Results found: 99

Permalink:

The Failure Of The Republican Establishment To Repeal and Replace Obamacare

October 8, 2017

inConsumer Driven Health Care, Disinformation and the healthcare system, Medicine: Healthcare System

• Leave a comment

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

It has become clear to me that both the Democrats and the Republican establishment had no intention of repealing and replacing Obamacare.

Democrats had no intention of repealing or replacing Obamacare because. President Obama is their hero. In fact, he has made the most progress in putting America on the road to a European socialist state.

The problem is European socialism has failed. Europe is much closer to bankruptcy than America is.

https://youtu.be/vahAxPl_YtY

Democrats also had no intention of offering any suggestion to Donald Trump to fix Obamacare. Why? They want to destroy his presidency.

Donald Trump is a direct threat to the cushy swamp both the Democratic and Republican establishment has built over the last 50 years.

In addition to this neither, the Democrats nor the Republicans understand the medical care system.

Neither party has a clue about the importance of the physician patient relationship.

Donald Trump represents a direct threat to the Republican establishment’s power over consumers. They too want to destroy his presidency. However, it is essential that the Republican establishment’s goals are not obvious to the public.

Neither party wants to empower the consumers. I believe in order for healthcare reform to be successful it must be consumer driven.

The goal of congress is to focus on making consumers dependent on the government through government control of the healthcare system.

It is strange that one or two people have been positioned to control the Republican Party. The tea party members of the senate are slowly replacing the Republican establishment.

I am afraid that in the next six months Obamacare is going to become unraveled to the grief of the public.

According to the Democrats the only solution is to paste it together and pour money into a single party payer system because “it works!!” in Europe and Canada.

A single party payer system really doesn’t work from and financial and quality of care point of view when studied carefully. In all the countries using with a single party payer system the system appears to work as it plunges each country into further debt.

I have tried to encourage a consumer driven health care system to replace the system controlled and dominated by the government. The government has given the healthcare insurance industry the ability to profit as a result of government bureaucratic inefficiency.

Only a market driven system at the expense of the insurance industry’s profit and government control of Americans’ freedom to choose will work.

I have outlined this system in detail in my blog. All one has to do is read the summary category of the blog to understand the system.

Scott Atlas a senior fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution wrote an article in the Wall Street Journal about fixes to the healthcare system.

He makes very important points that support my ideal medical saving accounts.

His problem is he does not recognize the fact that congress is not interested in creating an efficient system.

It is important to most Democrats and some Republicans that government control the healthcare system.

My view is that with the tremendous increase in obesity and the resulting increase in chronic disease the cost of healthcare is going to increase markedly over the next decades.

In order to reduce the cost of care government should concentrate its energy in lowering the cost of care by reducing obesity in America. This will decrease the onset of chronic diseases and in turn decrease the cost of medical care.

It can be accomplished by giving patients at all income levels financial incentives to become responsible for their health and healthcare dollars.

Scott Atlas’ article in the Wall Street Journal covers most of the points I have made in the past.

I am happy that someone is starting to agree with my solution.

Mr. Atlas is correct when he says;

“But their whole focus (in the healthcare debate) has been wrong. The debate centered, like ObamaCare, on the number of people with health insurance. A more direct path to broadening access would be to reduce the cost of care. This means creating market conditions long proven to bring down prices while improving quality—empowering consumers to seek value, increasing the supply of care, and stimulating competition.”

I have been saying this for years. However congress has refused to listen.

“First, equip consumers to consider prices.”

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

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

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

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

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

An internet site could help like Tire Rack site teaches people how to shop for tires.

At present consumers have no incentive to shop prices.

If they had a financial reward to shop prices they would not overuse the healthcare system.

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

http://stanfeld.com/?s=my+ideal+medical+savings+accounts

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

Medicaid patients also overuse the healthcare system.

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

These patients can easily be identified as outliers. Their problems can be dealt with separately. The majority of the consumers should not be penalized for the small percentage of outliers.

“Giving consumers an incentive to consider price when seeking such care would make a huge difference in the cost of medical care.”

Obamacare provided no incentives to save money.

“ObamaCare moved in the opposite direction, shielding consumers from having to care about prices. Its broad coverage requirements and misguided subsidies encouraged bloated insurance policies, furthering the misguided idea that the purpose of coverage is to minimize out-of-pocket costs.

When the insurer picks up nearly the entire tab, patients have little reason to consider costs, and doctors don’t need to compete on price.”

Effective healthcare reform would put patients in charge of their own spending. It would provide a way for consumers to concentrate on being well while giving them a financial incentive to pay less for their healthcare coverage.

Finally someone has seen the wisdom of creating a system of having consumers to be in charge of their health and healthcare dollars.

I have provided a system of healthcare that for a consumer driven system.

Mr. Atlas outlined such a system that matches my system of a consumer driven healthcare system using my ideal medical saving account.

It is unfortunate that our elected congressional establishment has no interest in empowering consumers to control the healthcare system even though it would decrease the cost of healthcare markedly.

The establishment is terrified of Donald Trump and his notion for empowering consumers.

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

Please have a friend subscribe

Permalink:

The Republican Establishment’s Failure

July 20, 2017

inChronic Disese Management, Consumer Driven Health Care, Medicaid, Medicine: Healthcare System

• Leave a comment

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP, MACE

I am coming to the conclusion that the Republican establishment does not want to Repair the Healthcare System.

The Republican establishment has the same goal as the Democratic establishment.

Recently the mainstream media is saying that a single party payer system is looking good.

Neither party has any interest is having consumers control their healthcare dollars. It looks as if both parties want the government to control the consumer’s healthcare dollars.

All the politicians ignore the fact that government control is unaffordable. It also ends up not working.

The best example is the bureaucratic VA Hospital System and its system wide corruption.

A reader wrote:

“I have read your last blog post carefully and agree with many of the points put forward but there is a glaring omission.”

“How are patients supposed to be responsible for their healthcare dollars when there is absolutely no transparency and no consistency in pricing.”

The lack of transparency is a major defect in our present healthcare system.

Only 20% of consumers use the healthcare system at any one time. Eighty percent of the consumers have not run into the lack of transparency problem in the healthcare system.

Most consumers do not care about transparency because they have first dollar coverage provided by their employer. They think their medical care is free. They believe they have excellent healthcare insurance.

President Obama took care of that notion with Obamacare. The defective structure of Obamacare caused healthcare insurance premiums and deductibles to skyrocket. First dollar healthcare insurance became too expensive for most employers.

Employers stopped providing first dollar coverage. Middle class employees are now noticing that out of pocket expenses have made their healthcare insurance unaffordable. Consumers have tried to compare prices of competitive providers. They have discovered that it is impossible!

Consumers are becoming aware of the lack of transparency. They have been astonished by this lack of transparency.

There is nothing in the new Republican bill that addresses Republican politicians’ awareness that the lack of transparency is a major defect in the healthcare system.

The lack of transparency is only one of the major defects in our healthcare system.

There is nothing in the Republican bill that speaks to the consumers’ responsibility for their health and healthcare dollars. Consumer driven healthcare is completely ignored.

There is nothing in the bill that addresses effective tort reform. The Massachusetts Medical Society survey showed that defensive testing to avoid lawsuits costs the healthcare system between $250 billion to $700 billion dollars a year.

The lack of the development of systems of care for chronic diseases cost another $700 billion dollars a year that our healthcare system does not address. There is nothing in the bill that emphasizes this very important defect in the healthcare system.

The Republican establishment thinks consumers are too stupid to take care of themselves.

The mainstream media likes to tell us that people love entitlements. The public does not want to give up these entitlements.

My question is how come less than 9 million people signed up for Obamacare’s individual healthcare plans last year if they love entitlements?

It is because they cannot afford to buy the health exchange insurance even though 85% of the premiums of those 9 million consumers are subsided by the government. Their high deductibles are not subsidized.

The Republicans are going claim they are promoting health savings accounts. The public is not told the amount of money they can put into a health savings account or whether it will provide first dollar coverage over that amount if they get sick.

There is no financial incentive for consumers to be responsible for their healthcare or their healthcare dollars.

My Ideal Medical Saving Account is a much better idea.

These are only a few of the major defects in the Republican establishment’s concept to fix the healthcare system.

President Obama did some of the awful things to Obamacare through rules and regulations after certain vested interests complained about the law. Obamacare’s rules and regulations have to be eliminated

There were crony waivers that would make one’s blood boil. In fact, elected congressional members got the best exemptions.

It is becoming apparent that congress doesn’t want to fix the healthcare system for the majority of Americans. The congressional establishment wants to control consumers.

Socialism does not work!

Our political establishment does not tell us about the economic result in other countrys’ single party payer universal healthcare systems.

We don’t have to go to other countries. We only have to go to the indigent areas in California were everyone is covered by Medicaid.

The Republican establishment needs to get off the stick before all of them are kicked out of congress.

Just imagine the healthcare systems savings if every consumer were empowered to shop for the best healthcare at the best price.

The result would be a free market healthcare system in which competition would cleanse the system and make it affordable to everyone.

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

Please have a friend subscribe

Permalink:

How Can I Be So Misinterpreted?

July 13, 2017

inConsumer Driven Health Care, EMR, Health Savings Accounts vs Medical Savings Accounts, Medicine: Healthcare System

• Leave a comment

Stanley Feld M.D., FACP, MACE

A reader sent me the following comments.

“Sorry Doc,

I like and Highly respect you, but You are Wrong:

 My Ideal Medical Savings Account is essential. OK BUT WHAT ABOUT THOSE THAT LITERALLY LIVE PAYCHECK TO PAYCHECK??? How are these Americans going to start and contribute to MEDICAL SAVING ACCT?

Patients must be responsible for their care and healthcare dollars. WHAT ABOUT THOSE CHILDREN AND SENIORS DISABLED—-HOW WILL THEY DO SUCH?”

This reader has misinterpreted my post entitled “My Ideal Medical Savings Account Is Democratic!”

There are many problems with the healthcare system. It has become unaffordable and inaccessible. The expansion of entitlement programs usually makes the problems in the healthcare system worse.

Healthcare policies should be introduced to solve problems in the healthcare system and not expand them.

Innovative systems and software need to be developed to fix the problems. Just think of the revolutionary way the IPhone changed the way we communicate in the last ten years.

Our healthcare system can be changed in a way that promotes free choice, improves the quality of care and reduces costs.

Our healthcare system has become unaffordable and unworkable for many of its stakeholders. The most important stakeholder is the patient.

This reader has misinterpreted my arguments in favor of My Ideal Medical Savings Account.

The expansions of entitlements has proven to be unaffordable and ineffective in the past.

In the present Republican healthcare bill to repeal and replace Obamacare people who live from paycheck to paycheck will be eligible for a tax credit that is paid to them in advance. This will allow them to have money to pay for their Medical Saving Account.

If the government subsidizes consumers in this way consumers will not only have the money to pay for their medical care they will also have first dollar coverage above the deductible amount provided by the tax credit.

My Ideal Medical Saving Account convert indigent patients from a complete entitlement program (Medicaid) toward a system where patients would be responsible for their care. Patients would try to conserve their healthcare dollars.

If indigent patients save money on their healthcare coverage they will receive the unspent money in a retirement trust account.

Consumers will have the incentive to stay healthy or be treated appropriately and not overuse the healthcare system. This is the way to My Ideal Medical Savings Account can apply to the indigent and consumers of all income levels.

Essential to Medical Savings Accounts are all prices must be transparent. This is where effective software comes in.

The definition of a tax credit in this context is different than applying a tax credit to income earned. If a consumer is eligible to receive a tax credit he receives the money directly from the government to pay for his Medical Saving Account.

The positive effect to the healthcare system is that if the individuals take good care of themselves and are responsible for their health and healthcare and their healthcare dollars they will not end up in the Emergency Room or hospital and spend a lot of their deductible money.

They will have money left from the tax credit given to them by the government. The money is their money and will go directly into a retirement trust fund. The leftover money is not saved to be spent on future healthcare needs.

This financial incentive will keep the cost down for consumers and the healthcare system.

Please read my blog “My Ideal Medical Saving Accounts Are Democratic” carefully.

In the Medicaid entitlement program for the indigent and disabled consumers do not have a financial incentive to be responsible for their health and healthcare dollars. With Medical Savings Accounts there is a financial incentive for consumers to be responsible for their health and healthcare dollars.

“The Ideal Electronic Medical Record is essential. YES BUT SOME CAN BE HACKED SO HOW EFFECTIVE WOULD IT BE?”

When going to a Clinic or hospital consumers automatically sign a consent form for the release of medical records. When buying a healthcare insurance policy consumer sign a similar release of medical records form.

Medical records are not as private as we all would like them to be.

It is the Ideal Electronic Medical Record’s software developer who is responsible for developing medical records that cannot be hacked. Americans have been cautioned about computer privacy since 1980. The problem has not been solved yet.

Most of the electronic medical records that are bought by physician offices and hospital systems are from private vendors. The software is expensive and cannot do everything it is supposed to do including protecting the patient’s privacy rights.

The ideal medical record should provide an educational experience to physicians. Presently the software available does not do this.

The EMRs provide a surveillance tool for the government and the insurance companies to judge patient care.

The government should build an un-hackable software system that resides the cloud. Physicians and hospitals should pay for it by the click. It should provide an educational experience for physicians in order to improve patient care. It should not be used as a punitive tool

We have been told over the years that the VA Hospital System has an excellent EMR. Why is the VA Hospital System switching to Cerner’s EMR? Cerner’s EMR has all the defects of commercial EMRs

Cerner’s EMR is not an Ideal Electronic Medical Record. The company probably obtained the government contract because of its political connections.

“Patient education must be an extension of their physicians’ care. ABSOLUTELY BUT IN ENGLISH NOT MED TERMS!”

This is the reason the healthcare system must be consumer driven with community social networking.

If a physician does not satisfy the community he practices in, consumers will know about it quickly through community social networking. They will then have the choice not to use that physician.

If the government, healthcare insurance companies and physicians will not provide the necessary transparency in the system, consumers must.

“A team approach to chronic disease management must be adopted with the patients becoming the professor of their disease.”

AHH But When a patient Tries to Educate themselves on Such—THE INTERNET HONESTLY HAS CONTRADICTING INFO!

I KNOW THIS ONE PERSONALLY AS I HAVE BEEN RESEARCHING FOODS AND INFO ON HIGH CREATININE LEVELS!

MY CREATININE LEVELS ARE HIGHER THAN NORMAL, but there is so much Contradictory Info out there—

-I.E. Should I EAT UNSALTED NUTS OR NOT EAT NUTS> SHOULD I EAT BLAND WHITE BREADS OR THE MORE HEALTHFUL MULTI GRAIN AND WHEAT BREADS!!! And Should I consume Lean Meats and Poultry or NOT! Some say yes, others say No!

Patients’ cannot educate themselves by solely using the Internet. The educational process has to be through their physician and his healthcare team’s selected Internet sites.

The team should pick the Internet resources it wants the patient to use. The appropriately chosen Internet sites should be used as an extension of the physician’s care. Consumers should be confident of the information source picked by their physician and his healthcare team. It will also enhance the physician patient relationship

“Hence on some of the issues you wrote I slightly agree with, but over all you fail to consider the Poorer Americans and that not all Americans have intelligence to research or are too disabled to RESEARCH!”

I believe that everyone should be responsible for his or her medical care and medical education. Ever the poorest people can be responsible for their care and can be educate.

Many social agencies exist to help poor people be responsible for themselves.

Individual responsibility and initiative is the principle that has made America great. If a person is not capable of being responsible for himself, artificial intelligence systems could be developed to help this very small percentage of the population survive and thrive.

Entitlements and dependence on the central government by all is what President Obama wanted. It simply results in more debt and a weaker society.

There are many problems in our society. We have to start somewhere with good ideas to invigorate all levels of society.

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

Please have a friend subscribe

Permalink:

Stop The Noise: Start Working

March 22, 2017

inMedicine: Healthcare System

• Leave a comment

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP, MACE

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

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

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

Obama Says Healthcare Law is Working Fine

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

Obama Says Healthcare Law is Helping White Americans Despite Perceptions

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

Is The Healthcare Law Creating More Part Time Work?

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

Why Even Some Republicans Are Rejecting The Replacement Bill

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

Obamacare Users Await Repeal and Replacement With Dread Anticipation

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

All of this is “Fake News.”

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

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

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

https://youtu.be/1-PRvZ_R0-0

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

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

This article stimulates feeling against President Obama’s lies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Most of these conditions require long- term expensive medications.

Therefore consumers with these diseases cannot get treated adequately.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Politicians must start thinking smart.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Permalink:

Listen Up: It Is All About Personal Responsibility

February 17, 2017

inChronic Disese Management, Consumer Driven Health Care, Health Savings Accounts vs Medical Savings Accounts, Medicine: Healthcare System

• Leave a comment

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

In my last blog I continued my War on Obesity. I started this war in 2007.

There has been little progress in this war because of cultural conditioning and a lack of emphasis on personal responsibility.

Every New Year’s Day millions of Americans make New Year resolutions to lose weight. They are initially successful. They then regain the weight they have lost.

If America is going to solve the healthcare systems unsustainable cost, it is going to have to solve the increasing Obesity problem.

The National Institute of Diabetes (niddk.nih} recently published Overweight and Obesity statistics:

“More than two-thirds (68.8 percent) of adults are considered to be overweight or obese.”

“ More than one-third (35.7 percent) of adults are considered to be obese.”

“ More than 1 in 20 (6.3 percent) have extreme obesity.”

“ Almost 3 in 4 men (74 percent) are considered to be overweight or obese.”

Each year the obesity problem gets worse. Companies have sprung up selling weight loss formulas. These companies advertise their great success.

However, most of the iconic personalities used in their advertising have regained their weight after experiencing mild or significant weight loss.

This study was conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

NHANES III was designed to provide nationally representative data to estimate the prevalence of major diseases, nutritional disorders, and potential risk factors.

Sixty-three percent of men and 55% of women had a body mass index of 25 kg/m² or greater.

A graded increase in the prevalence ratio (PR) was observed with increasing severity of overweight and obesity for all of the health outcomes except for coronary heart disease in men and high blood cholesterol level in both men and women.

With normal-weight individuals as the reference, for individuals with BMIs of at least 40 kg/m² and who were younger than 55 years, PRs were highest for type 2 diabetes for men (PR, 18.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 6.7-46.8)

Women (PR, 12.9; 95% CI, 5.7-28.1]

Gallbladder disease for men (PR, 21.1; 95% CI, 4.1-84.2) and women (PR, 5.2; 95% CI, 2.9-8.9).

Prevalence ratios generally were greater in younger than in older adults.

The prevalence of having 2 or more health conditions increased with weight status category across all racial and ethnic subgroups.

The Prevalence Ratio of Obesity and Type 2 Diabetes is 18.1 for men and 12.9 for women.

Therefore Type 2 Diabetes is very prevalent in both Obese and Overweight men and women.

Up to 75% of adults with diabetes also have hypertension, and patients with hypertension alone often show evidence of insulin resistance.
Hypertension and diabetes are common, intertwined conditions that share a significant overlap in underlying risk factors (including ethnicity, familial, dyslipidemia, and lifestyle determinants) and complications.
These complications include microvascular and macrovascular disorders. The macrovascular complications, which are well recognized in patients with longstanding diabetes or hypertension, include coronary artery disease, myocardial infarction, stroke, congestive heart failure, and peripheral vascular disease.
Although microvascular complications (retinopathy, nephropathy, and neuropathy) are conventionally linked to hyperglycemia, studies have shown that hypertension constitutes an important risk factor, especially for nephropathy.

Eighty percent of the treatment costs for diabetes and hypertension to the healthcare system is the result of the treatment of the complications of hypertension and diabetes.

In order for a healthcare system to be sustainable diabetes and hypertension must be cured. It is essential that each must be recognized early and treated aggressively.

Patients must be taught to be “the professor of their disease” so they can self-manage the control of their disease. Blood pressures and blood sugar are changing continuously. Patients live with their disease 24/7.

This takes a lot of personal responsibility and personal discipline.

Equally important is the morbidity resulting from the complications of diabetes and hypertension, two diseases that result from obesity.

Complications from the onset of both hypertension and diabetes take about eight years to develop. This is the reason to diagnose and discover Pre-Diabetes at the onset.

The shared lifestyle factors in the etiology of hypertension and diabetes provide ample opportunity for non-pharmacological intervention.
Thus, the initial approach to the management of both diabetes and hypertension must emphasize weight control, physical activity, and dietary modification.

Lifestyle intervention is remarkably effective in the primary prevention of diabetes and hypertension. These principles also are pertinent to the prevention of downstream macrovascular complications of the two disorders.

This is the where my story of the importance of personal responsibility comes in.

A restaurateur, in his early 50’s, who runs a large restaurant in Dallas, that I frequent, was slowly gaining weight. At 269 lbs. he had difficulty standing on his feet all day long. He was being treated for hypertension and hyperlipidemia (high cholesterol).

His physician told him he must lose weight. He informed him of his risk factors for the complications of these diseases.

This was all he needed hear. The thought of having to quit the job he loved and the possibility of dying from the complications of his diseases was enough to make him decide to loss the weight.

He was told he would be fine if he lost the weight.

He has lost 70 lbs.so far without assistence. He has decided to be personally responsible for his weight loss.

He now gets up at 5 am each morning and exercises for one hour each day before work.

He has stopped eating his wonderful pasta dishes. He eats nothing that is white.

Every time I meet a friend at the restaurant, the restaurateur sits down at our table for a chat. We usually talk about how great he is doing in the weight loss department.

I had initiated an obesity program at Endocrine Associates of Dallas P.A. in the mid 1980s. A California clinical endocrinologist, with whom I did my endocrine fellowship with, had a very successful obesity program. He convinced me to start one at EAD.

Patients on large doses of insulin were totally off insulin after two weeks. It was successful until the patients graduated from the program.

Unfortunately the recidivism rate (regaining weight) was around 80%. This rate was not dissimilar to the national overage at the time.

EAD stopped the program.

In my view there were not enough patients who turned the corner and stuck to the program.

I believe the restaurateur has turned the corner. This fellow has turned the personal responsibility corner to control his food intake and exercise output. I do not believe he will regain his weight.

He has exhibited personal responsibility for his health and well-being.

If only physicians could solve the obesity problem so easily, the cost of healthcare would plummet to sustainable levels.

The development of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus would also plummet and the cost of the treatment of its complications would vanish.

Social change is necessary in restaurants and fast food chains.

People have to be taught to eat wisely in restaurants and at home.

People have to be provided with education about the perils of obesity.

People have to understand the natural history of obesity.

People have to be motivated to not only maintain their health. They have to be given financial incentives to control their health.

This can only be achieved with a consumer driven healthcare system in which people are provided with incentives to control their healthcare dollars.

My ideal medical savings account will provide all the appropriate incentives for all people of all economic levels.

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

Please have a friend subscribe

Permalink:

The Republican Health Care Con By THE NYTimes EDITORIAL BOARD JAN. 21, 2017

January 30, 2017

inDisinformation and the healthcare system, Medicine: Healthcare System

• Leave a comment

Stanley Feld M.D., FACP, MACE

The New York Times editorial “The Republican Healthcare Con” should really be entitled “The New York Times Con of The Republican Health Care Con”

In my opinion The New York Times has become a biased newspaper. Instead of publishing “all the news fit to print”, it is printing articles and editorials that are biased opinions with incomplete facts.

The Republicans have not introduced their replacement of Obamacare yet this editorial is critiquing the replacements effect on the healthcare system..

Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion. No one is entitled to his or her made up facts.

“Republicans say the Affordable Care Act provides health insurance that manages to be both lousy and expensive.”

This is true. Most of the population seems to agree with this statement.

The only people buying insurance from the health insurance exchanges are people with pre-existing illnesses. These people have no other insurance available.

“Whatever the flaws of these policies (Obamacare), the new Trump administration is trying to pull off a con by offering Americans coverage that is likely to be so much worse that it would barely deserve the name insurance.

It would also leave many millions without the medical care they need.”

How does the New York Times editorial board know this when the Trump administration’s healthcare plan has not been introduced?

The liberal media keeps saying the Republicans have no plan. If Republicans do not have a plan how can the NYT criticize it?

How can a non-existent healthcare plan leave many millions without the medical care they need”?

There is no evidence for the statement above.

This reality became increasingly clear when President Trump’s choice to run the Department of Health and Human Services, Tom Price, testified before a Senate committee last week.

He looked pained as he described the terrible predicament of people who earned around $30,000 to $50,000 a year and had to deny “themselves the kind of care that they need” because they had Obamacare policies with deductibles of $6,000 to $12,000.

Tom Price M.D. is correct in saying the Obamacare deductibles are $6,000-$12,000. The NYT left out that the Obamacare networks available are restrictive and the access to proper healthcare is difficult.

The NYT editorial board also left out the fact that 85% of people buying healthcare insurance from the health insurance exchanges are subsidized by the government and have a pre-existing illness.

“ Yet, earlier in the same hearing, Mr. Price extolled the virtues of policies that would be woefully inadequate — policies that cover medical treatment only in catastrophic cases.”

This is a misrepresentation of Dr. Price’s testimony.

Perhaps the NYT editorial Board does not understand Health Savings Accounts?

If you want to understand a potential Trump administration proposal read my blog “Medical Savings Accounts Are Democratic.”

Dr. Price was talking about the virtues of health saving accounts without being specific.

The goal of health savings accounts are to put consumers in control of their medical care and healthcare dollars while providing them with financial incentives to save retirement dollars and not waste medical care dollars.

Consumers could have control of what they spend for their own healthcare.

The employer or government would pay for the deductible and the reinsurance above the deductible.

The money would be put in a healthcare trust. The money in the trust would pay for medical care.

If consumers did not spend the money on medical care that year, it would go into a personal saving trust for those consumers retirement.

“ Such policies often have deductibles of around $14,000 for family coverage.”

FALSE! One can get excellent coverage with a $6,000 deductible and first dollar coverage after spending $6,000 at a reasonable price.

Health Savings Accounts are the fastest growing healthcare insurance vehicle.

The government has put so many restrictions on health savings account that employees are hesitant to offer it. The government must remove these restrictions. www.unitedheath.com

“ This is simple hypocrisy. Condemn the policy you don’t like, propose something far worse as a replacement and claim that it is much better”

This paragraph is written to condemn Dr. Price and rile up the anti-Trump forces with false information.

The editorial completely disregards the fact that a proposal has not yet been announced by the Trump administration.

There were 2000 plus pages published about President Obama’s Obamacare proposal. There were glaring defects in he proposal.

The NYT did not comment on these defects at the time. Others did. I turned out that the defects were the source of Obamacare’s failure.

In reality the NYT has no idea of what the Trump administration’s proposal will be.

The NYT editorial also ignores the fact that Obamacare is unsustainable, unaffordable and is restricting access to care while rationing care for the very citizens that need the care.

“Mr. Price and Mr. Trump have recently said that their goal is to offer health care to many more people than are covered by the current health care law, which has driven the uninsured rate to historic lows.”

I believe historic lows are a counting error just as the unemployment rate and the inflation rate are counting errors in order to provide the Obama administration acceptable numbers.

Average people know exactly what is happening.

Mr. Price’s testimony and the legislation he introduced in the House (a few years ago), where until recently he was the Budget Committee chairman, show that the new administration will make decent health care less affordable and less accessible for most people.

The underlined portion is a NYT editorial opinion. It is an opinion without facts or evidence. It could also be a lack of understanding of the bill Dr. Price’s introduced.

The Trump administration’s upcoming proposal might be completely different.

How would the NYT know the Trump administration’s healthcare plan would make decent health care less affordable and less accessible for most people?

This is an unsubstantiated bias that would qualify as fake news.

“Those Health Savings Accounts would not help families earning the median household income of $56,000 a year because these families would never be able to sock away enough money.”

The NYT editorial either missed the concept of Health Savings Account totally or is reporting the concept to fit its bias.

The best description of what Mr. Price stands for can be found in a bill he introduced in 2015, the Empowering Patients First Act. It would “empower” Americans by eliminating the health care law’s expansion of Medicaid that has helped more than 10.7 million newly eligible people enroll in that government-run insurance program.

Many of these Medicaid patients cannot find a physician or hospital that accepts Medicaid.

Therefore they have very limited access to care.

A potential proposal could expand Medicaid patients’ access to care using health savings accounts.

It would also drastically cut subsidies that have helped 11.5 million people purchase private insurance on federal and state health exchanges.

There is no evidence for this wild statement.

Under his bill, people buying insurance for themselves would get between $1,200 and $3,000 a year in subsidies, down from an average of $4,600 that people get now on HealthCare.gov.

The amount of tax benefits or tax credits for Health Savings Accounts have been restricted by Obamacare in order to discourage its use.

The Obama administration wanted to control medical care and eliminate consumer choice and power.

President Obama wanted healthcare decisions to be in the hands of the central government.

The Trump administration plans to modify these restrictions. President Trump has stated he wants to put healthcare decision making back into consumers’ hands and not the government’s hands.

The bill would even get rid of the requirement that allows young people to stay on their parents’ insurance policy until age 26, a provision that is widely popular.

This is totally false and once again fake news.

And it would hurt people who get insurance through their employers by setting a cap on how much of that expense businesses can claim as a deduction on their taxes. Experts say that over time this would encourage companies to stop offering health benefits to workers.

The independent insurance market has not had tax deduction. It should be on a level playing field with group insurance. There is no evidence that the group market will lose its tax deduction.

“When it comes to health care, Mr. Price and other Republicans say their goal is to give people more choices. It is hard to argue against choice. But in the ideological world inhabited by Mr. Price, House Speaker Paul Ryan and many other Republicans, choice is often a euphemism for scrapping sensible regulations that protect people.”

This claim also has no basis in fact. It is pure opinion by the NYT editorial board.

“Some Americans might well be tempted by this far-right approach. They would have to pay less up front for these skeletal policies than they do now for comprehensive coverage.”

Has Obamacare provided comprehensive care? It is unaffordable and inaccessible to all.

But over time, when people need health care to recover from accidents, treat diabetes, have a baby or battle addiction, they will be hit by overwhelming bills.

Where did this come from? It came from a negative bias toward Donald Trump and his administration without facts or evidence.

The Trump administration seems perfectly willing to sell those people down the river with false promises.

People are not stupid. They do not need government to rule their life and make healthcare decisions for them.

People need incentive to control their health and healthcare dollars.

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

Please have a friend subscribe

Permalink:

Dear President-elect Trump Part 3

December 1, 2016

inConsumer Driven Health Care, Health Savings Accounts vs Medical Savings Accounts, Medicine: Healthcare System

• Leave a comment

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP, MACE

The following is Part 3 of my review of your healthcare reform platform. You have a viable alternative to Obamacare. Your alternative needs some vital additions.

In my last blog I omitted the link proving that only 1 million people signed up for Obamacare health insurance exchanges.

I apologize for the oversight. Today enrollment is only 2.3 million. I also noticed that the enrollment date was extended to January 30 from December 31 without fanfare. The site I omitted that follows daily enrollment is acasignups.net.

Obamacare is still a long way from the 20 million claimed and the actual 10 million enrolled for 12 months.

The Obama “experts” still believe that Obamacare is viable. They refuse to believe it has been a healthcare disaster as well as a disaster for America’s economy.

Your next proposal is;

Allow individuals to use Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). Contributions into HSAs should be tax-free and should be allowed to accumulate.

Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) should be changed to Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs) to provide better financial incentives for people who choose this form of insurance. The Medical Savings Accounts can easily be customized so that consumers can choose the level of insurance they desire.

The cost of first dollar reinsurance for coverage after the deductible is met plus the MSA contribution is much cheaper than the first dollar coverage Medicaid coverage. The insurance vendor will still make a sizable profit by providing first dollar coverage reinsurance.

The contribution to the MSA should be flexible to provide an adequate amount of money to be put into the savings accounts to provide financial incentivizes to consumers to maintain their health.

Obesity is a huge problem to health maintenance of health. Obesity can be effectively cured behavioral change of consumers.

The incidence of chronic diseases in obese people is five times that of normal weight people. Financial incentives must be provided. The is also the area that social engineering might be helpful.

Obese children are becoming diabetic and hypertensive at a young age. This must be prevented because of the potential explosive cost effect of complications of both diabetes and hypertension on individuals. The overall costs to patients, Medicaid and society will be devastating.

Medicaid must be converted to a system where the recipients are responsible for their health with financial incentives. Only then Medicaid patients will not be treated as a commodity. Service will improve. .

Require price transparency from all healthcare providers, especially doctors and healthcare organizations like clinics and hospitals.

Price transparency is an essential provision for individuals, businesses and groups in order to produce smart consumers of healthcare.

It is also necessary to require insurance companies to provide verifiable price transparency for their administrative costs and their direct patient care costs.

Consumers must be empowered to be responsible and shop for the best healthcare service value. They must look for the best prices for procedures, exams or any other medical related procedure.

The only way to decrease the cost of healthcare services is to produce smart and motivated consumers of healthcare.

The Healthcare System must be converted to a Consumer Driven Healthcare System.

Social networking should be used as the backbone for the establishment of consumer empowerment.

The success of Angie’s list, Trip Advisor and Open Table are a result of social networking.

All medical care is local. Local communities have their individual social networks that empower people in their neighborhood to know which vendors provide the best value in their community.

Healthcare consumers can use this simple procedure to decrease the cost of healthcare and medical care.

This could also be a place where government can lead the way in establishing accurate educational resources.

Block-grant Medicaid to the states.

These block grants can be used by the states to fund MSAs without a threat of increasing state budget deficits or giving up states’ rights to the federal government.

Block grants for social networking should be used to provide incentives to help individual Medicaid patients seek out and eliminate fraud, waste and abuse of some of its local providers.

It would eliminate expensive big data collections that often times are inaccurate for policy making by central federal control.

Remove barriers to entry into free markets for drug providers that offer safe, reliable and cheaper products.

Federal and state governments should help their citizens choose safe, reliable and cheaper products for the treatment of their diseases.

This would help with compliance and adherence to recommended treatment and also decrease the cost of care.

It would provide consumers with information to take responsibility for their own health and healthcare dollars.

Encourage Congress to step away from the special interests and do what is right for America.

One example is allowing consumers access to imported, safe and dependable drugs from overseas. It will stimulate competition for consumer dollars in the U.S. and lower the cost of brand and generic drugs sold here. Drug prices are artificially high in the U.S.

This is only one example of many ways to decrease the cost of drugs in this country.

You have made many proposals to make a lot of important changes to the healthcare system.

Some are good proposals. Some are not very well thought out by your advisors.

You left out Tort Reform, which is one of the most important proposals. Effective Tort Reform will result in a precipitous decrease in the cost of medical care.

It is absurd to let Obamacare “experts” like Ezekiel Emanuel and Jonathan Gruber heckle your “non viable” healthcare reform plan.

However, you are missing the other important elements in reforming the healthcare system. Those elements are the elements of the use of consumer power, consumer initiatives, and consumer incentives.

By utilizing these elements you will begin to “Drain the Healthcare Swamp.”

Your healthcare changes must include a consumer driven system with an ideal medical saving account. Otherwise, the healthcare system will remain an unmanageable, expensive and abused mess.

You have admitted these proposals are simply a start. You can easily fall into the trap of listening to academicians who have never practiced medicine in a private setting. You need people who understand patients’ needs.

Obamacare has been a disaster that is unsustainable. It is increasing the cost of care week by week, while rationing care and decreasing access to care.

You must repeal and replace Obamacare. No one wants it. You have outlined a viable proposal even if the progressives don’t like it.

It is a good start.

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

Permalink:

Dear President-elect Trump Part 3

December 1, 2016

inHealth Savings Accounts vs Medical Savings Accounts, Medicine: Healthcare System, Politicians,Healthcare and Vested Interests

• Leave a comment

The following is Part 3 of my review of your healthcare reform platform. You have a viable alternative to Obamacare. Your alternative needs some vital additions.

In my last blog I omitted the link proving that only 1 million people signed up for Obamacare health insurance exchanges.

Obamacare is still a long way from the 20 million claimed and the actual 10 million enrolled for 12 months.

The Obama “experts” still believe that Obamacare is viable. They refuse to believe it has been a healthcare disaster as well as a disaster for America’s economy.

Your next proposal is;

Allow individuals to use Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). Contributions into HSAs should be tax-free and should be allowed to accumulate.

The contribution to the MSA should be flexible to provide an adequate amount of money to be put into the savings accounts to provide financial incentivizes to consumers to maintain their health.

Obesity is a huge problem to health maintenance of health. Obesity can be effectively cured behavioral change of consumers.

The incidence of chronic diseases in obese people is five times that of normal weight people. Financial incentives must be provided. The is also the area that social engineering might be helpful.

Require price transparency from all healthcare providers, especially doctors and healthcare organizations like clinics and hospitals.

Price transparency is an essential provision for individuals, businesses and groups in order to produce smart consumers of healthcare.

It is also necessary to require insurance companies to provide verifiable price transparency for their administrative costs and their direct patient care costs.

Consumers must be empowered to be responsible and shop for the best healthcare service value. They must look for the best prices for procedures, exams or any other medical related procedure.

The only way to decrease the cost of healthcare services is to produce smart and motivated consumers of healthcare.

The Healthcare System must be converted to a Consumer Driven Healthcare System.

Social networking should be used as the backbone for the establishment of consumer empowerment.

The success of Angie’s list, Trip Advisor and Open Table are a result of social networking.

All medical care is local. Local communities have their individual social networks that empower people in their neighborhood to know which vendors provide the best value in their community.

Healthcare consumers can use this simple procedure to decrease the cost of healthcare and medical care.

This could also be a place where government can lead the way in establishing accurate educational resources.

Block-grant Medicaid to the states.

These block grants can be used by the states to fund MSAs without a threat of increasing state budget deficits or giving up states’ rights to the federal government.

Block grants for social networking should be used to provide incentives to help individual Medicaid patients seek out and eliminate fraud, waste and abuse of some of its local providers.

It would eliminate expensive big data collections that often times are inaccurate for policy making by central federal control.

Remove barriers to entry into free markets for drug providers that offer safe, reliable and cheaper products.

Federal and state governments should help their citizens choose safe, reliable and cheaper products for the treatment of their diseases.

This would help with compliance and adherence to recommended treatment and also decrease the cost of care.

It would provide consumers with information to take responsibility for their own health and healthcare dollars.

Encourage Congress to step away from the special interests and do what is right for America.

This is only one example of many ways to decrease the cost of drugs in this country.

You have made many proposals to make a lot of important changes to the healthcare system.

Some are good proposals. Some are not very well thought out by your advisors.

You left out Tort Reform, which is one of the most important proposals. Effective Tort Reform will result in a precipitous decrease in the cost of medical care.

It is absurd to let Obamacare “experts” like Ezekiel Emanuel and Jonathan Gruber heckle your “non viable” healthcare reform plan.

By utilizing these elements you will begin to “Drain the Healthcare Swamp.”

Your healthcare changes must include a consumer driven system with an ideal medical saving account. Otherwise, the healthcare system will remain an unmanageable, expensive and abused mess.

Obamacare has been a disaster that is unsustainable. It is increasing the cost of care week by week, while rationing care and decreasing access to care.

You must repeal and replace Obamacare. No one wants it. You have outlined a viable proposal even if the progressives don’t like it.

It is a good start.

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

Permalink:

Dear President-elect Donald Trump: Part 1

November 17, 2016

inMedicine: Healthcare System

• Leave a comment

Dear President-elect Donald Trump: Part 1

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

Repairing the Healthcare System

Dear President-elect Donald Trump: Part 1

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

He did not listen to one suggestion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Medical Savings Accounts are different than Health Savings Accounts.

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

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
7/11