Stanley Feld M.D., FACP, MACE Menu

Results found: 218

Permalink:

I Told You What To Do 8 Years Ago

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

I started my blog Repairing The Healthcare System in 2006. I methodically described the defects in the Healthcare System.

I provided healthcare alternatives in policy and regulations to both Democrats and Republicans to Repair the Healthcare System.

No one listened to me.

In 2007 the healthcare system was unaffordable and unmanageable.

Republicans had some weak ideas and no inclusive business model for the future.

The election of President Obama and the partisan passage of Obamacare have accelerated our healthcare system’s demise.

I believe President Obama’s goal is to destroy the healthcare system. He wants it replaced with a single party payer system (2003). Consumers of healthcare know the government cannot manage healthcare.

American cannot sustain Obamacare financially. Consumers cannot be sustained medically with Obamacare or after the collapse of Obamacare with a government run single party payer system.

The obvious proof is the dysfunction and failure of the VA Healthcare System, Medicaid and Medicare.

All these healthcare systems are government run single party payer systems. All are unsustainable.

As I was archiving my blogs I ran across four blogs I wrote in 2007 outlining the problems and what should be done about them.

The government has made none of the repairs I have suggested. Obamacare has made the situation worse. I will present all four parts of “What Have I Said So Far? Spring 2007” consecutively as written.

What Have I Said So Far? Spring 2007 Part 1

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

April 01, 2007 in Medicine: Healthcare System

 In August 2006 I summarized my blog to that point. I outlined some important solutions necessary to Repair the Healthcare System.

Since then I have covered many of the solutions to the key questions I raised. Not one of these questions has been addressed effectively by our leadership or people in control of making policy.

One must ask: Do they really want to solve the problems in healthcare delivery in this country or are they focused on preserving their own vested interest to the exclusion of a breakthrough that might benefit not only their vested interests but the vested interest of all the stakeholders.

The questions were:

  • How do we reduce the cost of medical care? • How do we provide affordable insurance for the 45 million people uninsured?
    • How to we provide affordable medical care coverage so that all the patients can have access to medical care?
    • How do we align all stakeholder incentives?
    • How do we construct a system so that all the stakeholders make a reasonable return on investment?
    • How do we close the holes in the system to eliminate abuse by stakeholders?
    • How do we restore trust between stakeholders?
    • How do we restore trust between the patient and physician?
    • How do we stop secondary facilitator stakeholders from continuously destroying the patient physician relationship?

In reality, developing solutions to these questions are in themselves business opportunities for facilitator stakeholders that can help Repair the Healthcare System.

However, neither the insurance industry, hospital systems, nor the government see the long term advantage and economic opportunity.

In a comment to my blog Shel Isreal said “

98% of the people think it is broken and the other 2% work for the insurance industry.

The insurance industry has the money and the power.”

http://stanleyfeldmdmace.typepad.com/repairing_the_healthcare_/2007/01/the_ideal_elect.html.

However, we have demonstrated the abuse and misuse of the power of information technology by the insurance industry. The misuse and abuse has lead to further dysfunction in the healthcare system and mistrust by the hospitals and physicians.

The insurance industry and the government have used information technology to penalize both physicians and patients using the wrong data to draw their conclusions.

Insurance companies do not have the information technology resources to measure the correct parameters to measure quality care.

I do not see an attempt on their part to correct this deficiency. I only see a movement to make the healthcare system worse with a Pay for Performance (P4P) reimbursement system that is not well thought out. .

It is essential that the solutions I have proposed be coordinated and introduced simultaneously as a single plan rather than introducing elements of the solution separately.

Unfortunately, the government with the pressures of its present political vested interest influences finds it difficult to present the components of repair as a single plan.

The solutions will have to be driven by the consumer (the patient) and not the government. The patients have the power to drive the solutions because they are the users of the healthcare system. If they were the purchases of healthcare, some clever entrepreneur could provide the option for a compelling insurance product that could reward the patient for being responsible for their own care and well being.

The insurance produce could be built to fix the healthcare system.

All that is needed is for the government to write sensible regulations, enforce them and get out of the way.”

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

Please have a friend subscribe

 

 

Permalink:

Wanting Something To Fail?

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

If someone wants something to fail, make it complicated enough so no one understands what is going on.

I am convinced that President Obama wants Obamacare, Medicaid and Medicare to fail.

President Obama wants a single payer health care system. He said it as far back as 2003. This You Tube was uploaded on Aug 12, 2009.

 

https://youtu.be/LhEX3rHssJI

President Obama won’t tell the American people the truth about his plans for health care. Watch President Obama declaring his intention in his own words.

The result is everyone will receive the same healthcare under the government direction and control.

The ultimate goal is to make people dependent on the government.

The people will have no power to choose their physician or their treatment. It is true that every country in the western world has this system.

No country has proven that a single party payer system works for countries with the single party payer systems economy or their citizens. Surveys have shown that their citizens are satisfied.

The main reason people like it is because it relieves anxiety of being able to receive medical care even though they have relinquished their freedom to choose their physician or insurance company.

The biggest loss is independence from the government bureaucracy. People will be dependent on the decisions of unelected government bureaucrats.

The big questions that are never answered about medical costs are; who is spending most of the healthcare dollars and what are the healthcare dollars being spent on?

Do you want the government to decide if you are young enough to get an artificial hip or knee when you need it?

Do you want the government to decide about your treatment or do you want your doctor to help you decide on what your best treatment is?

President Obama is changing medical care in a methodical way. He is utilizing executive orders and rules and regulations written by non-elected bureaucrats, who are forced to follow his orders. Our elected officials should be in charge of government spending.

Many in congress know better and would not let President Obama do what he is doing. Most in congress are happy that he has exempted congress from Obamacare.

President Obama and his administration have been trying to do bad things very quietly to avoid political uproar. The mainstream media has been a great Obamacare ally.

The mainstream media has helped Obamacare keep these destructive regulations and their subsequent failures out of public view.

The media has also publicized President Obama’s lies about the success of Obamacare.

President Obama is adept at diverting blame for errors and failures in pursuit of his single party agenda.

At the same time he is trying to take power away from the states he is trying to persuade states to not permit big insurance premium rate increases requested by many health insurance companies for 2016.

President Obama’s Obamacare is the cause of the increases. He is positioned to blame the state regulators for the insurance companies not showing up to sell insurance for 2016.

If the states act to cut back rate increases the insurance companies will not participate in the federal and state exchanges for the 2016 enrollment period. The result will be the erosion of the possibility of competitive pricing.

The Obama spin machine started working at the beginning of the summer to shift the blame and/or force insurance companies out of the market.

Kevin J. Counihan, the chief executive of the federal insurance marketplace said in letter to state insurance commissioners, “Recent claims data show healthier consumers.

He also said, “The federal tax penalty for going without insurance will increase in 2016, he said, and this “should motivate a new segment of uninsured who may not have a high need for health care to enroll for coverage.”

This claim of costs data by Obamacare does not square with the healthcare insurance companies’ costs data. They are finding that new customers were sicker than expected. The insurance industry is also losing money because the Obama administration has paid them $2.5 billion dollars less than they were promised.

Health insurance plans sold through Obamacare’s Federal and State Health Insurance Exchanges are seeking 10 to 40 percent increases in premiums.

They are also seeking the same increase in the private sector as well as in Medicare and Medicaid.

The Obama administration is making up its own story to force state regulators to not allow the increased premiums.

The Obama agenda is choreographed to prove that insurance choices do not work. He is hoping that the public will conclude the only solution is a single party payer system.

The problem is the government cannot afford a single party payer system and the people will not tolerate it.

What is more bizarre is the Obama administration made loans to help start up state co-ops. These state co-ops were supposed to compete with the big insurance companies. They were supposed to sell insurance on the health insurance exchanges. The Obama administration invested $38 billion in startup costs and solvency loans to these co-ops.

Nevada Health Co-op received $66 million in federal loans. It is closing down on January 1,2016 because it ran out of money.

Louisiana Health Cooperative announced in July that it was voluntarily shutting down operations.

CoOportunity Health, which sold policies in Iowa and Nebraska, was liquidated and forced to close earlier this year.

Many state Co-op’s are on the way to bankruptcy. In Nevada alone one third of the health insurance exchange population will lose insurance coverage.

Nevada Health CO-OP’s departure will leave a big hole in Nevada’s exchange market. Open enrollment begins Nov. 1, and consumers will have to shop for plans with other carriers. The co-op had 21,300 members as of the first quarter this year. Nevada’s exchange population was about 63,000 at that time.

A.M. Best’s report shows a majority of the nation’s 22 co-ops have combined medical and administrative expense ratios above 100%.

All these failures and impending failures mean that either the Obama administration is stupid or things are going precisely as  President Obama had planned.

The healthcare system is on its way to destruction. The federal government as the payer of last resort will replace it.

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

Please have a friend subscribe

Permalink:

Healthcare Insurance Industry Moves Against Obamacare

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

The 3 R’s are not working out well for the government, the patients or the healthcare insurance companies.

The temporary reinsurance portion of the 3R’s is about to expire. It was meant to support the healthcare insurance industry as enrollment in Health Insurance Exchanges grew.

Patient enrollment figures in State and Federal Exchanges have not grown significantly in the last two years. Enrollment ii exchanges has been from high risk and elderly patients.

High risk and comprehensive coverage has meant decreasing profit for the healthcare industry.

The numbers the Obama administration publishes are confusing and mostly false. State exchanges are failing. The State Health Insurance Exchanges are causing (in states that have State Health Insurance Exchanges) greater budget deficits.

The reinsurance program is not covering the healthcare industry’s expected profit because of the redistribution of wealth component in the 3R’s.

The significance of the redistribution of profit and wealth component of the 3R’s was not fully appreciated by the healthcare insurance industry as was the reinsurance subsidy was.

The industry’s first step to combat this barrier to profit was to increase next year’s insurance premiums by 20-30 percent in both the private sector and the State and Federal Health Insurance Exchanges.

This has created inflationary pressure on the private sector and unaffordable healthcare in both the private and public sectors for consumers and companies that provide healthcare coverage to their employees.

Its effect is the opposite of what President Obama promised. He promised to make healthcare insurance coverage affordable to all.

It is also forcing corporations to switch their healthcare coverage plans from defined benefit plans to defined contribution plans. The net effect is to increase employee out of pocket expenses.

We do not know how many more people have lost healthcare insurance because of Obamacare’s rules and regulations.

The public is also unaware of the exact number of people who have gained healthcare insurance through the Health Insurance Exchanges.

The real figures are not easily available.

The next step by the healthcare insurers is to merge.  A series of merger negotiations are occurring. In the last three weeks two merger negotiations have been completed.

Anthem Inc. agreed to buy Cigna Corp. for $48 billion, capping months of merger frenzy among top U.S. health insurers that is set to reshape the industry.

“The merged company is projected to have around $115 billion in annual revenue and cover about 53.2 million people.

The deal, which needs regulatory approval, would help reshape health insurance industry.”

Three weeks ago Aetna agreed to buy Humana for $34 billion. The two deals accelerated the rapid-fire reconfiguration of the U.S. health-insurance industries. The two deals would decrease the industry from five major companies to only three.

The traditional media has not discussed the reasons the healthcare insurance industry is merging or the details of the mergers.

I will try to connect the dots.

The healthcare insurance industry realizes that the Obama administration is trying to play one insurance company against another. The redistribution of profit from insurance companies that profit to those that make less profit must be irritating to the healthcare insurance industry.

Perhaps they did not appreciate the intricacies of the 3 Rs. Maybe there was a small window where the temporary reinsurance was profitable.

I would guess that the healthcare insurance industry would try to stop the redistribution of profit. These mergers will increase their individual profits.

The companies will be in a position to force the government to discontinue the redistribution of profit or lose a company that is an administrative service provider.

The losers will be taxpayers and non-subsidized insurance consumers. The increases in premiums to consumers that are subsidized will be passed on to taxpayers. Non-subsidized taxpayers will also be paying increased healthcare premiums.

This will create non-affordable insurance premiums for all as a result of the Affordable Healthcare Act (Obamacare).

The healthcare system will collapse. The government will move in with a single party payer system and a bloated and wasteful government bureaucracy.

Remember Senator Kerry and Representative Barney Frank saying the ACA would not work without a Public Option? Remember President Obama saying we don’t need a Public Option?

President Obama is backing healthcare insurers into a Public Option corner and a single party payer system.

The government will be forced to limit access to care and ration care. Americans will not have freedom of choice.

The problem is the government will still have to hire one of the three healthcare insurance carriers for its administrative services instead of one of five major carriers. The price to the taxpayer will probably be high along with all of the government’s bureaucratic inefficiencies.

Remember the VA? The VA scandal is continuing without any apparent improvement in VA services or in reforming the dysfunctional VA system.

Congress is simply giving the VA more money to continue its dysfunctional ways.

The latest step in the healthcare insurance industry’s attempt to protect itself is the hiring of Marilyn Tavenner as CEO of America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) the lobbying group for the healthcare insurance industry.

Marilyn Tavenner is the former head and CEO of CMS overseeing Medicare, Medicaid and ACA (Obamacare) implementation.

Marilyn Tavenner oversaw the botched rollout of the federal insurance exchange and the ACA-mandated cuts in payment rates to Medicare Advantage in additional to a myriad of new Obamacare generated Medicare and Medicaid regulations.

Some of these regulations are unconstitutional according to lawmakers. However, the legislators have done nothing about these unconstitutional regulations.

They have not even attempted to make Americans aware of them.

Health Insurance Exchange plans and Medicare Advantage plans are two areas of tremendous profit and significant growth for private insurers. The Obama administration knows this and has tried to limit or eliminate this growth.  AHIP hopes Marilyn Travenner can help the industry continue this growth by pointing out the bureaucracy’s weaknesses to healthcare insurance company’s executives.

The healthcare industry (AHIP) hired her for her political connections inside the administration, inside the CMS bureaucracy and inside the congressional committees that regulate them,” said Tim LaPira, political science professor at James Madison University.”

 The mainstream media parroting the AHIP’s press release said, that the insurance industry has accepted Obamacare (the Affordable Care Act) as the new business environment. AHIP wants a CMS insider to help during the next phase of its market development.

According to the AHIP press release, “her government experience will be invaluable to AHIP given how rapidly the public sector is dominating the financial, market and regulatory facets of health plans”

It is obvious to me that AHIP did not hired Ms. Travenner in order to understand the new business environment better for an instant.

I believe AHIP hired her as CEO for her connections in,

1.   CMS,

2. The Obama administration,

3. The administration’s bureaucracy.

4. Congress

Along with her impressions of CMS’s weaknesses.

Weaknesses the AHIP can exploit.

Neither the Obama administration nor AHIP are working for the benefit of the American consumer of healthcare.

This behavior must be stopped somehow.

Permalink:

The New Medicaid

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP, MACE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Obama administration is using surveys of Medicaid beneficiaries.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The healthcare insurance industry sets the prices for administrative services.

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

Insurance merge

 

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

 

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

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

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

The formula is MLR= incurred expenses /premiums earned.

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

  MLRatio

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please have a friend subscribe

Permalink:

The Defects In Obamacare

Stanley Feld M.D., FACP, MACE

We live in an era of sound bites driving opinions rather than details driving opinions. The devil is always in the details.

The defects in Obamacare are too numerous to count. President Obama provides the traditional mass media with sounds bites leading to false conclusions.

The sound bites are misleading. Many of the sound bites are lies. One such sound bite is Obamacare is working and therefore does not need changing.

He and the Democrats keep the discussion on the sound bites level and do not dig into the real issue. President Obama even keeps the details away from congress the very people he is dependent on to pass the bill.

President Obama kept the facts and details about Obamacare away from the congress and the people. He is now doing it with the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a proposed regional regulatory and investment pact. Just as with Obamacare, President Obama expects congress to vote in favor of a pact they have not debated and have not had an opportunity to read the details in the final bill.

It is another one of those bills where the administration is telling the congress and the American people you have to pass the bill in order to see what is in it.

Americans are tired of his lack of transparency and lies. They do not trust President Obama anymore.

Congress should never make the same mistake they made with Obamacare. If they do all Americans should rally to throw all the bums out.

The devil is always in the details.

United States Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) said,

   “Congress is being kept in the dark as to the substance of the TPP negotiations, while representatives of U.S. corporations—like Halliburton, Chevron, PHRMA, Comcast, and the Motion Picture Association of America—are being consulted and made privy to details of the agreement. […]

More than two months after receiving the proper security credentials, my staff is still barred from viewing the details of the proposals that USTR is advancing. We hear that the process by which TPP is being negotiated has been a model of transparency. I disagree with that statement.[98]

President Obama and the speaker have told us it is good pact for the country’s economy. Senator Cruz is right. “Don’t vote for something whose details you do not know.”

There are many defects in Obamacare. One major defect is that it is not affordable to consumers, the federal government or state governments. When fully implemented the cost of healthcare to the federal government will be at least 50% of our GNP not the 23% of GNP predicted. Twenty three percent is bad enough.

Federal and State taxes will have to be increased to cover all medical care entitlement costs.

President Obama keeps telling us that Obamacare is working. He says it is here to stay.

The reality is Obamacare is an unworkable and costly failure in multiple areas including the health insurance exchanges, healthcare.gov, insurance premiums and deductible costs, the development of Accountable Care Organizations, maintenance of employer insurance and more.

Americans deserve a better system than Obamacare.

It is impossible to cover all of the harmful details of every category in one blog. 

It is disingenuous for President Obama to claim, in his repeated sound bites, that there is no need to change anything in Obamacare because Obamacare is working fine.

The real cost of Obamacare to consumers (especially taxpayers), the federal and state governments and the economy have not been disclosed nor are they transparent.

The real costs start to leak out with stories about how the costs affect consumers and their lifestyle.

This usually leads to the sound bites that it will be better to have a government single party payer system.

The underlying defect is that this system leads to consumers being dependent on government and not responsible for themselves. Government changes rules on a whim. Consumers do not have options. This is a road to serfdom.

After the Affordable Care Act kicked in, a 52-year-old sales and marketing entrepreneur reported his monthly health-insurance premium to cover himself and his family grew to $848 from $513. Like others, he wasn’t happy about it. “It’s taking a lot out of pocket,” he said.”

He is one of millions of Americans who earn too much to qualify for government subsidies on policies purchased through the federal insurance exchange. He was in favor of Obamacare before he realized Obamacare’s effect on reality.

 Obamacare requires insurance companies to offer insurance policies with broad coverage and greater protection against catastrophic medical costs. It also requires coverage on illnesses and conditions such as pregnancy and birth control coverage for people who do not need this coverage.

Obamacare was supposed to save every family $2,500 a year. It costs families more than $2,500 dollars a year. It was not supposed to affect anyone making less than $250,000 per year.

It is true that many of the above a not taxes. However it is a cost burden on consumers making less than $250,000 a year.

Others, making less than $50,000 a year, receive complete or partial government subsidies. This is what is meant by redistribution of wealth. It is a significant cost burden on consumers making $50,000 to $250,000 dollars a year.

Everyone remembers President Obama promising that Obamacare will not cost families making less that $250,000 one dime.

Obamacare premiums have become unaffordable to people earning less than $50,000 per year as well.

Obamacare’s goal was to cover everyone with broad insurance coverage and greater protection against catastrophic medical costs.

Yet, only 10 million out of 330 million are covered by the exchanges. Each enrollee in the exchanges also has high deductibles. These deductibles can be as high as $6,000 a year.

Many of the insurance companies claim they will be losing money after the government’s health insurance industry subsidies disappear in 2016.

These companies will leave the Obamacare federal health exchanges reducing competition. This in turn will increase premiums further and make premiums more unaffordable.

Another detail overlooked is enrollees are poorer, sicker and older. The pool is not diluted by younger, healthier and richer. The result is more expensive insurance rates.

“ HHS was saying that it needed about 40 percent of the exchange policies to be purchased by people age 18-35 to keep the exchanges financially stable. It was 28 percent in both 2014 and 2015, according to HHS data. The CBO had projected about 85 percent of exchange enrollees to be subsidized, falling toward 80 percent as enrollment grew; instead, that number is 87 percent and actually rose slightly from 2014.”

According to a study last year by the National Bureau of Economic Research, people who bought silver and bronze plans on the federal and state health insurance exchanges saw total premiums and out-of-pocket payments rise an estimated 14% to 28% higher than pre- Obamacare premiums and out of pocket expenses.

Obamacare is not fulfilling any of President Obama’s sound-bite promises.

His claim that Obamacare is working well and does not have to change makes absolutely no sense.

If one tells a lie enough times it becomes eventually becomes the truth.

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

Please have a friend subscribe

 

 

Permalink:

Chaos Continues At HealthCare.gov

 

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

http://wtvr.com/2015/02/20/obama-administration-extending-health-care-enrollment-deadline/

Chaos continues at healthcare.gov with the sudden departure of QSSI. QSSI was a minor hub manger of healthcare.gov in early 2014 when the site was failing. It became the major integrator and senior advisor.

CGI was the major integrator at first.  Michelle Obama’s college friend was a principle in CGI. The friend obtained the non-bid CGI contract. CGI was dismissed as the web site disaster unveiled itself. The contract was for more than $600 million dollars.

QSSI was hired as the senior advisor and the web site’s prime integrator.

QSSI is a subsidiary of Optum the IT healthcare arm of healthcare insurance company United Healthcare. 

 Andy Slavitt, a senior executive at Optum, joined CMS in June 2014. He had subsequently been heralded by CMS as the savior of healthcare.gov

He received a rare waiver from federal ethics rules at the time which allowed him to be involved in contracting issues involving Optum and the United Healthcare Group.

When Slavitt joined CMS, a little known loophole in government hiring practices permitted him to pocket $4.8 million in tax-free money when he joined the government agency.”

Andy Slavitt was initially hired as deputy administrator of CMS. He was promoted to acting administrator when Marilyn Tavenenner left.

There has always been a question of conflict of interest between Slavitt , Optum and United Healthcare. It is not clear if Andy Slavitt is still at CMS.

Republican Sens. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, and Orrin Hatch of Utah, asked CMS and United Health Group in June 2014 about Slavitt’s potential conflicts of interest.

The answer to Senator Grassly and Hatch’s questions were never made public.

A scandal occurred recently when 800,000 Obamacare enrollees received incorrect subsidy information on the 1095-A tax forms sent by the federal exchange healthcare.gov.

Some enrollees were mistakenly told they received too large a subsidy, while others were told their subsidy was too small.

Publicity of this error was buried in the news that the Obamacare enrollment period for 2015 healthcare insurance was being extended until April 30th, after initially being extended to February 15th.

 The real reason for the extension appears to be poor enrollment in healthcare.gov despite the administration bragging that the enrollment was great.

 One month later Optum suddenly quit.

An Optum spokesman said,

 “Having achieved the goal of making HealthCare.gov a stable, reliable platform for people seeking health coverage, Optum will not seek to continue our role as senior adviser to HealthCare.gov,”

This isn’t the first time this has happened. Jeff Zients took over when healthcare.gov was launch in October 2013.

In December 2013 Zients, who Obama had turned to in the past to fix sticky issues, had “made it clear that he was not going to stay on the job past December.”

Kathleen Sebelius said in a blog post,

Today, the site is night and day from what it was when it launched on October 1. I am very grateful for his service and leadership," Secretary of Health and Human Services.”

The Obama administration then announced that former Microsoft executive Kurt DelBene took over the operation of HealthCare.gov in December 2013 in consultation with Marilyn Traverner and QSSI.
 

Somewhere in 2014 CGI was rehired and DelBene left. QSSI remained.

CGI was then relieved in December 2014.

Accenture was hired. In December 2014 Accenture was rehired with a $563 million dollar contract to run healthcare.gov.

“The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) in January dropped a key contractor on the project, CGI Federal, and selected Accenture Federal Services to rehabilitate and build out the portal.”

Suddenly, in May 2015, QSSI quit.

This all seems fishy to me. The price tag of more than $1.1 billion dollar for healthcare.gov seems very high. The web site is still incomplete. The healthcare insurance premiums are unaffordable and rising.

Consumers and physicians do not approve of Obamacare.

State exchanges are losing money they cannot afford. There is little evidence that the electronic medical records program is increasing the quality of medical care.

The individual health insurance market through healthcare.gov is a mess.

The public does not know how many people are uninsured, have become uninsured and do not have access to medical care.

Obamacare has been delayed in the group market. Private insurance has increased in price. Large corporations are increasing part-time employment to avoid paying for employees’ healthcare insurance and to avoid federal government penalties.

Yet, the Obama spin machine is trying to influence the public and the Supreme Court through the media saying the subsidy should be extended to the Federal Health Exchanges.

It all seems crazy to me. There is a better, more efficient way to help Americans purchase insurance and be protected in case of serious illness.

It is not a government run single party payer system. The government cannot even build an efficient website.

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

Please have a friend subscribe

Permalink:

Double Digits Increases In Obamacare Insurance Rates Proposed

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

Thirty-seven states refused to setup Obamacare State Health Insurance Exchanges. Thirty-seven states refused because of the expected cost burden to those states and citizens. States are required to balance their state budgets. Most states have deficits and do not have balanced budgets. Obamacare’s requirements would simply add to their budget deficits. States would be forced increase state taxes.

The 37 states felt that the Obamacare State Health Insurance Exchanges were an attempt, by President Obama, to decrease the federal cost burden and shift it to the states.  

It was also a states’ rights issue.

None of those states felt that Obamacare State Health Insurance Exchanges could work and not become an increased cost burden.

The Supreme Court ruled in 2012 that states have the right under the constitution to refuse to create a State Health Insurance Exchange.

In June 2015 the Supreme Court will rule on King vs. Burwell.

Can the Federal Health Insurance Exchanges subsidize applicants the same way State Health Insurance Exchanges can subsidize applicants.

The law’s language is specific. The Obamacare law specifically states that only the State Insurance Exchanges can subsidies applicants.

The Obama administration media manipulation machine is already spinning the truth in case the Supreme Court rules against the federal government.

Eight million people will lose their subsidy. There are 330 million people in America. There are as many people uninsured in 2015 as there were before the law was enacted. In five years we are no closer to the promise that Obamacare would provide universal care.

Obamacare is failing because it is a bad law in many respects.

The essence of the Obama administration’s spin is that if the Supreme Court rules against the government the cost of insurance will escalate to unaffordable levels for Federal Health Insurance Exchange purchasers.

Subsidies that made insurance plans affordable face a crucial test with decision expected in June.

The truth is the cost of healthcare premiums are going to skyrocket for Obamacare applicants because the only people who signed up have pre-existing illnesses and had to buy insurance or the very poor because their insurance was fully subsidized.

 The adverse selection and the financial accounting rules for the healthcare insurance industry allow them to raise the premiums.

President Obama’s subsidies for Obamacare premiums expire in 2016.

 

Megan McCardle writing in Bloomberg says;

Insurance companies have been bullied by the Obama administration into keeping rates as low as they are, even though they can't make any money.

For sheer survival, most companies will begin to charge enough so they at least don't lose any money, or leave the exchanges altogether.

For those of you who have followed my blog carefully, you know President Obama has provided the healthcare insurance industry a subsidy in order to get them to participate. It guarantees that it cannot lose more than 2% of its expected profit.

The insurance industry determines its expected profit.

The insurance company subsidy is about to expire. The guarantee in Obamacare, of not losing any money, is going to evaporate. In addition, only the sickest and poorest people have obtained insurance from the federal and state health insurance exchanges. The federal and state exchanges have lost a great deal of money.

These losses are slowly being revealed.

The State Health Insurance Exchanges are starting to publish their losses at the same time the healthcare insurance industry is reporting their potential losses for next year. Those potential losses are reflected in the proposed premium increases.

Moda of Oregon says that its claims were 139 percent of revenue.

CareFirst of Maryland says claims were 120 percent of revenue.

Tennessee told the Wall Street Journal it lost $141 million on exchange plans last year.

 State of New Mexico says it lost $23 million on revenue of $121 million.

 The states that signed up for the State Health Insurance Exchanges are losing money. Maybe the states that did not sign up were right. It would be a financial burden on those states.

The clause in the law permits only those states having a health insurance exchange to provide subsidies to their applicants. It excludes all others, including the federal government.

The only question the Supreme Court has to consider is, can the federal health insurance exchanges provide subsidies to applicants according to the law as written?

The law was written to encourage states to create health insurance exchanges. It did not include the provision of subsidy to applicants for  federal health insurance exchanges.

If the federal exchange would be permitted to provide subsidies, the law should be amended by congress.

A Republican congress would have to amend the law.

Obamacare is an apparent disaster to consumers, insurance providers, hospitals and physicians.

The majority of Republican are calling for Obamacare’s repeal.

It is unlikely that a Republican congress will change that provision in the law.

The “States only provision” in the law has backfired on President Obama and those states creating health insurance exchanges.

The cost of setting up and administering this new bureaucracy was enormous. The healthcare insurance offered by Federal and State Health Insurance Exchanges were either too expensive for healthy or young consumers or had too many unnecessary benefits for those consumers.

The only consumers who signed up were people who were too sick to be able to buy private insurance or too poor to be able to buy insurance without being subsidized.

Those consumers comprise 85% of the applicants. The result has been an adverse selection pool.

If the Supreme Court rules against President Obama he is going to say that private insurance does not work. The federal government must create an entitlement to everyone.

The result will be socialized medicine with the federal government being the single party payer controlling rationing of care, access to care and the cost of care to consumers.

I believe it will make healthcare coverage even worse than it is now.

Why no one is considering my concept of consumer driven healthcare with my ideal medical saving account is beyond me.

Rather than making consumers actively responsible for their health, healthcare dollars and healthcare, we are on the road to making them passive recipients of their healthcare.

America is going to be further down the Road to Serfdom.

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

 Please have a friend subscribe.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               

 

Permalink:

Simple, Viable Republican Alternatives To Obamacare

Stanley Feld M.D., FACP, MACE

There are many simple and viable alternatives to Obamacare which Republicans should start considering.

Republicans should seriously consider My Ideal Medical Savings Account as an alterative to Obamacare. It is logical, simple, does not require a large complicated infrastructure and aligns all the stakeholders’ incentives.

It is easy for consumers to understand.

Consumers want to have choices. The dysfunction of our healthcare system has gotten to the point where most consumers don’t have a choice. Consumers simply do not know they lost their freedom of choice and access to care until they get sick.

Consumers think they have adequate healthcare coverage until they get sick. Only 20% of the population gets sick.

The other 80% of the population refuses to think about the problem.

When they do experience illness, the dysfunction in the healthcare system makes them furious. They want to blame someone. Physicians are usually the targets of their frustration.  

Most physicians are trapped in a situation that causes them to fight for their own survival for all the reasons I have previously enumerated. This creates a more dysfunctional healthcare system.

All the stakeholders fight for their own vested interests. These vested interests have become misaligned. The vested interest of the government is to control of the system and decrease its costs.  

Costs cannot be controlled by regulations without consumer involvement.   Consumers of healthcare must understand the effectiveness of their care is dependent on their involvement in their own medical care.

Consumers’ adherence to treatment is a key component in the effectiveness of medical care.

Medical costs cannot be controlled by government price fixing.

Medical costs cannot be controlled by government restrictions to access of care. Consumers will become sicker resulting in a higher cost illness.

Consumers must be empowered to be intelligent, motivated and responsible consumers of medical care. Only then can healthcare costs be controlled.

A functional healthcare system must provide financial incentives to consumers in order for them to want to be empowered to control costs. Consumers should not be dependent on the government to control costs.

The government must repair the actuary and accounting rules of the healthcare insurance industry. Insurance reserves should not be scored as a loss to justify premium increases.

The healthcare insurance industry takes 40 cents off the top of every insurance dollar that is spent. Consumers with both private insurance and government insurance are only getting 60 cents value for every healthcare dollar spent. The healthcare industry is allowed to do some strange accounting with their required reserves.

If this accounting method were repaired, premium costs would decrease.

Effective malpractice reform would result in a significant decrease in healthcare costs. The Obama administration refuses to believe tort reform is needed.  

Many of the rules written into Obamacare, Medicare, and Medicaid are so screwy they defy common sense and penalize consumers. One glaring rule is Medicare permitting hospitals to admit Medicare patients to the hospital for observation for 48 hours.

Medicare does not pay for Observation admissions. Patients have to pay out of pocket for these admissions.

Consumers must become aware of these screwy rules and protest them. These rules have been written by the Obama administration to save the government money. These rules penalize patients the government professes to help.

Consumers are the only stakeholders that can motivate President Obama and congress to fix the significant points of waste in the healthcare system. Consumers have the power to vote.

I do not believe that President Obama has an interest in repairing the healthcare system. All of his actions signify that he wants the healthcare system to fail. After it fails people will beg the government to completely take over and have a single party payer.

Does anyone trust the government to take over our most valuable asset, our healthcare?

The government take over will also fail because dependent consumers will figure out how to game the system just as food stamp recipient have figured out how to game that inefficient system.

The goal of a sincere administration and congress is to figure out how to motivate consumers to be “PROSUMERS” (productive consumer) with an economic interest in the healthcare system.

Airlines, banks, bookstores, entertainment venues have all figured it out. Why can’t the government help consumers figure it out?

My blog entitled “My Ideal Medical Saving Account Is Democratic” presents a consumer driven healthcare formula. It gives every socioeconomic group the opportunity to be an effective “Prosumer”.

It gives all Prosumers the incentive to be responsible for their health and healthcare dollars.

Below is the blog My Ideal Medical Savings Account Is Democratic!

My Ideal Medical Savings Account Is Democratic!

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

A reader sent this comment; “My Ideal Medical Savings Account (MSA) “was not democratic and leads to restriction of medical care for the less fortunate.'

This comment is totally incorrect. I suspect the comment came from a person who has “an entitlements are good mentality.”

I believe that incentives are good. They lead to innovation. Innovation leads to better ideas.

Healthcare entitlement leads to ever increasing costs, stagnation, restrict freedom of choice and decrease in access to care.

The excellent example of increasing costs, decreasing choice, and decreasing access to care is Medicaid.

The fact that someone is covered by healthcare coverage does not mean they have access to medical care.

 I have written extensively about the virtues of My Ideal Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs). They are different than Health Savings Accounts (HSAs).

HSAs put money not spent in a trust for future healthcare expenses. MSAs take the money out of play for healthcare expenses. MSAs provide a trust fund for the consumer’s retirement.

MSAs provide added incentives over HSAs to obtain and maintain good health.  Obesity is a major factor in the onset of chronic diseases. Consumers must be motivated to avoid obesity to maintain good health. MSAs can provide that incentive.

The MSA’s can replace every form of health insurance at a reduced cost. It limits the risk to the healthcare insurance industry while providing consumers with choice.

This would result in competition among healthcare providers. Competition would bring down the cost of healthcare.

Some people might not like MSA’s because they are liberating. They provide consumers of healthcare with freedom of choice. They also give consumers the opportunity to be responsible for their healthcare dollars while providing them with incentives to take care of their health.

MSAs could be used for private insurance purchasers, group insurance plans, employer self- insurance plans, State Funded self-insurance plans and Medicare and Medicaid.

In each case the funding source is different. The cost of the high deductible insurance is low because the risk is low. 

If it were a $6,000 deductible MSA, the first $6,000 would be placed in a trust for the consumer. Whatever they did not spend would go into a retirement trust.  If they spent over $6,000 they would receive first dollar healthcare insurance coverage. Their trust would obviously receive no money that year.

The incentive would be for consumers to take care of their health so they do not get sick and end up in an expensive emergency room.

If a person had a chronic illness such as asthma, Diabetes Mellitus, or heart disease with a tendency to congestive heart failure and ended up in the emergency room they would use up their $6,000.

If they took care of themselves by spending $3,000 of their $6,000 trust their funding source could afford to give their trust a $1500 reward. The benefit to the funding source is it saved money by the consumer not being admitted to the hospital. The patient stayed healthy and was more productive.

President Obama does not want to try this out. He wants consumers and businesses to be dependent of the central government for everything.

MSAs would lead to consumer independence from central government control of our healthcare. MSAs would put all consumers at whatever socioeconomic level in charge of their own destiny.

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

Please have a friend subscribe

Republicans who really want to repair the healthcare system should take notice of these suggestions. They should stop proposing complicated alternatives to Obamacare that will not work.

Republicans should start trying to understand the real problems in the healthcare system.

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

Please have a friend subscribe

 

Permalink:

The Republican Misguided Alternative to Obamacare

 

Stanley Feld M.D., FACP, MACE

Several important ideas can be derived from the Republican’s preliminary alternative to Obamacare.

Obamacare had been poorly conceived. Its execution has been worse.  Obamacare was developed by academic policy wonks that had no idea of  the culture of the physician practice community.  

These academic health policy wonks designed a system that is rigorous in the sense that outlines how all physicians should practice medicine. Physicians should use algorithms outlining this year’s best practices as developed by the interpretation of this year’s best clinical studies.  Obamacare was designed to measure physicians’ performance and inhibit physicians’ judgment. Healthcare policy wonks decided that the only way to accomplish this was by demanding an integrated care.

In order to effectively measure physicians’ efficiency, physicians must be under one hospital system. Physicians’ efficiency should be measured by a hospital’s bureaucrats. The government should control the rules and regulations. The set-up was satisfactory to President Obama because his goal was always central control of the healthcare system along with a single party payer (socialized medicine)

 If a hospital system performs better than some goal set the year before it gets a modest reward and shares it with the physicians on staff.  If their performance is more costly than the previous year they will be penalized.

This is a bad formula because success depends on the hospital staff, the physician staff and patient performance. Patient performance is not measured in Obamacare. No one even considers the patient’s responsibility to effectively improve outcomes of care.

patients are being treated as commodities. Physicians are being treated as commodities.

Patients are run through a bureaucracy with various physicians and physician extenders. They do not have one doctor caring for them.  The system is not going to improve patients’ knowledge of their disease or improve their outcomes. Patients must have ownership in their diseases.

All one has to consider is President Obama’s lie “if you like your doctor you can keep your doctors,” along with the tremendous growth of concierge medicine and out of pocket medical expenses since Obamacare was passed.

Concierge medicine adds $2,000 to $10,000 dollars to consumers’ out of pocket expense for the patients desire to have the ability to have contact with their their doctor and their desire to have the ability have questions answered and care coordinated by their doctor.   

Positive physician/ patient relationships will improve outcomes and decrease the cost of care.  

Most of the practice of medicine and surgery has been performed by independently practicing physicians. 

No one in the Obama administration has asked leading physicians in the practicing community what they think should be done to fix Obamacare.

Neither has the Republican Party listened to leading physicians in the practicing community about what should be included in their alternative to Obamacare.

I suspect the Republican leadership in the Senate is ignoring the few Republicans in the house and senate who were practicing physicians.

I know Rep. Michael Burgess, MD (R-TX-26) OB/GYN. Both Michael and his father used to send me Endocrine consultations when we all were in practice. I think the Republican leadership in the Senate has probably marginalized Michael  and the nine other Representatives  in the GOP House’s Doctors Caucus.  

Michael knows what has to be done after Obamacare is repealed and replaced. So far the GOP house caucus has only produced generalities.

he GOP Doctors Caucus: Utilizing medical expertise to develop patient-centered health care reforms focused on quality, access, affordability, portability, and choice.

House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton along with Senate Finance Chairman Orin Hatch and Senator Richard Burr have outlined what is, at least for now, the Republican alternative to Obamacare.

The Republican congresspersons as well as President Obama and Democratic congresspersons have left out the most important elements necessary for real healthcare reform.

The maintenance of the physician/patient relationship, with built in consumer responsibility for their own healthcare maintenance plus consumers’ responsibility for their own health and healthcare dollars, whatever their income, is the key to Repairing the Healthcare System.

Congress should pass a law with a light bureaucracy that provides a subsidy for the qualified indigent to receive healthcare insurance and financial incentives to stay healthy as well as education to learn to manage their chronic disease.

Effective Healthcare reform must include financial incentives for consumers to remain healthy.

I will review the Republican Party’s proposal in my next blog. They have some good ideas.

However, the Republican Party totally misses the key elements needed to  Repair the Healthcare System

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

Please have a friend subscribe