Stanley Feld M.D., FACP, MACE Menu

Results found: 281

Permalink:

Watch Out!! Obamacare 5.0 And The Healthcare Insurance Industry

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

Ann Braly’s (CEO of WellPoint), article in the Wall Street Journal on February 7, 2007 and the announcement of a 37% increase in healthcare insurance premiums by California’s Anthem Blue Cross(a WellPoint affiliate) illustrates several points.

  1. The healthcare insurance industry wants Obamacare’s mandated insurance so it can service more enrollees.
  2. It is easier to hate the healthcare insurance industry more than Obamacare
  3. President Obama is able to ride in on his white horse and save Americans from the evil healthcare insurance industry.

Who wins?

  1. The healthcare insurance industry.
  2. The President and his goal to increase government. control over our lives and freedom.

Who losses? American citizens

1. Increasing government control over one-sixth of our economy

2. Increasing taxes in different ways.

3. Decreasing freedom to choose.

4. Restricting access to care.

5. Rationing medical care.

6. Infringement on our constitutional rights.

The healthcare insurance industry controls the healthcare system. It sets insurance premiums using defective accounting systems to determine an exaggerated overhead.

The States and their State Insurance Board control licenses to sell insurance. State Insurance Boards have not acted in the citizens’ interest in many states.

All the California State Insurance Board has to do is refuse Anthem Blue Cross a license to sell insurance in California. Anthem Blue Cross would lose 800,000 enrollees.

The healthcare insurance industry is the administrative service vendor for Medicare and Medicaid. The fees government pays to the healthcare industry are excessive.

The healthcare industry believes it adds value to medical care of patients.

The reason costs are rising so fast, Mrs. Braly says, is because the way the health-care market is structured doesn’t give providers reason to control costs. The solution is to "reintroduce the consumer to the health-care equation," and on that front, she believes, insurers "are actually the part of the health-care delivery system that is there to create the value."

This is an important statement. Medical care is the relationship between patients and physicians. All the other stakeholders are secondary stakeholders. In Repairing the Healthcare System the most important issue to be resolved is how do you provide incentives to patients and physicians to control costs?

The solution is that consumers have to drive the healthcare system not healthcare insurance industry.

Government control of the healthcare system will not control costs. Programs that penalize physicians and patients will not control costs.

Patients can control costs and quality with the appropriate educational infrastructure. At present most patients choose their physician by word of mouth.

Healthcare costs can be controlled by consumers controlling their healthcare dollars. .

“Mrs. Braly thinks patients will make more cost-conscious decisions if they have the incentives and the tools—namely, the information about cost and quality that is the basis of any ordinary market. "Data just sitting there is not helpful, and its got to be meaningful, provided to the doctor and the patient in a meaningful way," she says. Far from simply being a bill-paying outfit or a hedge against risk, she sees WellPoint’s fundamental role as making "the health dollar more valuable, less wasteful, more efficient."

Mrs. Braly knows her company owns the healthcare dollar. She wants patients and physicians to be directed by her company to be more efficient. If they are they will be more valuable to her company’s bottom line.

I do not think she will reduce premiums. . I think increased efficiency will result in greater profits for WellPoint. Consumers have to be incentivized to be responsible for their health and healthcare. This is the only way you will reduce costs and decrease premiums. The government trying to force cost reductions will fail.

I do not think President Obama realizes he is being set up by the healthcare insurance industry. He believes he is setting the healthcare insurance industry up.

He has refused the Republican offer for a bipartisan effort at healthcare reform. It is almost as if he and the healthcare insurance industry are playing bad cop, good cop at the expense of the American people.

President Obama published Obamacare 5.0 on Monday four days before his so called bipartisan healthcare summit. His proposal is almost a duplicate of the Senate bill.

Michael Connelly, a retired constitutional lawyer, wrote a dynamite review of President Obama’s proposal which he dubbed Obamacare 5.0.

“After much anticipation, at least by the so-called mainstream media, the White House has released the new and improved version of Obamacare.

Since I have already had to read two previous versions of these monstrosities in the House and two more in the Senate, I call this version Obamacare 5.0 and it is actually an easy read.

It is not hundreds or thousands of pages long and it doesn’t take long for people to realize that it really changes very little.”

The President’s proposal makes the bill more palatable to the American public because he camouflages the implications.

“Some members of Congress have grown increasingly more concerned about the implications that these proposals have for freedom in this country. In that regard the proposal fails miserably.

This is all an attempt to hide the fact that the bill is still blatantly unconstitutional.”

Michael Connelly points out that President Obama’s proposal exceeds the authority granted to Congress in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. It also violates the 9th and 10th amendments that protect the rights of people and the states.

His article is clear and precise. The critical details should be a wakeup call to all Americans. It is a must read.

I believe that President Obama’s proposal is in fact a ruse. It is designed to lure us into believing that the health care bill is actually about affordable health care when it is really about taking control of our lives and limiting our freedoms.

It is a cover for the fact that the Senate will try to pass this bill as a “budget reconciliation act” that will only require a simple majority in the Senate instead of the usual 60 votes.

We must act now to let our representatives in the House and Senate know that we are not buying
into these deceptions and that they will pay a price in November at the polls if this is forced on us.

During Nancy Pelosi’s call to action, she said if necessary they would parachute in and pass the bill.

President Obama’s proposal is a way to get a healthcare bill passed. If it passes it will cost Americans dearly. At this point he wants to pass any bill for the sake of saying he passed a healthcare reform bill.

His present proposal is the same as the terrible Senate bill. He will fail because he makes no attempt to be bipartisan.

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

Permalink:

President Obama’s Healthcare Reform Plan Is Failing

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

There are many reasons President Obama’s plan for healthcare reform is failing. The public is not dumb enough to believe the public option will work and save money at the same time.

The public does not believe that the creation of a new entitlement program with a massive bureaucracy can save money without rationing care. President Obama has not directly denied there will not be rationing of care.

The public does not believe President Obama’s promises anymore. He has been responsible for the mess created by the economic stimulus package, the bank bailouts, and the automobile bailout while increasing the deficit and devaluing the dollar. When is he going to bailout the people? He is increasing government control over our freedoms and limiting corporate ability to compete for consumer business.

The American public does not believe President Obama when he says he has saved a million jobs. Each month the unemployment rate increases as companies lay off workers. He said unemployment would not surpass 8.5% with his economic stimulus package. Unemployment is greater than 10% as Fed chairman Ben Bernanke declares the recession is over. President Obama said the bailouts would increase lending and yet small businesses cannot obtain loans.

President Obama also promised that people making under $250,000 dollars a year would not be taxed yet it is obvious that taxes are going to increase for everyone if the healthcare bill is passed.

President Obama has made many false promises and created much false hope. I believe President Obama does not understand the core problems with his healthcare plan. He wants to change the healthcare system but not eliminate its major defects. He is trying to impose a government takeover of the healthcare system. The winners will be special interests with increased government power over our lives. Patients will not be the winners.

There are no incentives for patients or physicians in his healthcare plan. There is only punishment and restrictions on access to care.

Americans deserve more credit than President Obama is giving them. America’s opinion is showing up in the polls. The problem is neither the President nor the Democratic congress is listening. The net result is going to be an increase in public anger.

“According to the Gallup polling organization, the percentage of Americans who believe the cost of health care for their families will "get worse" under the proposed reforms rose to 49% from 42% in just the past month. The percentage saying it would "get better" stayed at 22%.”

The public has no great love for the healthcare insurance industry either. The healthcare industry has abused its responsibility to consumers for the sake of profit. Consumers want a free market system in which the government makes rules to level the playing field for them. The public option will not do that because the healthcare insurance industry remains the administrative service provider.

President Obama is ignoring what Americans’ core beliefs in a free enterprise culture, namely the importance of individual choice, personal accountability, and rewards for ambition.

He cannot say “trust me” to take care of America. There are too many contradictions. Harry Reid says there is not going to be a public option one week and the next week he says there is going to be a public option. The public is weary of this double talk

“First, Americans recoil at policies that strip choices from citizens and pass them to bureaucrats. ObamaCare systematically does so. The current proposals in Congress would effectively limit choice across the entire spectrum of health care: “

“ The government will determine what kind of health insurance citizens can buy, what kind of doctors they can see, what kind of procedures their doctors will perform, what kind of drugs they can take, and what treatment options they may have.”

These limitations on choice are directly opposed to main stream America’s beliefs. Most Americans’ believe they should be responsible for the consequences of their actions.

President Obama’s healthcare plan removes individual responsibility. The government will take care of all of us at great cost to the taxpayers. The $1.5 trillion dollar cost estimate has historically been incorrect for other entitlement programs

“ ObamaCare discourages personal ambition. The proposed reforms will institute a set of government mandates, price controls and other strictures that will make highly trained specialists, drug researchers and medical device makers less valued now and in the future.”

Americans understand that when you take away the economic incentives new therapies and medical innovations of tomorrow may never be discovered.

A survey of the follow propositions were tested for public sentiment.

" (a)Government policies should promote fairness by narrowing the gap between rich and poor, spreading the wealth, and making sure that economic outcomes are more equal";

“or (b) Government policies should promote opportunity by fostering job growth, encouraging entrepreneurs, and allowing people to keep more of what they earn."

“Sixty-three percent chose the second option; just 31% chose the first.”

I have no doubt that President Obama wants to help people in need. However, he is proposing government control over a population that is extremely uncomfortable with increasing government control of institutions and businesses. The public is suspicious of government restrictions and proven inefficiency. They do not want to put their healthcare needs in the hand of the government.

I believe he missed his opportunity for effective Repair of the Healthcare system by not leveraging that repair congruent with America’s culture.

 

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

Permalink:

President Obama Should Listen To Physicians

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

President
Obama keeps saying over and over that Republicans do
not have any good health care reform solutions.

Republican
don’t have an agenda to provide health insurance to people at affordable
rates.”

It all depends
on the definition of a good idea. Is it one that will work or one that will
fail? A good idea is it one that agrees with President Obama’s agenda. If it
doesn’t agree with his agenda it is a bad idea.

By President
Obama and Harry Reid own admission they believe Obamacare is a good step toward
a single party payer. They believe Obamacare will fail.

Any idea that
interferes with President Obama’s is defined as a bad idea.

The Republicans
and thoughtful people with actual healthcare experience have plenty of good
ideas. They do not agree with President Obama’s agenda.

 

http://youtu.be/4-lnzEwt3HM

This program containing Republican ideas three years ago had only 807 views on You Tube.

Congress voted for the
law (only Democrats voted for the law). They have now exempted themselves from
the law because they realize it is a bad law. It looks as if Obamacare will be
a train wreck.

Image1
Image1

Perhaps that is where
President Obama wants it to end.

 

 As each day
passes Obamacare looks like it will be a very expensive train wreck.

 Physicians are tired of being blamed for the rising
healthcare costs. They are starting to realize that they have to take action to
preserve their professional integrity.

In fact, in a recent study by the Physicians Foundation, six
out of ten physicians said they would quit medicine.

Most physicians love practicing medicine but cannot
understand the unbelievably wrong direction President Obama is taking to reform
the healthcare system.

 Many physicians
are looking for viable exit strategies to avoid quitting.

The
Physicians Foundation commissioned an extensive survey of
nearly 13,575 physicians. Meritt Hawkins, the physician search and consulting
firm, conducted the survey.

 
“The survey found
that 
60% of physicians would
retire today
, if given the
opportunity—an increase from 45% in 2008. And it's not just disgruntled and
tired Baby Boomers who want to abandon their healing work. At least 47% of
physicians under 40 also said they would retire today, if given the
opportunity.”

The
survey pointed out many major problem areas.

Two specific issues consistently agreed on by physicians
were malpractice concerns and the need for tort reform as well as the lack of
cohesive leadership among all physician groups to represent the vested
interests of physicians and their patients.

This survey is an excellent and detailed survey that has
heightened the awareness of physicians’ practice problems.

The Massachusetts Medical Society survey pointed out the
scope of defensive medicine. I extrapolated findings of the society’s survey to
the nation.

My conclusion was that $500 billion to $700 billion
dollars a year is spent on defensive medicine testing. Tort reform would
decrease the cost incurred by defensive medicine over testing.

The Mass Medical Society survey demonstrated that
physicians are frightened by the multidimensional stress of malpractice suits.
Physicians will do as much testing as necessary to avoid a malpractice suit for
missing a diagnosis. Most physicians do not experience financial gain in over
testing. The hospital system does.

President Obama and his advisors have ignored tort reform
and defensive medicine as an insignificant cost. Ezekiel Emanuel M.D. one of
President Obama’s advisors thinks defensive medicine only raises the cost of
the healthcare system between $2 to $3 billion dollars a year. This is a
misguided bias.

The Physician Foundation survey notes that many policy
makers, academics, and others identify fee-for-service reimbursement as a key
driver of health care costs. Physicians believe that "defensive
medicine is a far more important cost driver."

 
Forty
percent (40%) of the physicians surveyed said "liability/defensive
medicine pressures" was the least satisfying aspect of medical practice.

 Sixty nine percent
(69%) of physicians said defensive medicine is the "number one ranked
factor" driving up healthcare costs. The survey described the ordering of
tests, prescribing of drugs, and conducting of procedures done "partly or
solely to drive a wedge against potential malpractice lawsuits."  

"Medical
malpractice lawsuits are common, adding an additional layer of paperwork,
expense, and stress in virtually every physician's work day," the report
adds
.

The government ought to be listening to physicians practicing medicine every
day rather than ivory tower professors who have never practiced medicine a day
in their lives.

"Physicians
understand to some degree that's the cost of doing business, but the defensive
medicine goes deeper than that, in the ordering of extra tests, doing the extra
procedures, and extra scans to protect [oneself] against a malpractice suit.”

Medical malpractice is at the heart of overspending in
American healthcare. President Obama and Obamacare have ignored it. Some states
have addressed it and the cost of care has been decreasing slowly. I believe it
will take time in those states.  If
anyone is sincere about bending the healthcare cost curve they have to take
defensive medicine seriously. 

According to the survey physicians
felt that there is a lack of a forceful cohesive voice representing them.

"There
is a systematic, endemic series of problems," Ray says. "Everywhere there
is defensive medicine, regulation issues, reimbursement issues. We are all in
the same boat. But physician representation is balkanized. There is not a
national organization that represents a majority of physicians."

When the survey asked which best describes
their feelings about the current state of the medical profession, only 3.9
percent of physicians used the words “very positive,” while 23.4 percent of
physicians indicated their feelings are “very negative.”

The majority of physicians – 68.2 percent —
described their feelings as either somewhat negative” or “very negative,” while
only 31.8 percent of physicians’, described their feelings as “somewhat positive”
or “very positive”.

A "least satisfying" aspect of
practicing medicine included dealing with Medicare/Medicaid/government
regulations (27.4%) and reimbursement issues (27.3%).

The American Medical Association (AMA)
represents only 15% of physicians, according to the Physician Foundation report. One of the reasons for the low enrollment is that physicians feel the
AMA does not represent their vested interests.

 Sermo is another physician organization. It is an Internet social
network. In less than 2 years Sermo had as many members as the AMA.

Sermo originally concentrated on
socioeconomic issues. It also discussed difficult clinical cases. 

The socioeconomic activity has recently
faded. Sermo’s power was using the social network to do instant surveys of physicians’
opinions on healthcare policy and patient care hassles.

These surveys were quickly disseminated to
the public as media stories of physicians’ opinions. It was done through public
service announcements and daily press releases.

Physicians were able to let the public know
how they felt about an issue instantly. It was very attractive. Somehow the
initial vigor stalled. Physicians are now left without a vehicle or organization
to express their feelings.

Government, the healthcare insurance industry
and the hospital systems have little desire to listen to the concerns of
practicing physicians. It is more important for these stakeholders to control
physicians. It will not work long term.

The Physicians Foundation Biennial Survey is
valid and accurate. However it is not dynamic or evolving. Neither the PFB
survey of the Sermo survey have gotten the attention they deserve.

Both are must reads along with the
Massachusetts Medical Society survey for those interested in physician concerns
and behavior.

Patients’ problems with the healthcare system
get less attention. The government and insurance companies tell patients what
they can and cannot do.

Repair of the healthcare system will only
happen when the American healthcare system evolves to a consumer driven
healthcare system with individual responsibility and patient control of their
healthcare dollars.

The reality is that health care should be as decentralized and regulated as close
to the people as possible, not run by Washington mandates.

This concept
opposes President Obama’s agenda.  

President
Obama has the power of the pulpit and has the gift of misdirection.

The
healthcare system is going to fail unless the public wakes up to the facts.

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

Please have a friend subscribe

  

 

Permalink:

Another Obama Political Campaign Has Started

Stanley Feld
M.D.,FACP,MACE

I have predicted Obamacare will fail ever
since its passage. Proponents of Obamacare believe Obamacare is America’s last
hope for meaningful healthcare reform with affordable care for all.

They now admit there are some problems
with Obamacare but little tweaks will fix it.

Obamacare is not America’s last chance for
healthcare reform. Obamacare is a series of regulations pasted on to an already
dysfunctional healthcare system. It is destined to collapse on it own weight
and regulations. There are over 20,000 new regulations to date with thousands
coming each week as we get closer to January 1,2014.

I believe the business model I outlined
using 2013 technology is the system that will align all the stakeholders’
incentives and provide universal care at an affordable cost for all.


It will provide freedom of choice and
enhance the patient physician relationship. It will be a system that is patient
centered as opposed to Obamacare being government and outcome centered.

An outcome centered healthcare system puts
the government and the healthcare insurance industry in control of medical care
decisions. It will control access to care and result in rationing medical care.

The passage of Obamacare was a political
farce.

The bill was slipped through the Senate just
before dawn three Christmas eves ago with only one Republican vote in both
houses of congress. Obamacare is not a bipartisan act.

Nancy Pelosi told the American public and congress
that we would not know what is in it until we pass it.

We have been told that most of congress has not
read the act completely.

The new entitlement’s start-up date is October
2013. The implementation date is January 1,2014. No one is ready for either
date.

 “The size and
complexity of the Affordable Care Act meant that its implementation was never
going to easy
. But behind the scenes, even states that support or might support
the Affordable Care Act are frustrated about the Health and Human Services
Department's special combination of rigidity and ineptitude.”

Individual
state governments have tried to get a clear idea of how Obamacare would work in
practice with the health insurance exchange.

 The states are terrified of the economic burden the health
exchanges could impose on their deficit-ridden states.

The Supreme Court has given the states a choice of signing on
whereas there was not a choice in the original bill.  

Some states felt they could not turn down the health insurance
exchange because the Obama administration was offering them too much money,

The Obama administration is starting to make preliminary deals
with states that have rejected the health insurance exchanges at this point.

The administration is giving Ohio and Arkansas more money to pay
for health insurance for people earning up to 133% above the poverty level. (Income
of $14,400 a year). This deal nowhere as creative as the Indiana Health Plan
and will cover many fewer people.

This offer will not cover people who really need insurance.

The preliminary deals with Arkansas and Ohio will be more costly
that deals with other states
. It is questionable whether the Obama
administration has the authority to spend the additional money.

As new regulations keep being produced none of the real hard
operational questions are being answered.

A regulation usually requires 60 days of public comment. The Obama
administration has unilaterally shortened public comment to 30 days. The shortened
public comment period for new regulations can be challenged by the states and
congress.

There are other problems that states are having with Medicaid and
Obamacare. Many feel that HHS is treating states not as partners but as serfs
to the federal government.

The central government is building a data hub to determine who is
eligible for Medicaid and Obamacare health insurance exchanges. This new
federal bureaucracy will dispense insurance subsidies and police the market.

Many states want to cut their administrative costs to balance
their budget. They are combining the application process for Medicaid, food
stamps, cash assistance and other antipoverty programs into one agency.

HHS's privacy rules say the hub can only be used for Obamacare.
HHS will force states to become less efficient by having a free standing
bureaucracy for Obamacare and has flatly refused to consider participating
states’ requests for combining all the agencies under one roof.

Twenty-four (24) states have still refused to participate as of
May 15th. The Obama administration will have to run a federal
exchange in those states.

HHS has not revealed how it will handle these exchanges. The
agency running the federal exchange won't reveal how it will operate.

The irony is that many of the states would participate if HHS gave
them more flexibility to manage their own programs and control costs.

“At a House Energy and Commerce hearing on Thursday, Obamacare
point man Gary Cohen all but took the Fifth on how he'll deal with this and
other challenges.”

It seem as if it is going to be a vast
undertaking that can not possible be in place in October or operational on
January 1st, 2014.

Chris Christie (N.J.) and Bill Halsam
(Tenn) wanted to participate but now feel the health insurance exchange in not
a sane or rational marketplace. The costs
and risks were too high.

This is all-or-nothing
political gambit is meant to put the governors of states not participating in a
bad political spot at home if they don’t participate.”

“At this point, the total administrative burden on the federal
government has massively increased. Yet neither the federal government nor the
states have the human or financial resources to discharge these tasks in a
timely fashion, making it highly unlikely that these exchanges will be up and
running by January 1, 2014.”

 

 

 Making things worse for
Obamacare is no fewer than 18 Democratic Senators came out against Obamacare's
$28 billion tax on medical device sales.


The list of Democratic Senators
includes Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin and Patty Murray. Either they believe it or
the lobbyists got to them.

The medical device industry has received little
guidance about how to comply with the tax. This has caused significant
uncertainty and confusion for medical device businesses.

These are some of the problems Obamacare is
facing.

President Obama is unfazed. In the face of criticism from
Democrats
about his incompetent implementation of Obamacare, he is going on the road to spin some misinformation and make it
look like Obamacare is great and his critics are political.

President Obama co-opted
Mother’s Day in his latest campaign to sell Obamacare that begins now and will
last until the 2014.

President Obama kicked off
another campaign-style effort to get people to sign up for the so-called
Affordable Care Act.

In a
statement dripping with condescension Obama tried to blame misinformation for
his health care troubles.”

He said, “Precisely because there’re been so much
misinformation, sometimes people may not have a sense of what the law actually
does.
   

He continued,   “We’re going to need everybody out there to make sure
they get the right information.”

“Don’t
just read a blog or some commentary from some pundit that has a political
agenda.  Make sure you know what the actual facts.”

Don’t
let people confuse you.  Don’t let them run the okeydokey on you. 
Don’t be bamboozled.”

Doesn’t this sound like his
political campaign of 2012?

President Obama seems to
have forgotten that a lot of misinformation about Obamacare results from his
statements.

Wasn’t he was the guy that
said, “If you like you doctor you will be able to
keep your doctor and if you like your healthcare plan you can keep your
healthcare plan.”

None of this is true
including free choice, affordable healthcare insurance, and free access to
care.

I wonder when Americans are
going to get tired of President Obama’s misinformation and false promises.

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

Please have a friend subscribe

 

  

 

Permalink:

Problems With State Health Insurance Exchanges

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

December 15th was the deadline
for states to sign up to implement state health insurance exchanges.

President
Obama was hoping all 50 states would agree to set up and implement health
insurance exchanges.

Health
insurance exchanges might be able to dis-intermediate the healthcare insurance
industry. They might also cause the insurance industry to leave the healthcare
business.  

If that happens President
Obama would not have anyone to provide administrative services for Medicare and
Medicaid.

Why
would President Obama be interested in expanding a failed entitlement program
such as Medicaid?
Medicaid is bankrupting the healthcare system.  States would 
go deeper in debt if they try to implement health insurance exchanges.
In order to survive states would have to increase state taxes.

Businesses
and people are leaving California in droves because of the real effective tax
rate will be over 60% of gross income on January 1, 2013.  

Governors
realize their state can have a competitive advantage over others in  attracting corporations to move to their state
if they balance their budget. They are trying to avoid this federal government
disaster. 

Over
60% of the population is opposed to Obamacare.  

States
refusing to set up state health insurance exchanges are reflecting public
opinion.

President
Obama’s goal should be to improve entitlement programs such as Medicare and
Medicaid so that the programs would save money and improve the healthcare
system.

 “Even
President Obama has recognized Medicaid is broken," says Mike Schrimpf,
spokesman for the Republican Governors Association. "For many states,
placing more individuals into a broken system would be like adding more
passengers to the Titanic. And regardless of whether it's federal dollars or
state dollars, taxpayers are still on the hook."

A total of 30 states are leaning toward rejection
of the health insurance exchange concept. Only 17 states plus DC have agreed to
run a health insurance exchange.

The federal government will have to set up 30
health insurance exchanges. The latest reports are the administration is not
prepared to set up run the exchanges.

As
of November 19, 2012, seventeen states, NY, MA, RI, NH, DC, KY, DE, W VA, MS.
NM, CO, CA. OR, NV, MN, WA, and HI have declared their intention to establish a
State-based Exchange (SBE).”

After my recent articles about health insurance
exchanges several readers asked why the health insurance exchanges were a bad
idea from a state’s point of view.

There are many reasons:

 1. States are under
no obligation to create a health insurance exchange that could create a large
financial burden to the state and its citizens. A Supreme Court ruling has given
states that option.

2.  14 states have
enacted either statutes or constitutional amendments (or both) forbidding state
employees to participate in an essential exchange function. It made operating
Obamacare illegal in the following states; Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Idaho,
Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah,
and Virginia

States passing these amendments was by a state was part of
the strategy to reject Obamacare.

 3. State governors
estimated that health insurance exchanges would cost the state $10 to $100
million dollars a year. State constitutions prohibit budget  deficits. Health insurance exchanges would
necessitate increased taxes.

Increasing taxes has a negative effect when states are trying
to lure businesses. i

4. Deadlines have continually been delayed. Concrete rules
and regulations have not been published. Uncertainty prevails as if a trap is
going to be sprung on the states.

 President Obama has
not yet provided the crucial information for
states to make an intelligent decision about setting up a health insurance
exchange. President Obama wants the states to trust him, sign up, and then
accept federal regulations.

5. States have been given the option to create health
insurance exchanges at a later date. Some state politicians fear the loss of
federal funds. Others see the federal funds as a carrot that will cost their
state more in the long run.

6. In the preliminary rules the “state-created exchanges”
are not controlled by a state-controlled exchange.
The exchanges are to be controlled by rules created by the Obama
administration.

7.  President Obama has authorized payment to the states
for start up costs and expenses for Medicaid Expansion until 2017.

Congress has not authorized these
funds. President Obama might not be able to get the funds from congress to fund
the states’ health insurance exchanges.

The states’ would be stuck with
the bill.

8. State officials responsible for setting up the exchanges
believe Obamacare will fail. Many feel it will increase private insurance
premiums and deny assess to care.

These state officials do not want to take the blame for this
disastrous mess that they have no control over.  

9. President Obama’s ultimate goal is to create a “Public Option”
and then have the federal government control all the stakeholders in the
healthcare system.  His ultimate goal is
to have a single party payer system.

State governors understand that public outcry will stop it.
States want to control their own destiny.

10. If the federal government must set up health insurance
exchanges because the state refuses, the Obamacare law as written exempts a
state’s employers from the employer mandate of $2,000 per employee per year.

The Supreme Court called the mandate a tax but everyone
knows it’s a mandate.

11.  If the states
avoided the mandate and save $2,000 per state employee it would put the state
at a competitive advantage to improve the prospect for job creation. It would
protect individual and states rights. It would protect some tenants of
religious freedom that Obamacare ignores.

 There is no evidence that Medicaid is
cost effective, that medical outcomes are improved or that access to medical care
for the poor would improve.

“There is scant reliable evidence that Medicaid improves health
outcomes, and 
no evidence that it is a
cost-effective way of doing so.” 

In the short term it has been predicted that healthcare insurance premiums for the
middle class will increase by 50% and access to medical care will decline.

State health insurance exchanges
will result in higher state taxes, fewer jobs, and less protection of religious
freedom. States are better off defaulting to a federal exchange.

Neither the states nor the federal government has the money
to expand Medicaid.

Theoretically,
health insurance exchanges are a good idea. Practically, they are not.

If all states refuse to set up health insurance exchanges
and avoid falling into President Obama’s trap Obamacare will be doomed.

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

Please have a friend subscribe

Permalink:

Economic Incentives Motivate!

 

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

The use of economic incentives to motivate behavior is neither a Democratic or Republican idea. It is human nature to be motivated by economic incentives. The concept of individual responsibility is an American idea. It has been tarnished in recent years.

There is no question in my mind that government has the responsibility to be compassionate and help the needy. It is my view that government should help individuals help themselves.

The costs associated with Medicare and traditional healthcare insurance are rising. Every stakeholder points a finger at the other stakeholders as the cause.

President Obama’s Healthcare Reform Act is raising costs higher in anticipation of cuts in the future. He is in the process of forcing individuals to be more dependent on the government rather than promoting individual responsibility.

Obamacare will fail to control costs.

All anyone has to do is look at a Rand Corp. study of 29 years ago to see what works and what doesn’t work. After all that is said what matters are results in decreasing costs, not your political ideology.

The Rand Corp’s political leanings are more left of center than right of center. The Rand Corp tries not to be biased by these leanings in its scientific studies. Its conclusions from its own data are sometimes skewed to the left ignoring its own evidence.

The Rand Health Insurance Experiment looked at consumers’ healthcare consumption in healthcare plans with different deductibles as well as an HMO. It monitored the results and reported its findings in 1982.

The findings were:

  1. Patients are responsive to out-of-pocket costs (the more they have to pay, the less health care they buy).
  2. Changes in the amount of spending have no apparent impact on health care outcomes in most cases.
  3. Judging from the difference in behavior between HMO doctors and fee-for-service doctors, physicians are also very responsive to economic incentives.
  4. Consumers with high deductibles were as likely to cut back on useful health services, as they were to cut back on unnecessary care.
  5. The critics of the consumer driven model have used this last point as proof that consumer driven healthcare doesn’t work. They claim that these consumers will not get appropriate care if they have a high deductible and try to save money.

If health care was free, spending soared with no improvement in health status. In the government controlled model government has to limit individual choice of care and access to care in order to keep consumption of care down.

The 1982 RAND study proved to me that consumer driven healthcare can work. Healthcare consumption is driven by the economic incentives the healthcare system offers consumers, physicians, hospital systems, pharmaceutical companies and healthcare insurers. Consumer driven healthcare patients used services they felt were essential to them and did not spend money on services they felt were not essential.

A consumer driven healthcare system would stimulate the growth of full-service diabetes centers that would force physicians into competing for diabetic patients because patients would be managing their own healthcare dollars. CDHC could energize the chronic disease healthcare market. It would create specialized centers competing for the care of patients with chronic diseases. Preventing the complications of chronic disease with education about self-management is in the interest of patients with the disease as well as society. The medical care of the complications of chronic diseases consume 80% of all healthcare dollars. Consumers and physicians respond to economic incentives. The healthcare social contract is really between consumers and physicians not government and hospital systems.  

A 2011 Rand study of more than 800,000 families from across the United States found when people shifted into health insurance plans with high deductibles their healthcare spending dropped an average of 14 percent compared to families in health plans with lower deductibles.

In October 2010 Cigna released a report covering 5 years of real-world experience with 897,000 plan members, about half in “traditional” coverage plan and the rest in consumer-driven plans. 

All of the results show that CDHPs are working beyond anyone’s expectations.

  1. CDHPs save 15 percent in the first year, 18 percent in year two, 21 percent in year three, 24 percent in year four, and 26 percent in year five.
  2. All this while individual out-of-pocket exposure is about the same (17 percent) in both types of plans.
  3. Using Cigna’s quality measurements (which are wrong), there is 8 percent to 10 percent higher use of preventive services in the CDHPs.
  4. CDHP enrollees are 9 percent more likely to get evidence-based treatment in the first year and 14 percent more likely in the second year of enrollment.
  5. CDHP enrollees are five times more likely to complete a health risk assessment.
  6.  CDHP enrollees are19 percent more likely to work with a health advocate.
  7. CDHP enrollees are 40 percent more likely to use on-line cost and quality tools when making decisions.
  8. CDHP enrollees have a 13 percent decrease in the use of emergency rooms.
  9. CDHP enrollees are 9 percent more likely to switch to generic drugs.
  10. CDHP enrollees have a 14 percent lower prescription costs.
  11. CDHP enrollees are 21 percent more likely to participate in a disease management program.
  12.  CDHP reduce their costs by 21 percent for joint disease, 8 percent for diabetes, and 7 percent for hypertension.
  13.  CDHP enrollees are slightly more satisfied with their plans than people in traditional approaches (83 percent versus 82 percent).

Finally according to the Employee Benefit Research Institute(EBRI), 22 million people are enrolled in consumer-driven and high-deductible health plans.

In 2010 EBRI conducted “Consumer Engagement in Health Care Survey” (CEHCS) analyzing the behavior and attitudes of 4,509 adults ages 21–64 with private health insurance coverage.

The findings were;

  1. People who enroll in these plans are more cost-conscious than those who have traditional health insurance policies.
  2. 53 percent routinely check to see whether their plan would cover specific care, compared with 47 percent of traditional policyholders.
  3. More than 50 percent check if a generic drug is available, compared with 44 percent in traditional plans.
  4. CDHP enrollees were more likely than traditional plan enrollees to choose doctors based on their use of health information technology.
  5. CDHPs enrollees also were more likely to exercise and less likely to be obese compared with traditional health plan enrollees.

President Obama’s Healthcare Reform Act will eliminate consumer driven health care plans.  I believe this is ill advised. CDHPs have decreased the cost of healthcare by motivating consumers to drive their healthcare decisions. A government directed system will not achieve this goal.

The results above were gotten with Health Savings Accounts. The use of my Ideal Medical Savings Account increases the economic incentives for consumers.

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

Permalink:

What Should Be Done to Repair the Healthcare System?

What Should Be Done to Repair the Healthcare System?

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP, MACE

On March 10, 2020, Obamacare will be ten years old. Obamacare has had many failures. Obamacare’s biggest failure is the resulting distortion of the healthcare delivery system. The distortion is the result of all the stakeholders adjusting to Obamacare’s new rules and regulations.

All of the stakeholders had to adjust the way they delivered or priced healthcare to their individual advantage.

Primary care physicians started moving toward the model of Concierge Medicine. In order to have a primary care physician, consumers must pay primary care physicians between $2,000.00 and $38,000.00 annually to be in their panel.  The movement toward Concierge Medicine is the result of the Obamacare regulations, the healthcare insurance company’s reimbursement cuts, and the increase in malpractice insurance premiums.

Primary care physicians found that in order to make a living and pay their increasing overhead, they must become Concierge Physicians. This is to the disadvantage of consumers since they must continue to buy healthcare insurance.

The insurance industry has adjusted to Obamacare’s regulations by lowering reimbursement to physicians and hospitals while raising premiums. Insurance companies and Medicare Advantage programs have restricted enrollees to only certain physicians in their network and restricted certain treatments and access to certain specialists and groups.

It all goes back to President Obama’s statement, “If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor. If you like your hospital you can keep your hospital.” To my disappointment the AMA accepted President Obama’s obvious lie in 2010.

As the the government and the insurance industry decreased reimbursement physicians have had to increase the number of patients they see in one day in order to make up for their decreased revenue.

Malpractice claims and malpractice payments for claims have increased in most parts of the country. This resulted from a lack of tort reform by congress and the Obama administration. Physicians then increased diagnostic testing in order to cover all possible illnesses.  The increase in testing led to an increase in healthcare cost.

Obamacare has also increased the cost of insurance by requiring payment for additional coverages. The first dollar insurance coverage after deductibles are met has resulted in the overuse of the healthcare system. The government and the insurance industry are trying to decrease the overuse of the system by increasing deductibles.

In fact, some Obamacare insurance plan deductibles are so high that insurance payment never kicks in. People who buy Obamacare insurance plans cannot afford the deductibles and do not use the insurance until they are so sick, they cannot avoid being hospitalized.

It is impossible to figure out how health insurance premiums increases are calculated by the private healthcare insurance sector or the government healthcare insurance sector. It is impossible to figure out how the multimillion-dollar salaries for insurance and hospital executives are calculated. These expenses are part of why insurance premiums are rising.

It is also impossible to determine how hospital systems price their care. The government also pays hospital systems a premium for outpatient hospital care in an outpatient setting. The fees are at least 20% higher than in a free-standing private practice office.  

Hospital systems are figuring out how to manipulate their reimbursement systems to have an advantage over their competitor.  In New York City, Columbia Presbyterian Hospital System has accumulated ownership of many hospitals inside the city and its suburbs. With that ownership, they have acquired many in-patient and out-patient hospital salaried physicians. The hospital system is now demanding increased payment from healthcare insurance companies and the government in order for patients to use their system. The hospital system has hired many of the physicians’ patients desire to see. Columbia Presbyterian has gained control of the reimbursement levels in those markets.

There is an encouraging trend that was started by Keith Smith M.D. in Oklahoma City. Dr. Smith started a cash-only outpatient surgical clinic several years ago. He charges less for procedures than a patient’s deductible from some insurance companies.

This gives us some insight into how much fat is in the healthcare system expenditures.  Dr. Smith and physicians working in his outpatient clinics are happier and are making more money than they were working for local high-cost hospital systems in town. The patients are happier because there are no hidden or surprise costs.

.

Dr. Smith’s clinic is drawing patients from all over the United States. He has also inspired the formation of many similar clinics in the U.S.

This is not new. Specialists such as gastroenterologists have opened freestanding centers. They charge less for colonoscopy and endoscopy than the hospital systems. Radiology clinics have done this for many years. The hospital systems have, somehow, worked out payment for their higher costs with the insurance industry and the government.

Dermatology is a specialty that does not need a hospital system. Large physician-owned

dermatology clinics have opened. They charge less than the dominant local hospital system.  

Many of these large specialty centers have sold their clinics to venture capital firms.  

How the venture capital firms are going to leverage their investment is unclear to me.   

Emergency rooms all over the country are overcrowded because primary physicians cannot see all of the patients in their offices in a timely manner. Hospital system emergency rooms are inefficient and overpriced. The ER is an unpleasant experience for many patients.

Venture capital firms have opened free-standing Urgent Care and Emergent Care centers all over the country. (Doc-In The Box). Many of these centers are covered by nurses, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants. All physicians have to do is co-sign with the provider to get reimbursement by the government and the healthcare insurance industry.

This is not my idea of developing patient-physician relationships.    

If a patient has to be admitted to a hospital his primary care physician is not permitted take care of him in many hospital systems. Hospital systems have hired hospitalists to care for patients. A patient might see a different hospitalist each day of the admission.

What happened to the therapeutically valuable physician-patient relationship? This relationship is critical for curing much morbidity from chronic illness. 

 I have covered the Repair of the Healthcare System in great detail in the past.

 I have also covered the errors in the structure of Obamacare leading to the distortions in the delivery of healthcare and the increased costs of the healthcare system.

The stakeholders are physicians, patients, hospital systems, insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, and the government.

All patients want is to get the best medical care when they get sick. The interest in disease prevention is slowing growing events though many millions of dollars have been spent on programs that could help prevent chronic disease.

All hospital systems, insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies are interested in are maximizing profits and minimizing expenses.

All physicians are interested in is delivering the best care possible.

Patients and physicians are the most important stakeholders in the system.

The government wants to spend the least amount of money possible to enable the best care at the lowest price.

There has been little attempt by congress, the bureaucracy or previous administrations to remedy the defects I have pointed out.

 I have not seen any attempt by Congress to lower the price by decreasing the bureaucratic impact on the price of healthcare. Nor have I seen the exposure of the clandestine deals hospital systems make with insurance companies or the government.

I have not seen any movement toward decreasing the malpractice crisis in America. Tort reform has been vitally necessary for the last thirty years. It has been totally ignored by government officials.

These are some of the basic reforms necessary to start repairing the healthcare system. All our politicians do is kick the can down the road to the advantage of the secondary stakeholders and not the consumers.

These are some of the main reasons the system has to convert to a consumer-driven system that I have outlined previously.

Consumers must control their health and their healthcare dollars. They must be provided with an education that will help them control costs. They must be provided with financial incentives to control costs.

Copywrite 2006-2020  

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



Please have a friend subscribe

Permalink:

Americans Should Be Listening

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

Bernie Sanders and the progressive Democrats are not interested in learning from other countries’ mistakes.

Their ideology blinds them to the fact that socialized medicine does not work. I vividly remember John Kerry and Barney Frank telling President Obama that the Affordable Care Act needs a Public Option. The Affordable Care Act would fail if it did not have a Public Option. With a Public Option included they said America would be well on its way to a single party payer system.

They said a single party payer system is the only healthcare system that would work

President Obama told them he had a clandestine “Public Option” built into Obamacare. However, he was never able to bring it about.  

Progressives believe deeply in their ideology. They do not consider past history, present reality or facts. 

Neither does the American College of Physicians. In a position paper it recommended Medicare for All. It was followed up with a letter published in the New York Times with 2,000 signatures out of the 159,000 members advocating Medicare for All.

“In a separate but related move to the ACP’s announcement, more than two thousand physicians on Monday announced an open letter to the American public, prescribing single-payer Medicare for All, in a full-page ad in The New York Times that will run in the print edition on Tuesday, January 21, 2020.”

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2020/01/in-historic-shift-second-largest-physicians-group-in-us-has-new-prescription-its-medicare-for-all.html

I wonder how many of these signatories have any idea of what the economic impact of “Medicare for All.” I really wonder how many members out of the 159,000 would support the position. I know I do not support the ACP’s position.  

All progressives have to do is look at what is happening to socialized medicine all over the developed western world and notice it is unsustainable and its citizens are dissatisfied with it.

Healthcare systems in the developed world are failing even as the ideologs believe it is succeeding.

America’s healthcare system is also having many problems. Americans are dissatisfied with our healthcare system. The healthcare system has gotten worse since Obamacare was passed. The government is responsible for making our healthcare system worse. It has not done the things I have suggested to repair our healthcare system.

 The Commonwealth Fund (a private progressive foundation) with a focus on healthcare is certain that a single party payer system is the only viable healthcare system.

The report ranked healthcare systems throughout the developed western world.  In its 2014 published ranking the National Health Service of Great Britain was considered the best medical system among the 11 of the world’s most advanced nations, including Canada, France, Germany, Switzerland and Sweden.

 The United States came in last.

 Few “experts” have the time or patience to read the complete report or pick out the defects in the report.

Most people read the summary. The summary in this report does not reflect the truth about the evidence present in the report.

The Commonwealth Fund’s rankings of countries is contradicted by objective data about access and medical-care quality in these countries in peer-reviewed academic journals.

The Commonwealth Fund’s methodology is defective. Its conclusions relied heavily on subjective surveys about “perceptions and experiences of patients and physicians.”

Kenneth Thorpe made an important point by examining differences in disease prevalence and treatment rates for ten of the most costly diseases between the United States and the ten European countries with a single payer system.

He used surveys of the non-institutionalized population age fifty and older. Disease prevalence and rates of medication and treatment are much higher in the United States than in these European countries.

Why would that be?

There are many reasons for this finding. The main one is the availability of care in the United States compared to the ten socialized western countries.

Another is lifestyle and incidence of obesity in the United States. Both lead to the onset of chronic disease and increased treatment.

 “Efforts to reduce the U.S. prevalence of chronic illness should remain a key policy goal.”

“Americans are diagnosed with and treated for several chronic illnesses more often than their European counterparts are.”

Americans diagnosed with heart disease receive treatment with medications and procedures more frequently than patients in Western Europe.

In the past local peer review was all that was needed along with confidence in the treating physician’s judgment. This confidence in physicians’ judgment has been destroyed by excessive media sensationalism. The real percentage of abuse is small and easily discoverable by peers and the use of social media.

Cancer treatment survival rates in America are far greater than the survival rates in Britain, and countries in western Europe.

The reasons for the higher cure rates is the availability of early detection and treatment.

Cancer treatment costs are high. The government should look into the reasons for this high cost and try to lower the cost.

The Commonwealth Fund’s report does not consider any of these factors.

“Over a quarter of a million British patients have been waiting more than six months to receive planned medical treatment from the National Health Service, according to a recent report from the Royal College of Surgeons. More than 36,000 have been in treatment queues for nine months or more.

Long waits for care are endemic to government-run, single-payer systems like the NHS. Yet some U.S. lawmakers want to import that model from across the pond. That would be a massive blunder.”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypipes/2019/04/01/britains-version-of-medicare-for-all-is-collapsing/#d1df33b36b89

The NHS has a waiting list of 3.2 million people for admission to the hospital. In London alone over 500,000 patients are on a waiting list for diagnosis and treatment.

A large percentage of patients triaged as urgent after being diagnosed with suspected cancer have a 62-day wait time to receive therapy.

Consider how long it takes to get care at the emergency room in Britain. Government data show that hospitals in England only saw 84.2% of patients within four hours in February. That’s well below the country’s goal of treating 95% of patients within four hours — a target the NHS hasn’t hit since 2015.

Now, instead of cutting wait times, the NHS is looking to scrap the goal.

Wait times for cancer treatment — where timeliness can be a matter of life and death — are also far too lengthy. According to January NHS England data, almost 25% of cancer patients didn’t start treatment on time despite an urgent referral by their primary care doctor. That’s the worst performance since records began in 2009.

Today In: Industry

And keep in mind that “on time” for the NHS is already 62 days after referral.

Unsurprisingly, British cancer patients fare worse than those in the United States. Only 81% of breast cancer patients in the United Kingdom live at least five years after diagnosis, compared to 89% in the United States. Just 83% of patients in the United Kingdom live five years after a prostate cancer diagnosis, versus 97% here in America.

The British Health and Social Care Act 2012 authorized the use of the small private sector of healthcare to help the NHS with its problems.

The share of NHS-funded hip and knee replacements by private doctors increased to 19% in 2011-12, from a negligible amount in 2003-04. Each year there is an increase in NHS funded care by the private sector.

It sounds like the VA Healthcare System’s solution to its problems.

The NHS also routinely denies patients access to treatment. More than half of NHS Clinical Commissioning Groups, which plan and commission health services within their local regions, are rationing cataract surgery. They call it a procedure of “limited clinical value.”

It’s hard to see how a surgery that can prevent blindness is of limited clinical value. Delaying surgery can cause patients’ vision to worsen — and thus put them at risk of falls or being unable to conduct basic daily activities.

It’s shocking that access to this life-changing surgery is being unnecessarily restricted,” said Helen Lee, a health policy manager at the Royal National Institute of Blind People.

Many Clinical Commissioning Groups are also rationing hip and knee replacements, glucose monitors for diabetes patients, and hernia surgery by placing the same “limited clinical value” label on them.

Patients face long wait times and rationing of care in part because the NHS can’t attract nearly enough medical professionals to meet demand. At the end of 2018, more than 39,000 nursing spots were unfilled. That’s a vacancy rate of more than 10%. Among medical staff, nearly 9,000 posts were unoccupied. Many physicians have left the NHS and have gone into private practice. Many do both NHS service and private practice.

These shortages could explode in the years to come. In 2018, the Royal College of General Practitioners found that more than 750 practices could close within the next five years, largely because heavy workloads are pushing older doctors to retire early.

English people who can afford private care and private healthcare insurance to avoid the NHS are switching to private insurance even though they have to pay $3,500 for each man, woman and child in a family into the NHS.

Physician shortages are the result of inadequate funding. The cost of the NHS with all these restrictions are unsustainable.

The single party payer system (NHS) is struggling with unsustainable costs even though we hear from progressives how great socialized medicine is in England.

The key ingredient missing in all these systems is patient responsibility for their health and their healthcare dollars. Both are powerful motivators for healthy living and detecting disease early.

Copywrite 2006-2020  

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



Please have a friend subscribe

Permalink:

Healthcare Policy in The Post Truth Era

Healthcare Policy in The Post Truth Era

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP, MACE

 The government has been deficient in trying to do anything to Repair the Healthcare System.

Unfortunately, John McCain’s vote blocked the repeal of Obamacare which froze any progress.  His reason was feeble and politically naïve.

John McCain wanted congress to work together and have bipartisan agreement on healthcare reform. The entire majority of the present House of Representatives has no desire to be bipartisan or help President Trump create or pass any bipartisan legislation.

Democrats in the house only want to impeach the president. They have no time for positive legislation to repair the healthcare system.

I believe the Trump administration has the right idea. 

President Trump and his administration have decided to make structural changes to the healthcare system by executive order until it can make big legislative changes. Their hope is they win a more cooperative Congress in 2020.

We are living in a Post-Truth era.

Post-truthpolitics(also called post-factual politics[1]and post-reality politics)[2]is a political culturein which debate is framed largely by appeals to emotion disconnected from the details of policy, and by the repeated assertion of talking pointsto which factual rebuttals are ignored.

Post-truthdiffers from traditional contesting and falsifyingof facts by relegating facts and expert opinions to be of secondary importance relative to appeal to emotion. While this has been described as a contemporary problem, some observers have described it as a long-standing part of political life that was less notable before the advent of the Internetand related social changes.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-truth_politics

 The media is the message. Donald Trump threatens the Democratic Party, the bureaucracy and the traditional mainstream media.  He also threatens some of the Republicans.

He is a crude speaking person from Queens, New York. He has been called a brawler by some. He says he never starts a fight. He fights back. Many say he fights back in an unappealing way.

He says his goal is to drain the swamp. We have all gotten a glimpse of the inefficient and at times corrupt bureaucracy within our government. We can see the swamp’s depth only because of the Internet and the availability of alternate news opinions.

President Trump is working hard to streamline and increase the efficiency of the ever-expanding bureaucracy. He is a direct threat to their well-being. This is their justification for hating him.

The traditional mainstream media has promoted the Democrats’ agenda. They have helped obstruct President Trump’s agenda. The media has ignored or criticized the continual successes of President Trump.

It has either published disinformation or misinformation, ignored critical thinking on issues, or simply published non-truths.

President Trump has had no choice. Obamacare remained the law. It has been expensive and unsuccessful. It is impossible to know its yearly cost to the federal government. It is self-imploding and will disappear shortly.

Obamacare has just completed its open enrollment period for 2020. The enrollment period is supposed to end on December 15th. The Obama administration extended it to March 31 during some enrollment years. The Trump administration has extended the 2020 open enrollment period until December 31, 2019 this year.

85% of people who enrolled in Obamacare have a preexisting illness. The Obama administration has subsidized most of the premiums. It did not subsidize the deductibles. Obamacare participants still could not afford to pay the deductible. In essence, participants have no healthcare insurance because they could not afford to use it.

Open enrollment as of December 7, 2019, was awful.

2020 enrollment
http://acasignups.net/blogs/charles-gaba

There are only 6,134,477 who have enrolled in 2020 compared to 16.1 million enrollees in 2014. Medicaid was expanded by 9.3 million in 2014. With the Medicaid expansion, a total of 25 million people received insurance in 2014. 

Medicaid is a single party payor. It is inefficient. It has a problem getting physicians to participate because reimbursement does not cover most physician’s overhead.

President Obama decided to have the federal government pay over 90% of the state-run Medicaid programs for a few years.  The states, which signed up for the Medicaid expansion, did not have an increase in costs.

When states have to start paying more for the Medicaid expansion, they will have to raise taxes because by law they cannot have a budget deficit. At the moment most of those states have unauthorized budget deficits. Those deficits will become worse when they have to fund expanded Medicaid.

The mainstream media and Democratic congress continually publish the figure that Obamacare has decreased the uninsured by 20 million. However, eleven million were that result of the expanded Medicaid program.

2014

2014 graph

The numbers do not match. The government graphs are complex and confusing. However, they are very informative. The graphs tend to confuse us with estimates and actual enrollees.

 In 2016 the numbers decreased to 9.3 million with open enrollment extended to February 1, 2016

 2016

2016 enrollment

 Medicaid enrollment increased in 2016 to 15.3 million.  The Medicaid increase is included in the total number of previously uninsured, Obamacare provided healthcare insurance. Obamacare’s increase in previously uninsured is, in fact, an expansion of Medicaid.  The mainstream media use the number 20 million newly insured patients which is a misleading justification for fixing Obamacare. Some of Medicaid’s increase enrollment could represent the illegal immigrants who are now entitled to healthcare coverage.

2016 increase Medicaid

The net Medicaid increase since March 2010 in 2016 was 16.3 million. It looks like Obamacare’s goal was to increase Medicaid. The next step is to have “Medicaid/Medicare for All.”

2018 remained the same as in 2016, with many more dropouts because people realized Obamacare’s unaffordability. Since it was unaffordable, they realized they could not afford care event thought they paid their premium. Therefore, they dropped out and stopped paying their premiums.

2018 enrollment

2020 has been the expected disaster. Consumers needed relief from the Obamacare disaster. Obamacare has caused a further increase in dysfunction in an already dysfunctional healthcare system for people insured by Medicare, Medicaid and Private Healthcare insurance. 

Everyone is dissatisfied.

2020 enrollment

Only 6.1 million consumers have enrolled in Obamacare for 2020.

President Trump is hoping that after the 2020 election, he will have a friendlier Congress. Obamacare will be repealed. Congress will want to do something to help him repair the healthcare system. Meanwhile, he can only do some structural changes to lead us on the path toward an affordable healthcare system.

I predicted Obamacare would eventually fail when it was passed in 2010. Obamacare did not align stakeholders’ incentives!

Obamacare was destined to become unaffordable to consumers, the states and the federal government.

Bernie Sanders’ and Elizabeth Warren’s “Medicare for All” will suffer the same fate as Obamacare.

Most of all the taxpayers in the nation will suffer the most.

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



Copywrite 2006-2020

Please have a friend subscribe