ICYMI: New York Times Reports on Comparative Effectiveness Board
Posted by The Board on June 30, 2009 at 4:36 PM
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT
The New York Times has an article focused on a report released by the Institute of Medicine that focuses on what the priorities should be for the comparative effectiveness research entity setup through the economic stimulus package.
Here is a key excerpt:
"In a highly anticipated report, released Tuesday morning, a panel assembled by the Institute of Medicine released a list of 100 health topics that it said should get high priority as the Obama administration proceeded with a plan to spend $1.1 billion in comparing the effectiveness of competing drugs, medical devices, operations and other treatments for specific health conditions."
For the full article, click here.
MORNING HEADLINES: June 30, 2009
Posted by The Campaign on June 30, 2009 at 6:26 AM
“With Democrats deeply divided over health legislation, President Obama is trying to enlist the nation’s governors and his own army of grass-roots supporters in a bid to increase pressure on lawmakers without getting himself mired in the messy battle playing out on Capitol Hill.”
“This year, 39% of doctors said they’d communicated with patients online, up from just 16% five years earlier, according to health-information firm Manhattan Research, a unit of Decision Resources Inc. So far, the most common digital doctor services are the simplest ones, like paying bills, sending lab results and scheduling appointments. But patients like Ms. Rust are also using computers to deal with issues that usually require a trip to the doctor’s office.”
-
Politico: Health bill on summer reading lists?
“Passing comprehensive health reform was already a huge task. Now a conservative group wants a pledge from every lawmaker to actually read the entire bill before voting.”
ICYMI: NY Times Article on Health Care Reform Grassroots
Posted by The Campaign on June 30, 2009 at 6:15 AM
In Case You Missed It
The New York Times reports today on President Barack Obama's efforts to build grassroots support for health care reform. The article examines the different tactics and tools the administration are using in this effort.
A key excerpt from the article:
With members of Congress back in their districts for the Fourth of July recess, Mr. Obama's political group, Organizing for America, has recruited thousands of supporters to participate in blood drives, raise money for medical research and volunteer at community health clinics this week, all with the intent of sending reminders to lawmakers that the public wants action on health care.
For the full article click here.
POLICY DEVELOPMENT: Center for American Progress Health Care Reform Financing Proposal
Posted by The Campaign on June 29, 2009 at 3:08 PM
The Center for American Progress released a comprehensive health care reform financing proposal today.
From the introduction of the paper:
"In this paper, we lay out a set of policies that focus particularly on how the medical care system can be modernized so that it costs less and delivers more in terms of quality care. Alongside these policy proposals, we present options for guaranteeing the budget neutrality of health care reform through a series of 'failsafe' policy proposals that could be implemented as needed."
For the full report click here.
MUST READ: The Economist Interviews Tom Daschle
Posted by The Campaign on June 29, 2009 at 2:55 PM
The Economist's blog, "Democracy in America", has a must read interview with former Senator Tom Daschle.
The interview focuses on the process, politics and policy of health care reform.
Here is one excerpt from the interview:
DIA: You've said that you'd be willing to compromise on most things in order to get health-care reform legislation passed. What wouldn't you be willing to compromise on?
Mr Daschle: I don't believe it's helpful to look at health-care reform and ask ourselves what issues we will and won't compromise on. All options are on the table. That's what my colleagues at the Bipartisan Policy Center, Senators Dole and Baker, and I did when we developed our bipartisan health reform agreement. We had to make some tough decisions on policies that we care very deeply about, but in the end, we reached our goal-a plan that both Republicans and Democrats can support.
For the full interview click here.
The Economist also has two must reads from its print edition. We will be talking about those in a little bit.
Headlines from the Weekend
Posted by The Campaign on June 29, 2009 at 2:43 PM
“The cost problem has multiple causes, but a primary one is the overuse of medical services and technology. Today’s health insurance system gives physicians and hospitals little incentive to practice medicine cost-effectively. And as long as they can pass their costs on to consumers in the form of ever-rising premiums, insurance companies don’t need to be disciplined spenders either. To create the right incentives, insurers should move away from paying for each treatment or service performed for a patient -- an approach that rewards volume, not effectiveness -- and instead base reimbursements on the treatment plans that produce the best results.”
-
The Washington Times – Seven cross aisle for health care ‘coalition’
“Seven Senate Finance Committee members from both sides of the aisle have emerged as the key negotiators on a health care reform plan as President Obama’s August deadline quickly approaches.”
-
The Washington Post: Ruth Marcus – A Tail Wags The Dog on Health Reform
“The health-care debate is focused these days way too much on the tail and not nearly enough on the rest of the dog. The disappointing result could be a stubby little tail attached to a poorly designed -- not to mention astonishingly expensive -- dog.”
-
Roll Call – Health Care Ads Could Pick Up After the Break
“The intensifying health care debate is following Members of Congress home to their districts during this week’s recess. A long list of industry and interest groups have taken out advertising spots, are activating grass-roots networks and are planning Member meetings outside the Beltway.”
AHIP’s Perspective:
“‘We have really ramped up our efforts to engage the health plan community,’ said…a spokesman for AHIP, which will be involved in more than 75 town-hall and other events across the country this week. ‘We are encouraging health plan employees from across the country to get involved, reach out to their Member of Congress, talk about what they do and the value they’re adding to the health care system.’”
MUST READ: Ruth Marcus on Government-run Plan
Posted by The Campaign on June 28, 2009 at 5:46 AM
In today's Washington Post, Ruth Marcus writes about the health care reform and the role the government-run plan is playing in the debate.
Here are a couple of excerpts from the piece.
- "It's not far-fetched to imagine that instead of having a public system that trounces private insurers on cost, the public plan will end up being a more expensive repository for the sickest enrollees, holding little attraction for those in reasonably good health and doing little, then, to hold down costs."
- "The more the playing field is leveled, the more you wonder: Where, exactly, is the advantage in a public plan?"
- "...the difference in administrative costs between public and private plans is easy to overstate: Public plans would have to market themselves and collect premiums, just like private plans, while private plans, required to take all applicants on an equal basis, would be spared expenses they have now..."
- "...to work, the public plan has to be able to set prices and, at least at the outset, require providers to participate if they want to remain eligible to accept Medicare patients. Does anyone think that is what's likely to emerge from Congress? If not, is this really where all the energy of those who want to ensure effective reform should be spent?"
For the full column click here.
FACT CHECK: Medicare's True Administrative Costs
Posted by The Campaign on June 26, 2009 at 1:55 PM
The Heritage Foundation released a research paper comparing administrative costs between Medicare and private health plans.
Two important facts to consider:
- "...on a per-person basis Medicare's administrative costs are actually higher than those of private insurance--this despite the fact that private insurance companies do incur several categories of costs that do not apply to Medicare."
*****
- "In the years from 2000 to 2005, Medicare's administrative costs per beneficiary were consistently higher than that for private insurance, ranging from 5 to 48 percent higher, depending on the year."
This graphic illustrates the point very clearly:
MORNING HEADLINES: June 26, 2009
Posted by The Campaign on June 26, 2009 at 6:00 AM
- Politico: Baucus' 'coalition of the willing'
"Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) calls them the 'coalition of the willing,' a group of four Republican and three Democratic senators, including himself, that may well determine health care reform in the Senate."
"Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus said the cost of health-care options being weighed by his panel can be cut to his goal of $1 trillion, potentially removing a major stumbling block to the legislation's passage."
- The Wall Street Journal: The Dangers of Fannie Mae Health Care
"President Obama and most congressional Democrats say they want to preserve private health insurance. They also want to add a 'public plan' to compete with private insurance plans. Their basic argument is that a public plan would offer needed competition, save money through low administrative costs and zero profits, realize greater economies of scale, and be a superior negotiator of the prices of medical services and technology. The first three arguments are bogus. The fourth argument is only half-bogus..."
ICYMI: AHIP Testifies at House Energy & Commerce Hearing
Posted by The Campaign on June 25, 2009 at 5:41 PM
Today, AHIP testified at the House Energy & Commerce Committee hearing on health care reform.
For a full copy of the testimony, click here to download it.
Key excerpts of the testimony are below:
To achieve comprehensive health care reform, AHIP has proposed a plan that provides universal coverage, cost containment, and quality improvement. Our plan focuses on ensuring that no one falls through the cracks of the health care system, providing all individuals with portability of coverage and continuity of care, fundamentally overhauling regulation in the marketplace, improving information and transparency for consumers, taking bold steps to ensure that coverage is affordable, and clearing obstacles to the next generation of quality improvement innovations. As discussed below, this strategy would achieve universal coverage without jeopardizing quality improvement initiatives that are working in the system today, without exacerbating cost shifting already occurring, and without undermining employer-based coverage.
******
Despite the strong disagreements that exist on certain issues in the health care reform debate, we believe it is important to recognize that there is a widespread consensus among policymakers and stakeholders about the need for bold legislative action in many key areas.
For example, there is a shared agreement for moving forward immediately with sweeping insurance market reforms and new consumer protections, bringing everyone into the system through an individual coverage requirement, providing premium assistance to make coverage affordable, strengthening the Medicaid safety net, reducing health disparities, taking strong measures to promote wellness and prevention, using health information technology to improve health outcomes and achieve greater cost efficiencies, and employing innovative strategies to meet the needs of patients with chronic conditions.
******
Recognizing the potential that exists for major legislative accomplishments on these critical issues, we believe the uncertainty surrounding other issues - including a government-run health insurance plan, which we discuss below - should not be allowed to delay congressional action on key reforms that could be enacted with widespread support in the immediate future.
******
We are particularly concerned that a government-run plan would undermine efforts to transition to a high quality health care delivery system. Recognizing that the traditional Medicare program has made very little progress in developing innovative care management programs, we are concerned that creating a government-run health insurance plan for the broader population would result in tens of millions of Americans being enrolled in a new coverage option that lacks a meaningful commitment to care coordination, disease management, health promotion, and other pro-active initiatives that have been successfully implemented by private sector health plans.
******
Our complete set of policy proposals are outlined in a series of Board statements we have released since December 2008. We are strongly committed to working with committee members and other stakeholders to develop solutions for ensuring that all Americans have access to high quality, affordable health care coverage.
