid
program.

The federal government’s waiver for the
plan was given in 2007 and set to expire on December 31, 2012. Indiana applied
for an extension of the Medicaid wavier in early 2011. In November 2011 the
Obama Administration rejected the state’s request to extend its federal waiver.

Over 45,000 poor Hoosiers on Medicaid
were scheduled to lose this innovative Medicaid coverage in 2013.

Medicaid is theoretically run by the
states in cooperation with the federal government.  In reality, any time a state wants to make
the tiniest changes in its
Medicaid program, it has to go hat-in-hand to the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services with a formal request for a waiver and these waivers are usually
denied.

 This federal control has been part of the
disagreement states have with the federal government over health insurance
exchanges. The central government wants to shift the financial burden on the
states while controlling the states’ decisions.

Indiana succeeded in gaining a waiver in 2007
because it was seeking to expand Medicaid to
a group of people who weren’t then eligible for the program and because the
state’s effort required no additional outlays from the federal government.  Governor
Mitch Daniels paid for the
Medicaid expansion by increasing the state’s cigarette tax by 44 cents. It made
sense to everyone except the people that smoked. 

Patients had skin in the game because
they had to pay 2 -5% of their income for their insurance coverage. The plan
provided financial as well as wellness incentives.

We did a lot of reading on
criticism of health savings accounts,” says Seema Verma, who was the
architect of the Indiana
program. “One of the criticisms was that people didn’t have enough money to pay
for preventive care. So we took preventive care out, made that first-dollar
coverage.

“ Also, people said that people didn’t have enough for the
deductible, so we fully funded it. Then, you have to make your contribution
every month, with a 60-day grace period. If you don’t make the contribution,
you’re out of the program for 12 months. It’s a strong personal responsibility
mechanism.”

 I described the Healthy Indiana plan in
detail in January 2008 pre President Obama
.

Medicaid patients get a specified amount
of preventive care for free.  Included
are free annual physical exams, pap smears and mammograms for women,
cholesterol tests, flu shots, blood glucose screenings, and tetanus-diphtheria
screenings.

Medicaid beneficiaries have no
cost-sharing requirements (co-pays, deductibles, etc.) except for non-urgent
use of emergency rooms.

The money remaining in the Medicaid
patients’ POWER accounts at the end of the year can be applied to the following
year’s contribution only if they obtain the required free preventive disease
services.

“The program has been, by many measures, a smashing success. “What
we’re finding out is that, first of all, low-income people are just as capable
as anybody else of making wise decisions when it’s their own money that they’re
spending,” Mitch Daniels explains in a Heritage Foundation video.”

“And they’re also acting more like good consumers. They’re
visiting emergency rooms less, they’re using more generic drugs, they’re asking
for second opinions. And some real money is starting to accumulate in their
[health savings] accounts.”

The program has been
very popular. Ninety (90) percent of enrollees are
making their required monthly contributions. Employers didn’t dump their
workers onto the program, crowding others out, because you needed to be
uninsured for six months in order to be eligible for it.

 “The program’s level of
satisfaction is at an unheard-of 98 percent approval rating,” Verma told 
Kenneth Artz.

Lower income families are not too stupid
to be wise healthcare consumers despite popular belief.

2010 study by
Mathematica Policy Research found that in the program

71 percent met the preventive care
requirement and were able to roll the balances over to the following year.  Only 39% obtained preventive care in the
first six months. It proves financial incentives work.

The lack of physician access is the
biggest reason why health outcomes for Medicaid patients lag far behind those
of individuals with private insurance.

Healthy Indiana pays better than
traditional Medicaid. The physician access trend has been reversed. Preventive
care participation rates are higher than the
privately-insured population.

Why would the Obama administration, which
controls the states’ Medicaid programs, refuse to grant a waiver for Indiana’s successful
program?

The first excuse HHS used was “ HSS  hadn’t written the regulations for Obamacare
yet.”

According to Seema Verma  “the state will now have to file a much more
complex “State Plan Amendment” that may not get approved before the Healthy
Indiana program is set to expire.”

Before his term expired Gov. Daniels
had written to HHS Secretary
Kathleen Sebelius asking her for permission to use the Healthy Indiana Plan to
handle Obamacare’s mandatory expansion of Medicaid. He had not heard back.

The Obama Administration claims to be on
the side of the poor.  Why would it not
approve a waiver of a popular program for the poor that provides the poor with
superior health care?

Whatever the reason, tens of thousands of people will be
needlessly harmed.

Regulatory
burdens and “poison pills” have been thrown at the Indiana health plan. One
such poison pill is not allowing the state to include the $1100 Power account given to Medicaid patients to make
wise medical care choices.

Yet
the government pays the healthcare insurance industry for help desks and rent
for buildings where there are help desks as direct patient care instead of
expenses.

It is
not only bewildering, it is obscene.

The
controversy continued throughout 2012 past the expiration date of the 2007
waiver into 2013.

Mike
Pence, the new governor, kept fighting off bureaucratic rules but got nowhere
through March of 2013.

The subtext of all of this is the
Obama administration wants a top down centrally controlled Medicaid system with
the financial burden on the states and Indiana wants to control its own destiny
with its successful plan.

Stuff
like the following has been going on. Diane Gerrits, CMS' director of state
demonstrations and waivers, wrote in a Feb. 25 letter that the state will have
to resubmit its application because it had not yet held two public hearings
required by law.

CMS said as a result of the failure to comply with the transparency portion of
the proposal, the state must begin a 30-day state public comment and notice
period. The state must follow with an additional 30-day federal public comment.

This
has been going on since 2011

Governor
Mike Pence fired back,

 "The Feb. 25, 2013, letter from HHS does not
indicate in any way that the waiver application process has been
jeopardized," he wrote Thursday. "It does, however, speak to the
flawed bureaucratic process that has impeded progress on our successful Healthy
Indiana Plan."

The
Obama administration is trying to destroy all health savings accounts both
public and private. This is probably the reason for these artificial delays.

Suddenly,
in mid April, under public pressure and possibly the impending IRS scandal Indiana’s
waiver request was approved.

This
is a happy ending to the Indiana saga and perhaps a model to get all the
Medicaid programs out of the deep ditch they are in.

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

Please have a friend subscribe

 

 

 

 

 

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

Permalink:

Don’t Confuse Me With Facts

Stanley
Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

The Obama administration refuses to believe that
physicians are not interested in seeing Medicaid patients. The Obama
administration must think that by increasing Medicaid enrollment the number of
physicians willing to see these patients will increase. I believe the Obama
administration is wrong.

A
survey called the Health Tracking Study Physician Survey,
sponsored by the Center for Studying Health System Change, polled more than
4,700 physicians around the country in 2008.

The survey covered many private practice
issues. One question surveyed was about new patients these physicians would
likely accept.

The survey showed that Internists are 8.5 times
more likely to reject all Medicaid patients as opposed to patients with private
insurance.


There is an additional cohort of doctors who
only accept “some” (i.e. reject most) new Medicaid patients.

These numbers might surprise some but they
reflect reality.

 The physicians who accept “all” or “most”
Medicaid patients are a concentrated minority.

This means that if you have Medicaid
insurance coverage it will be very hard to find a physician who will see you.

Medicaid and MD

 

The administration refuses to believe
that the 32 million new Medicaid patients will have a difficult time finding a
physician.

Most other observers accept the fact that
Medicaid beneficiaries have a tough time finding physicians. The main reason is
due to the fact that Medicaid deeply underpays physicians and hospitals for
their services.

There is also resistance by progressive
thinkers to believe that Medicaid coverage has poor performance outcomes.

In reality Medicaid coverage is bad
insurance coverage.

Scott Gottlieb M.D.’s article in the WSJ in 2011
stated;
 

Medicaid Is Worse Than No Coverage at All!

“New
research shows that patients on this government plan fare poorly. The question is
why does the President Obama want to shove one in four Americans into it?"

Dr. Gottlieb’s question is a very good
question.

The Oregon Experiment just published in
the New England Journal of Medicine reached the same conclusion.

We found no significant effect of Medicaid coverage on the prevalence
o
r diagnosis of hypertension or high cholesterol levels or on the use of
medication for these conditions. Medicaid coverage significantly increased the
probability of a diagnosis of diabetes and the use of diabetes medication, but
we observed no significant effect on average glycated hemoglobin levels or on
the percentage of participants with levels of 6.5% or higher.”

The was no difference
in “clinical outcomes.”  However, as I
explained on many occasions, in the past there are large defects in measuring
clinical outcomes.

In additional, the
findings in clinical outcome studies are often misinterpreted.

Medicaid coverage decreased the probability of a positive
screening for depression (−9.15 percentage points; 95% confidence interval,
−16.70 to −1.60; P=0.02)
, increased the use of many preventive services, and
nearly eliminated catastrophic out-of-pocket medical expenditures.”

The results of
screening for depression in the Oregon Experiment are not statistically
significant. In order to be statistically significant a p value has to be less
that .05.

Ezra Klein of the Washington Post found the
words to publish the results as very positive for Medicaid
coverage using the
Oregon Experiment as proof. The article was entitled Here’s what the Oregon Medicaid
study really said”

Since the media
is the message Ezra Klein used the media to get his biased message out even if
the message is wrong.

He might be
right that Medicaid coverage is important but the Oregon Experiment did not
prove it.

The real
problem with the Oregon Experiment is that the design of the study is
defective. If a study’s design is wrong the conclusions are wrong on both sides
of the argument.

There are
real structural problems with Medicaid coverage in its present form. Its
reimbursement method is also wrong. The only way to provide quality affordable
care to lower income families is to fix Medicaid’s structural defects.

To force 32
million people into a defective system is going to lead to disastrous fiscal
and medical care consequences.

I have to think
the Obama administration does not care about the results or the administration is
blinded by its own ideology.

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

Please have a friend subscribe

 

 

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

Permalink:

Listen To This !

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

The
Obama administration seems to exhibit a definite pattern for releasing
unfavorable information. It always seems to occur on a Friday afternoon when
everyone is thinking about the weekend.

Last Friday it was reported that,Health
and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has gone, hat in hand, to health
industry officials, asking them to make large financial donations to help with
the effort to implement President Obama’s landmark health-care law,”
two people familiar
with the outreach said.

Congress
has repeatedly rejected requests by the Obama administration for more money for
Obamacare.

Sen.
Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) said To solicit
funds from health-care executives to help pay for the implementation of the
President’s $2.6 trillion health spending law is absurd.”
 

The
Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) included 1 billion dollars to be used in
overall implementation of the law. The 1 billion dollars is almost gone. The
CBO projects that Obamacare now needs 5-10 billion dollars to get the law “up and running over the next 10 years.”

How
come?  There is no explanation available.
My guess is that it is the result of waste, inefficiency and excessive bureaucracy.

All of
a sudden the government needs money to train and outsource to community
organizers the job of getting the underprivileged to sign up for healthcare
insurance through the health insurance exchanges. 

In
addition many states have not signed up to run their health insurance
exchanges.

HSS
needs the money to fund and manage the health insurance exchanges in those 33
states.

The
Obama administration also promised those states that did sign up that it would
pay all the expenses for three years.

I
assume the administration did not need congressional approval for this
decision.

One
could also assume that the Obama administration’s plan was to stick the startup
expenses to the states rather than the federal government. 

Congress
has refused to provide the requested additional funding for Obamacare.

Obamacare was supposed to be budget neutral. It
clearly will not be budget neutral according to present CBO estimates. It will
more likely be in the negative by over 1 trillion dollars despite the tax
increases.

Taxpayers
need only be reminded of the 10 hidden taxes they are already paying to fund
Obamacare in order to understand congress’s attitude.

“After Congress rejected a request in March
for nearly $1 billion in additional spending for fiscal 2013, the White House
asked for $1.5 billion for fiscal 2015 to set up and run dozens of exchanges
that will provide Americans options for health insurance. The new marketplace
is scheduled to launch in October 2013 for open enrollment.”

It is
already anticipated that the promised “affordable healthcare insurance” will be
unaffordable to indigent or low-income earners.

Budget
documents show that the Obama administration has already pulled hundreds of
millions of dollars from projects not specifically earmarked for Obamacare to
implement Obamacare.

Additionally,
HHS announced that it would use $150 million in Affordable Care Act funds meant
to build additional community health centers to train thousands of health-care
outreach workers at facilities that already exist.

“Investing in health centers for outreach
and enrollment assistance provides one more way the Obama administration is
helping consumers understand their options and enroll in affordable coverage,”
Secretary Sebelius said in a statement.

 It is
strange and unexpected by the Obama administration that few are signing up for
Obamacare.

Secretary
Sebelius seems to be trying to make congress feel guilty for Obamacare’s costs
overruns. I have a feeling there are going to be a lot of cost overruns in the
next future along with an attempt to raise taxes.

We requested additional money from congress
but we didn’t receive any additional funding for the exchanges,” Ellen Murray,
HHS’s assistant secretary for financial resources, said last month at a budget
briefing.

“So we’ve had to come up with a Plan B.
We’ve been working very hard to develop that.”

“Part of our mission is to help uninsured
Americans take advantage of new, quality affordable insurance options that are
coming thanks to the health law.”

 Kathleen
Sebelius might have stepped over the federal regulations line once more.   She got into a bit of a jam before last years
the election when she violated federal law by
‘accidentally’ endorsing President Obama’s reelection at an appearance in her
official HHS capacity. The press and congress gave her a pass and so the miscue
failed to gain public notice.

This
time it might not be so easy.   Federal regulations prohibited department
officials from asking for funds from industry officials, business or
subordinates in an official capacity, which has in the past sought to do
business with that Department.

Kathleen
Sebelius has done just that making multiple phone calls to health industry executives,
community organizations and church groups.

She
has asked them to contribute whatever they can to nonprofit community
organizers that are working to enroll uninsured Americans and to increase
awareness of the law.

This
was revealed to the press last Friday by an HHS official and an industry person
familiar with the secretary’s activities.

Kathleen
Sebelius’ only way out of this jam is that the law permits her to solicit as a
private citizen. The administration began to spin it as an act of a private citizen
soliciting aid from parties interested in helping the healthcare law’s
implementation.

It
might be dirty pool to some but those stakeholders affected are intimidated
from speak out because of their potential loss of business from the government.

After
a while Americans get use to and are bored by these tactics.

The
press blows them off as insignificant and the public forgets about them.

I do
not believe these maneuvers can stop Obamacare from failing under its own
weight. It is a law with too many defects.

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

Please have a friend subscribe

 

  • Mohamed

    Hi there, after reading this awesome article i am as well glad to share my familiarity here with friends.

  • Numbers

    Hi mmy friend! I wish to say that this aarticle is amazing, grdat written and come with almost all important infos. I’d like to look more posts like this .

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

Permalink:

Surprises For Physicians Coming With In Health Insurance Exchanges

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP, MACE

 Two
important components of Obamacare are Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) and
Health Insurance Exchanges (HIEs).


The
adoption of both by medical communities and the states has been slow for good
reason.

I have
discussed the difficulties of setting up and the executing effective Accountable
Care Organizations
.

Some hospital systems are trying to set up ACO’s. These hospital systems
are buying up physicians’ practices and trying to develop integrated care
organizations.

The hospital systems are buying the physicians’ intellectual property and
surgical skills sets. It will not work once physicians realize what happened.

The relationship between community hospital systems and practicing
physicians had always been tense. Physicians do not trust hospitals and hospitals
do not trust physicians.

Some physician groups are trying to develop their own ACOs. They are trying
to convert hospital systems from being providers of patient care to vendors for
their physician ACO.

If there are two hospitals in a community or town the hospital systems
might become competitive.

The huge problem for physicians is the assuming of risk. If healthcare
insurance companies cannot manage risk, why would physicians think they can
manage risk?

 A variable that cannot be controlled
in managing risk are patients. With all the obesity and the increase in
diabetes mellitus it seems patients do not have the incentives to manage their
own risks.

 Patients and physicians must be provided with appropriate financial
incentives if there is the slightest chance of managing risk and decreasing the
cost of healthcare.

 The adoption of ACOs has been slower than the Obama administration has anticipated.
  

 Adoption
of the Health Insurance Exchanges has been slow by states. Some states
recognize the financial risk the Obama administration is trying to force on
them.

This
risk is ever present even if the federal government is going to pay the entire
bill for the first three years.

As soon as physicians realize
the risk the Health Insurance Exchanges are going to impose on them, they will
not be willing participate.

These risks become more
apparent will each succeeding release of regulation.

Kathleen Sebelius said it two
weeks ago when she said there would be plenty of surprises ahead for physicians.

Health
and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, who told a gathering a few
weeks ago at the Harvard School of Public Health that she has been
"surprised" by the political wrangling caused so far by Obamacare,
there are likely to be plenty of surprises ahead.”

Physicians could face dramatic
financial challenges for treating patients who receive health coverage through
the Affordable Care Act's (ACA) Health Insurance Exchanges starting next year.

Insurance companies will not
process claims on patients who haven't paid their premiums in 3 months
, leaving
doctors on the hook to recoup payment directly from the patients.”

Obamacare provides a 3-month grace
period to individuals who haven't paid their premiums for insurance purchased
through the Health Insurance Exchanges.

This provision will prove to be a
problem for physicians.

In Obamacare patients who fail to
pay their premium are free to sign up for another plan provided by the Health Insurance
Exchange.  

They can also start seeing another
physician without the insurance company or new physicians being aware of the
patient’s delinquent premium record.

"Why would a doctor sign up to treat these patients] if
they're going to be completely at risk and have to collect from the patient
directly for their care?"  "This
is a really bad provision in the bill, and we've got to get it fixed."


Under traditional insurance provided
by employers, the plan is still liable for paying doctors even if the patient
or employer hasn't paid their premiums,

Under the health insurance exchange
the individual is responsible for their monthly premium. If the patients
discontinue payment of their premium the healthcare insurer is not obligated to
pay the physician for the care provided.

Most of the time patients have stopped
paying premiums because they cannot afford them. Patients buying healthcare
insurance from the Health Insurance Exchanges are lower income producing
patients. 

 The
expected annual, out-of-pocket cost for an individual is estimated to be around
$6,400 and $12,800 for a family. This is not an insignificant expense for low
wage earners.

Recent premium estimates indicate
that the premium will be higher. This could be one of the surprises Kathleen
Sibelius is referring to.

Another potential shortcoming of the
Health Insurance Exchange is the reimbursement rates provided to physicians.
The Obama administration believes Medicaid rates are sufficient.

I wonder if any of President Obama’s
healthcare policy wonks ever questioned why so many physicians do not accept
Medicaid.

The answer is simple. The
reimbursement rate is less than the physicians fixed overhead to see the patient.

Medicaid physicians are driven to
see many patients a day to try to make a living.

It would be difficult maintaining a
physician patient relationship and a high quality of care seeing over 100
patients a day.

When their overproduction is
discovered these physicians are investigated for fraudulent practices.

 The rates the healthcare insurance industry
will pay physicians will not be set until late summer.

The big provider groups are negotiating with plans on their
payments. Small groups will only get a "take it or leave it" contract
from the health plans.

It seems obvious that fewer
physicians will sign up to accept patients receiving coverage through the
Health Insurance Exchanges once physicians understand what Obamacare is doing.

 This will result in a further physician
shortage.

 The simple question is what is Obamacare
trying to do to the healthcare system?

 Is Obamacare trying to destroy the
healthcare system?

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

Please have a friend subscribe

 

  • online book shopping

    Pretty section of content. I just stumbled upon your weblog and in accession capital to assert that I acquire in fact enjoyed account your blog posts. Anyway I will be subscribing to your feeds and even I achievement you access consistently fast.Everything For Sale http://www.shopforall.net

  • seo

    I wanted to thank you for this wonderful read!! I absolutely enjoyed evvery bit of it. I’ve got you book-marked to check out new stuff you post

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

Permalink:

Consumers Are Becoming Terrified Of Obamacare

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

Congress has finally figured out Obamacare’s financial burden to them
personally and their staff. They want out and are trying to sneak in a waiver for
themselves.

Millions of Americans are going to pay more for their healthcare
insurance and get less coverage and a higher deductible cost.

Can ordinary American get the same waiver as government workers?

Actuary consultants
from Oliver Wyman in an article published in the journal of the American
Academy of Actuaries, found that "around six million of the 19
million people with individual health policies are going to have to pay
more—and this even after accounting for the government subsidies offered under
the law."

 "For example, single adults age 21-29 earning
300% to 400% of the federal poverty level will be hit with an increase of 46%
even after premium assistance from tax credits."

The number of people seeking individual healthcare insurance
will be even higher when it becomes clear that employers presently providing
healthcare insurance to employees will drop the coverage and elect to pay the
penalty.

The present estimate is that 65% of employers are either
definitely going to drop healthcare coverage or are seriously considering
dropping coverage.

The
healthcare insurance industry claims the reason for the increases in premiums
is the Obama administration’s regulatory policies for participating in health
insurance exchanges.

 Obamacare's community-rating regulations, which
require insurers to accept everyone but limit or ban them from varying premiums
based on age or health.

  1.  The law
    also mandates "essential" benefits that are far more generous than
    those currently offered and thus raise the premiums.
  2. The healthcare insurance industry will be
    required to pay a tax on every healthcare insurance policy sold through the
    health insurance exchange. The industry is anticipating the tax and passing it
    on the anticipated cost to the consumer.
  3. Employers with over 50 employees are decreasing the
    number of employees to less than 50 employees so as not to pay a penalty for
    not providing insurance.
  4. Employers are not required to
    provide insurance for employees working less that 30 hours a week and so
    employers are decreasing employee work hours.

 The Bureau of Labor
Statistics reported on a category of workers who will almost surely be
involuntarily under-employed as a result of health reform.

“The present
estimate is that 10 million part-timers now working 30-34 hours per week will
have their work week decreased to under 30 hours a week.”

According
to Congressional Budget Office projections in July and September 2012, three
million people will lose their insurance altogether in 2014 due to Obamacare.

Six
million will have to pay the individual-mandate tax penalty in 2016 because
they don't want or won't be able to afford coverage, even with the government subsidies.

It is anybody’s guess how many people will be uninsured. The more
uninsured people that are eliminated from the insurance pool the higher the
insurance premium for those insured.

Rather than providing universal affordable care the Obama
administration has created a system that will result in more uninsured consumers and faced with unaffordable costs.

Are all these people going to qualify for Medicaid? I do not believe so.
They will earn too much to qualify for Medicaid and too little money to afford
the upcoming premiums.

It is estimated that 30 to 40 million American families’ will
experience an adverse affect in healthcare coverage as a result of Obamacare.

Americans are becoming concerned as the reality of the negative effects
of Obamacare become clear.

Even the traditional mainstream media is starting to report those
concerns as Obamacare’s negative effects are being felt.

Theoretically Obamacare sounds good. Practically it will collapse
the healthcare system.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, who told a
gathering a few weeks ago at the Harvard School of Public Health that she has
been "surprised" by the political wrangling caused so far by Obamacare,
there are likely to be plenty of surprises ahead.”

What are the other surprises? What is going to happen to all the
uninsured and underinsured?

It looks like the outcomes are going to be the opposite of the goal of
Obamacare.

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

Please have a friend subscribe

 

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

Permalink:

Why Does Congress Want to Exempt Itself from Obamacare?

 Stanley Feld
M.D.,FACP.MACE

In mid-April
Max Baucus one of the authors of Obamacare and a major proponent of the law
made the following statement to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen
Sibelius at a Senate hearing.

 

 
.
 
 

 

http://youtu.be/Y9airckwqA8

Unfortunately only 11,723 people watched this 29 second You Tube.  The traditional media gave his statement
sound bite coverage without explaining the reasons for him saying Obamacare is
going to be a "train wreck."

West Virginia Senator Jay Rockerfeller said Obamacare is beyond
comprehension.

  

Only 157 people looked at this You Tube whick has been up for 3 weeks.

It would have
been a good idea for congress to have read and understood the bill.

Meanwhile, congressional leaders in both
parties have been engaged for months  now in high-level, secretive confidential
talks about exempting lawmakers and Capitol Hill aides from Obamacare’s  health insurance exchanges that they are
mandated to join as part of President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul,
sources in both parties said.

These talks involve the Obama administration,
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), House Speaker John Boehner
(R-Ohio), along with other top lawmakers.

“These talks are extraordinarily sensitive,
with both sides acutely aware of the potential for political fallout in the
2014 mid term elections from giving carve-outs from the hugely controversial
law to 535 lawmakers and thousands of their aides.

Politico
along with other Internet news agencies has been the only news agency to have
in depth coverage of this attempt to exempt congress and its aids from
Obamacare and its health insurance exchanges.

Henry Chao, the Administration’s chief
technical official in charge of  the
implementation of the Obamacare’s health insurance exchanges
, “just hopes that Americans can avoid a “third-world experience.”

Why would both
Democrats in congress want to avoid participating in Obamacare and its health
insurance exchanges?

We need to
be reminded that the Democrats had overwhelming majorities in both houses of
congress at the time of passage of the law in 2009 without a single Republican
vote.

I am
reminded of Nancy Pelosi’s argument for Obamacare's passage.


  

http://youtu.be/KoE1R-xH5To

 Now that
congress knows what is in Obamacare they want to be exempt.

Congress is content to let the rest
of us suffer.

What is
congress afraid of?

 

  1. Higher
    healthcare costs for themselves, their families and their aides.
  2. Being
    mandated into Obamacare’s health insurance exchanges will result in  them not qualifying for government subsidy.
  3. Congresspersons and their aids could
    also lose their employer-based coverage.
  4. This is also true for millions of
    ordinary Americans.
  5. They would also face higher costs of
    insurance through health insurance exchange.
  6. Every policy the healthcare insurance
    industry sells will be taxed. It will result in passing the tax on to the
    policy holders.
  7. Contrary to the President’s promises, independent analysts expect health insurance premiums to
    rise sharply, particularly for younger workers and their families.       

Congressional
members have other fears if they fail to create an exemption for themselves and
their aides. These fears are:

1. They fear the
impact on Capitol Hill employment.

2. The increase in healthcare insurance
costs “could lead to a ‘brain drain’ on
Capitol Hill, as several sources close to the talks put it.”
  

3. Ordinary Americans who run businesses
are also faced with the same problem. President Obama and Democratic
congressmen have refused to be responsive to the dilemma faced by ordinary
businessmen.

4. American business owner fear they will not
be able to hire or retain valued employees.

5. These businessmen are presently
reducing full-time workers to part-time employees in order to avoid Obamacare’s
mandatory insurance coverage or penalty.

6. This will have the consequence of
increasing the unemployment rate and decreasing consumer spending.

7. In turn it will create an unending
spiral which will seriously impact economic growth.

8. The question Americans must ask is “what about me.”

 

The Obama
administration and congress have done similar things before in their effort to
passing Obamacare.

Obamacare
was passed using backroom dealings such as the “Cornhusker Kickback,” the
“Louisiana Purchase,” and the threats to political careers.

This congressional
exemption also brings back memories of (more than
1,200 waivers
) to favored
businesses and unions who received special exemptions from Obamacare’s
insurance rules.

“If Congress quietly wants
to exempt itself from Obamacare, that’s great—so long as it includes the rest
of us in that midnight amendment.”

If you are "mad as hell and do not want to take this anymore" 
sign this petition.

  

 

 

Please
click on this link to sign up and send the link on to your friends.

https://www.change.org/petitions/force-congress-to-obey-obamacare

This is the petition

To: 

Senator Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader 


Rep. Nancy Pelosi, House Minority Leader 

You told me we had to pass
Obamacare to find out what was in it. Now your gold-standard health insurance
is on the chopping block as Obamacare is implemented. 


If the tin-plated plan is good enough for me, my family, and my friends, it is
good enough for you and your staff. 


You passed the law — now live with it like the rest of us. Or overturn the whole
rotten thing!


Stop the effort by liberal Democrats to seek an exemption from Obamacare for
Members of Congress and their staff.

Sincerely, 

[Your name]

Some of us will remember
Walter Cronkite’s signature was ending
each newscast with the phrase, "And that's the way it is".

 I am adding this “it is now up to you ladies and gentlemen.”

 

Please sign
the petition. Thank you.

 

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

Please have a friend subscribe

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

Permalink:

EMRs Real Politics.

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

 

Dr. Jerome Groopman and Dr.Pamela
Hartzmen uncovered the real politics of EMRs.
 They are both on the staff of Beth
Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston and on the faculty of Harvard Medical
School.

 Dr. Groopman wrote a best seller “How
Doctors Think.”

In a Wall Street
Journal article they wrote,

 The electronic medical record (EMR) is touted
as the key to containing costs, reducing errors, improving quality, and
simplifying administration: an “elegant exercise in wishful thinking

Dr. Groopman and Pamela Hartzman debunk the 2005 RAND study. The
RAND EMR study of 2005 led to President Obama’s belief that EMRs will save $81
billion dollars a year for the healthcare system.

Groopman and Hartzman show that there is little evidence to
support the president’s belief.

The RAND analysts claim that more than $350
billion would be saved on inpatient care and nearly $150 billion on outpatient
care over a 15-year period of time.

Unfortunately, data from three other studies, a cardiology
group, a Harvard group and Canadian group showed there is no savings difference
between paper records and electronic records.

Dr. Groopman claims the RAND study is self-serving to EMR software
companies that sponsored the study.

 

 Allscripts
Healthcare Solutions
, the Cerner Corporation and Epic Systems of Verona, Wis. are the major EMR software companies.

 In February 2009, after years of behind-the-scenes lobbying by
Allscripts and others, legislation to promote the use of electronic records was
signed into law as part of President Obama’s economic stimulus bill.

“But today, as doctors and hospitals struggle to make new records
systems work, the clear winners are big companies like Allscripts that lobbied
for that legislation and pushed aside smaller competitors.”

At Allscripts Healthcare
solutions, annual sales have more than doubled from $548 million in 2009 to an
estimated $1.44 billion last year.

At the Cerner Corporation of Kansas City, Mo., sales rose 60 percent during that
period.  

“Current and former industry executives say that
big digital records companies like Cerner, Allscripts and Epic Systems of
Verona, Wis., have reaped enormous rewards because of the legislation they
pushed for.”

Unfortunately, many of the
EMR systems bought by large hospital systems and physician practices are not
fully functional. They do not fit the administration’s criteria of meaningful-use
EMRs. These EMRs are requiring additional hospital systems and physicians;
practices outlays of cash to make them fully functional.

Panama
City-based Pain Clinic of Northwest FL filed a purported class action lawsuit
on Dec. 20, 2012 against Chicago-based Allscripts (NASDAQ: MDRX).

“The purported class action
lawsuit says that about 5,000 small group physicians were sold an EMR called
MyWay from 2009 until late last year, when the company stopped supporting the
product.”

“The company was also hit with
a federal shareholder class action securities fraud lawsuit in the Northern
Illinois District last year over allegations that it misled investors about the
performance of its EHR programs.”

 The MyWay EMR cost about $40,000
per physician. ThePain Clinic of Northwest Florida claims it was misled by
Allscripts Healthcare Solution.  The
Clinic stated that MyWay has “shortcoming
and inherent defects,”  

The
complaint says Allscripts was unable to obtain “meaningful use” bonus status
for MyWay because of the problems with the program. The lawsuit claims that

 “Allscripts has been unjustly enriched by
retaining the money paid by MyWay purchasers and users without delivering an
EHR software product that performs as it was intended to work,”

 These costs are always
passed on to the consumer
. Drs. Groopman and Hartzman  go on to say,

The
president and his health-care team have yet to address these difficult and
pressing issues.

 Our culture adores technology, so it is not
surprising that the electronic medical record has been touted as the first
important step in curing the ills of our health-care system.

But
this notion is an overly simplistic and unsubstantiated part of the solution.


It is important to note Drs. Groopman and Hartzman’s total
and refreshing frankness.

“We both voted
for President Obam
a, in part because of his pragmatic approach to problems,
belief in empirical data, and openness to changing his mind when those data
contradict his initial approach to a problem”.

We need the
president to apply
scientific rigor to fix our
health-care system rather than rely on elegant exercises in wishful thinking.”

Please note that Drs. Groopman and Hartzman said it not
me.

In
a new study The RAND Corp has backed off on its 2005 study earlier this year
and withdrew its estimate of saving to the healthcare system of $81 billion
dollars annually.

In the
RAND Corp’s view, the disappointing performance of health IT to date can be
largely attributed to several factors:

 

  1.  “Sluggish
    adoption of health IT systems
  2.   Coupled
    with the choice of systems that are neither interoperable nor easy to use;
  3.   The
    failure of health care providers and institutions to reengineer care processes
    to reap the full benefits of health IT.
  4.  We
    believe that the original promise of health IT can be met if the systems are
    redesigned to address these flaws by creating more-standardized systems that
    are easier to use,
  5.  EMR are
    truly interoperable,
  6.  Afford patients more access to and control
    over their health data.
  7.  Providers must do their part by reengineering
    care processes to take full advantage of efficiencies offered by health IT, in
    the context of redesigned payment models that favor value over volume.”

 

It should not be a blame game.

General Electric sponsored this new RAND study.  It is important to note that GE is a major
Allscripts competitor.

There is true value in the EMRs to patient care. However the
focus of the marketing and development is on the wrong customer.

The RAND still does not get it. Perhaps
it does not want to get it.

EMRs should be for the benefit of physicians and their
patients. It must be at a price physicians can afford to pay. It should not be
for the benefit of the government, the healthcare insurance industry and
hospital systems.

It should be a tool to
continually educate physicians and patients. It should not be a tool used by
secondary stakeholders to penalize physicians and patients.

Patients and physicians control My Ideal Electronic Medical
Record. It should be seriously considered to achieve the maximum benefit of EMRs’
potential.

I believe it would be of value to interested readers to go
to this link.

 http://www.lijit.com/search?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lijit.com%2Fusers%2Fstanleyfeld&start_time=&p=g&blog_uri=http%3A%2F%2Fstanleyfeldmdmace.typepad.com%2F&blog_platform=&view_id=&link_id=7386&flavor=&q=Idel+Electronic+Medical+Record+%28EMR%29&x=33&y=6.

 Those articles will
not only describe the problems with EMRs, problems which I have predicted and are
now recognized. These articles will also outline real  solutions to having universal adoption of
EMRs.

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

Please have a friend subscribe

 

 

 

  • cure acne

    Very nice post. I just stumbled upon your blog and wanted to say that I have truly enjoyed surfing arond your blog posts. After aall I’ll be subscribing to your rss feed and I hope you write again soon!

  • denver web design

    Your style is uhique in comparison tto other people I’ve read stuff from. Thank you for posting when you have the opportunity, Guess I will just bookmark this page.

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

Permalink:

The False Promise of Electronic Medical Records (EMR)

 Stanley Feld M.D. FACP,MACE

The
promise of the Electronic Medical Record (EMR) is fading for physicians and
patients. The EMR was supposed to reduce the cost of medical care, improve
quality of care, improve physician communications, reduce duplicate testing and
improve efficiency of care.

 I
believe EMRs can accomplish all of the above goals but not with their present
rollout format.

In
2009 President Obama declared that EMRs,

  “would
save some $80 billion a year, safeguard against medical errors, reduce
malpractice lawsuits, and greatly facilitate both preventive care and ongoing
therapy of the chronically ill.

President Obama's estimate is a little higher than that of the Rand Corp. study on the same issue.

EMR’s have
not accomplished its goals. EMRs have been a money-loser for most physicians.

I
predicted that fully functioning EMRs were too expensive for most practicing
physicians. In addition to the initial expense there are very high maintenance costs.

EMRs
bought by physicians and hospital systems in the past are not fully functional.
 Less than 20% of hospital systems and
physicians practices that have fully functional EMRs

Physicians
and hospital systems that already have EMRs will have to purchase new fully
functional EMRs.

Physicians
historically know that all data collected, whether accurate or not, has been
used against them in the past.

They
are hesitant to provide more data at their own expense that compromise the
privacy of their patients and potentially harm their own reputation.

Physicians
would be happy to participate in EMR implementation if the EMR improved their
ability to serve their patients without a potential penalty.

It
is clear the government and healthcare insurance industry want to control the
healthcare system. The stakeholder who controls the data controls the
healthcare system.


A
recent survey from
forty-nine community practices in a large EMR pilot study by the Massachusetts
eHealth
Collaborative studied the projected five-year financial returns on
investment to physicians’ practices. It was published in Health Affairs.

The
survey concluded,

"We found that the average
physician would lose $43,743 over five years; just 27 percent of practices
would have achieved a positive return on investment; and only an additional
14 percent of practices would have come out ahead had they received the
$44,000 federal meaningful-use incentive
."

Only a few practices would
have had EMR’s that qualified for the Obama administrations meaningful –use
incentives.
The Obama administration’s criteria for meaningful-use are too strict
and complex for EMR software that physicians can afford.

More amazing is that the
only way for a practice to have a positive cash return on investment for their
EMR is to game the healthcare system using their EMR. The resulting cost of
medical care would rise.

 “The
largest difference between practices with a positive return on investment and
those with a negative return was the extent to which they used their EHRs to
increase revenue, primarily by seeing more patients per day or by improved
billing that resulted in fewer rejected claims and more accurate coding.”

This does not constitute an improvement in medical care. It also
contradicts the idealistic advantages of the Electronic Medical Record.

The survey concludes that current meaningful-use incentives
alone may not ensure a positive return on investment from EMR adoption.

The survey’s authors suggest,

“Policies
that provide additional support, such as expanding the regional extension
center program, could help ensure that practices make the changes required to
realize a positive return on investment from EHRs.”

 The government and
healthcare insurance industry’s goal is to reduce physicians’ reimbursement to
those physicians that do not meet Obamacare’s imposed criteria for quality
medical care. The controversial Independent Physician Advisory Board (IPAB)
will set these criteria.

Many physicians in practice object to converting medical care
into a commodity. Medical care is a very personal and complex interaction not
taken into account by the rigid criteria.

I have said previously that about 50% of the therapeutic index
(therapeutic effect) of a physician’s treatment is determined by the patient
physician relationship.

 "We need to move to EHR for a number of
reasons, but if I am a small practice I am going to really think about a few
things," she says. "One is how to decrease the cost of adoption and
the cost of the system itself.

“ To the extent you can reduce the upfront
cost that is going to help bring down the amount you have to figure out how to
make up elsewhere.

Increasingly there are new models taking this
into account for small practices to decrease the big upfront costs
."

There are two basic issues, the cost of a fully functional EMR and
the real purpose of EMRs. I believe both can be remedied.

The costs of an EMR to a medical practice can be paid for by the
click. The data would be fully secured. The data would be available only to
patients and their physicians.

Physicians would pay for the EMR by the click. The EMRs would be
maintained and updated for free in the cloud.

The EMRs could not be used for penalizing physicians. It would
be used for educating patients and physicians thereby improving the quality of
care.

If there is a bad physician in the community, a way needs to be
found to deal with that physician within his community. All medicine is local.

This is where a consumer driven healthcare system with public
critique of physicians would be an effective deterrent to bad physicians.

The current healthcare system is defective. It has to be
changed. Obamacare is making the business plan worse.

America cannot afford it becoming worse.

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

Please have a friend subscribe

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

Permalink:

Getting Around The Rules: Hospital Readmission Rates

 Stanley
Feld M.D.,FACP, MACE
 

Everybody knows about the
Obama administration’s tricks and cover-ups. Few know what to do about them. Some know what to do. More and more people are seeing right
through the charades. 

In America, unfortunately,
strong vested interest lobbies are effective. I pointed out some of the abuses
of hospital systems lobbies a few weeks ago.

Consumer advocacy
lobbyists do not seem to understand the real issues causing the healthcare
system to be dysfunctional, nor have the money to fight these issues.

Steve Brill’s article in
Time Magazine
published hospital retail prices and not the actual prices the
hospital collects. Retail price get the public’s attention. The real issue is
the wholesale prices the government and the healthcare insurance industry pay.
These allowed wholesale prices are also grotesque.

There is a lot of non-transparent
funny business going on behind closed doors with Medicare. It is going to be
accentuated with Obamacare.

Most of us have heard that
hospitals will be responsible for the costs of patient care if the patient is
readmitted to the hospital within 30 days.


This is a very stupid
rule. Sometimes it is the hospital that should be responsible for readmission
because the care was poor, the patient was not ready to be discharged or the
patient had inadequate education about their disease to avoid hospitalization.

The hospital systems’
pressures are to get patients discharged quickly.

My guess is it is the
patient that is responsible for the readmission most of the time.

Many factors could
contribute to a patient’s readmission. They include

  1. Not
    following the physician’s post discharge orders.
  2. Not
    given appropriate post discharge orders
  3. Not
    being taught to become the professor the their disease.
  4.  Not participating in adequate follow-up care.
    Follow-up care is important but it has become outrageously expensive.
  5. Medicare
    has permitted home healthcare services to charge high prices for simple
    services and procedures that have little impact on patient education and
    avoidance of readmission.
  6. Documentation
    by the home healthcare service drives the expensive reimbursement and not the
    value of the care.

The real question is
should the hospital system be responsible for patient irresponsibility?

The answer is clearly no.
The bureaucracy’s answer to the problem is that one size fits all.

Hospital systems are aware
of this defect. Hospital administrators and their lobbyists are working hard to
get around the rule.

Some have figured it out.
They are keeping the patients in the emergency room and charging ER fees that
they can collect rather that putting patients in the hospital and generating
charges they cannot collect.

Hospital systems can
charge patients increasing fees the longer patients stay in the emergency room.

Medicare does
not count most discharged patients who come to the emergency department (ED)
but are not readmitted, according to a 
study in Annals
of Emergency Medicine.”

The study
looked at nearly 12,000 discharged patients from Boston Medical Center. Twenty
five percent of the patients discharged from the hospital appeared in the
emergency room in less than 30 days and forty percent of those patients were readmitted
to the hospital.

Hospitals
keeping patients in the ER amounted to a great saving and indeed profit for the
hospital.

Defective
rules and regulations lead to many unintended consequences. No one has tried to
motivate patients to be responsible for not being readmitted to the hospital.

Some
readmissions cannot be avoided. Many readmissions can be avoided.

The main
question would be how to motivate all stakeholders to have incentive to avoid
readmission to the hospital.

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

Please have a friend subscribe
 

 

 

 

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