Stanley Feld M.D., FACP, MACE Menu

Permalink:

Nothing New: Same Old Story Spun Slightly Differently: Part 1

 

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

President Obama’s speech on healthcare reform to a joint session of congress added nothing new to the healthcare reform debate.. It was just spun differently.

He did give a tepid nod to tort reform. Defensive medicine results from a defective tort system. The defective tort system generates between $300 and $700 billion dollars a year in excessive diagnostic testing. Lawyers and insurance companies make large sums of money from the malpractice system. The tort system adds little value to the health of citizens.

President Obama said he will set up a few demonstration projects. Government demonstration projects have not worked in the past. His tort reform projects are too few and will have little effect. Everyone knows the problem as well as the solution. Our healthcare system needs significant tort reform immediately. The President is protecting the plaintiff attorneys because he doesn’t want to take them on. They have been large contributors to Democratic Party member election campaigns.

President Obama said the “Public Option” is the best way to control costs. However, he will not have a Public Option if he gets a bill passed. He is going to try to sneak a single party payer system through the back door as Barney Frank has stated.

The President said no one will have to spend more than $5,000.00 a year in out of pocket expenses.

Who is going to pick up the costs after consumers spend $5,000.00? I assume the government will. Consumers have to buy government mandated and approved healthcare plans.

Consumers will have to pay for policies that have a 40% deductible with after tax dollars as opposed to the 20% deductible with pre-tax dollars. The Obama administration has been convinced by the healthcare insurance industry that it needs the increase in deductible percentage in order to produce a lower “affordable” premium.

Consumers, by paying with after tax dollars, will be paying 35% more for their healthcare policies and 20% more in deductibles expenses. If the tax rate goes up to 40% they will pay 40% more for both. This is a hidden increase in consumers’ taxes and a government increase in revenue.

The big winner is the healthcare insurance industry, not consumers. The healthcare insurance industry will have a greater number of people insured on its roles because of a presidential mandate that he had promised to avoid.

President Obama said he will subsidize businesses and individuals who cannot afford healthcare insurance.

Who is going to make that judgment? The government will make that judgment. He asks us to stop being skeptical and trust his administration. He will take care of consumers in the spirit that made our country great.

President Obama, how can we trust your administration with our healthcare needs when we have had experience with so much false hope from your administration in the last 8 months?

He is leaving the control of the healthcare dollars in the healthcare insurance industry’s hands. The healthcare insurance industry provides administrative services. Can we trust the healthcare insurance industry to be fair and look out for the well being of consumers? No!!

President Obama said there are almost 400 insurance companies in the nation. He claims his plan will force them to be competitive. There are only five major healthcare insurance companies (Unitedhealthcare, Aetna Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Cigna, and Humana). Most of the other healthcare insurance companies are subsidiaries of those five major companies.

There will be no competition. The administration says a “Public Option” is the only effective way to lower the costs of healthcare. It will make healthcare insurance companies compete. However the insurance industry will define the costs and the price of the government’s public option. It has done so for Medicare Part D at the expense of taxpayers and it will do it again.

Medicare Part D is another failed government entitlement whose monthly premium has gone from $14 to $37 in three years. The patient deductibles have increase and the onerous donut still exists.

In addition to increasing the premium price the government subsidizes Medicare Part D with of billions of dollars a year. I predict the premiums for the “Public Option” will slowly escalate at tax payers’ expense.

The only creative way to break this healthcare insurance industry stranglehold is to institute a system with Medical Savings Accounts. The government or employers, as providers, should give consumers first $6,000 for their healthcare needs and teach them how to spend it wisely. What consumers do not spend they keep. The second $6,000 would be used to buy high deductible first dollar healthcare coverage.

This is the only way to reduce the healthcare insurance industry’s influence and grasp on healthcare spending. Medical Savings Accounts will provide consumers with incentives to use their healthcare dollar wisely. It will also provide incentives for patients to comply with medication and treatment prescribed. America might even make serious progress combating our obesity epidemic.

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

Permalink:

Public Option vs. Ideal Medical Savings Account: Part 4

 

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

Politicians and healthcare policy makers have not included consumer driven healthcare in the healthcare reform debate. They have not included tort reform in the debate either.

The debate is about a public option. President Obama is going to redefine his meaning of the public option in his message to congress. He will make it sound benign. It will not sound like a government takeover of healthcare. He will omit the details and consequences of the bill.

President Obama must know the government cannot afford a public option. He knows he must control costs somehow. His policy makers believe the only way to control cost is by total government control over the healthcare system. Ultimately the goal is a single party payer system.

This way of thinking about the problem is wrong. Government control does not reduce costs in most projects. It usually increases costs. The President is focused on reducing physicians’ and hospitals’ reimbursement. He believes they are the reason for increasing costs. Medicare has continually decreased reimbursement to physicians and hospitals. Yet costs have increased.

To some extent decreased reimbursement leads to increased utilization but it is not the principle reason for the increase in utilization. A principle reason is an increase in the need to practice defensive medicine. Plaintiff attorneys deny it. The Massachusetts study confirms that defensive medicine leads to a large increase in utilization and costs.

Physicians are an easy target because they are not well organized. The Democrat controlled government is timid about attacking the plaintiff attorneys and tackling tort reform. Defensive medicine results in about a $700 billion dollar a year cost to the healthcare system

Howard Dean said it a few weeks ago. “Congress will not face the issue of tort reform because it does not want to take on plaintiff attorneys.” Consumers can solve this for congress by signing a valid limited liability waiver. Patients can put their own cap on damages. It would not require any courage on the part of congress or the President to face this difficult political issue. All congress and the President have to do is declare the waiver valid.

Texas and California have had the courage to place caps on damages. It has been very successful. If there were caps on damages and they were effective the need for defensive medicine practices would decrease.

The public does not trust congress or the President with control over its healthcare coverage. The public experience with unintended consequences of government control is obvious to all.

Recent examples are the unintended consequences of the bank bailouts, Goldman Sachs bailout, the economic stimulus package promise, the auto bailout, and the war in Afghanistan. All these bailouts are increasing the deficit at the expense of the taxpayers and future generations.

The public mistrusts the healthcare insurance industry as much as it mistrusts the government to control healthcare. The healthcare insurance industry has restricted access to care and rationed care. It has not reimbursed physicians and hospitals in a timely fashion. It has found it is cheaper to pay the negotiated settlement rather the medical bills for its insured.

Nancy Pelosi is right about one thing and only one thing. The real villain is the healthcare insurance industry. However, she does not understand with a public option she is not controlling the healthcare insurance industry fees for administrative services. The government outsources administrative services to the healthcare industry and will still be subject to grotesque administrative services fees.

The healthcare insurance industry has lobbied to change the law to increase co pays to 35-40% of bills so it can lower premiums to affordable levels. Increasing deductibles and lowering premiums would satisfy President Obama’s goal of affordable premiums. At the same time, it will increase the out of pocket cost of medical care for consumers who might need to use their “affordable healthcare insurance.”

The healthcare insurance industry will be forced to offer insurance to consumers with preexisting illness at an affordable cost. Some states have a high risk pool. The premiums in the high risk pools are at least 11/2 times higher than normal premiums and have higher deductibles. High risk patients must be put into the general insurance pool.

There has not been a word in the healthcare reform discussion about patient responsibility for their health. We are in the middle of the worst Obesity epidemic in American history. President Obama should declare a War on Obesity. He should promote legislation that could help eradicate obesity. He should provide patients with financial incentives to eliminate obesity and adhere to prescribed therapy. Obesity is a leading driver of increasing healthcare costs. The costs will only become grater as the obesity epidemic continues.

It is time consumers took control of their own health care dollars and their own health and well being. The defensive medicine/tort reform issue can be solved by consumers. Obesity can be solved with the government rewriting farm subsidies and a substantial public service health campaign to change our eating habits.

A consumer driven healthcare system along with the ideal medical savings accounts could solve many of the healthcare system’s problems without total government control. The government’s job should be to help with educating the public, negotiating prices that are transparent and fair and enforcing regulations to create a level playing field for consumers among the other stakeholders.

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

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

Permalink:

Public Option vs. Ideal Medical Savings Account: Part 3

 

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

Dear President Obama;

Please listen. The American public doesn’t want the public option. They know America cannot afford another entitlement program. Americans do not want increased taxes. They are afraid China is lending us too much money. If and when they pull out it will be doomsday.

The healthcare insurance industry would love you to get your healthcare reform bill passed. It would increase their profits at taxpayers’ expense. The healthcare insurance industry did it to Massachusetts. The federal government had to bail out Massachusetts. Why not the entire country?

Americans want healthcare reform. They would love to provide universal care, have affordable insurance coverage, and increased quality of care. Your strategy is wrong.

There is another way to accomplish these things. It requires you to have faith in the intelligence of the American public. The strategy would decrease the cost to the healthcare system instantly. It would decrease the obscene costs for administrative services to the healthcare insurance industry. It would diminish the need to develop a massive government bureaucracy.

It eliminates the influence of lobbyists for vested interests. It would create competition among physicians, hospital systems and healthcare insurance companies. The healthcare insurance industry is drooling over your healthcare reform plan.

Americans know government bureaucracy can be cruel and inefficient. There are too many generalities that are wide open to abuse.

I received this note from a reader summing up America’s mistrust of government control. This person is neither a Republican nor Democrat. He is an American.

Stanley,

To sum up the recent post you can simply remind readers of the laughable old line, "I am from the government and I am here to help".

It was gaggy enough to see all the pigs at the trough getting 100’s of billions.  It will make everyone wretch just watching the same participants helping themselves to trillions of dollars worth of slop.

Heaven help us.  Neither the press nor the Obama fans can see through this smokescreen.  God, haven’t people figured out that when the government doles out money poor people don’t get helped, rich people do.  Does foreign aid help poor people in other countries.  If it did poverty in Africa would have ended decades ago.

Go back to the days of Lyndon Johnson.  We fought the war on poverty and lost that.  We lost the Drug War.  We lost the Vietnam War, we are losing the Afghan and Iraq Wars and we are well on our way to losing the war on the high cost of healthcare.  All of these efforts were lost not because they weren’t laudable goals, but because they were not properly considered.  As you know, some we should not have fought, others we should have fought differently.

Interestingly, the only real win we have had in the last forty years was the war on welfare and it came about because something was taken away, not added. 

Is there a lesson here?

L

How do you accomplish your goals and have the American public trust you once more? You can accomplish your goals of universal care, affordable insurance and increase in quality of care by putting individuals in control of their health and healthcare dollars.

This must sound radical to a liberal. If you permit consumers to drive the healthcare system they will drive the prices down.

How would a consumer driven healthcare system work using an ideal medical savings account?

Employers, states, and the federal government are currently paying healthcare premiums at very high administrative service fees to the healthcare insurance industry. Many self employed are paying the entire healthcare insurance premium with after tax dollars making their cost at least 35% higher than employer based coverage. Most cannot qualify for insurance because of preexisting illness.

The healthcare insurance industry controls the premium dollars. Patients have no financial incentive to be responsible for their health or healthcare dollars. The goal of a consumer driven healthcare system is to create a system that would provide incentives for consumers to be a watchdog for their healthcare dollars.

If these payers gave half of the $12,000 per family per year to consumers and permitted them to keep monies unspent in a retirement account, then patients would be motivated to use their healthcare dollar wisely

If consumers with chronic diseases perform well (weight loss, diabetes control, asthma prevention, COPD and heart disease prevention) and stay out of the ER or hospital because of proper maintenance they should receive a bonus for their retirement fund.

The fees for services would have to be negotiated beforehand as we presently do. All fees should be totally transparent. You would have 300 million people watching and reporting their costs or care.

The remaining $6,000 would buy high deductible coverage that would provide first dollar coverage. The healthcare insurance industry would do very well. If they quit Fidelity or Vanguard could do the bookkeeping.

Think of all the administrative costs saved on the first $6,000. Think of all the middlemen expenses avoided.

Medicare cost per patient in only $6600 per year including the last 30 days of life. The average cost of younger persons is much lower. Cost of care would be decreased because physicians would be paid at point of service. If the cost for medical care was over $6000 for a patient’s care first dollar high deductible insurance would take over.

Medical care is the relationship between the patient and the physician. If you provide the tools and money to create a transparent relationship without middlemen the patients would make the cost decrease as we have seen in other industries. America would have an affordable system.

If the employer became an extender of the physicians care and a patient advocate the costs would drop.

Employers, patients and physicians have the same goals. All are at the mercy of the middlemen (healthcare insurance industry).

This is the American way. It can be done.

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

  • web page

    Hi everyone, it’s my first go to see at this website, and post is truly fruitful for me, keep up posting these types of content.

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

Permalink:

Healthcare Insurers Get The Upper Hand: Part 2

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

There is good reason for the negative approval rating polls of the congress and the President. They have proven over and over again what they tell us is not what they mean. The public does not trust the Congress or Senate. The public is starting to mistrust President Obama. I suggest he not say trust me anymore. He needs to give the public reason to trust him.

The healthcare insurance industry has little desire to repair the healthcare system. It wants want the healthcare system to generate increased revenue and profits.

In the first half of 2009, the health service and HMO sector spent nearly $35 million lobbying Congress, the White House and federal healthcare offices, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics.”

The healthcare lobbying effort has been extremely profitable for healthcare lobbyists. President Obama had promised to decrease the influence of lobbyists.

 
“With more than 900 lobbyists, that sector — whose top spenders are insurance giants UnitedHealth, Blue Cross Blue Shield and Aetna — was poised to spend more than in 2008, a record lobbying year.”

President Obama promised America a change. The president’s directives against lobbyists were among his first official acts. His stated goal was to make government more open and accountable to the public.

“We are here as public servants, and public service is a privilege,” Obama said, addressing his White House staff and Cabinet on his first full day in office. “It’s not about advancing yourself or your corporate clients.”

Tom Daschle is an unregistered and highly paid lobbyist. He is President Obama’s go to man for healthcare reform. Yet he is a consultant for a lobbying firm Alston & Bird whose clients are the healthcare insurance giants like UnitedHealth and hospital associations.

President Obama said; “We need to close the revolving door that lets lobbyists come into government freely and lets them use their time in public service” to promote their own interests when they leave.”

The public does not forget Presidential candidate’s promises. They have recognized the contradictions in President Obama’s actions. His actions only lead to the public’s increasing cynicism and mistrust in him and his administration. There is great public hesitation to trust the government to take care of their healthcare needs.

 

“The LA Times article that the "change" being supported by the White House is going to make the for-profit companies fatter and wealthier at the expense of a healthcare system bloated by the excessive administrative, profits, and grossly high salaries of the health insurance and drug companies.”

The public protests are not only about the public option. They are about the government offering “affordable” public insurance to all. An entitlement the government cannot afford. The protests are about the control over our freedom of choice.

The healthcare insurance industry will make more money when the insurance pool is increased. The government will subsidize all policies to keep the price “affordable”. The healthcare insurance industry’s profit will increase. President Obama will raise taxes and inflate the economy.

“Undermining support for the public option wasn’t the only gain scored by insurance lobbyists.

Public option was a diversion by the healthcare insurance industry. Its purpose was to frighten and distract the public from the healthcare industry’s other goals. The healthcare lobbyists have made deals with congress and the President. The deals are not transparent.

“In May, the Senate Finance Committee discussed requiring that insurers reimburse at least 76% of policyholders’ medical costs under their most affordable plans. Now the committee is considering setting that rate as low as 65%, meaning insurers would be required to cover just about two-thirds of patients’ healthcare bills. According to a committee aide, the change was being considered so that companies could hold down premiums for the policies.”

You bet. President Obama promised to provide affordable premiums. He also promised to regulate the healthcare insurance industry. The terms are favorable to the healthcare insurance industry and not favorable to consumers. President Obama has said nothing about the increase in out of pocket expenses.

“Most group health plans cover 80% to 90% or more of a policyholder’s medical bills, according to a report by the Congressional Research Service. Industry officials urged that the government set the floor lower so insurers could provide flexible, more affordable plans.”

The healthcare insurance industry is going to get its wishes. Healthcare insurance premiums might be more affordable but out of pocket expenses will be higher.

 
"It is vital that individuals, families and small-business owners have the flexibility to choose an affordable coverage option that best meets their needs," said Robert Zirkelbach, spokesman for America’s Health Insurance Plans, the industry’s Washington-based lobbying shop.”

Isn’t that disingenuous? The greater tragedy is our representatives are going to approve the change in the deductibles. President Obama will call it a victory for healthcare reform. The Democratic party’s goal is to ultimately have a single party payer system.

Who is roping which dope? Who is the dope? The government thinks it is manipulating the healthcare insurance industry. The healthcare insurance industry thinks it is manipulating the government.

The net result is they are both manipulating consumers of healthcare. Consumers will get less healthcare coverage at greater out of pocket expense and higher taxes. The American consumer is the dope.

“Consumer advocates argue that a lower government minimum might quickly become the industry standard, placing a greater financial burden on patients and their families.”

"These are a bad deal for consumers," said J. Robert Hunter, a former Texas insurance commissioner who works with the Consumer Federation of America.”

Consumer advocates have seen through the charade. However they do not have enough money and consumer support to make others aware of what is going on behind the scenes. AARP is not providing awareness. Consumers know they have been promised transparency by President Obama but they have seen little transparency.

"They have beaten us six ways to Sunday," said Gerald Shea of the AFL-CIO. "Any time we want to make a small change to provide cost relief, they find a way to make it more profitable."


Meanwhile, companies would probably see a benefit by providing less insurance "per premium dollar," Hunter said.
Taxpayers do not want more government control over their lives and freedoms. They do not trust government to do things efficiently. Recent experience has confirmed consumer distrust. One only has to look at the inefficiencies in the bank bailouts, the economic stimulus package, the two wars, and the mounting deficits. All theses inefficiencies are at the taxpayers’ expense.

It is time for consumers to take over and demand control of their healthca
re dollars and their own healthcare decisions no matter what socioeconomic level they are in.

The government’s role should be to encourage and incentivize consumers to pursue a path toward better health without permitting them to be taken advantage of by the other stakeholders. This will be the only way to control healthcare costs.

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

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

Permalink:

Healthcare Insurers Get The Upper Hand

 

 

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

The healthcare debate is becoming more confusing daily. President Obama has promised change. Fifty-three percent of Americans voted for change. We are not going to get change. It turns out President Obama represents status quo except at a greater expense to the taxpayer.

The healthcare insurance industry controls the healthcare dollars across all insurance lines. These insurance lines are private insurance for small companies, corporations that are self insured, Medicare, Medicaid and self insured local and state governments.

This broad control of the health care dollar comes about because all these healthcare insurance providers outsource their administrative services to the healthcare insurance industry. The major healthcare insurance companies disguise this control by creating differently named subsidiaries that “win the administrative services contracts.”

Fifteen to twenty percent (15-20%) of the healthcare dollar goes to administrative services fees. This is a very high fee. Medicare claims it only pays 2.5% for administrative services. This is probably true for its in-house administrative services but not for outsourced administrative services.

The healthcare industry has also had a stranglehold on all providers of healthcare insurance by increasing premiums and decreasing reimbursement to physicians and hospitals while maintaining its outrageous administrative services fees.

All the stakeholders are captives of the healthcare insurance industry. This stranglehold has caused an increase in the uninsured and destroyed the ill conceived Massachusetts universal healthcare plan.

President Obama’s healthcare reform plan is not focused on eliminating this stranglehold. The Obama healthcare reform plan will still outsource the administrative services to the healthcare insurance industry while increasing the government’s bureaucracy to try contain costs.

When are our politicians going to figure out the only way to repair the healthcare system is to eliminate the middlemen and let the transactions be between patients and physicians?

“This year alone, the healthcare industry has spent over $34 million to hire 923 lobbyists to influence Congress, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.”

Why? Because the healthcare insurance industry has positioned itself so it cannot lose no matter which modified healthcare reform plan is adopted.

Some insurance company leaders continue to profess concern about the unpredictable course of President Obama’s massive healthcare initiative. I believe this is an act. Do not let it fool you. Patient welfare is not the healthcare insurance industry’s concern.

“The half-dozen leading overhaul proposals circulating in Congress would require all citizens to have health insurance, which would guarantee insurers tens of millions of new customers — many of whom would get government subsidies to help pay the companies’ premiums.”

"It’s a bonanza," said Robert Laszewski, a health insurance executive for 20 years who now tracks reform legislation as president of the consulting firm Health Policy and Strategy Associates Inc”.


The healthcare insurance industry hired the Lewin Group, a health policy consulting firm that is owned by UnitedHealth Group to do a study opposing the “public option”. The healthcare insurance companies contended that a government-run plan would put the healthcare insurance companies out of business.

I believe this is a diversion. The healthcare industry will make out like a bandit either with or without a public option. The consumer will not be so fortunate. .

Laszewski said the industry’s reaction to early negotiations boiled down to a single word: "Hallelujah!"

"The insurers are going to do quite well," said Linda Blumberg, a health policy analyst at the nonpartisan Urban Institute, a Washington think tank. "They are going to have this very stable pool, they’re going to have people getting subsidies to help them buy coverage and . . . they will be paid the full costs of the benefits that they provide — plus their administrative costs."

Tom Daschle has emerged, according to the mainstream press, as Obama’s key go-to guy. It is as though he never left. He has the ear of the President as well as the healthcare insurance industry and the pharmaceutical.

“He still speaks frequently to the president, who met with him as recently as Friday morning in the Oval Office.”

Tom Daschle declared after meeting with President Obama that the President is becoming impatient with the debate and might force his healthcare reform bill through the Senate with a 51 vote majority.

“He remains a highly paid policy adviser to hospital, drug, pharmaceutical and other health care industry clients of Alston & Bird, the law and lobbying firm.”

It seemed strange that UnitedHealth and other healthcare insurers would hire Alston and Bird to represent them by a “liberal” Democrat (Tom Daschle) until it became clear that with or without a public option the healthcare industry would experience a bonaza.

“UnitedHealth spent the most, $2.5 million in the first half of 2009, and hired some of Washington’s most prominent political players, including Tom Daschle.”

With the public now opposed to a public option the White House and Senate Democratic leaders have introduced the concept of a on nonprofit insurance cooperatives.

“Mr. Daschle began promoting a cooperative two months ago as a politically feasible alternative to a more muscular government-run insurance plan. It is an idea that happens to dovetail with the interests of many Alston & Bird clients, like the insurance giant UnitedHealth and the Tennessee Hospital Association.”

Liberal democrats are opposed to the nonprofit insurance cooperatives. They fear it will take longer to evolve into a single party payer system than the public option would. Liberal Democrats believe the only way to repair the healthcare system is to have total government control over the healthcare system.

They do not realize that as long as the healthcare insurance industry controls the healthcare dollar the healthcare system will not be repaired. As long as consumers do not have financial incentives to control their health and their healthcare dollar the healthcare system will not be repaired

The healthcare insurance industry does not want the healthcare system repaired. They want the healthcare system to generate more income for them rather than better health for consumers.

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

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

Permalink:

A Call To Action : Take Back Your Healthcare: Part 2

 

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

Massachusetts is in a financial bind. Most other states are in the same financial bind. No state has a ticket to a brighter future because politicians in the state spend the taxpayer dollars with little regard to adding value to taxpayers.

It is very difficult for the average taxpayer to understand the charade. In the future, due to blogging and social networking it is going to be a little more difficult for politicians to get away with what they been getting away with.

My reader, who wishes to be anonymous, continues to explain what politicians in Massachusetts are doing now that the universal coverage experiment has failed. Universal coverage is vitally important. The strategy used to achieve universal care by politicians is faulty and leads to failure.

Now they are creating a:

“Monopoly on top of a monopoly.

Big Hospitals and Big Insurers.

Your Doctor as Corporate Man?

Doctors, nurses, and allied health practitioners would all now be forced to work for Big Hospitals, which effectively work for Insurance Companies, and not the patient. “

This has been happening for many years all over the nation resulting in increased premiums, increases in taxes, and decrease in access to care. The goal is to manage the cost of care to the advantage of the healthcare insurance industry and the hospital systems, not to the advantage of the consumers (taxpayers)

“Any chance that real market forces might be brought to bear would be outlawed.

Apparently, Massachusetts only wants to control cost for Insurance Companies.”

Please note the terms used: “control the cost for Insurance Companies” and not “control the costs of the insurance companies.”

“As the Commission’s proposal stands, this is no ticket to a brighter future for Massachusetts.

Stubbornly blind to the enormous cost that Blue Cross layers on top of the actual cost of health CARE, this can come to be known as "pulling a Massachusetts "

If it wants to pull itself out of this hot water, Massachusetts needs to actually reduce cost and increase quality – and reverse Massachusetts’ loss of doctors, citizens, and tax base.

Its politicians will have to forget about installing Insurers and Accountable Care Organizations as a chokepoint to get to a doctor – forget about engineering a situation that requires middlemen – forget about hard coding them into the law.

Market forces work famously well on cottage industries, and medical practice is nothing if not a cottage industry. The large number of independently practicing doctors offers freedom of choice, complete access to CARE – for both employers and individuals, and universally available care that is affordable.

Consumers benefit, if Consumers’ access to the market for medical practitioners is kept truly free and unobstructed by any third party.

Otherwise, only the choke-holding middlemen benefit.

How much real estate does Blue Cross own?

How many shopping centers? How many office buildings?

How much did it and does it spend on its real estate?

On management salaries?

On commissions to their insurance sales agents / brokers / consultants?

How much of insurers’ real profit are they funneling out the back door in management salaries and asset acquisitions, and how much are they assigning to other categories – like Reserves?

How much do insurance companies really make in profit? (If they don’t call themselves “non-profits”, that is)

How much do they charge us in premiums, on top of the blizzard of expensive-to-manage paperwork they create?

Where would all the trillions of dollars go that Washington wants to borrow and put on our tax bill?

Exactly what is all that money going to buy?

We can’t know, because that information is locked inside insurers’ and the government’s black boxes.

We can’t audit their books. We can’t know the accounting rules by which money is assigned to one category or another.

We can’t know how many sets of books they keep – one for PR purposes, another for investors?

Apparently, Massachusetts’ Reform Commission has a blind spot, and Blue Cross is standing in it, doing what the insurance industry always does – pointing the finger in every direction but at itself…

"Oh, it’s the doctors / its technology / …"

Installing a middleman is a set-up – drawing a curtain against the sunshine, destroying any chance of freedom from being ensnared in an insurer’s or the government’s web.

In fact, it glues us all in place. Have you ever seen ‘The Fly”?

Deal Direct

When nothing and no one comes between each Consumer and each Practitioner, when complication and insurance / government middlemen are stripped away, there is perfect transparency.

There is no dark place in which to pile on cost or engage in price fixing.
There is nowhere to hide.

And here’s another benefit…

When Consumers deal directly with their Doctors, no one can ration anyone out of their care.

Thank goodness! That saves us all a lot of money on “comparative effectiveness research”.”

Let the consumer beware and protest to the politicians. After all we elect them.

Can we trust a government takeover of healthcare?

Government bureaucracy adds costs and complexity.

Outsourcing administrative services to the healthcare insurance industry involves bureaucracy.

Outsourcing administrative services provides another opportunity for waste.

All the complexity is said to be for the benefit of patient care.

However, money for direct patient care between the physician and patient is continually being reduced as bureaucracy is increasing.

The time has come for the consumer to put his foot down and stop the politicians.

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

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

Permalink:

A Call To Action : Take Back Your Healthcare: Part 1

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

Consumers and physicians are starting to fighting to stop President Obama’s misguided healthcare plan as witnessed by the protests throughout the country. Once the American public became aware of the implications of the public option and the costs of the plan they began to distrust President Obama.

On Friday afternoon August 22nd at 4 p.m. on a hot summer afternoon when everyone was heading for the beach the administration announced the budget deficit was going to be greater than previously predicted.

It is easy to cook the books by making the wrong assumptions for your calculations. Massachusetts cooked the books with its universal healthcare plan and it has failed. President Obama’s healthcare plan is destined to fail just as Massachusetts’ plan.

Now, Massachusetts is discontinuing its universal healthcare plan. It is creating another plan that will bankrupt the state even further. Massachusetts has already received an $8 billion dollar bailout from the federal government.

Another failure is coming up at taxpayers’ expense. I am publishing the follow essay from a reader who would prefer to remain anonymous.

It is a call to action. The first two parts will be educational.

                            Consumers: Take Back Your Health CARE.

It’s too important to be trusted to either insurance companies or the government

The BOGUS Schemes proposed by Washington & Massachusetts EXPOSED

Definitions

Health insurance is not health CARE.

Health CARE is what your Doctor does for you.

Health insurance is nothing more than an Insurer’s promise (however slippery) to pay someone else (a doctor / nurse / PT, etc.) to give you CARE.

Yet Congress ignores this fact. Congress is trying to force more insurance on people, when it is CARE everyone really wants to buy.

Insurers have very successfully driven down payment to Doctors, year after year throughout the past twenty years, taking advantage of the fact that Doctors’ practices are small businesses. Many Doctors practice by themselves. This is smaller than small. Practicing medicine is a cottage industry.

No Doctor’s practice meets the definition of a monopoly – no Doctor has 40% or more of Consumers as his / her patients.

Today, Health CARE is not expensive.

But Health Insurance is.

Various Insurers do have a monopoly in many markets throughout the US, and they have used their monopoly power to crush many medical practices.

Yet Insurers have never passed their savings through to Consumers, and state governments have been their accomplices.

States have allowed and in some cases encouraged Insurers to become monopolies. Therein is the root of the out-of-control health insurance cost problem.

Now, some in Massachusetts want to make even more monopoly the law.

After feeding Insurers for years, by requiring every citizen of Massachusetts to become a customer of a health insurance company, Massachusetts finally acknowledged that requiring everyone to buy insurance has done nothing to control cost.

So one month ago, Massachusetts repealed its Universal Healthcare law and turned its attention to the matter of cost control.

Enter Massachusetts’s Health Care Reform Commission, which has proposed that Massachusetts make it illegal for its citizens to deal directly with their doctors and illegal for their doctors to be paid except by Accountable Care Organizations (hospital systems / co-operatives that will assume all financial risk for all care, including physicians, hospital charges and prescription drugs). The Reform Commission wants Massachusetts to effectively outlaw the private practice of Medicine and herd everyone into massive institutions such as the health care co-operatives currently under consideration in Washington.

The Reform Commission wants Massachusetts to pass a law requiring all doctors to become employees of huge hospital systems and be paid an Insurer-dictated “global payment” (capitation).

Doctors, nurses, and allied health practitioners would all now be forced to work for Big Hospitals, which effectively work for Insurance Companies, and not the patient.

Remember the Health Maintenance Organizations of the 1980’s and 1990’s? The healthcare insurance industry profited greatly. Patients experience decrease in access to care and physicians suffered from restrictions to provide adequate care.

Patients and physicians are the weakest link in the healthcare chain even though they are the primary stakeholders.

All politicians have to do is create a complicated plan to “help” the poor, spin a tail about it being the solution, pass a bill and you have created a money making machine for the healthcare insurance industry at the expense of patients.

This is exactly what is happening in Massachusetts all over again.

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

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

Permalink:

Public Option vs. Ideal Medical Savings Account: Part 2

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

The Public Option is a misnomer. It will not be an option. It will become the only choice.

The intent of the Public Option is exactly as Barney Frank described in his off the cuff interview. It is a critical step to a single party payer system government. Representative Anthony Weiner has confirmed the intent of the Public Option. President Obama has been saying it in code all along.

The Public Option is a critical step on the way to a single party payer since the Democrats do not have the votes for a single party payer at this time. A single party payer system would work if it would not be paralyzed by a bureaucracy, did not run out of money, did not engage in rationing of care and permits patients to make their own medical decisions.

Medicare is running out of money and Social Security and Medicare has 107 trillion dollars of unfunded liabilities.  Medicare deductibles are constantly being increased. Physician reimbursement is constantly reduced. A 300 billion dollar reduction in physician reimbursements is scheduled for 2010.

Investor’s Business Daily revealed President Obama’s goal on Wednesday, July 15th one day after HR3200 was published.

“Right there on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal.”

The Investor’s Business Daily was not sure its interpretation was correct so they checked with the House Ways and Means Committee.

It turns out we were right: The provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage. Under the Orwellian header of "Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage," the "Limitation On New Enrollment" section of the bill clearly states:

“LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT.— LIMITATION ON INDIVIDUAL HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE page 16

IN GENERAL.—Individual health insurance

coverage that is not grandfathered health insurance

coverage under subsection (a) may only be offered

on or after the first day of Y1 as an Exchange-participating health benefits plan.”

President Obama has promised we could keep our present healthcare insurance if we like it. It will be grandfathered in. Otherwise, we will have to buy insurance from Healthcare Exchange-participating health benefits plans.

"Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law.

“Drawn by a public option that will be 30% to 40% cheaper than their current premiums because taxpayers will be funding it, employers will gladly scrap their private plans and go with Washington’s coverage.”

If an individual changes healthcare insurance carrier he cannot buy private insurance from another company except through the certified healthcare insurance exchange.

Those who currently have private individual coverage won’t be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private unregulated carriers.

“What wasn’t known until now is that the bill itself will kill the market for private individual coverage by not letting any new policies be written after the public option becomes law.”

On average, consumers change insurance carriers every eighteen months. The Healthcare Insurance Exchange will regulate the kind of healthcare insurance available.

The healthcare insurance industry has abused all the stakeholders. The consumer should be protected from abuse.

However, the healthcare insurance industry will continue to abuse the government and taxpayers. It charges the government a 15% administrative service fee to process claims.

Consumers will be forced into the government subsidized public plan. Employers will be happy to pay the 8% of their gross revenue. Employers are currently paying 18% of their gross revenue to the healthcare insurance industry. The healthcare insurance industry will not compete with the government. It will withdraw from selling healthcare insurance.

By default America will have a single party system, with an enormous bureaucracy and an enormous deficit.

Another downside is individuals will be paying public option healthcare premiums with after tax dollars. Premiums will be determined by means testing. Healthcare costs could become higher than today’s healthcare insurance premiums between tax rates increasing and the surtax for healthcare.

The cost will go down only by decreasing physicians’ and hospitals’ reimbursement. Six hundred billion dollars are scheduled to be removed from Medicare payments as the number of seniors covered increases. The result will inevitably be a further rationing of medical care for seniors.

HR 3200 is going to outlaw health savings accounts (HSAs) Health Savings Accounts are not as good as Medical Savings Accounts. HSAs do not provide enough incentives to patients to control their health and healthcare dollars. It keeps the healthcare insurance industry in control of the healthcare dollars.

Eliminating alternative forms of healthcare insurance has been a goal of Democrats for years. They want to crush any creative alternative.

“With HSAs out of the way, a key obstacle to the left’s expansion of the welfare state will be removed.”

Washington shouldn’t be killing business opportunities, or limiting choices, or legislating major changes in Americans’ lives. It should be making rules to eliminate abuse of systems, and providing incentives for individuals to be innovative and efficient.

The public option won’t be an option for many, but rather a mandate for buying government care. A free people should be outraged at this advance of soft tyranny.

Healthcare reform is not about better healthcare for Americans. It is about the government controlling our lives and decreasing our freedom to choose.

I would suggest the following note.

“We do not want the government to control our lives and increase our taxes. We want affordable, universal healthcare coverage that does not limit access to care. We want control over our healthcare dollars.

You can reach you Congressional Representative with the links below.

https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

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

 

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

Permalink:

Public Option vs. Ideal Medical Savings Account: Part 1

 

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

In response to my last post I received this note.

“Stan

This is interesting.  You may like this but it is very obvious that it is just another stall tactic.  If the current bill, with reconciliation, passes, we still have to address these points.  So where are this fellow’s solutions?”

I watched President Obama’s town hall meeting in Grand Junction on Saturday evening. He is a compelling and seductive speaker. If I thought his plan would work and at the same time be budget neutral I might be seduced.

It will not work for the consumer and it will not be budget neutral. He needs a better plan.

What is missing?

President Obama’s generalities are correct. The country needs a system that provides universal care at an affordable cost and an increase in quality. I believe his strategy is wrong. His strategy is reflected in his healthcare reform bill.

He is correct in pointing out that the healthcare insurance industry controls the healthcare dollar. His prescription to destroy the healthcare insurance industry is wrong because it will penalize patients. President Obama’s healthcare reform bill is not doing anything to limit the healthcare insurance industry 20% gross administrative fee whether we have a single party payer or a private insurance system.

He promises to get rid of the waste in the system. He claims eliminating the waste will pay for two thirds of the 1.1 trillion dollars his healthcare billion will cost in the next ten years. The remainder will be paid for by taxing people making over $250,000 a year. He needs to redo the math.

President Obama’s system sounds pretty simple. However, it seems the government hardly ever does anything efficiently. The costs are always underestimated. There are always uncontrolled abuses or unintended consequences.

President Obama is ready to create a massive new bureaucracy and employ approximately 110,000 new employees. Bureaucracy is always a prescription for inefficiency.

President Obama is ignoring the waste created by defensive medicine. The total cost of unnecessary testing is about $750 billion dollars a year. Nonetheless, tort reform is off the table. Defensive medicine is blamed on physicians wanting to generate more money for themselves. I think defensive medicine came first, and then physicians figured out how to generate more income in response to decreasing reimbursements for their services and an increase in malpractice lawsuits. Placing a cap on malpractice awards destroyed the malpractice business in Texas and California.

Where is the role of patients’ responsibility for their own health and healthcare. Patients with adequate healthcare insurance are satisfied. The healthcare inflation problem is the result of medical care costing little for the patient with insurance except for the deductibles.

Our healthcare system is a fix the sick system. The healthcare system is not geared to prevent an illness. The administration’s healthcare reform plan speaks of prevention but does not provide incentives to patients or physicians to prevent illness or even deal with the obesity epidemic..

Consumers are receiving quality medical care at little direct cost to themselves. This creates runaway costs that have to be addressed. But ill-advised reforms can make things much worse.”

The public has no great love for the healthcare insurance industry. Their protests about the healthcare reform bill are not to protect the healthcare insurance industry. It is to protect their freedom of choice. The public does not trust the government to make choices for them.

Both political parties have extremely low approval ratings. President Obama’s approval rating is sinking because of the perception of his half truths and a mounting distrust by independent voters.

“An effective cure begins with an accurate diagnosis, which is sorely lacking in most policy circles. The proposals currently on offer fail to address the fundamental driver of health-care costs.”

President Obama’s public option and increase in bureaucratic decision making is not going to solve our healthcare systems problems. He is not focusing on repairing the perverse incentives that are presently in the dysfunctional healthcare system.

Consumers must solve the healthcare system problems just like they solved the auto industries problems. Government role should be to provide the appropriate regulations to level the playing field.

“The health-care wedge is an economic term that reflects the difference between what health-care costs the specific provider and what the patient actually pays. When health care is subsidized, no one should be surprised that people demand more of it and that the costs to produce it increase.”

The solution is not a public option or a single party payer system. Consumer driven healthcare is the solution through the use of the ideal medical savings account.

“To pay for the subsidy that the administration and Congress propose, revenues have to come from somewhere. The Obama team has come to the conclusion that we should tax small businesses, large employers and the rich.”

President Obama’s plan will not work because the health-care recipients will lose their jobs as businesses can no longer afford their employees. The economy will get worse and the wealthy will flee to tax havens.

General anxiety will increase, patients will get sicker and the healthcare system will be overused creating more debt and more taxes.

A few economic self evident truths are:

  1. A free marketplace with appropriate rules encourages innovation and productivity.
  2. In the United States profitability is a strong market driver. If inappropriate rules are set up entities will try to figure out how to benefit from the rules to the disadvantage of others.
  3. The higher the taxes the lower the productivity. The lower the taxes the higher the productivity.
  4. The greater the bureaucracy the lower the added value productivity.
  5. Consumers will try to maximize their purchasing power.

“According to research I performed for the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a $1 trillion increase in federal government health subsidies will accelerate health-care inflation, lead to continued growth in health-care expenditures, and diminish our economic growth even further. Despite these costs, some 30 million people will remain uninsured.”

Rather than expanding the role of government in the health-care market, Congress should implement a consumer driven approach to health-care reform. A consumer driven approach focuses on the consumers being the policemen for their own healthcare dollar. If would focus on the doctor relationship and empower the patients and their physicians to make effective and economical choices.

The patients would be proactive rather
than passive. The result will be an increase in efficiency in the healthcare system rather than a further decrease.

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