The CBO Report is out on ObamaCare [H.R. 4872, the Reconciliation Act of 2010 combined with H.R. 3590, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), as passed by the Senate], stating that it will cost $940 billion over 10 years. Whether this forecast is realistic is for another day’s discussion. Never mind that it uses 10 years of premiums to pay for 6 years of claims.
What is not included is “the doctor fix” for Medicare, which is estimated to be $247 billion. This means that the present health bill is NOT budget neutral, but ADDS to the deficit.
Last evening on Special Report, Bret Baier interviewed the President [transcript]:
“BAIER: And you call this deficit neutral, but you also set aside the doctor fix, more than $200 billion. People look at this and say, how can it be deficit neutral?
OBAMA: But the — as you well know, the doctors problem, as you mentioned, the "doctors fix," is one that has been there for years now. That wasn't of our making, and that has nothing to do with my health care bill. If I was not proposing a health care bill, right — let's assume that I had never proposed health care.
BAIER: But you wanted to change Washington, Mr. President. And now you're doing it the same way.
OBAMA: Bret, let me finish my — my answers here. Now, if suddenly, you've got, over the last decade, a problem that's been built up. And the suggestion is somehow that, because that's not fixed within this bill, that that's a reason to vote against the bill, that doesn't make any sense. That's a problem that I inherited. That was a problem that should have been solved a long time ago. It's a problem that needs to be solved, but it's not created by my bill. And I don't think you would dispute that.”
This bill was to be a comprehensive bill. We were told it could not be done piecemeal. We had to have one bill. Suddenly, paying doctors for their services is somehow irrelevant to providing care for our elderly citizens.
Ignoring the facts, failing address the real access to care issues and failing to add up ALL the costs of in one bill because it isn’t convenient seems more than a little disingenuous, doesn’t it?
Showing posts with label Senate Bill 3590. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Senate Bill 3590. Show all posts
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Monday, January 4, 2010
States AGs revolt as House and Senate Bills expand Medicaid
Expect more states to join the 13 AGs who threatened to sue if either health bill is enacted by Congress claiming certain Senators and Representatives were given sweetheart deals to get them passed.
Forty-three states are facing financial deficits given the down turn in the economy. According to a CNN report December 10, "As states attempt to get their budgets in line for the new fiscal year, ...budget constraints are causing 25 states to reduce services to their residences. So far 17 states have already made cuts or are considering cuts to programs that affect low-income children's and family's access to health insurance and health care services." In the last House vote of 2009, it passed the "Jobs for Main Street Act" by a 217-212 vote along party lines, which provided states with some funding mostly for current operations, including $53 Billion for extending benefits/health insurance subsidies for the unemployed and $23 Billion for Medicaid.
Given that Medicaid is a program jointly funded by federal and state governments and administered by the states, it is easy to see why states are financially unable to expand benefits programs. It seems Congress is out of touch with the reality of the severity of the economic crisis and continuing politics as usual, in these are anything but usual times. Unlike the federal government states cannot just print money. Despite claims to the contrary by our politicians, neither bill seriously does anything to bend the proverbial cost curve downward. However, as mentioned before in this blog, both do an extensive amount of cost-shifting.
No one wants to see anyone without healthcare, but it's time we take the politics and politicians out of it. The reason why became clear in talking with a friend who is an Indiana State Representative. He said, "So much of what we do with regard to legistlation is in response to some horrific hardship case we hear about. We feel compelled to right a wrong, and so we pass legistlation. But we don't take the time to look circumspectly at the issue to understand the potential unintended
consequences of what we pass."
It seems Congress is using the same rationale my friend described. Poorly, reasoned laws are worse than none at all. Let's be financially responsible and fair to all our citizens. Perhaps the States can succeed in getting Congress to appreciate we need to be writing good bills rather than paying people off to pass any bill.
Forty-three states are facing financial deficits given the down turn in the economy. According to a CNN report December 10, "As states attempt to get their budgets in line for the new fiscal year, ...budget constraints are causing 25 states to reduce services to their residences. So far 17 states have already made cuts or are considering cuts to programs that affect low-income children's and family's access to health insurance and health care services." In the last House vote of 2009, it passed the "Jobs for Main Street Act" by a 217-212 vote along party lines, which provided states with some funding mostly for current operations, including $53 Billion for extending benefits/health insurance subsidies for the unemployed and $23 Billion for Medicaid.
Given that Medicaid is a program jointly funded by federal and state governments and administered by the states, it is easy to see why states are financially unable to expand benefits programs. It seems Congress is out of touch with the reality of the severity of the economic crisis and continuing politics as usual, in these are anything but usual times. Unlike the federal government states cannot just print money. Despite claims to the contrary by our politicians, neither bill seriously does anything to bend the proverbial cost curve downward. However, as mentioned before in this blog, both do an extensive amount of cost-shifting.
No one wants to see anyone without healthcare, but it's time we take the politics and politicians out of it. The reason why became clear in talking with a friend who is an Indiana State Representative. He said, "So much of what we do with regard to legistlation is in response to some horrific hardship case we hear about. We feel compelled to right a wrong, and so we pass legistlation. But we don't take the time to look circumspectly at the issue to understand the potential unintended
consequences of what we pass."
It seems Congress is using the same rationale my friend described. Poorly, reasoned laws are worse than none at all. Let's be financially responsible and fair to all our citizens. Perhaps the States can succeed in getting Congress to appreciate we need to be writing good bills rather than paying people off to pass any bill.
Friday, January 1, 2010
Social Safety Nets with Growing Holes
After much hoopla, Congress finally began its Christmas vacation last week.
House or Senate plan, public or private, it really doesn't matter - what the politicians seem to have forgotten is that any plan must be underwritten correctly and with the appropriate safeguards or it won't be solvent. For some reason, beneficiaries tend to get upset there is no money to pay claims.
The CBO takes a snapshot in time approach to financial analysis. This static accounting approach does not account for the way human beings react in the real world, a fact they readily admit with multiple disclaimer footnotes in all their reports. Rather, what is needed is an underwriting analysis of the proposals. Underwriters try to predict the future given past behavior, human nature, changing market conditions and nature of the risk pool. The fact that accountants rather than underwriters are determining the feasibility of our social welfare programs may explain why Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are projected to have a combined deficit of well over $100 Trillion into the future.
Underwriting isn't sexy enough for the politicians, which is no doubt why they ignore it entirely. Underwriting is risk assessment, and sometimes risk management; the very words convey dullness and boredom. No, it's much more exciting for Democrats to accuse Republicans of wanting you to die, and die quickly, and for Republicans to say that Democrats want to kill Granny. But where does this leave the American people? Don't we deserve better?
House or Senate plan, public or private, it really doesn't matter - what the politicians seem to have forgotten is that any plan must be underwritten correctly and with the appropriate safeguards or it won't be solvent. For some reason, beneficiaries tend to get upset there is no money to pay claims.
The CBO takes a snapshot in time approach to financial analysis. This static accounting approach does not account for the way human beings react in the real world, a fact they readily admit with multiple disclaimer footnotes in all their reports. Rather, what is needed is an underwriting analysis of the proposals. Underwriters try to predict the future given past behavior, human nature, changing market conditions and nature of the risk pool. The fact that accountants rather than underwriters are determining the feasibility of our social welfare programs may explain why Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are projected to have a combined deficit of well over $100 Trillion into the future.
Underwriting isn't sexy enough for the politicians, which is no doubt why they ignore it entirely. Underwriting is risk assessment, and sometimes risk management; the very words convey dullness and boredom. No, it's much more exciting for Democrats to accuse Republicans of wanting you to die, and die quickly, and for Republicans to say that Democrats want to kill Granny. But where does this leave the American people? Don't we deserve better?
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Senator Reid makes the Doctors Pay for Medicare under Senate Bill 3590
The politicians are claiming that Senator Reid's bill will save the country money according to the latest CBO report. Physicians were scheduled to have a 21% pay cut caring for Medicare patients as of January 1, 2010. However, under Section 3101, this bill provides for .5% increase for physicians in 2010 but assumes no further increases or change to the Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate formula which is used to compute physician payment rates. It is known to be a flawed formula requiring an act of Congress to "fix" each year. Politicians have always provided some nominal increase in physician payments, even if it has not kept pace with inflation. According to the Alliance of Specialty Medicine, "If the SGR formula is not fixed, physicians will receive negative updates of approximately five percent each year from 2006 until 2013 and rates will not return to their 2002 level until well after 2013. In other words, physicians will receive less reimbursement in 2013 than they did in 2002 for the exact same procedure, regardless of inflation and increases in practice costs." This unrealistically assumes doctors will bear the cost burden for the Medicare population. More likely physicians will have to stop Medicare participation (stop caring for Medicare patients) under these conditions. It seems disingenuous to claim "savings," when not all the costs have been realistically accounted for in this bill. This bill will surely go over the CBO estimates if real world historical political behavior of annual "fixes" are assumed as opposed to the static assumptions of the CBO.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
On Sunday, under Cloak of Darkness, in the Wee Hours of the Night and in a Snow Storm, the Senate Voted on Health Reform
I am reminded of a phrase my grandmother used to say, “Fra dire e fare, ch’é un mare” - Between saying and doing there is an ocean in between. For all the talk about openness and transparency, it seems things could not be more the opposite given the government was shut down yesterday (Monday) due to the snow. Most all of what has been negotiated has been behind closed doors, with only the ruling party invited to participate. All the rhetoric about “If anyone out there has any good ideas, we want to hear them,” appears to be just hot air. Only one party actually got to bring any of their ideas to the floor for a vote. Despite the fact that Rasmussen has polled the public on healthcare reform and 57% do not want the government to do anything at this point, Congress seems determined to ignore the will of the people. Many have called their elected representatives to find no one answers the phone, email is answered by form letter that usually is not even relevant to what the person wrote. Local offices of elected officials are not taking calls from what my colleagues are reporting to me. Americans are frustrated because their voices are being flatly ignored.
It seems our elected officials do not realize healthcare is not like any other issue. People go back to work for healthcare coverage. The definition of a good job is that it has good benefits, especially health benefits. For most people this is a giant security blanket. They will take a lesser paying job in order to get coverage.
What is most disturbing is the fact that Congress fails to appreciate that the uninsured are not a static group of people. According to a 2004 CBO report, “About 30 percent of Americans under age 65 who become uninsured in a given year remain so for more than 12 months, while nearly half obtain coverage within four months.” Given that most are only transiently uninsured, one must ask. “What is the purpose of remaking 1/6 of the economy and financing it with high taxes to build a system that is not scheduled for implementation for four years, for people who will not likely need coverage by then?”
Politicians, beware passing any of the currently proposed healthcare bills. Failure to recognize that this unlike any other matter before Congress, will surely mean peril in next fall’s election and beyond.
It seems our elected officials do not realize healthcare is not like any other issue. People go back to work for healthcare coverage. The definition of a good job is that it has good benefits, especially health benefits. For most people this is a giant security blanket. They will take a lesser paying job in order to get coverage.
What is most disturbing is the fact that Congress fails to appreciate that the uninsured are not a static group of people. According to a 2004 CBO report, “About 30 percent of Americans under age 65 who become uninsured in a given year remain so for more than 12 months, while nearly half obtain coverage within four months.” Given that most are only transiently uninsured, one must ask. “What is the purpose of remaking 1/6 of the economy and financing it with high taxes to build a system that is not scheduled for implementation for four years, for people who will not likely need coverage by then?”
Politicians, beware passing any of the currently proposed healthcare bills. Failure to recognize that this unlike any other matter before Congress, will surely mean peril in next fall’s election and beyond.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
