|
January 16 2010 - Cadillac Plans
NEW YORK TIMES EDITORIAL
...The proposed excise tax on high-cost plans is the most significant measure in either bill to slow the relentless rise in health care spending....
WHY IT’S GOOD A vast majority of economists agree that the tax would be a valuable cost-control feature. In our largely fee-for-service system, doctors have an economic incentive to provide more services. With insurance covering most of the bill, neither patients nor doctors worry much about costs. Requiring workers to pay more out of pocket would force them and their doctors to think a lot more carefully about whether an expensive test or treatment is really necessary....
MORE SENSIBLE TARGETING Many of the policies described as Cadillac plans are not costly because they provide lavish benefits but rather because they cover workers who are older and sicker than most, or who work in high-cost areas or in high-risk industries.
The agreement would raise the thresholds for plans covering workers who are disproportionately old or female or employed in a wide range of high-risk jobs. There would be a transition period for states where medical costs are high. These look like reasonable exceptions to ensure that the tax falls on truly generous plans.
More
January 11 2010 - NSBA Unveils Small Business Health Care Reform Checklist
NSBA PRESS RELEASE
The National Small Business Association (NSBA) is calling on Congress to make needed changes to the final health care bill in order to win the support of small business. A staunchly nonpartisan small-business organization heavily engaged in the ongoing debate, NSBA has compiled a comprehensive list of what small business wants in a final bill. This list highlights pieces of both the House and Senate bills that are preferable to small-business owners, and suggests several critical changes.
More
December 31 2009 - Medical Malpractice: Why CBO Upped Estimated Savings
WALL STREET JOURNAL
Back in September, the Congressional Budget Office raised its estimate of how much money the feds would save if tort law were changed to reduce liability for doctors and hospitals.
Even the new, higher estimates don’t suggest that tort changes (such as capping noneconomic damages) would be a silver bullet for health costs; CBO says the changes would lower the nation’s health-care bill by about 0.5%, and reduce the feds’ burden by $54 billion over 10 years.
More
December 30 2009 - The Case for Reform
NEW YORK TIMES EDITORIAL
Reforming this country’s broken health care system is an urgent and essential task. Given all of the fabrications and distortions from Republican critics, and the squabbling among Democratic supporters, it is no surprise that many Americans still have doubts.
President Obama and Democratic leaders have a strong case. They need to make it now. Here are compelling reasons for all Americans to root for the reform effort to succeed and urge Congress to complete the job....
CUTTING COSTS Americans are justifiably concerned about the rising cost of health insurance and of the medical care it covers. The reform bills won’t solve these problems quickly, but they would make a good start.
Despite overheated Republican claims that the reforms would drive up premiums, the Congressional Budget Office projected that under the Senate bill the vast majority of Americans (those covered by employer policies) would see little or no change in their average premiums or even a slight decline. Those who buy their own policies would pay somewhat more — but for greatly improved coverage.
Most people who would be buying their own policies would qualify for tax subsidies to help pay their premiums, which could reduce their costs by thousands of dollars a year. And small businesses would qualify for tax credits to defray the cost of covering their workers.
More
December 24 2009 - Mayo Clinic Supports Bill But Seeks More Action on How Care is Paid For
WALL STREET JOURNAL
The Mayo Clinic, often cited by the Obama administration as a model for high-quality, cost-effective health care, generally supports key provisions of the legislation approved by the Senate, an official said Thursday, but he called for more aggressive steps to change how care in the U.S. is paid for.
"The concerns are whether the legislation will be strong enough to change the incentives in the system today, which are mostly around paying for volume" and not for "value" of care, said Jeffrey Korsmo, executive director of health policy center at the Rochester, Minn., clinic.
The dominant system of reimbursement in the health-care system, known as fee-for-service, pays doctors and hospitals for each test and procedure they perform or order, rewarding providers based on delivering more--rather than better--care, Mr. Korsmo said.
More
|
