Viewing entries tagged with 'Must Read'
MUST READ: NY Times - Survey Finds High Fees Common in Medical Care
Posted by The Campaign on August 11, 2009 at 9:55 PM
The New York Times has this must read about a newly released study by AHIP examining the costs charged to patients by out of network physicians.
A couple of key excerpts from the article:
"'It's the wild, wild West when it comes to prices of anything in the U.S. health care system, whether for a doctor visit or for hospital charges,' said Jonathan S. Skinner, a health economist at Dartmouth."
"The situation is so irrational, said Uwe E. Reinhardt, a health economist at Princeton, that it simply cannot go on. 'We will not emerge out of this decade with this lunacy,' Dr. Reinhardt said, adding, 'You worry about credit card charges, you scream for consumer protection — why not scream for it here?'"
For the full article click here. And to review the full study, click here.
MUST READ: Time - Why Taxing Insurers' Cadillac Plans May Not Cure Health-Care Reform
Posted by The Campaign on July 28, 2009 at 8:24 AM
Time has an article looking at the idea of taxing health plans to help finance reform legislation. Here is an excerpt from the article:
"It may seem like a neat solution to a thorny political problem, but as with every aspect of health reform, it's not nearly that simple. For starters, most large companies (1,000 employees or more) are self-insured, with a private health-insurance company merely acting as the benefits administrator. In these cases, Kerry's proposal would levy the excise tax directly on employers, whose extra cost burden could be (and many argue most certainly would be) passed onto employees in the form of higher contributions to premiums, higher deductibles and higher co-pays. 'It is not a tax on insurers,' says James Klein, president of the American Benefits Council, which advocates for employer-provided benefits. 'It is a tax on employers and, therefore, workers.'"
For the full article, click here.
MUST READ: AHIP Releases Study on Impact GRP Would Have on CA Hospitals
Posted by The Campaign on July 15, 2009 at 10:36 PM
Tonight, the Los Angeles Times reports on the health care reform debate and includes two mentions of a study being released by AHIP. AHIP's study, "An Illustration of the Impact on Hospitals in California of a Government-Run Health Plan that Pays Medicare Fee-for-Service Rates," examines the financial impact on hospitals if there were a large scale shift of individuals with private coverage to a government-run plan that reimburses providers at Medicare rates or Medicare rates plus 10 percent. For the full report, click here.
From the article:
- "California hospitals and insurers issued sharp warnings that a government insurance program could jeopardize patient care."
- "But AHIP is working to highlight what it says would be billions of dollars in lost revenues for California's hospitals should large numbers of Californians trade their commercial insurance for a government plan that pays providers less."
Key findings from the report include:
- California hospitals would face substantial net losses if there were a large scale shift of individuals with private coverage to a government-run plan that reimbursed providers at Medicare rates or Medicare rates plus ten percent.
- If only half of patients moved to a government-run plan that pays Medicare FFS rates, many California hospitals would be forced to operate at a net loss. If over time all patients moved to a government-run plan that pays Medicare FFS rates, every hospital in California would be operating in the red - a situation that is simply not sustainable.
- Even if a government-run plan paid Medicare rates plus ten percent, the data show that California hospitals would not be able to sustain a significant shift of patients away from private coverage and into a new government-run plan.
- If universal coverage was not achieved and hospitals were still burdened by uncompensated care costs, the impact of a government-run plan would be even worse.
MUST READ: Ezra Klein Examines Administrative Costs
Posted by The Campaign on July 07, 2009 at 8:48 PM
The Washington Post's Ezra Klein examines several recent articles in various publications comparing administrative costs between Medicare and private health plans.
To read the full article click here.
To learn more about the value of health plans download this report.
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.
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.
