December 29, 2009

Why is Any Bill better than No Bill?

I would first like to stress again that the vast majority of Americans believe we need some sort of Health Reform, yes even the the vast majority of politicians.

However, it has to be troublesome when many are stating that any reform bill is better than no reform bill.  Many are in awe of the historical nature of the event, not the fact if it is the correct bill or not. In his December 20th, 2009 column, "A Dangerous Dysfunction,"  Paul Krugman wrote:

"Unless some legislator pulls off a last-minute double-cross, health care reform will pass the Senate this week. Count me among those who consider this an awesome achievement. It’s a seriously flawed bill, we’ll spend years if not decades fixing it, but it’s nonetheless a huge step forward."

Krugman actually admits that this bill is deeply flawed and will take DECADES to fix, yes DECADES.  It truly makes one wonder if it is worth passing a bill that even liberals admit is a disaster.  Is it not worth re-working the entire bill before it is passed?  Forget the historical context, it means nothing if the bill is a train wreck.  Pass a bill that works.  

The current bill does nothing to stop out of control medical inflation.  Some will argue that this bill provides affordable health insurance to the lower class. That might be true, however that is through government subsidies not through controlling costs and medical inflation.  It would not be long before those affordable insurance plans for the poor become unaffordable once again. These subsidies are like putting a band-aid on a cut that won't stop bleeding, sooner or later the band-aid becomes utterly useless.

A few ways to help slow down medical costs:
  • Transparent Medical Costs.  
    • Being able to know what everything costs up front. 
    • A pricing structure. 
    • Being able to know if you were billed correctly.
  • Consumerism.  
    • Being involved in the actual purchase of health care. 
    • No more co-pays.  Co-pays are the single biggest killer of consumerism.
  • Education.
    • Most are benefit illiterate.  Educate people on how to use their benefits properly.  This will eliminate waste.
    • Waste and misuse of health plans factor into premium increases.  Less waste, lower premiums!

December 22, 2009

Why Incumbent's Should Be Afraid

Many have been noticing the trending decrease in President Obama's approval numbers along with the entire democratic party.  Many are lead to believe that republican numbers must be on the dramatic rise.  They are not.  Yes, they have enjoyed higher approval ratings however the swing does not account for the numbers lost by democrats.  While democrats have seen a dramatic decrease in approval, republicans have only seen a slight increase.

What does this mean?  I believe that any incumbent politician is in trouble, republican or democrat.  There is such a disconnection and distrust between politicians and the American public.  Many do not believe a word any politician says. If you are a sitting, senator, representative or governor you should be very worried.  If numbers continue to trend this way, I believe we will see incumbents lose to members of their own parties.  Americans are growing more and more tired everyday of their politicians and party does not seem to matter.  In the RealClearPolitics generic ballot average, Republicans only have a two-point edge.  A statistical tie.

If I was an incumbent I would be very afraid.

December 21, 2009

Wheelin', Dealin' and All Nighters.

It's 1am, do you know where your Senators are?

Ending Debate on the Senate Health Reform Bill.  As soon as the democrats got the 60 votes they needed, they voted as quickly as possible.  The vote took place at 1am this morning to avoid any delays from republicans.

The road to 60 was not an easy, nor was it a cheap one.  Lieberman's hold out cost democrats a public option and the Medicare buy-in down to age 55.  Then there was Senator Ben Nelson from Nebraska.  Nelson was the last democrat to fall in line, it only took a reported $45 million for that to happen.

Nelson had expressed his reservations for the bill,  stating that there was too big of an unfunded federal mandate for the state's in this bill.  In order to get his vote, he was promised the $45 million that it would cost his state.  He is now being criticized by both sides of the aisle.  The left is saying he was going to vote yes anyways, and was just holding out so he would be able to sell his vote.  The right is simply saying he sold his vote and did not do what was right for the American people.

Now, all of the attention moves to the House where things are already getting complicated.  The Senate is warning the House not to change their bill as they are afraid the moderates will turn against it.  However, Nancy Pelosi seems determined to pass their bill and then bring the two bills to conference committee. In hopes to get much of what has been stripped out of the Senate bill back in before congress votes on it again.  Pelosi has already said to expect a vote from the House after the New Year.

December 17, 2009

As moderates seem satisfied, all eyes are on the liberal democrats.

For the first time in this health reform debate, Harry Reid is focusing on maintaining liberal votes.  Lieberman seems to be satisfied without a public option and without the Medicare buy-in.  The question now is are the most liberal democrats in congress satisfied?  Will they be able to vote on a health reform bill that does not include a public option, or some form of a public option?

For months, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has said he would not be able to vote for a bill without some sort of public option.  In the last few days he seems he is more on the fence than earlier.  While Howard Dean has no vote in Congress, he has come out in strong opposition to the current bill, saying he would vote "no" to it.  One has to wonder if other liberal members of Congress, like Nancy Pelosi, can vote for what is being called a "watered-down bill" by many liberals. 

Nancy Pelosi has already stated that reform will not be done before the new year and that she hopes it can be done for the President's State of the Union address.  This will give them more time to try and appease all democrats in Congress.  This is no easy feat.  The questions becomes will liberal democrats end up voting for a bill without a public option because otherwise nothing would pass?  Otherwise, it is hard to see this bill passing both the House and Senate as Lieberman stands in the way of anything resembling a public option. 

December 16, 2009

Medicare Buy-in is Out, Lieberman is In.

The amendment to expand Medicare down to age 55 has been thrown out.  Lieberman stated he could not put his support behind the expansion of Medicare and Harry Reid decided he could not receive the 60 votes so he bagged the plan. 

With this amendment out it seems Lieberman is throwing his support behind the bill.  Without a public option and without the Medicare buy-in plan many liberals are saying these bill is not enough.  Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont has vowed to vote against any bill that does not include a public option.  The question is will he stand by that.  Many democrats in the House have also said they will not vote for a bill without a public option. If they will cave on that promise remains to be known. 

December 14, 2009

Medicare Expansion has Joe sayin' No!

Now, no one is surprised that Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) is vowing to vote down the health reform bill in the Senate right now.  The only surprise is why.  He has told everyone for months that he will not vote for a bill with a public, government run option.  Now, he is opposing the expansion of Medicare down to age 55. He is citing adding to the deficit and having the functionality of a public option as his two main objections.

There are many already stating that expanding medicare to age 55 is the democrats first step to providing a government run option.  Many believe that they will simply keep lowering the age to begin medicare throughout the years until finally everyone is covered by it.  Which would account for the all of a sudden, Nancy Pelosi acceptance of a bill without a "public option."

Of course, the democrats could still pull in a republican vote to get this passed. However, it seems more and more democrats do not support the medicare expansion.   Only time will tell as the bills change who will or will not support it.

December 8, 2009

Sick and Tired of Tiresome Politcal Banter? You're not alone.

On Monday, Harry Reid proclaimed; "When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said 'slow down, it's too early, things aren't bad enough.'"
Yes, that's right one of the most powerful members of congress comparing anyone who opposes the health care reform bills to supporters of slavery during the civil war.  Unbelievable.

Who can forget Rep. Joe Wilson's disgraceful "YOU LIE!" outburst during President Obama's speech.  Or, Rep. Alan Grayson telling congress that the Republicans health plan was to "die quickly."  Or, the countless attacks on the tea party goers, calling them Nazi's, racists and angry mob's. The list could go on and on.

Can anyone tell me where the honest debate has been?  Yes, I understand that this is an emotional issue for a lot of people, but are our elected officials really telling us that they cannot put emotions aside and debate honestly and thoroughly?  These are the same men and women that think they know better than the American public, that they are smarter, brighter and more informed than the "ordinary" American.  Yet, they cannot put schoolyard banter aside and do what is right.  Have an absolutely honest debate, please.  It does not matter what side of the aisle you sit on, Democrat or Republican.  Each side is to blame, each side keeps resorting back to these same worn out tactics.

Is it just me or does it seem like republicans and democrats are acting like brothers that just got into a fight and now hate to even be in the same room together?  I think we need Mom to sit these two down and make them talk it out.  Make each side see the others. Make each side listen (without interrupting), while the other makes their case and vice versa. I think we have all had one of these times in our life, especially as children, when we literally needed to be sat down by mom or dad to work things out with whomever the feud was with.

The question now is, who and where is mom or dad?

December 7, 2009

Why is opposition to Health Care Reform rising?

The latest RealClearPolitics average shows that 49% of the public oppose health care reform, while only 40% are in support of it.  There have been sharp decreases in support over the last few months and weeks, why is this?  Is it because people have all of a sudden changed their minds on wanting to insure the uninsured?  Have Americans decided they could care less that there are millions without health insurance?  I think not.

So what is it? It is the costs and government control.  The two go hand in hand.  With more government control comes more costs to the taxpayers.  The American public is already staring a huge deficit right in the face with no end to spending in sight.  Americans are standing up to government, not against those in need.  Americans understand that reform is needed for affordable and guaranteed coverage.  They just do not want this reform.

No one argues with the intent of these bills in congress, we all want to make sure Americans can get health insurance.  The argument is which is the best way.

November 23, 2009

Consumerism - The real way to control health care costs

In every facet of our purchasing lives we act as normal consumers.  When we go to the grocery store, we will choose one brand over another because of a matter of cents.  When we need car repairs we will search countless repair shops to get the best price and value.  In almost every purchasing decision we are engaged consumers.  However, when it comes to health care we are the furthest thing from an engaged consumer, we are anti-consumers.

Why is this?

Health insurance coverage has become something it is not and should not be.  Health insurance has began covering predictable expenses. With too low of deductibles and office co-pays the consumer became disengaged.  For just a $10 co-pay you can go to the doctor for a mere cough and the doctor will tell you to take cough medicine.  Was this visit really needed?  Now, the true costs of that office visit is not $10, it is whatever the doctor charges.  Why would the consumer care what this doctor actually charges if all they have to pay is the $10 co-pay and then the insurance picks up the tab?  The consumer usually has no idea what the real cost is, to them it is $10.  This is a major disconnection. 

Remember, the insurance has to cover the rest of the actual costs of this office visit. That cost has to be reflected somewhere.  The misuse of office visits, emergency rooms and pointless medical tests are reflected in rising health insurance premiums.  There is no incentive to be an actual consumer, so why would anyone?

Along with co-pays we have a lot of low deductible plans still in the market today. Where is the incentive in a deductible that is $250, $500?  If I know that the insurance will begin to pay after I hit this cost to me, I understand that I do not have much risk here.  I still have no incentive to shop around like I would with any other purchasing decision, especially one has major as health care.

Now, I can already hear objections to what I am saying.  Many will tell me my solution is to dig into the consumers pocket even more with higher deductibles.  Thus, hurting the consumer and their ability to pay the  bills and feed their families.  This would be true if I was simply saying to move to a high deductible plan, end of story.  What I am saying is to engage the consumer.  Make purchasing health care real again.  Consumers need to see the real costs.  This can be done without hurting the consumer or their checkbooks.  High deductible plans are the answer, but they have to be coupled with a personal care accounts such as a Health Reimbursement Arrangements (HRA).

An HRA, is a promise from an employer to reimburse the employee for health care expenses.  If the employer gives the employee $1,500 in an HRA , the employee can use this money for eligible health care expenses.  Now, employers are not actually handing over this money to the employee, they are simply promising to pay for any future medical expenses incurred. The easiest way to administrate an HRA is on a debit card based system.  The employee will receive a debit card with the amount of funds the employer is willing to give, loaded onto it.  The employee can then use this debit card to pay for any eligible medical expenses.

For example, let's take Company A.
Company A buys a health plan with a deductible of $3,000.  Now if Company A was to say to it's employees this is your plan, you have to pay the first $3,000 before the insurance kicks in, the employees might not be able to afford that.  However, if Company A was to give them a $3,000 deductible along with an HRA in the amount of $1500 then this would certainly lessen the blow.  Now the employee has what feels like first dollar coverage, the first $1,500 incurred they can use the HRA for.  For 85% of people this will be enough money for the year.  Imagine 85% of people will see $0 in out of pocket expenses. 

We have now created an engaged consumer.  Why?  These employees have to live on a budget and their decisions are driven by this budget.   They understand if they spend all $1,500 in their HRA, they will now have to pay out of pocket until the deductible is met.  They also understand that if they are unfortunate and need serious medical procedures their out of pocket is not extreme.

When employees are driven by this budget, they see the real cost of health care because they are paying the actual bills.  These plans do not have co-pays, the bill the consumer receives is the actual bill and they learn quick the true costs.  It leads to better purchasing decisions.  For example, let's say you hurt your ankle late at night and your doctor's office is closed.  Is it hurt bad enough to warrant an emergency room trip?  Can it wait until the morning?  Should I elevate, ice it and then see how it is tomorrow before deciding what to do?  These are questions many will not even think to consider if they are just simply paying a co-pay to go the the emergency room.  These plans cut out waste because the consumer weighs the value of their own health care.  If they truly need to go to the ER, they will.  If not, then why not wait and take the less expensive option?

Far too many times, people misuse their health plans.  This leads to waste, which leads to higher costs.  Creating an engaged consumer is vital to controlling costs.  Imagine going to the store and purchasing a product without knowing what it just cost.  That makes little to no sense for almost everyone.  Yet, for some reason this is how we purchase health care.  This needs to change, it has to change.

November 20, 2009

Senate to Vote on Health Care Reform Saturday Night

The Senate will debate their health care reform bill all day Saturday and hope to vote at 8pm that same night.  There are many who do not think this bill will get the 60 votes needed to pass.  The public option in this bill seems to be the main reason it might not get the 60 votes.  Lieberman has swore he will not vote for this bill, so that means the democrats will need to pick up a single republican vote in order to pass. 

Stay tuned......

November 19, 2009

Not To Be Outdone by the House.... here comes the Senate Bill!

The Senate has finally came out with their bill on health care reform, all 2074 pages of it.  Yes, 2074.  As no one has been able to read it yet, all facts are not out on exactly what is in the bill.  However we do know that there is Government run option in this bill.  Which leads many to wonder if this bill can get the 60 votes needed to get out of the Senate.  Remember, Senator Lieberman ( I ) has said he will never vote for a bill that includes a public option.  He could be the deciding vote in this debate.  Senator Olympia Snowe ( R ) from Maine has said she will also not vote for a public option, unless it is attached to a "trigger."  So, unless the democrats entice one of them to vote yes, it seems unlikely to get this to pass the Senate. 

There is one other major issue going on inside of congress that could make passing this difficult.  This is the Stupak Amendment in the House bill.  This is the amendment that does not allow  funds to be used for abortion coverage.  The House bill only passed because this amendment was added, there are said to be around 40 pro-life democrats who would have voted no without this amendment.  Now that it has passed and the House is awaiting the Senate to pass theirs, there is serious discussion that this amendment will be taken out.  If so, all of the pro-life democrats in the House will take this bill down.

It will be very interesting over the next few weeks to see the developments.  

November 16, 2009

The Role of Competition in Health Care Reform

One of the biggest issues concerning the rising health care costs is competition, or the lack there of.  Many states only have a few carriers.  This is a problem in many states and the consumer has suffered because of it.  Now, one option is to let the government come in and compete with these carriers.  The argument here is that the government will be able to undercut these carriers on price and force these carriers to lower theirs. 

There are problems with this.  Many do not realize that these insurance carriers only operate on a 1-4% profit margin as it is now.  If they are forced to lower their price they will be run out of business or cut jobs.  So they will not lower their price too significantly, they cannot.  The next problem is if government is paying these costs under their plan they will reimburse doctors and hospitals the way they do with Medicare.  On average they pay two-thirds of the actual medical bills.  This is why many doctors have stopped taking medicare patients.  These bills still have to be paid, where will this cost get shifted to?  The only logical answer has to be private insurance.  Which means these carriers will have no choice but to raise their premiums. 

It is hard to understand the argument that a government option would lead to the best competition.  The next argument is to allow cross-state purchasing of health insurance, the thought here is that this would get rid of the problem in states where consumers only have one or two choices.  While this is a better idea, there is still potentially a problem with this.  As it works right now, in most states there are one or two major carriers that get all of the business.  These top carriers get very lucrative discounts from their "network" hospitals and doctors in their state (usually somewhere from 25-45%).  These discounts have a dramatic effect on premiums.  If new carriers were to come into the market they would more than likely not see these same discounts.  Therefore it would be difficult for new carriers to compete. 

While the latter of the two seems to make more sense, it still needs work.  There has to be a way to make the playing field fair for all that are competing in an area. 

November 13, 2009

Ways to improve our health care system before complete reform

There are some logical steps that we can first address in regards to health care and costs.
  • Elimination of Medicare Fraud and Waste:  According to an October Thompson Reuters reports the health care system wastes between 500 and 800 billion dollars a year! 200 billion of that are fraudulent claims.  Now that is some profitable illegal activity.  
  • TORT Reform:  No one seems to be talking about this and it is a huge part in why health care costs are so high.  Doctors malpractice insurance is through the roof.  Guess where that costs ends up getting shifted to? You got it, THE CONSUMER!  
  • Upgrade our systems:  We need to update to an electronic base system, there is so much waste and miscommunication in our current paper based system.
  • Reward the healthy!:  It seems too logical to have a health-based health care system doesn't it?  Include health assessments in with plans, reward wellness.  
These things are already included in the reform bills (except for TORT reform).  Again, almost all agree on these reforms.  Why does everything have to be crammed together?

What if we voted on each reform by itself? Would it work to go line by line, item by item, reform by reform and vote on those? I imagine a lot of good reform would pass.  Both parties agree on more topics than they disagree on, although you wouldn't know that from the media.  I don't know a single person that proclaims not to care about the uninsured.  For some reason this seems to be an all or nothing debate, why and how did we end up here?

How will the exchange work

Here is an example of how the health insurance "exchange" proposed in the house health reform bill will work.  How much you pay is based on your household income.  As you can see the middle class will suffer greatly from the way it is currently structured.  A household earning just $73,000 a year will have to pay nearly $8,800 a year!  This model is very troublesome.

* HOUSEHOLD  
   INCOME
$27,465
$36,620
$54,930
$73,240
$100,000
Plan Status
Family of 4
Family of 4
Family of 4
Family of 4
Family of 4
As % of Poverty Level
125%
167%
249%
332%
453%
Maximum Premium
3% of income
5.5% of income
10% of income
12% of income
n/a
Actual Health Plan Cost
$12,000
$12,000
$12,000
$12,000
$12,000
Gov’t
Tax Credit / Subsidy
$11,176
$7,986
$6,507
$3,211
$0
Actual Family Cost
$824
$2,014
$5,493
$8,789
$12,000
Individual Penalty
$600
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
Maximum OOP
3% actuarial value
15% actuarial value
30% actuarial value
N/A
N/A

Do Americans want Pages or Solutions?

Does anyone else wonder why all of these Health reform bills are so long? Why must the house bill be over 2,000 pages? At some point we lost our way in this debate. It has become apparent that these bills are just a collection of a thousand different ideas jammed into a single bill. In fact, there are many times in the bills where they even contradict each other.

Most Americans want the legislators who are voting on this bill to actually read it. I say, how about the ones putting these bills together actually read it. This is the single largest piece of legislation in US history and still not a single person can tell you exactly what is in the bill.

It does not matter what side of the fence you are on in this debate, we should all want a bill that is clear, concise and one that works.

There is much that is lost in this debate. There are plenty that both parties agree on. Everyone knows we need some sort of reform to deal with costs. Both parties know we need elimination of pre-existing conditions. They all agree we need to cover as many Americans as humanly possible, especially the ones who need it most. Those are points we almost all agree on.

The biggest battle is between government running health care vs the private sector running health care. This is a legitimate debate. This should be debated fairly. However it cannot be when you have these bills that are so unclear and so vague. It leaves each side debating over bills that do not make sense.

All three of the bills proposed to congress right now are not even slated to go into action until 2013. Why are we rushing out bills that are this long and this unclear? It is beyond comprehension that a bill of this magnitude is packed into a 2,000 page mess.

I will leave you with an actual paragraph from the House bill.

“(a) Outpatient Hospitals – (1) In General – Section 1833(t)(3)(C)(iv) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395(t)(3)(C)(iv)) is amended – (A) in the first sentence – (i) by inserting “(which is subject to the productivity adjustment described in subclause (II) of such section)” after “1886(b)(3)(B)(iii); and (ii) by inserting “(but not below 0)” after “reduced”; and (B) in the second sentence, by inserting “and which is subject, beginning with 2010 to the productivity adjustment described in section 1886(b)(3)(B)(iii)(II)”.

Excuse me?????

November 9, 2009

Heath Reform Bill Passes House but is it DOA in Senate?

Late Saturday night The House of Representatives passed their version of the Health Care Reform Bill by a close vote of 220-215, receiving one republican vote from Louisiana Rep. Anh "Joseph" Cao. This was a much closer vote than many had anticipated.

However a new story is developing in the Senate. Many "blue dog" democrats are now vowing to vote down the Senate bill down due to the fact the House version has a "public option." The most notable Senator that has said for days now he will vote this down is CT Senator Joe Lieberman.

However, liberal democrats in the senate see one way out. Olympia Snowe. The republican senator from Maine has said she will vote yes to a bill with a "public option" if it is attached to a "trigger." Meaning, the "public option" will only go into place if a few years down the road health care costs have not been contained. Many liberal democrats are hoping that this "trigger" plan will also ease the worries from the "blue dogs."
But for now, it seems the bill in its current state is DOA.

October 26, 2009

Breaking News: Harry Reid announces Senate Bill will include Public Option

Fifteen minutes ago, in a press conference, Harry Reid (D-NV)announced that through compromise the Senate Health Reform Bill will include the Public Option. He states that the public option would include an "opt-out" clause. Meaning, that any state that does not wish to participate in the public option can opt out.

As of now, it seems both the House and Senate will both be pushing for the public option.

October 22, 2009

BGNE Workshop: November 4th, 2009





As an employer, you know the true cost of insurance.
      The premiums are high, and the premiums are increasing. 
        Will health care reform slow down these costs?




JOIN US AT OUR WORKSHOP:

Date: Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Location:  Green Mountain Business Expo at the Stoweflake Resort and Spa
Time: 10:00 – 11:30 AM EDT


TOPICS INCLUDE:
Part 1: Consumer-Driven Health Plans
·         What is a personal care account? What is difference between an HRA and an HSA?
·         What are the pros and cons of a consumer-driven health plan?
·         Are the savings real? Review case studies of actual Vermont employers who has successfully placed consumer-driven health plans?
·         Learn the mistakes to avoid in a consumer-driven health plan.
·         Learn how wellness and consumer-driven health plans work together.
Part II: Health Care Reform – What Every Employer Should Know
Small business will see significant changes to their health plans under the proposed health care reforms.
·         The mandates for coverage will apply to all individuals, and could apply to most small businesses.
·         Exchanges, Income-based Tax Credits, & Premium Subsidies will change the way insurance is purchased.
·         Income-based out-of-pocket will affect benefits and premiums.
·         How does this affect your business?  What does it mean to your business model?



October 20, 2009

Health Care Reform Webinar Part II


  
Our first webinar was attended by dozens of employers, and we have been asked for another webinar. So here it is!




Health Care Reform Part II: 
Mandates  and Subsidies


In this next webinar, we will further explain the following:

  • Mandates for individual and employer-provided health insurance coverage
  •  Subsidies for small group employers and individuals
  •  Eligibility for the subsidies
  • Out-of-Pocket levels as they related to income
  • Minimum benefit levels

Date: Thursday, November 5, 2009
Time: 12:00 – 1:00 PM EDT


The health care reform bills being debated in the Congress:
·         Create “exchanges” the sale of health insurance to individuals & small business
·         Create federal subsidies for the purchase of health insurance within the “exchanges”
·         Base the cost of insurance on income for individuals =<400% of poverty level
·         Base the health plan out-of-pocket levels on income for individuals =<400% of poverty level
·         Implement mandates for coverage with penalties for individuals and/or employers
·         Potentially create new taxes on benefits based on premiums and income levels
·         Potentially change the limits on FSA/HSA accounts
·         And much more


October 6, 2009

October 2009 issue of Benefits Selling Magazine; BGNE and Robert Gaydos Cover Story

Don't Call Him a Broker

Robert Gaydos – and his agency, Benefit Group of New England – are about much more than pushing products onto employers.
It’s right there in his company’s mission statement: “BGNE has been providing long-term cost containment strategies, consumer-centric health care plans, and member health advocacy programs to small and mid-sized employers for the last two decades.”.....
READ FULL ARTICLE HERE

September 29, 2009

Health Care Reform Webinar: What Employers Should Know

Date: Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Time: 12:00 – 1:00 PM EDT
REGISTER HERE
Health Care Reform is being debated in the US Congress. 
•Employer mandates, individual mandates, premium subsidies, minimum benefits, etc.
•What will it mean to your business?


This webinar will bring you concise and useful information concerning the health care reform bills in Congress.
The webinar will include a side-by-side comparisons of the bills.

The health care reform bills being debated in the Congress:

•Change the delivery of health insurance for individuals and for employers
•Change the way that employer-provided health plans are funded
•Create minimum standards for employer contributions based upon income
•Create minimum standards for out-of-pocket expenses based upon income
•Create federal health insurance premium subsidies for individuals and for employers based upon income
•Implement mandates for coverage with penalties for individuals and for employers
•Create new taxes on benefits based on premiums and income levels
•Change the limits on HRA/FSA/HSA accounts
•And much more
REGISTER HERE

September 28, 2009

Yahoo News: Maine Senator Olympia Snowe: Crucial Vote in Health Reform

Quiz time: Which of the following provisions has been tucked into the most closely watched health-care bill on Capitol Hill thanks to Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine? Is it a) an annual checkup for every Medicare beneficiary, b) a special health-insurance marketplace in every state that would cater to the needs of small businesses or c) new tax credits to help modest-size firms buy coverage for their workers?... read the full article.

September 22, 2009

The Baucus Plan: State Insurance Regulation, National Plans by Ezra Klein on 9/16/09

One of the big questions with insurance offerings is who regulates the plans, and how. Currently, regulation is done at the state level. Republicans don't like this, and neither do Democrats, and neither do insurers. It means every insurer needs to offer different plans in every state. Fragmentation and inefficiency, thy name is America's health-care system....Read Full article here

September 20, 2009

Please Don't Call It Health Reform by Professor Enthoven

Dr. Alain Enthoven is the Marriner S. Eccles Professor of Public and Private Management, emeritus, at Stanford University.

"Once again the President did not put forth serious proposals to reduce the growth rate in health expenditures in his speech last night. Obama likes to talk about the iconic systems: Mayo, Intermountain, Kaiser Permanente, and Geisinger, but the Democratic bills do practically nothing to promote their growth or systems like them.

The House Tri-Committee and Senate HELP Committee bills offer none of the fundamental reforms that would be likely to change the system or significantly slow growth in expenditures. Rather, what they offer is continuation of our present traditional employer-based, non-competitive fee-for- service system. They don’t respond to the President’s call for reforms that would lower the growth trajectory, or even that would not add to the fiscal deficit.

What went wrong?

Read Professor Enthoven's entire op-ed piece here: Click Here

Wall Street Journal - Is Health Care Reform Unconstitutional?

When I recieve care from my local doctor, I do not cross state lines.
The "commerce clause" of the U.S. Constitution allows the U.S. Congress to regulate interstate commerce. 
But is health care interstate commerce?

To read:  Wall Street Journal: Is Health Care Reform Unconstitutional?

Health Insurance Reform as compared to Health Insurance Reform

Health "insurance" reform.
Health "care" reform.
These are 2 very different things.

The term "insurance" means to spread financial risk.  If the risk of a heart attack is 1 in 100, and the cost of the heart attack is $100, than if you collect $1 from each individual you have spread the cost of the risk.  Health insurance is the mechanism to spread the financial risk.  Health insurance is not a vehicle by which everyone gets everything covered at no cost.  There is an impossibility.

Insurance reform: The major insurance companies, commonly referred to as BUCA (Blue Cross, United, CIGNA, & Aetna) have already conceded to the 3 insurance reforms outlined by the Obama administration: guarantee issue, elimination of pre-existing conditions, and community-rating.  This is valuable health "insurance" reform, and it is a done deal if the Democrats want it.  This reform will make insurance available to everyone regardless of their age or health.  It will move insurance carriers away from underwriting and towards the management of benefits and wellness.

Health Care Reform:  How are providers reimbursed?  How is care delivered?  How is quality of care assured?  Where is care delivered?  Will Medicaid be expanded?  Will their be subsidies for lower income individuals to purchase health insurance? These are all questions about health care, not health insurance.  The bills proposed in Congress make significant changes in the delivery of care.  This is not a done deal.  There are many disagreements - even within the Democratic party.

Wall Street Journal - Health Reform and the Deficit

"The CBO's deficit projections are based on the optimistic assumptions that the economy will grow at a healthy 3% pace with no recessions during the next decade; that there will be no new spending programs after this year's budget; and that the rising national debt will increase the rate of interest on government bonds by less than 1%. More realistic assumptions would imply a 2019 deficit of more than 8% of GDP and a government debt of more than 100% of GDP."

To read more:  click here for the Wall Street Journal article

Mandating Coverage - Can You Force Individuals to Buy Health Insurance?

In Massachusetts, the law mandates that individuals purchase health insurance or pay a fine of $1,068 yearly.  According to the new data from the state, 68,000 taxpayers chose to pay the fine rather than purchase health insurance.  That is 3% of the state's population.

If we assume that the same would occur under a federal insurance mandate, then even if we create a federal mandate for health insurance, over 10 million individuals would ignore the mandate.

Why?
Because at the end of the day, health insurance is a value-based decision.

There are individuals who based on their income and their assets will not see value in purchasing an insurance policy that cost several thousand dollars yearly, to protect them from a financial risk (the cost of care) that they do not fear.

Government or Free Enterprise - who will fix healthcare first?

Where is the long term solution to the rising costs of healthcare?
- Government actions? or..
- Free enterprise?

Many U.S. industries, pressured by overseas competition, were forced to use the power of the internet, computers, GPS, etc. to find efficiencies.  Their survival depended upon it. 

The healthcare industry has not been forced to reinvent. 
The answers lie within reinvention.

X-rays should not cost $200.  The technology is over a century old.  MRI's should not cost $2,000.  The technology is decades old.  The majority of office visits are not necessary.  Many times the work could be done via the telephone or the internet.  The visit and the cost of the test are about revenue for the provider, not the time and efficiency of the patient or the system. 

The government can try to re-create the business model healthcare.
The government can try to change the financial motivation of the system.
But the government cannot create or invent new technology or new information systems.

However, free enterprise is already re-inventing the model.
Free enterprise can move quicker, react quicker, and correct quicker.
The answer is to our healthcare woes is in the reinvention of the business model.

Read a great article here: Why Not Fix Health Care Technology First?

Why Taxing High Priced Plans will never work

The Baucus Bill (as explained in the previous post) taxes health plans which premiums are above $8,000 for an individual and $21,000 for a family.  The bill banks on raising over $200 billion in new tax revenue with this new tax.

But this will never happen.

The employers and the employees who can afford these plans will stop buying these plans, and there will be no premiums to tax.  They will simply move to plans priced below these amounts, in order to avoid the tax.

If you can afford $21,000 for a family insurance plan, then you can afford to buy a lower priced plan with a higher deductible.  And you will.  Because the savings created by avoiding the tax will cover the cost of the increased deductible.

The Baucus Bill: Taxing Insurers by Ezra Klein

The Baucus Bill: Taxing Insurers by Ezra Klein on 9/16/09

The big revenue item in Baucus's bill is the so-called "excise tax" on high-cost insurance plans. The bill envisions a 35 percent surtax on plans costing more than $8,000 for an individual, or $21,000 for a family. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation's 2009 survey of health benefits, the average insurance plan cost $4,824 for an individual and $13,375 for a family. So this is taxing plans quite a bit costlier than the average, and only a small part of them. For instance: Imagine a family plan that costs $23,000. The tax is not 35 percent of $23,000. It's 35 percent of $2,000, or the value of the plan that falls above the limit.

But this hides a couple of things. First, some plans are very expensive because they're more generous. But some plans are more expensive because they're in wildly expensive markets. New Yorkers, for instance, are going to feel the brunt of this tax a lot more than, well, Montanans will.

Second, the plans exposed to the tax cap are going to become progressively less generous over time. According to CBO, the excise tax only raises $219 billion in the first 10 years. But in the second 10 years, the amount it raises grows by 15 percent every year. That's higher than inflation, obviously, but also higher than health-care costs. The reason is that the tax is pegged to the Consumer Price Index, which grows a lot more slowly than health-care costs. Thus, insurance plans will get more expensive faster than the tax cap will rise, and more of them will get hit by the excise tax. That's not going to be popular, but it will raise a lot of money, or barring that, offer an incentive for people to choose lower-cost plans.

Thinking through all that, though, I have trouble seeing this tax survive in the long run. There seems a substantial chance that it will become like the AMT, and Congress raises it year after year to escape consumer backlash. As I've argued before, the excise tax is a way to seem like you're taxing insurers rather than taxing health-care benefits, even as the practical effect is the same. But though the excise tax might prove easier to pass, I wouldn't be surprised if it's harder to sustain than a cap on the tax deduction. Congress will cross that bridge when, and if, it comes to it, I guess.

Government Controlled Reimbursement Levels - Unfair advantage #2

Currently, Medicaid and Medicare can set the amount of reimbursements paid to providers.  No one else has this power.  Not the private insurance companies nor any private individual. 

Currently, Medicaid and Medicare reimburse the providers at levels lower than the actual cost of care.  Hence, the providers must over-charge private insurance companies and private individuals to make up the difference.

This is referred to as "the cost-shift."

A new "public plan option" would have the same ability to set the amount of reimbursements.  This will further drive up the health care costs charged to private insurance companies and private individuals.

Many proponents of the public plan option, including President Obama, speak about the public plan's ability to "keep the insurance companies honest".   If the public plan can ignore the real price of health care, and force providers to accept reimbursements below the actual cost of care, isn't that dishonest?

The Role of Profit in Healthcare

Is there a role for profit in healthcare?

Peter Drucker wrote:  "Profit is not the explanation, cause, or rationale of business behavior and business decisions, but rather the test of their validity. If archangels instead of businessmen sat in directors' charis, they would still have to be concerned with profitability, despite their total lack of personal interest in making profits.  Economic profit (not trick-accounting profits) is proof that you are making a valuable contribution to society."

Health insurance companies, as well as healthcare providers, exist as profit businesses, not-for-profit businesses, and non-profit business.  It is not possible to eliminate profits.  Profits must exist in order for the business to be sustainable.  You can choose the level of profit margin or choose where the profits are distributed, but they cannot be eliminated. 

Insurers, as well as doctors, hospitals, pharmacuetical companies, medical equipment companies, home health care, nursing homes, etc. - all need profits. 

 We cannot legislate profits away, nor would we want to. 
However, we should legislate a competive and fair market.