By Michael Millenson

There I was, going one-by-one through a list of doctor and hospital groups that had volunteered to be one of the “accountable care organizations” authorized by health care reform, when I inexplicably found myself breaking into song. I know: it’s a really strange way to react to ACOs, but bear with me.

You remember, “This Land is Your Land,” don’t you? Written by Woody Guthrie in 1940, it caught the folk music wave of the 1950s, and has been sung ever since by performers ranging from Pete Seeger to Johnny Cash. Odds are you at least know the first verse:

This land is your land, this land is my land

From California to the New York Island

From the Redwood Forest to the Gulf Stream waters

This land was made for you and me.

ACOs are not obviously song-worthy, although they are significant. One of the Affordable Care Act’s signature initiatives, they initially drew bipartisan support as far back as…well, 2010. In April, the government announced that thousands of doctors serving more than 1.1 million Medicare beneficiaries had voluntarily joined ACOs, giving up fee-for-service reimbursement for some patients in exchange for a paycheck that’s based on measurable standards related to high-quality, cost-effective care. They’ve made the switch because it’s the right thing to do and because they’re getting ready for a day when Medicare’s fee-for-service money dries up.

Continue reading “Pete Seeger’s Blues”

By Joe Flower

I’ve been saying it for years (and in 3D and Technicolor in my new book Healthcare Beyond Reform): The Standard Model of Healthcare (the traditional unmodified fee-for-service, commodified, defined-benefit payment system) is broken and doomed. It’s fascinating to hear that even the CEO of Aetna, Mark Bertolini, said exactly that recently at a major healthcare technology conference — and that Forbes, a bastion of business and the private approach to everything, would publish an article on his remarks.

At Health 2.0 last fall, Bertolini said that he no longer thinks of Aetna as an insurance company, but primarily as an information company. This time, he made these main points:

Continue reading “Even Aetna CEO Admits: We’re Toast”

By William G. Gale

The United States faces large federal budget deficits over the short-, medium-, and long-term. Although perhaps subject to the greatest public attention, the short-term deficits are generally thought to be helping the economy recover. In contrast, medium- and long-term deficits projected for years after the economy returns to full-employment are a source of concern: these deficits will create growing and serious burdens on the economy even if they do not lead to an immediate crisis. Economists of all political stripes agree on this point.

While extending the Bush tax cuts, if that occurs, will play a big role in making the medium and long-term deficit problems worse, economists agree that a key driver of the long-term deficit problem is growth in government spending on health care. Medicare and Medicaid, our two largest health spending programs, currently account for 23 percent of federal spending, or 5.6 percent of GDP. Under current law and optimistic assumptions for health spending, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates these programs will represent 30 percent of total federal spending (6.8 percent of GDP) by 2022 and will continue to grow thereafter.

The prospect of health-driven deficits has produced a burst of proposals for reform. Sadly, the simple truth is that we do not yet know how to reform government health programs to both rein in costs and maintain or improve quality and access.

Continue reading “Inoculate the Budget Deficit From Healthcare Reform”

By Paul Levy

If you read only one book about state and federal health care policy, it should be The Great Experiment: The States, the Feds and Your Healthcare.  Published by the Boston-based Pioneer Institute, it is the most articulate and rigorous presentation of issues that I have seen, a stark contrast from many papers, articles, and speeches that slide by as “informed debate” in Massachusetts and across the country.  I learned more about health care policy from this book than from anything else I have read in the last decade.

While the book is constructed as a number of chapters by experts in field, it has a consistent voice and and is highly readable.  There is an engaging explanation by Jennifer Heldt Powell of the politics and substance of how the Massachusetts health care reform bill came into being; and there is also a data-rich analysis by Amy Lischko and Josh Archambault of how it is working.  But the book is quick to point out that what has happened in Massachusetts is unlikely to be an appropriate model for the nation.

Continue reading “The Great Experiment”

By Peter Ubel, MD

“How can the government make us buy health insurance?  What gives them that right?”

Sitting on my left while our airplane raced above the clouds, Elizabeth was clearly upset about Obamacare.  She wondered why the bill had to be so long, and why Obama would endorse a plan that doubled her health insurance costs.  But nothing vexed her more than the individual mandate.

At least that’s what I though until I spoke with her at greater length, and she revealed a profound truth to me about people’s attitudes towards the mandate and towards Obamacare more generally: she showed me that deep down she liked the idea of the mandate, once she realized its important role in accomplishing goals people on all sides of the political spectrum care about deeply.

We were flying towards North Carolina the day before the Supreme Court held its oral arguments on Obama’s healthcare plan.  Elizabeth had heard a great deal about the mandate.  She read The Wall Street Journal regularly, in part because it was so relevant to her work in banking.  And she enjoyed watching Bill O’Reilly on Fox News, but not Hannity, who she thought was “too extreme”.  She was by no means a conservative extremist.  She had major concerns about the banking industry for example, and as a Christian felt strongly that income inequality is a moral problem that neither party was addressing in an effective manner.  But she was solidly Republican, no doubt about that, and she agreed with most people in that political party that Obamacare was hurting the economy.  And above all she believed the health insurance mandate was “un-American.”

Continue reading “The Psychology of the ObamaCare Debate”

By Maggie Mahar

The male body has long been considered the “standard” for health care coverage. Having a woman’s body is seen as an expensive anomaly, and women pay dearly for being different.

When they buy their own health insurance in the individual market, women must lay out an extra $1 billion a year, simply because they are women. Some argue that this is fair: after all, a woman could become pregnant, and labor and delivery are costly.

But the truth is that, even when maternity benefits are excluded, one-third of all health plans charge women at least 30 percent more, according to a report released just last month by the National Women’s Law Center.

In 36 states, “92 percent of best-selling plans charge 40-year-old women more than 40-year-old men,” the Center reports, and “only 3 percent of these plans cover maternity services … One plan in South Dakota charges a woman $1252.80 more a year than a 40-year-old man for the same coverage.”

Today, less than half of American women can obtain affordable insurance through a job, which explains why millions buy their own insurance in the individual market. In that market, just 14 states ban gender rating:  California, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington.

Pricing based on gender also plagues the small group market, where insurers frequently jack up premiums if a small or mid-size business employs too many women. This means that many of these employers just can not afford to offer insurance. Only 17 states address the problem.

Continue reading “Is the Fact that I Am a Woman Considered a Pre-Existing Condition?”

By John R. Graham

Well, the future of American health care is now controlled by lawyers. That may not be news – doctors, drug makers, and medical-device makers have long complained about the cost of lawsuits. But this different: The future of PPACA is in the hands of the Supreme Court. Hundreds of lawyers billed thousands of hours analyzing and preparing briefs for the case. And that’s after countless hours spent by Congressional staff lawyers putting the bill together in 2009 and 2010. The result? A “law” so confusing that even the legislators – themselves mostly lawyers – could not bother to even try to read it.

It makes one think: If the lawyers are designing the health-care system, shouldn’t they be forced to operate under regulations similar to those they’re imposing? How, for example, do lawyers get paid? Today, they negotiate fees with clients. That hardly seems fair. In health care, doctors don’t negotiate fees with patients, they get paid according to an opaque schedule determined by health plans. Lawyers should do the same. The solution is “legal insurance”. After all, who amongst us knows when we’ll need a lawyer? It is often an unpredictable expense, and yet the “market” seems to have failed to provide such insurance. Government must intervene.

Continue reading “What if We Regulated Legal Services Like Health Care?”

By Michael L. Millenson

While it’s comforting to just blame the GOP for the unhappiness with health reform threatening the president’s re-election, the truth is that Barack Obama repeatedly botched, bungled and bobbled the health reform message. There were three big mistakes:

The Passionless Play

While Candidate Obama proclaimed a passionate moral commitment to fix American health care, President Obama delved into legislative details.

When a Baptist minister at a nationally televised town hall asked in mid-2009 whether reform would cause his benefits to be taxed due to “government taking over health care,” Candidate Obama might have replied that 22,000 of the minister’s neighbors die each year because they lack any benefits at all. Instead, President Obama’s three-part reply recapped his plans for tax code fairness.

While Republicans railed about mythical “death panels,” and angry Tea Party demonstrators held signs showing Obama with a Hitler moustache, the president opted to leave emotion to his opponents. The former grassroots organizer who inspired a million people of all ages and ethnicities to flock to Washington for his inauguration never once tried to mobilize ordinary Americans to demand a basic right available in all other industrialized nations. In fact, he hasn’t even mobilized the nearly 50 million uninsured, who have no more favorable opinion about the new law than those with health insurance!

Continue reading “How Obama Botched and Bungled the Health Reform Message”

By Dave Chase

Not a week goes by without seeing some headline about deficits pushing municipalities to desperation or Bill Gates describing state budgets using accounting techniques that would make Enron blush.  The common culprit: healthcare costs with Medicaid being the biggest driver.

Recently Carly Fiorina opined on The Health Care Blog about Health Care, Not Coverage. She pointed out the unnecessary administrative burden that could be better spent on delivering healthcare. Fortunately, there is already a proven model, developed and run by physicians, that has shown it can reduce costs 20-40% by removing administrative overhead while improving outcomes (e.g., 40-80% reductions in hospital admissions) and greatly increasing patient satisfaction with Google/Apple level of patient satisfaction.

It can be described as two parts Marcus Welby and one part Steve Jobs. The federal health reform bill included a little-noticed clause allowing for Direct Primary Care (DPC) models to be a part of the state health insurance exchanges. That little-noticed clause (Section 1301 (a)(3) of the Affordable Care Act and proposed HR3315 to expand DPC to Medicare recipients) should have the effect of massively spreading the DPC model throughout the country. In California, the DPC model was introduced in a bill to bring explicit support for the DPC model as has been done in the state of Washington and elsewhere.

Continue reading “Medicaid-driven Budget Crisis Needs a Marcus Welby/Steve Jobs Solution”

By JONATHAN HALVORSON

Of all the provisions of the ACA, probably none has received greater attention from health insurers than the exchanges. Though the exchanges are expected to be the conduit for just a small fraction of all the insured at their start in 2014, they will be where most of the growth in health insurance lies. Given the rule that the individual exchanges must be integrated with Medicaid, their role will be critical for any insurer that wants to compete and grow in the individual or Medicaid markets. The dominance of the exchanges for growth in the small group and even the Medicare markets may not be not far behind. It should be no surprise if, eventually, all fully-insured business goes through the exchanges, leaving only self-insured plans outside.

So getting it right matters. Now is the time to think hard about getting it right, before the exchanges are created and inertia sets in. And, as some have argued, getting it right means that we think about the exchanges as places for people to choose their health care, not just their health insurance. So how should we do that?

Here is what we should not do: make it easy to choose care without considering both the quality and the cost of care delivered by the care system. It would be an enormous lost opportunity to improve consumer attitudes towards health care if we built the exchanges to make it easy for people to reason: “I like doctor A. Doctor A accepts insurance products X, Y and Z. Of these three, insurance product X seems to have the lowest cost, so I’ll choose product X.”

Continue reading “Another Look at Health Insurance Exchanges”