Stanley Feld M.D., FACP, MACE Menu

Permalink:

President Obama’s Double Talk: He Says Health Plan Won’t Add to Deficit Part 1

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

President Obama still enjoys a high approval rating. During the election he represented hope for change to the American people. We need hope because many of our systems are abused and broken. The divide between the rich and the poor is increasing and is at the most dangerous point in our history.

Our systems are abused and broken because Congress has been influenced by vested interests. Congress has been gridlocked on energy, environment, healthcare, education and many other vital issues. The systems need to be fixed to stimulate vigor in our economy and the spirit of innovative.

President Obama represented this hope. He has a fresh face and the right words. When we look beyond the words and analyze his style we find we are confronted with the same old double talk. He has the right words but the wrong solutions. He is telling us he will fix the broken and abused systems. However, he is demonstrating that the Democrats want to control the systems.

The result of the proposed legislation will be to control our personal decision making and our lives. I believe Americans will react negatively to this when they discover what has been done to them.

In order to accomplish this control over the healthcare system Congress is going to have to increase spending. The result of increased spending higher taxes.

President Obama wants to add a surtax on incomes over $250,000 plus and addition 4% income tax. The surtax will be on incomes from any source. In addition there are indirect tax increases on all citizens.

Medicare and Medicaid are entitlement programs. This is a fact. Medicare and Medicaid are in serious financial difficulty. Medicare Part B is funded by general revenues. The Medicare Board of Trustee’s responsibility is to warn Congress if more than 45% of Medicare expenditures are projected to come from general revenues. If they issue a warning in two consecutive years, Congress and the President must act to reform Medicare. The warning has been issued in the last 4 consecutive years. Congress has not acted.

The best way to quiet an agency is to eliminate it. This is exactly what the House bill does on page 836 of the 1081 page.

Rather than deal with Medicare’s situation directly, the President and his allies promise to "bend the curve" to achieve savings across the health care spectrum — including Medicare. 

If this is true, why then would page 836 (Section 1901) of the House bill repeal the "Medicare trigger" that is intended to force legislative action when Medicare’s finances worsen?

  • The Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 had mandated that if more than 45 percent of Medicare expenditures were projected to come from general revenues (as opposed to dedicated revenues, such as payroll taxes and beneficiary premiums) within a seven-year period, the trustees would issue a warning.
  • Two consecutive years of this warning would require the President to offer reform legislation and Congress to give that legislation expedited consideration.

This warning has been triggered four consecutive years — the last three of which would have required legislative action.  Yet the Democratic Congress has regularly passed rules suspending their responsibility to address Medicare’s unsustainability.  Now, the House health care bill would repeal the trigger altogether.”

President Obama has stated on numerous occasions that his health care reform bill will save money. It will not create a larger deficit. It is easy to save money when you eliminate the findings of the agency that reports the overspending.

“President Obama has repeatedly claimed that his health care reforms represents entitlement reform. He has stated that he will not sign a healthcare reform bill that is not budget neutral.”

Meanwhile, the Congressional Budget Office has scored the healthcare reform measures increasing the budget deficit by 1.5 trillion dollars in the next ten years. This finding is not budget neutral.

Even if President Obama gets everything in the house bill passed he will not solve the problem of the healthcare system.

The major problems in healthcare are being ignored. Malpractice reform, the cost for the healthcare insurance industry’s administrative services, and patients’ responsibility for their own health and their own healthcare dollars are major issues that must be addressed and solved innovatively in order to repair the healthcare system.

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

  • Anne Hudson

    Any time that the government steps in, it adds to the deficit. And, it doesn’t matter which government- local to federal. This “new” plan will be socialistic in nature. I fyou want ot see how it will work, just go to any VA hospital.You see who they think is best for you, appointemnts are from two to six months apart. YOu get the medicines available on their formulary, even if another medicine might be better for you. If you need surgery, you getnot only second opinions but sometime third and fourth opinions. It can take weeks just to get dentures relined (while you are without) and months if you need new ones. The co-pay is based on your income and/or your statis as a veteran (have compensation for injuries inthe service or not. this is our future.
    I know; I am a veteran who has to use the VA for medical care.

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

Permalink:

Gotta Pass This Healthcare Bill Before America Catches On

 

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

 

President Obama wants Congress to get a healthcare bill on his desk before the August recess. I can hear the train whistle blowing. He wants the bill passed before the public understands the implications of the bill. The House bill has provisions that declare individual private medical insurance illegal.

“Under the header of "Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage," the "Limitation On New Enrollment" section of the bill clearly states:”

"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.”

President Obama told Americans they can keep their private insurance if they like it. He did not tell us about the exceptions. He did not tell us we could not switch healthcare insurance companies.

“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 carriers.”

The only choice will be the public option. So much for creating competition to lower price. He did say the public option would be 30% to 40% cheaper than the current healthcare premiums. He did not say taxpayers would be funding the difference. Employers would gladly drop healthcare coverage especially if they cannot deduct the expense of private insurance. Employers do not need more incentive to drop private coverage. To be sure of this Congress will outlaw private insurance. 

What else is he not telling us when a 1018 page bill is presented with many confusing provisions? How much more of our freedom of choice will be restricted? The healthcare insurance industry is presently charging 15%-20% for administrative services for private healthcare coverage.

The government outsources administrative services to the healthcare insurance industry. As best as I can tell it is charging the government 15% for administrative services. The government claims administration cost 2% for Medicare. The 2% is before government outsourcing of administrative services. This 2% is going to balloon to at least 15% with the additional government bureaucracy. (Figure 1)

clip_image002

Figure 1

 

Who loses? The consumers of healthcare, the patients and the taxpayers lose. President Obama’s preference is rich tax payers.

“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.”

The bill also outlaws the sale of health savings accounts.

“The Democrats want to crush that alternative because nothing gives individuals more control over their medical care, and the government less, than HSAs.”

All my readers know that Medical Savings Accounts not Health Savings Accounts are the answer to giving patients control of their healthcare dollar. The Democrats want to control the people and not permit freedom of choice.

“Neither the government nor the President has the constitutional nor moral authority to outlaw private markets in which parties voluntarily participate. Government shouldn’t be killing business opportunities, or limiting choices, or legislating major changes in Americans’ lives.”

With the house bill the public option becomes a mandate forcing citizens to buy government healthcare. A free people should be outraged at limitation of freedom of choice.

The Kennedy Senate bill has restricted input from the Republicans. Republicans have had to present 398 amendments to the Kennedy bill. All have been rejected.

“Unless you’ve been carefully watching the mark-up of the Kennedy health bill, you wouldn’t be aware that Senators have been battling over many of the 398 amendments proposed to the legislation. You also wouldn’t know that all attempts to protect patients from health care rationing were defeated.”

President Obama has already funded 1.1 billion dollars for Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER). The research is supposed to compare the clinical and/or cost-effectiveness of two health care treatments for the same condition.

The Kennedy bill expands the role for CER. Sen. Pat Roberts’ (R-KS) amendment ,Sen. Tom Coburn’s (R-OK) amendment, Sen. Mike Enzi’s (R-NV) amendment, would all have prevented the use of CER to ration or deny care or mandate coverage. All three were defeated by straight Democratic Party-line votes. This action has gotten little public attention in the general media.

“If CER can be used by the government to make payment, treatment, and coverage decisions, it could also be used as a rationing tool.”

“One of the key issues emerging in the national health care debate is whether or not there will be official limits on the kinds of care, medical treatments, or procedures that Americans can get. As The Post reporter noted, when asked a specific question on this issue, the President failed to respond.

The Democratic Senators on Senator Kennedy’s Committee have responded in a way that would astonish and outrage and most ordinary Americans.

”The truth is that with legislation authorizing the federal government to make key decisions on medical benefits and medical procedures, dictating the kinds of health benefits Americans will and will not have in the government-approved health insurance plans, federal officials would retain enormous power over the kind of care Americans would receive.”

The President has repeatedly promised that if you enjoy your relationship with your doctor, his proposals would not interfere with that relationship. If CER powers are expanded rationing will occur, and government policy would destroy the doctor-patient relationship.

WAKE UP AMERICANS!!

  The health care debate is not a battle over the uninsured, over rules governing insurance markets. It is a debate over government controlling our freedom of choice. It is not even a debate. It is a SPEEDING TRAIN.

Let your Senators and Representatives know the proposals are unacceptable.  Write, fax,call,email,twitter. Tell them:

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

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

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


Additional Reading: IBD Exchttp://www.ibdeditorials.com/series26.aspxlusive Series: Government-Run Healthcare: A Prescription For Failure


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:

Here Comes The Judge!

 

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

 

Here Comes The Judge!!

President Obama has promised that the savings of his healthcare reform plan would be budget neutral. The Congressional Budget office has contradicted his statement by scoring the proposed bills and predicting it will generate at least 1.5 trillion dollars deficit over 10 years. The independent HSI Network scored the House’s initial draft at a heart-stopping $3.5 trillion.

Congress is trying to figure out how to generate increased tax revenue to pay for the healthcare reform plan. The popular press has not discussed the congressional proposals for raising taxes

House and Senate Democrats appeared yesterday to be on a collision course over how to pay for a sweeping overhaul of the nation’s healthcare system, with the House planning to propose an income tax increase on the wealthiest Americans”

Congress is going to raise taxes for healthcare reform. The President has not opposed the notion. No one is talking about the real issues. The real issue is to fix the defects in the healthcare system effectively.

Can Americans trust politicians? Americans want universal healthcare, affordable healthcare coverage, access to care and an increase in quality of care. President Obama’s generality promises this. He never goes into the details.

“Senate negotiators had been considering a tax on some employer-provided health benefits.”

The Democrats are trying to figure out who to tax first to cover the 1.5-3.5 trillion dollar deficit that will be created by President Obama’s healthcare reform plan. They have decided to tax the “rich.”

Taxing the rich has not worked in the past for many reasons. The house proposal presently is a surcharge on the rich in addition to raising the tax rate to 39%.

“The House Ways and Means Committee was said to be nearing agreement on an income tax surcharge of 2 percent or more on Americans with the highest incomes – those earning more than $250,000. The surtax would rise for those earning $500,000 and rise again for those earning more than $1 million.”

Tax the rich to help the poor. The rich usually disappear as a taxable entity when this occurs.

One commenter said;

Look, the "Rich" don’t pay taxes. The Kennedys don’t pay taxes. Their money is in offshore trusts. George Soris doesn’t pay taxes. Al Gore is making bazillions off his energy soapbox but he’s not paying taxes.
This will all come out of the hides of the middle class, until we have meaningful tax reform
.”

The Senate and the House are now fighting over which tax increases should be incorporated into the healthcare bill. I suspect the public will become aware of the tax increases after they are passed.

“A proposed sales tax on sodas and other sugary drinks and a new payroll tax of 0.3 percent to be paid by employees and employers was in favor last week but has gone underground for now.”

There are lots of ideas on how to increase taxes to pay for President Obama’s healthcare reform plan.

“The Senate seemed to be narrowing their focus on a plan that would tax only the most generous employer-provided health plans – those worth $25,000 or more a year – as well as a modified limit on tax deductions proposed by Obama.”

Democrats’ mode of operation is first spend and then tax. I believe all large employers will have their employees buy insurance through the public option. The penalty will cost less than providing healthcare insurance

“Senators are also considering a plan to apply the Medicare payroll tax of 1.45 percent to nonwage income like dividends and capital gains.”

Congress seems to be doing everything in its power to decrease investment incentives in the name of healthcare reform without even realizing what they are doing. Investment incentives have made America strong.

“One tax increase would bar drug companies from deducting the cost of advertisements as a business expense on their corporate tax returns.”

If congress wanted to fix the healthcare system and lower costs they would restrict direct to public advertising completely.

“Another would end a tax break for healthcare flexible spending accounts.”

Democrats in congress are going to increase taxes in multiple ways to pay for President Obama’s healthcare reform.

“Senators don’t like to raise revenues,’’ Baucus said, using a euphemism for tax increases.

The White House has not expressed a position on the surtax, but lawmakers said they had heard no objections so far.

It seems to me the Democrats have not learned anything in the last 50 years.

They have not learned that :

Entitlements are bottomless pits.

The public does not like bottomless pits because it leads to tax increases.

Increasing tax leads to a decrease in economic growth by decreasing innovation and risk taking.

Government’s role should be to make rules that level the playing field for all the stakeholders and then get out of the way. (Adam Smith)

I believe the Democrats are heading for another 1994 congressional debacle without the Republicans doing one smart thing. The Obama healthcare plan is doing nothing to improve in the healthcare system. Congress is going to pass a bill that spends a lot of money and accomplishes nothing

The Obama method lets others do his dirty work. He makes sure it is what he approves as he stays on the high road.

Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, who visited the Capitol twice this week to discuss healthcare proposals with House Democrats.

He said the president would prefer that money to pay for the legislation come from within the healthcare system.

But unlike a tax on employer-provided benefits, which Obama opposed during the presidential campaign, a tax on the wealthy would be in keeping with his promise not to raise taxes on Americans earning less than $250,000 a year.

America’s healthcare system’s costs are going to escalate with Obama’s healthcare plan just as they have in Massachusetts. The President will be forced to raise taxes even further.

I am afraid this will not stimulate a faltering economy. It will make it worse. With increasing taxes we will all be on the way toward working for the government.

“The trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money” –Margaret Thatcher.

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:

The Obama Method

 

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

In the last six President Obama has pushed through congress much legislation. Legislation that will increase the budget deficit to at least $3.4 trillion dollars. Republicans have been unable to express effective opposition because of President Obama’s political tactics.

Much of government spending in the past is has been riddled with inefficiency and unintended consequences. The intent might have been to help the little guy but has consistently created an advantage for large corporations.

How does President Obama do it? Jonthan Chait of the New Republic, a liberal periodical, described the process.

“The thing that people haven’t figured out about President Obama’s conduct of foreign policy is that it’s the same as his conduct of domestic policy. Obama believes in the power of negotiation and public dialogue to split his adversaries–Republicans at home, Islamists abroad–and strengthen his own position.

President Obama begins by finding common ground with his enemies. He then expresses respect for their core beliefs. He follows with profuse hope for cooperation.

“This rhetoric removes the locus of debate from the realm of tribal conflict– red state versus blue state, Islam versus America–and puts it onto specific questions–Is the American health care system fair? Is terrorism justified?– where Obama believes he can win support from soft adherents of the opposing camp.”

He keeps the agreement general as he moves the process along. However, the devil is in the details. The common ground in healthcare does not solve the healthcare system’s problems.

Universal healthcare, affordable cost and increased quality are the common ground.He then leaves it up to the congress to write the law. The underlying strategy is to throw money at the problem even if the strategy will fail. The leaders from both parties are starting to see through this tactic.

“In January 2008, Obama told a newspaper editorial board that Ronald Reagan provided a "sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing." Paul Krugman complained, "Where in his remarks was the clear declaration that Reaganomics failed?"

Most Democrats believe Reagonomics failed. They are angered at how President Obama could applaud Reagonomics. I believe it was a less than sincere attempt to stand on common ground with Republicans. He removes the debate from the realm of tribal conflicts. He avoids fighting with Republican over Reagan. The populous applauds because they believe he is on their side. He is then free to craft any policy he pleases. He promotes his policy using the new media (internet). He stays on the high ground and avoids discussing details or detail consequences.

“Obama’s method entails small acts of intellectual dishonesty in the pursuit of common ground.”

Greg Scandlen exposed President Obama’s healthcare whiz kids and their attempts to shape public opinion.

“ The Obama administration kids are Peter Orszag, Ezekiel Emanuel (Rahm’s brother), and outside advisors like David Cutler and Atul Gawande. They are convinced of their own genius. They think they can create the data driven management systems to eliminate $700 billion of wasted care in the American health care system. They are dismissive of any skeptics. Their very hubris causes them to overlook essential factors that may impede their plans.”

The key to fulfillment is to maintain Americans’ anger at the old way and desperation for change.

President Obama stays in a position to spin his story and paralyze the opposition. (Rope a Dope). He used Dr. Atul Gawande’s (an advisor) June 1 article in the New Yorker to demonize physicians. I pointed out that the article was a masterpiece of disinformation.

“ Dr. Gawande ,an advisor on President Obama’s healthcare team, had an article published in the New Yorker about a month ago that laid out in great detail what he viewed as the inadequacies of the health care system in McAllen, Texas.”

He pointed out that Medicare and Medicaid patients cost twice as much in McAllen as in El Paso. He compared the costs in McAllen to the cost of Medicare patients at the Mayo Clinic.

“He concluded that we needed to replicate the management systems (not-for-profit, salaried employees, team approaches to service delivery) of the Mayo Clinic in places like McAllen, and indeed, throughout the United States. Voila! Problem solved.

Dr Gawande omitted a few important data points. Mayo Clinic does not care for indigent,Medicare or Medicaid patients long term. He ignored the fact that Medicare has the machinery to discover and deal with cost outliers and impose heavy fines.
The Texas Medical Association checked on some of the data Dr. Gawande used and ignored. He overlooked the following in exposing McAllen’s physicians.

  • “Its population is the poorest in the entire United States.
  • It has the fewest physicians per capita in the entire United States.
  • It has the second highest uninsured rate in a state that is the Uninsured Capital of the United States.
  • It is heavily reliant on Medicaid and Medicare payments to finance its entire health care system.
  • It is plagued by very high rates of obesity, diabetes, lack of exercise, and overall poor health status”(chronic disease demanding long term care).

The TMA article explains the poverty rate in McAllen is nearly three times that of the Mayo Clinic. McAllen’s physician supply is half that of the Mayo Clinic.

"Where there is poor availability of outpatient care, patients are far more likely to seek routine care in hospital emergency rooms, where costs are high and diagnostic testing is more frequent. This is also far more likely to result in costly hospital admissions. The data that Dr. Gawande depended on – but did not report – show just this. McAllen has a pattern of unusually high inpatient costs, while outpatient costs are close to average."

Many intelligent people reading the New Yorker article believed physicians in private practice are crooks. This is the point of the disinformation. It is typical of President Obama’s method of winning public support.

If President Obama’s tactics succeed in crafting his healthcare policy the nation is facing a $1.5-3.5 trillion dollar deficit with zero improvement in our healthcare system.

President Obama’s tactics are becoming transparent. Everyone is getting tired of false hope. Policy and plans are ill conceived and destined to fail. However the cost will be dear to tax payers.

Wake up Americans!!!.

Share this article on Facebook!

Twitter!

Make videos for You Tube!

Get the word out!

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:

The Unintended Consequences of President Obama’s Public Option

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

What is the problem with President Obama’s public option? It guarantees insurability to all Americans of any age with any pre-existing condition. Providing basic healthcare insurance to everyone might guarantee protection from financial disaster from healthcare expenses.

An actuary would say the public option is actuarially unsound.

At the heart of President Barack Obama’s health-care plan is a healthcare insurance program funded by taxpayers, administered by Washington, and open to everyone. The healthcare plan is modeled on Medicare.

The Medicare model has two important problems. The existing Medicare entitlement is unaffordable. It will have to be funded in the future by taxpayers with some kind of income tax increase.

If enacted, “the public option" will soon become the single dominant healthcare plan. This would represent an expansion of the Medicare entitlement program.

Republicans and Democrats agree that the government’s Medicare scheme for compensating doctors is deeply flawed. Yet Mr. Obama’s plan for a centrally managed government insurance program exacerbates Medicare’s problems by redistributing even more income away from lower-paid primary care providers and misaligning doctors’ financial incentives.”

The defects in President Obama’s public option are multiple. The unintended consequences are exponential. President Obama’s healthcare team is not analyzing the public option’s defects and its effects on the healthcare system. The public option goal is to provide healthcare insurance coverage for the uninsured.

The government would charge employees a monthly premium for healthcare coverage. The premium would probably be the same or more than Medicare. The premium would be means tested. It would be calculated from all income reported to the IRS.

It will be cheaper for employers to discontinue healthcare coverage for employees and pay a penalty than provide private healthcare insurance.

“Like Medicare, the "public option" will control spending by using its purchasing clout and political leverage to dictate low prices to doctors. (Medicare pays doctors 20% to 30% less than private plans, on average.)”

The Lewin Group, a health-care policy research and consulting firm, predicts enrollment in the public option will reach 131 million. It will be open to everyone. The premium will be similar to Medicare premium rates which are not cheap.

“Fully two-thirds of the privately insured will move out of or lose coverage as patients shift to a lower-paying government plan”

Medicare plans to lower physician reimbursement by 20% in 2010. Primary care physician are having difficulty financially with overhead increasing and revenue decreasing. It will only get worse under the public option. The primary care physicians’ only option would be to seek other sources of income.

“Physician income declines will be accompanied by regulations that will make practicing medicine more costly, creating a double whammy of lower revenue and higher practice costs, especially for primary-care doctors who generally operate busy practices and work on thinner margins.”

Physicians’ overhead will increase under President Obama’s healthcare reform plan. Electronic prescriptions and Electronic medical records (EMR) are mandated. The government is going to subsidize some qualified medical practices. The subsidy for the EMR is estimated, at the maximum, to be $40,000 per physician. A functional EMR costs $65,000 per physician plus a sizable yearly maintenance fee. This subsidy will still be out of reach for most self employed physicians.

“Doctors will face expenses to deploy pricey electronic prescribing tools and computerized health records that are mandated under the Obama plan.”

The government must create regulations and compliance rules in order to control potential abuse. Physicians will need to increased full time employees and documentation experts in order to comply with the new rules. The government promises a crackdown on fraud and abuse and severe penalties.

Sixty percent (60%) of physicians are self-employed. Some of those physicians will be driven into large groups or hospital owned practices to spread their overhead. Some of these newly formed groups are having problems. Some physicians will accept a salary and allow hospitals to deal with the government. The trend will further serve to commoditize medical care. It will destroy the therapeutic benefit of the patient physician relationship.

The primary care physicians who stay self employed will be driven to cram more patients into their schedule in order to increase their net profit. This will further decrease their ability to relate positively to patients and their illness.

The existing trends will increase wait times already high (18 days) for an appointment to see a Family Practitioner and 30 days for specialists. It will also decrease the length of time the physician can spend with patients. The result will be to drive patients into expensive emergency rooms.

Physicians will be forced to close their practices to Medicaid and Medicare (public option) patients when they discover government reimbursement is less than their expenses. This has already happened with Medicaid patients.

Some physicians will opt out of public insurance and only accept cash. The next step is obvious. The government will outlaw the private practice of medicine. This action would be a challenge to the Bill of Rights and the constitution.

I have described some of the unintended consequences of very good goals. The goals are universal healthcare coverage at an affordable cost, with improved quality. I agree with these goals. President Obama is going about accomplishing these goals the wrong way.

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:

Medicare is Not Cheap For Either Seniors Or The Government: Part 3: The Real Issues Needed To Be Solved To Reform The Healthcare System Reform

 

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

President Obama is pushing a healthcare reform plan that will fail. However something has to happen and he is creating a populous uprising.

The reason it will fail if his healthcare reform plan is passed is the government cannot afford to pay for Medicare coverage for all. . Expanding coverage to the entire population will create bigger unsustainable defects in addition to the present unsustainable defects for seniors.

Private corporations and small businesses cannot afford to pay for private healthcare insurance coverage either. It is looking for a way to unload their private insurance obligation. The public option will be a way to do it.

This is the dilemma. The present public debate is not discussing the real issues. Healthcare coverage should be universally available at an affordable cost and be high quality. There is no argument with President Obama’s goals. The route he is taking will increase bureaucracy, decrease efficiency of medical care, restrict access to care, decrease quality of care and increase the cost of care. It will also increase government control over healthcare delivery and decrease patient choice.

What are President Obama’s options for reducing the cost of healthcare coverage if he gets his proposal passed?

a. Reduce the medical care coverage to patients

b. Ration care

c. Increase the patient deductible costs

d. Increase patients premiums

e. Decrease payment to physicians and hospitals

f. Decrease administrative waste

g. Decrease profits of healthcare insurance companies who will be the government’s administrative service provider. .

h. Decrease unnecessary medical treatments. Who decides what is unnecessary?

Other options not on the table

i. Develop a plan for end of life ethical decisions. Politicians are not interested in discussing this issue.

I wonder what Ted Kennedy’s bill will be and who will be paying it?

j. Decrease defensive medicine practices by instituting effective tort reform. President Obama said he is not considering this and received boo’s at the AMA meeting. He believes the lawyer claim that the cost is insignificant.

k. Decrease physicians’ overhead by decreasing rent, paperwork, committee meetings and needed full time employees for the excessive administrative work.

The government should develop an ideal electronic record and charge users by the click. Upgrades and maintenance would be free. It would create a completely functional EMR. President Obama 50 billion dollar plan will make vendors rich and have little impact on electronic medical record development.

l. Decrease Healthcare insurance industry’s administrative waste. It will not occur in a non price transparent and cost transparent environment.

m. Decrease patient abuse or the healthcare system.

n. Fund effective chronic disease management program.

There is no plan for re-teaching physicians how to run chronic disease management programs. A few poorly designed studies outsourced chronic disease management to proprietary disease management companies. The failed to report improvement in outcomes because they were not extensions of the primary physicians care.

o. Define responsibilities in the therapeutic unit (physician and patient). Patient physician contracts for chronic disease.

Who is responsible for the defects in the healthcare system leading to increased costs?

I believe these are the key questions to ask. Once answered, systems can be set up to correct the defects. The easiest group to blame is physicians. They are the least organized, the least effective lobbying group and the least generous to politicians.

1. Who is responsible for obesity?

Patients become obese by overeating and under exercising. Food industry by producing cheap high caloric value processed food. Government through subsides encourages food industry and farm industry to produce these food. There is little public service campaign to discourage obesity.

2. Who is responsible for AID’s infection?

Patients by sexual habits and behavior. Government has conducted public service education campaign that has encouraged effective prevention but has not been intense enough.

3. Who is responsible for drug and alcohol addiction?

Patients are responsible for their behavior. There are no public service campaigns that discourage this behavior. Many of our entertainment icons encourage the masses misbehavior.

4. Who is responsible for smoking?

Patients are responsible for this behavior. Government has been effective in promoting a non smoking policy. The tobacco companies have gotten around government efforts. Agricultural policy has not discouraged tobacco growth.

5. Who is responsible for air pollution leading to chronic lung disease, asthma and lung cancer?

The government is with its lack of a coherent environmental policy. The bill passed by the House of Representatives does not decrease pollution. It increases the cost to pollute. It is defective in have many negative exceptions.

6. Who is responsible for the epidemic of Diabetes Mellitus, lung disease, end stage renal disease, and osteoporosis?

All the stakeholders with the government most responsible for not having a positive health policy

6. Who is responsible for the high cost of insurance?

The healthcare insurance industry with the nature of its price structure, the practice of defensive medicine by physicians, the patients with first dollar coverage, the government by not enforcing regulations.

The Obama administration is focused on the wrong reforms. It is talking about expanding a broken non functioning system. All the actions by the various stakeholders are driven by perverse incentives. All of these perverse incentives are driven by economics. The economic morass has evolved since the introduction of Medicare in 1965. Most political decisions are driven by vested interests protecting their economic interests.

In order to create an affordable and functioning healthcare system for all, President Obama and his team should be discussing how to align all the stakeholders’ vested interests so all are satisfied with the economic outcomes. The consumers are the primary stakeholder. The systems should be built to empower the consumers. President Obama should be focused on decreasing these factors and issues that stimulating our excessively expensive and dysfunctional healthcare system.

With his stimulus program for electronic medical records and his proposed healthcare plan he is throwing good money after bad. The money will be wasted and the healthcare system will not be improved. More people will be covered by healthcare insurance. The healthcare insurance coverage will be restricted by the government as a third party and not by the patients. Less medical care will be available and that will be bad.

I discuss most of these issues and the solutions in my blog http://stan.feld.com. The summary blogs are at   http://stanleyfeldmdmace.typepad.com/repairing_the_healthcare_/2009/06/summary-blogs-to-repair-the-healthcare-system.html

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:

Medicare is Not Cheap For Either Seniors Or The Government: Part 2; The Government

 

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

Medicare is partially funded through payroll taxes of the workforce for the benefit of seniors. The unfunded liability of the government for seniors is enormous. It gets bigger each year. As baby boomers reach Medicare age the government unfunded liability is going to escalate more rapidly.

President Obama and the Democratic controlled congress are ignoring the Medicare trustee annual report of Medicare’s unfunded liabilities. They keep promising us the public option will provide the same insurance the congress receives under Medicare Part C. The only way to fix the unfunded liabilities is to decrease services or increase taxes or both. These reports are public information.

Medicare is funded by a combination of dedicated revenues (payroll taxes, beneficiary premiums, and state payments) and general revenues.

“Medicare’s Hospital Insurance (HI) trust fund, (Medicare Part A) financed by payroll taxes, is currently running a deficit and is projected to be exhausted by 2019” according to the 2005 Medicare trustee report.

“Conversely, the Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI) trust funds’( Medicare Part B and Part D ) which cover outpatient services and prescription drugs, never face a deficit nor become exhausted, because annual adjustments are made each year—mainly drawing more from general revenues—to match expected costs.”

Nevertheless, with projected increases in demands on the Medicare program by retiring baby boomers and rising health costs, growth in program expenditures, which are already heavily reliant on general revenues, will soon require additional taxpayer funding.

The projection in unfunded liability in the next 75 years increased from $12.7 trillion in 2005 Medicare Trustee report to $34.2 trillion in 2007. The 2008 report estimated the unfunded liabilities will increase to $100 trillion in 75 years. These numbers are estimates for seniors only. If President Obama extends Americans covered under the public option the unfunded liability will be higher. The only way to cover these costs is to increase taxes, decrease coverage or both.

In 2006, total Medicare expenditures were $408 billion, or approximately 3.1 percent of GDP. But as a share of GDP, Medicare expenditures are projected to double to 6.5 percent by 2030 and nearly quadruple to 11.3 percent by 2081.

This was a 2007 estimate. In 2008 the estimate doubled. President Obama’s healthcare reform plan will knock the ball out of the park. $1 or $2 trillion dollars is a lot of money. $100 trillion dollars is unimaginable.

“The Medicare Trustees report shows that Medicare poses the single greatest challenge to taxpayers of all government programs.”

 

In 2005 Senator Judd Gregg R-NH, President Obama’s choice for Secretary of Commerce expressed the need for fiscal responsibility while the U.S. Comptroller General could not express the urgency in more graphic terms.

[W]e as a Congress has an obligation to try to fix [those entitlement programs] today so that they don’t end up bank­rupting our children and our children’s children tomorrow.

Senator Judd Gregg (R–NH)[1]

There is no way we are going to deliver all the Medicare promises that have been made. No way.

David M. Walker, U.S. Comptroller General[2]

Now we are hearing from President Obama that we cannot afford not to spend the money. The common invective about the Democratic Party is they are the tax and spend party. President Obama is turning the invective around. He plans to spend and then tax.

The administration is not testing reality. Government estimates are usually notoriously underestimated. In recent weeks the CBO estimated a $1 trillion dollar increase in the next ten years if the government adopts Ted Kennedy’s plan. $1trillion dollars is a big number. I believe the Congressional Budget Office is being kind to Ted Kennedy’s bill and the estimate of costs of the public option.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the agency that runs the Medicare program, gen­erated its own estimate in 2003 and has continued to do so every year since the bill’s enactment. Though not made public until 2004, the CMS’s 2003 estimate was $534 billion dollars in unfunded liabilities for the period 2004 to 2013. In CMS’s February 2005 estimate, the 10-year price tag of the drug provision is $724 billion dollars for the period 2006 to 2015.

Americans are being numbed by the numbers. A trillion here, several trillion dollars there and everything will be alright. Today the Medicare estimated unfunded liability will increase by $2 trillion in just one year without President Obama’s healthcare reform.

If the government really wanted to reform the healthcare system, be able to afford universal care and increase the quality of care to increase the health of the nation he would focus on the real problems in the healthcare system as I have outlined them.

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:

Medicare Coverage Is Not Cheap For Either Seniors Or The Government : Part 1; Seniors

 

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

Many people believe Medicare works well. Many people have said all we need to do to repair the healthcare system is lower the eligibility age from 65 to newborns.

America would then achieve a. universal care, b. affordable costs c. improved quality care. The healthcare system would be fixed. The statement is simplistic but popular.

Medicare coverage does work well for seniors if they have both adequate supplemental coverage and Medicare Part D to cover the Medicare gaps in coverage and drugs.

Medicare Part D( drug coverage) was poorly constructed. It was built to the advantage of the healthcare insurance industry not seniors. If seniors do not have supplemental Medicare insurance (Medigap) they could be bankrupted because of the Medicare deductibles and co-pays. .

Medicare does protect the senior from the retail price of medical care. It does guarantee insurability at a price not determined by pre-existing illness. It does permit choice of provider providing the provider sees Medicare patients.

Fewer and fewer physicians are accepting Medicare patients. Medicare reimbursement and coverage decline with each passing year. In many cases physician reimbursement is lower than the physician’s cost to provide the service.

This has been a constant battle for physicians since the government cost savings program was mandated in the 1980’s. Another 20% reduction in reimbursement is scheduled for 2010.

Seniors can still go to physicians who do not accept Medicare. However, seniors will be responsible to pay the retail price for the service. Seniors will collect directly from Medicare 80% of Medicare’s acceptable fee after they submit the bill to Medicare.

For example, if a medical bill is $200 and Medicare’s allowable fee is $80, Medicare will pay you 80% of the allowable fee or $64. The senior has already paid the physician $200. The senior’s out of pocket expense is $135 . If the physician honors Medicare $120 of his $200 fee is disallowed.

Medicare will pay the physician $64. The senior is liable for $16. If the senior has supplemental insurance (Medigap) the supplemental insurance will pay the remaining $16. .

The Medicare premium paid by seniors monthly is not cheap. The base assessment is $99 per month per senior. This assessment might not be affordable to many who are on a fixed income.

The Medicare Part D helped pay for prescription drugs. Many seniors cannot afford to buy the medication they need. Medication needed to stay well and out of the hospital.

1. Medicare has recently imposed an added assessment to the basic Medicare premium. It is called the Modified Adjusted Income Calculation. The IRS supplies Medicare with a senior’s previous year income tax returns. Capital gains, dividends, tax free dividends, and salaries are including in the Modified Adjusted Income calculation.

2. A married couple with a joint return and income from all sources is going to have an additional assessment of between $51.60 and $284 dollars per person per month depending on their combined Modified Adjusted Income calculation assessment.

3. The assessment starts at $160,000/yr and ends at $410,000 per year. A widow with dividends, capital gains, an annuity and rental income of $164,000 per year is assessed an additional $103.30 per month or $1239.60 per year.

4. This assessment is paid with pre tax dollars. It gets deducted from the Social Security payment. If a person has earned income in addition to passive income the person is also paying additional tax on his Social Security check.

5. The deductible of 20% of the allowable fee and the initial $992.00 deductible for a hospital admission becomes expensive quickly.

6. In order for the Medicare recipient to have full coverage for the deductibles they have to buy Medigap insurance. There are seven Medigap insurance policies. The best and most complete is the Medigap Part F. Several private healthcare insurance companies sell this coverage. For persons under 70 years the cost of the policy is $140 dollars per person per month in after tax dollars. The effective post tax cost per month is $200 per person or $400 per couple. The yearly after tax dollar cost is $4800 per year.

7. If you add Medicare Part D for prescription drug coverage, it adds another $24 per person or $34.28 dollars in after tax dollars per month per person or $822 dollars per couple per year. This cost does not consider the extra cost of the infamous doughnut hole.

8. The total premium for adequate Medicare insurance is $2244 plus $4800 plus $822 or $7866 per year. This calculation excludes the modified adjusted gross income. The modified adjusted income can add $619.20 to $3408 per couple per year to the premium. The MAGI creates a means adjusted premium. The maximum means adjusted premium is $11,274. per year per couple in 2008.

It should be clear that Medicare has its benefits. However it also has limitations because despite these premiums and deductibles the government’s unfunded liabilities for Medicare is escalating to unsustainable levels.

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

  • Shared Decision Making

    This is quite a comprehensive posting on medical coverage. It gives us some interesting insight and information no doubt. 🙂

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

Permalink:

Are The Wheels Coming Off?

 

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

During the past week the healthcare debate has increased in intensity. President Obama has drawn a line in the sand. He wants a bill on his desk by August 1, 2009.

It also looks as if his healthcare reform plan is being derailed not by Republicans but by his own party.

President Obama has also given the AMA a glimpse of where he stands on malpractice reform. He received boos from members of the AMA.

He has set out the fundament principles of his healthcare reform.

1. Universal coverage

2. Affordable cost

3. Increase in quality of care.

President Obama then asked key committees in both houses to craft a bill compatible with his goals. He is very smart.

“What the president wisely assessed, looking at what did not happen in the early ’90s, was that unless there was some real ownership, unless members of Congress owned drafting and crafting and did some heavy lifting and then owned the final work product, it wasn’t going to work.”

This is clever but it could be the down fall of any healthcare reform. Max Bacchus has presented Tom Daschle’s plan. Ted Kennedy has presented a plan that is fiscally irresponsible according to the congressional budget office. His healthcare reform plan completely ignores the warning of the congressional budget office. The House of Representatives released the Conyer healthcare reform plan that would create an even larger deficit than Ted Kennedy’s plan.

None of the plans from either side of the aisle are focused on the real problems in the healthcare system.

Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of health and human services, summarized the mood that is motivating the country to move forward. The country feels government needs to do something. She disregards the fact that what is done needs to be constructive and must repair the healthcare system.

“ I think the underlying factor is that the status quo is not sustainable and it’s not acceptable. And in many ways the economic downturn has shaken the status quo.”

Economically, emotionally, and morally the status quo is not sustainable. Everyone agrees. The debate is getting very confusing while focusing on the wrong issues.

In the early ’90s, there was a sense that doing nothing was an O.K. alternative. For some people it was better than doing something that they felt would lead us in a wrong direction. I really don’t know of a single stakeholder group or party in this discussion who is willing to say out loud doing nothing is O.K.

Everyone agrees something must be done. The momentum for healthcare reform is compatible with Heidi Klein’s “Shock Doctrine.”

If people are frightened enough about an issue they will accept any policy. She says this is the method politicians use to gain power over the people.

All the healthcare reform proposals are confusing and difficult to follow. At this point citizens are so frightened and disgusted that they relinquish their power to elected officials who they hope understand the problem. They assume these politicians will look after their vested interests.

I think the weight of inertia is always more powerful often than the forces of change. But in this case there’s an underlying turmoil, whether it’s people looking at the moral imperative, people looking at the financial imperative, and people frankly looking at what’s happening to our country in terms of health outcomes. Nobody feels this is acceptable

Kathleen Sebelius explained the legislative confusion away by saying this is how legislation works. The people want a bill.

President Obama is going to prove to congress that the people are demanding a change through his house parties and blogs calling for support of his healthcare plan. The Democrat controlled congress will have no choice but to give them a bill. The problem is the plan will make things worse as proven in Massachusetts.

When Secretary Sebelius was asked the question;So are you not concerned about the Congressional Budget Office release on the HELP bill? Do you think it doesn’t really pose problems? (The office “scored” the bill produced by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy’s committee as costing at least $1 trillion over 10 years, while leaving 36 million people uninsured).”

She said don’t worry. Whenever you see a big price tag and the notion that lots of people are not covered it will raise questions.

“ What I’ve been told is that we shouldn’t spend a lot of time and energy on that because it( Kennedy’s plan) is a partial hit on a partial bill.

I think the American people are tired of these general responses to some positive data by impartial sources. The administration believes all it has to be do is to respond by repeating President Obama’s generally accepted idealistic principles. The people will believe everything will be alright.

I’m still optimistic at the end of the day that a bill that meets what the president said all along, some fundamental principles — cover every American who lacks health insurance right now, build on what is working in the health system, so people who have coverage and a health provider that they like and they feel is good for their family keep it, that we have a new system in place to really lower costs over all for everybody and that we begin to drive quality, which is now available to some Americans some of the time depending on where you enter the system. So around those principles I’m convinced we’re going to have a proposal.

What are the details of President Obama’s program? What is the cost to the tax payers going be? Is the congressional budget office wrong about the 1 trillion dollars over ten years? Is Senator Kennedy wrong about 36 million uninsured because the government cannot afford it? How is the quality of care going to improve with the bills on the table when quality medical care is not defined properly? Is a board of experts’ going to be able to define and enforce its definition of quality medical care?

This is not the time to give in or give up!

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