President Obama made headlines in a speech before the National Governors Association, when he endorsed a Senate bill described as allowing states to seek “waivers” of certain requirements in the Obama Healthcare Law. However, the offer comes with strings, and would do nothing to change the elements of the federal law that will impose rationing of medical treatment if it is not repealed.
There would be no “waiver” from the duty of the Independent Payment Advisory Board to recommend, or the authority of the federal Department of Health and Human Services to impose, so-called “quality” and “efficiency” standards on health care providers designed to limit what Americans will be permitted to spend on life-saving medical care for themselves and their families, forcing it below the rate of medical inflation.
Senate Bill 248, for which the President expressed support, would move from 2017 to 2014 the date when states would be allowed to seek exemptions from certain Obama Health Care Law requirements, such as state insurance exchanges, and the individual and employer mandates. Such a waiver would be granted, however, only if the Administration is convinced that the state’s alternative would 1) make insurance just as "affordable" as under Obamacare (translation: limit what resources people are allowed to devote to their own health care); 2) Cover as many people as Obamacare with health insurance which is as “comprehensive” as Obamacare; and 3) Not increase the federal budget deficit.
Most States are struggling with their health care budgets, and many expect the situation to become worse under the requirements of the Obama health care law. Politico reported, “The move comes as governors, particularly Republican state leaders, say the law is overly burdensome on the already stretched states. Much of the expansive legislation has to be implemented at the state level.”
Were the bill to be enacted, the most likely result would be that proposals threatening the most dangerous rationing would see new life in the states. For example, Vermont officials are pushing hard to secure a waiver to implement their proposed “single-payer” system – under which all Vermont citizens would be forced into a single state government health plan, subject to state budgetary limits, with no opportunity to choose other insurance less likely to ration. Said Senator Bernard Sanders (Socialist-VT), “At a time when 50 million Americans lack health insurance and when the cost of health care continues to soar, it is my strong hope that Vermont will lead the nation in a new direction through a Medicare-for-all, single-payer approach.”
While it is, in theory, possible for states to craft any sort of plan they wish within the requirements, it is difficult to see how the Obama administration might approve ones that did not dramatically curtail what people are allowed to spend for their health care. It is precisely the policy of preventing people from being allowed, if they choose, to use their own funds to keep up with health care inflation that creates the gravest threat of rationing.
The Senate proposal may have a difficult time in the House, where congressional Republicans want states to have much more flexibility. Inside Health Policy wrote that the plan to bump up the waiver dates, “was met with disdain from GOP lawmakers, who said the opt-out criteria are too stringent and called the move a confession that the bill is unworkable in its current form.”
Politico reported, “Mandating many of the same requirements, this plan would treat states as agents of the very law these governors are running away from,” said Michael Steel, spokesman for Speaker John Boehner. “A better approach would be working with reform-minded governors to give states more flexibility . . . . Now that the administration has conceded that Obamacare is unworkable, we hope they will work with us to repeal the law and replace it with common-sense reforms . . . .”
Showing posts with label price controls. Show all posts
Showing posts with label price controls. Show all posts
Friday, March 4, 2011
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
STATE OF THE UNION: HONEYED WORDS HERALD WORSE RATIONING AHEAD
Suppose a government official announced a plan to limit the automobiles you were allowed to buy, so that only the smallest and cheapest would be available. It is likely most Americans would oppose it. Announce a plan limiting what automobile manufacturers can charge you for cars, however, and it would sound appealing to many people. Yet both proposals would amount to the same plan. When the government imposes limits on what people can choose to spend for a product or service, it means that only those items that producers can afford to provide at or below the government limit will be available. Instead of letting consumers balance cost against benefit, and decide what they can afford to and want to spend their own money on, the government takes that choice away from them.
Now consider what President Obama said in his January 25, 2011 State of the Union speech about health care. He said his health care law “prevents the health insurance industry from exploiting patients.” That certainly sounds good: no one wants patients to be “exploited.” But what does it mean? Obama considers it “exploiting” people when they are given the option of paying more to save the lives of their families, through the purchase of unrationed health insurance, than Obama thinks they should be allowed to choose to pay.
There is an old joke about a man being stopped by a thief who points a gun at him and says, “Your money or your life!” The man replies, “Take my life. I’m saving my money for my old age.”
It’s very foolish to pay less than you can afford for health insurance if that means you and your family will be stuck with a cheap “managed care” plan that will use “utilization review” and limited drug “formularies” to limit the treatment or drugs you may need to save your lives. It’s foolish to look only at the price without also considering the quality you will get for that price.
Americans balance quality and price all the time. Of course we look for the “better deal” that will save us money, but we also keep in mind that sometimes paying bottom dollar for shoddy merchandise is no bargain.
In the State of the Union speech, President Obama said of what people are allowed to spend on health care, “The health insurance law we passed last year will slow these rising costs.” And he called for “further reducing health care costs.”
What he didn’t mention was how the Obama health care law will “slow . . . rising costs.” It will do so in large part by forcing doctors and other health care providers to limit care, through “quality and efficiency” standards imposed on them that will establish one uniform national standard of care for what treatment may – and may not – be offered patients. Beginning in 2015, these “quality and efficiency” standards will be drawn from recommendations of an 18-member Independent Payment Advisory Board that is directed to come up with ways to limit what private citizens choose to pay, using their own funds and private insurance, so that they cannot keep up with the rate of medical inflation. (For details and documentation, see http://www.nrlc.org/HealthCareRationing/Index.html .)
If you’re not allowed to keep up with medical inflation, what do you think will happen to the quantity and quality of the health care you can get? It will go into a steady decline.
Yet Obama is not only pledged to veto any repeal of the health care rationing law– he is now threatening to seek unspecified (so far) measures that will limit the resources Americans are allowed to use to save their own lives still further.
Honeyed words – but words that mean one thing: worse and worse health care rationing ahead.
Now consider what President Obama said in his January 25, 2011 State of the Union speech about health care. He said his health care law “prevents the health insurance industry from exploiting patients.” That certainly sounds good: no one wants patients to be “exploited.” But what does it mean? Obama considers it “exploiting” people when they are given the option of paying more to save the lives of their families, through the purchase of unrationed health insurance, than Obama thinks they should be allowed to choose to pay.
There is an old joke about a man being stopped by a thief who points a gun at him and says, “Your money or your life!” The man replies, “Take my life. I’m saving my money for my old age.”
It’s very foolish to pay less than you can afford for health insurance if that means you and your family will be stuck with a cheap “managed care” plan that will use “utilization review” and limited drug “formularies” to limit the treatment or drugs you may need to save your lives. It’s foolish to look only at the price without also considering the quality you will get for that price.
Americans balance quality and price all the time. Of course we look for the “better deal” that will save us money, but we also keep in mind that sometimes paying bottom dollar for shoddy merchandise is no bargain.
In the State of the Union speech, President Obama said of what people are allowed to spend on health care, “The health insurance law we passed last year will slow these rising costs.” And he called for “further reducing health care costs.”
What he didn’t mention was how the Obama health care law will “slow . . . rising costs.” It will do so in large part by forcing doctors and other health care providers to limit care, through “quality and efficiency” standards imposed on them that will establish one uniform national standard of care for what treatment may – and may not – be offered patients. Beginning in 2015, these “quality and efficiency” standards will be drawn from recommendations of an 18-member Independent Payment Advisory Board that is directed to come up with ways to limit what private citizens choose to pay, using their own funds and private insurance, so that they cannot keep up with the rate of medical inflation. (For details and documentation, see http://www.nrlc.org/HealthCareRationing/Index.html .)
If you’re not allowed to keep up with medical inflation, what do you think will happen to the quantity and quality of the health care you can get? It will go into a steady decline.
Yet Obama is not only pledged to veto any repeal of the health care rationing law– he is now threatening to seek unspecified (so far) measures that will limit the resources Americans are allowed to use to save their own lives still further.
Honeyed words – but words that mean one thing: worse and worse health care rationing ahead.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
How the new Health Care Law Limits Senior Citizens’ Right to Use Their Own Money to Save Their Own Lives
Section 3209 of the health care bill signed into law on March 23, 2010 effectively allows federal bureaucrats at the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) of the federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to bar senior citizens from adding their own money, if they choose, to the government contribution in order to get private-fee-for-service Medicare Advantage (MA) plans less likely to ration life-saving treatment.
Medicare—the government program that provides health insurance to older people in the United States—faces grave fiscal problems as the baby boom generation ages. Medicare is financed by payroll taxes, which means that those now working are paying for the health care of those now retired. As the baby boom generation moves from middle into old age, the proportion of the retired population will increase, while the proportion of the working population will decrease. The consequence is that the amount of money available for each Medicare beneficiary, when adjusted for health care inflation, will shrink.
In theory, taxes could be increased dramatically to make up the shortfall – an unlikely and politically difficult proposition. The second alternative—to put it bluntly but accurately—is rationing. Less money available per senior citizen would mean less treatment, including less of the treatments necessary to prevent death. For want of treatment, many people whose lives could have been saved by medical treatment would perish against their will. The third alternative is that, as the government contribution decreases, the shortfall could be made up by payments from older people themselves, so that their Medicare health insurance premium could voluntarily be financed partly by the government and partly from their own income and savings.
It is not widely understood that, as a result of legislative changes in 1997 and 2003 undertaken at the behest of the National Right to Life Committee, this third alternative had become law. Under the title of “private fee-for-service plans,” there is an option in Medicare under which senior citizens can choose health insurance whose value, under the law in effect through 2010 [endnote 1], was not limited by what the government may pay toward it. These plans could set premiums and reimbursement rates for providers without upward limits imposed by government regulation.
This means that such plans would not have been forced to limit treatment, as long as senior citizens were left free to choose to pay more for them. Medicare covers everyone of retirement age, regardless of income or assets. Yet, because of budget constraints, the Medicare reimbursement rates for health care providers tend to be below the cost of giving the care—a deficit that can only accelerate as cost pressures on Medicare increase with the retirement of the baby boomers. To cope with this, providers engage in “cost shifting” by using funds they receive in payment for treating privately insured working people to help make up for what the providers lose when treating retirees under Medicare. Thus, comparatively low-income workers often effectively subsidize higher-income retirees.
However, when middle-income retirees are free voluntarily to add their own money on top of the government contribution, through a private fee-for-service plan, they stop being the beneficiaries of cost-shifting and become contributors to it. Thus, preserving this option without premium price controls would not only have allowed retirees who could afford it to reduce the danger of being denied treatment; it also would have resulted in the ability of providers to provide more treatment to those who cannot afford to add additional funds on top of the government contribution. See generally the Powell Center's webinar on affording health care without rationing.
Section 3209 of the new law indirectly amends the section in the Medicare law as it previously existed that allowed private fee-for-service plans to set their premiums without approval by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) by adding, “Nothing in this section shall be construed as requiring the Secretary to accept any or every bid submitted by an MA organization under this subsection.”[endnote 2] This gives statutorily unlimited discretion to refuse to permit private-fee-for-service plans to charge premiums sufficient to offset the reductions in the Medicare government contribution.
Theoretically, of course, the federal bureaucrats given this new authority could choose not to exercise it. That seems highly unlikely during the Obama Administration, however, since on February 22, 2010 the President specifically proposed that the health bill include a provision under which Medicare Advantage plans (which, as noted, include the private-fee-for-service plans) would explicitly "be prohibited from charging seniors more than they would pay for services delivered under the traditional Medicare program."[endnote 3] While this explicit prohibition was not included in the final law (presumably because rules governing the “reconciliation” procedure did not permit it), it clearly demonstrates the policy stance of the Administration, which under Section 3209 it will now have authority to implement.
TECHNICAL EXPLANATION
Understanding how the health care bill that became law on March 23, 2010 gave power to the federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to limit senior citizens' right to add their own money requires following a complex trail within the bill and existing law to understand the effect of Section 3209. Under pre-existing law [42 U.S.C. § 1395w-24 (a)(6)(B)(i) & (ii)] [endnote 4], the Secretary of Health and Human Services has authority to “negotiate” the premiums to be charged by private Medicare plans (“Medicare Advantage” health insurance plans) – meaning that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) in HHS can keep a Medicare Advantage plan from participating unless it agrees to charge a premium acceptable to CMS– , but this authority did not apply to private fee-for-service plans [42 U.S.C. § 1395w-24 (a)(6)(B)(iv)] [endnote 5] – meaning that CMS had no power to impose a premium price control as a condition of participation for private fee-for-service plans, which could be excluded only if they failed to meet other applicable standards.
Section 3209 effectively trumps this crucial exemption by giving CMS the absolute and standardless discretion to reject premium “bids” by any Medicare Advantage plan, including a private fee-for-service plan. Specifically, it would add this subparagraph:
ENDNOTES
[1] Section 3209 takes effect with regard to plans that will be in operation in 2011. See Section 3209( c).
[2] Section 3209 is found on page 904-905 of the engrossed Senate-passed bill.
[3] The proposal appears under the heading, "Title III . . . Guaranteeing Benefits for Seniors by Ending Overpayments to Insurance Companies."
[4] 42 U.S.C. § 1395w-24 (a)(6)(B) reads, in relevant part (emphasis supplied):
[6] The new subparagraph ( C ) has been added to 42 U.S.C. § 1395w-24 (a)(5). Since the language of subparagraph (a)(6)(B) that prevents the Secretary from “negotiating” private fee-for-service plan premiums is based on incorporating by reference subparagraph (a)( 5)(B), as explained in the previous note, and because clause ( i ) of (a)(5)’s new subparagraph ( C ) prevents subparagraph (B) from being construed to limit the Secretary’s authority to reject bids, it effectively makes meaningless the premium negotiation prohibition of subparagraph (a)(6)(B).
Medicare—the government program that provides health insurance to older people in the United States—faces grave fiscal problems as the baby boom generation ages. Medicare is financed by payroll taxes, which means that those now working are paying for the health care of those now retired. As the baby boom generation moves from middle into old age, the proportion of the retired population will increase, while the proportion of the working population will decrease. The consequence is that the amount of money available for each Medicare beneficiary, when adjusted for health care inflation, will shrink.
In theory, taxes could be increased dramatically to make up the shortfall – an unlikely and politically difficult proposition. The second alternative—to put it bluntly but accurately—is rationing. Less money available per senior citizen would mean less treatment, including less of the treatments necessary to prevent death. For want of treatment, many people whose lives could have been saved by medical treatment would perish against their will. The third alternative is that, as the government contribution decreases, the shortfall could be made up by payments from older people themselves, so that their Medicare health insurance premium could voluntarily be financed partly by the government and partly from their own income and savings.
It is not widely understood that, as a result of legislative changes in 1997 and 2003 undertaken at the behest of the National Right to Life Committee, this third alternative had become law. Under the title of “private fee-for-service plans,” there is an option in Medicare under which senior citizens can choose health insurance whose value, under the law in effect through 2010 [endnote 1], was not limited by what the government may pay toward it. These plans could set premiums and reimbursement rates for providers without upward limits imposed by government regulation.
This means that such plans would not have been forced to limit treatment, as long as senior citizens were left free to choose to pay more for them. Medicare covers everyone of retirement age, regardless of income or assets. Yet, because of budget constraints, the Medicare reimbursement rates for health care providers tend to be below the cost of giving the care—a deficit that can only accelerate as cost pressures on Medicare increase with the retirement of the baby boomers. To cope with this, providers engage in “cost shifting” by using funds they receive in payment for treating privately insured working people to help make up for what the providers lose when treating retirees under Medicare. Thus, comparatively low-income workers often effectively subsidize higher-income retirees.
However, when middle-income retirees are free voluntarily to add their own money on top of the government contribution, through a private fee-for-service plan, they stop being the beneficiaries of cost-shifting and become contributors to it. Thus, preserving this option without premium price controls would not only have allowed retirees who could afford it to reduce the danger of being denied treatment; it also would have resulted in the ability of providers to provide more treatment to those who cannot afford to add additional funds on top of the government contribution. See generally the Powell Center's webinar on affording health care without rationing.
Section 3209 of the new law indirectly amends the section in the Medicare law as it previously existed that allowed private fee-for-service plans to set their premiums without approval by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) by adding, “Nothing in this section shall be construed as requiring the Secretary to accept any or every bid submitted by an MA organization under this subsection.”[endnote 2] This gives statutorily unlimited discretion to refuse to permit private-fee-for-service plans to charge premiums sufficient to offset the reductions in the Medicare government contribution.
Theoretically, of course, the federal bureaucrats given this new authority could choose not to exercise it. That seems highly unlikely during the Obama Administration, however, since on February 22, 2010 the President specifically proposed that the health bill include a provision under which Medicare Advantage plans (which, as noted, include the private-fee-for-service plans) would explicitly "be prohibited from charging seniors more than they would pay for services delivered under the traditional Medicare program."[endnote 3] While this explicit prohibition was not included in the final law (presumably because rules governing the “reconciliation” procedure did not permit it), it clearly demonstrates the policy stance of the Administration, which under Section 3209 it will now have authority to implement.
TECHNICAL EXPLANATION
Understanding how the health care bill that became law on March 23, 2010 gave power to the federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to limit senior citizens' right to add their own money requires following a complex trail within the bill and existing law to understand the effect of Section 3209. Under pre-existing law [42 U.S.C. § 1395w-24 (a)(6)(B)(i) & (ii)] [endnote 4], the Secretary of Health and Human Services has authority to “negotiate” the premiums to be charged by private Medicare plans (“Medicare Advantage” health insurance plans) – meaning that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) in HHS can keep a Medicare Advantage plan from participating unless it agrees to charge a premium acceptable to CMS– , but this authority did not apply to private fee-for-service plans [42 U.S.C. § 1395w-24 (a)(6)(B)(iv)] [endnote 5] – meaning that CMS had no power to impose a premium price control as a condition of participation for private fee-for-service plans, which could be excluded only if they failed to meet other applicable standards.
Section 3209 effectively trumps this crucial exemption by giving CMS the absolute and standardless discretion to reject premium “bids” by any Medicare Advantage plan, including a private fee-for-service plan. Specifically, it would add this subparagraph:
( c) Rejection of Bids.–This means that the previous law that effectively forbade the Secretary to exclude a private fee-for-service plan on the basis that CMS considered its premiums to be too high has been trumped by the new ability of the Secretary to reject “any or every” premium bid submitted by a private fee-for-service plan.
( i ) In general.–Nothing in this section shall be construed as requiring the Secretary to accept any or every bid submitted by an MA organization under this subsection.[endnote 6]
ENDNOTES
[1] Section 3209 takes effect with regard to plans that will be in operation in 2011. See Section 3209( c).
[2] Section 3209 is found on page 904-905 of the engrossed Senate-passed bill.
[3] The proposal appears under the heading, "Title III . . . Guaranteeing Benefits for Seniors by Ending Overpayments to Insurance Companies."
[4] 42 U.S.C. § 1395w-24 (a)(6)(B) reads, in relevant part (emphasis supplied):
(B) Acceptance and negotiation of bid amounts.[5] 42 U.S.C. § 1395w-24 (a)(6)(B)(iv) provides:
(i) Authority. Subject to clauses (iii) and (iv), the Secretary has the authority to negotiate regarding monthly bid amounts submitted under subparagraph (A) . . . in exercising such authority the Secretary shall have authority similar to the authority of the Director of the Office of Personnel Management with respect to health benefits plans under chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code [5 USCS §§ 8901 et seq.].
(ii) Application of FEHBP standard. Subject to clause (iv), the Secretary may only accept such a bid amount or proportion if the Secretary determines that such amount and proportions are supported by the actuarial bases provided under subparagraph (A) and reasonably and equitably reflects the revenue requirements (as used for purposes of section 1302(8) of the Public Health Service Act [42 USCS § 300e-1(8)] [relating to the standards for setting different rates for individuals and families and for individuals, small groups, and large groups]) of benefits provided under that plan.
(iv) Exception. In the case of a [private fee-for-service] plan described in section 1851(a)(2)(C) [42 USCS § 1395w-21(a)(2)(C)], the provisions of clauses (i) and (ii) shall not apply and the provisions of paragraph (5)(B), prohibiting the review, approval, or disapproval of amounts described in such paragraph, shall apply to the negotiation and rejection of the monthly bid amounts and the proportions referred to in subparagraph (A).The “provisions of paragraph (5)(B)” incorporated by reference are:
(B) Exception. The Secretary shall not review, approve, or disapprove the amounts submitted under paragraph (3) or, in the case of an MA private fee-for-service plan, subparagraphs (A)(ii) and (B) of paragraph (4).Paragraph (4), subparagraph (A)(ii) reads "the amount of the Medicare + Choice [now called Medicare Advantage] monthly basic beneficiary premium”; paragraph (4), subparagraph (B) reads “Supplemental benefits. For benefits described in section 1852(a)(3) [42 USCS § 1395w-22(a)(3)], the amount of the Medicare + Choice monthly supplemental beneficiary premium (as defined in subsection (b)(2)(B)). "
[6] The new subparagraph ( C ) has been added to 42 U.S.C. § 1395w-24 (a)(5). Since the language of subparagraph (a)(6)(B) that prevents the Secretary from “negotiating” private fee-for-service plan premiums is based on incorporating by reference subparagraph (a)( 5)(B), as explained in the previous note, and because clause ( i ) of (a)(5)’s new subparagraph ( C ) prevents subparagraph (B) from being construed to limit the Secretary’s authority to reject bids, it effectively makes meaningless the premium negotiation prohibition of subparagraph (a)(6)(B).
Monday, February 22, 2010
OBAMA PROPOSAL LIMITS RIGHTS OF AMERICANS OF ALL AGES TO USE THEIR OWN MONEY TO SAVE THEIR OWN LIVES
The February 22, 2010, Obama Administration health care proposal imposes premium price controls on ALL insurance plans, not just those for Medicare-eligible senior citizens. That means that the right of Americans to spend their own money to get insurance plans less likely to deny treatment will be significantly limited. People will not be allowed to spend their own money, if they choose, to improve the chances of saving their own family’s lives.
It is basic economics that price controls force rationing.
Under the President’s proposal, states and the federal government would be empowered to review and reject premiums charged by any health insurance plan, even the supposedly "grandfathered" plans that Americans now have.
Yet the Administration has the temerity, even now, to state, "For Americans with insurance coverage who like what they have, they can keep it. Nothing in this act or anywhere in the bill forces anyone to change insurance they have, period."
It is as though a government, concerned about the high cost of restaurant food, imposed a price limit of $5 per meal, and then asserted that for those who like their restaurant food, nothing will force them to change their eating habits. The reality, of course, is that restaurants would be unable to afford to offer meals at prices below the cost of their ingredients. Consequently, about all restaurant-goers would be able to get would be fast food.
Similarly, when every premium increase is subject to veto by government officials, it means that instead of Americans making their own choices balancing the cost against the benefit in evaluating competing insurance plans, that decision will be taken out of their hands by bureaucrats whose principal duty is to hold health care spending down. Denial of lifesaving diagnostic tests and treatment would surely follow. This is rationing, pure and simple.
It is basic economics that price controls force rationing.
Under the President’s proposal, states and the federal government would be empowered to review and reject premiums charged by any health insurance plan, even the supposedly "grandfathered" plans that Americans now have.
Yet the Administration has the temerity, even now, to state, "For Americans with insurance coverage who like what they have, they can keep it. Nothing in this act or anywhere in the bill forces anyone to change insurance they have, period."
It is as though a government, concerned about the high cost of restaurant food, imposed a price limit of $5 per meal, and then asserted that for those who like their restaurant food, nothing will force them to change their eating habits. The reality, of course, is that restaurants would be unable to afford to offer meals at prices below the cost of their ingredients. Consequently, about all restaurant-goers would be able to get would be fast food.
Similarly, when every premium increase is subject to veto by government officials, it means that instead of Americans making their own choices balancing the cost against the benefit in evaluating competing insurance plans, that decision will be taken out of their hands by bureaucrats whose principal duty is to hold health care spending down. Denial of lifesaving diagnostic tests and treatment would surely follow. This is rationing, pure and simple.
OBAMA PROPOSAL THREATENS TO DENY SENIOR CITIZENS ABILITY TO USE OWN MONEY TO SAVE THEIR OWN LIVES
The Obama health care proposal issued this morning would take away from America’s senior citizens their current right to add their own money on top of the government Medicare contribution to get health insurance less likely to deny treatment through tightly controlled managed care. (See http://www.nrlc.org/MedEthics/PLPositionMedicare.html ). It would do so even as it cuts the government contribution to Medicare by hundreds of billions of dollars.
Under "Title III . . . Guaranteeing Benefits for Seniors by Ending Overpayments to Insurance Companies," the Obama proposal states that Medicare Advantage plans – the alternative that now allows older Americans, if they wish, to pay more to get insurance less likely to ration treatment– will "be prohibited from charging seniors more than they would pay for services delivered under the traditional Medicare program."
Thus, older Americans would be prohibited by law from making up the Medicare shortfall by using their own money to save their own lives. (See http://www.nrlc.org/MedEthics/JusticeArgument.html )
This means that, even as more and more doctors and other health care providers are leaving the Medicare program because of low government reimbursement rates – rates that under the Obama bill will decline still more in comparison to medical inflation– senior citizens will have nowhere to turn. Their only option will be tightly managed plans that provide less and less treatment.
In a case of genuine chutzpah, the Obama proposal then goes on to claim that "all ideas that ration care . . . will be banned" – even as it imposes what will be ever-increasing rationing on senior citizens.
Under "Title III . . . Guaranteeing Benefits for Seniors by Ending Overpayments to Insurance Companies," the Obama proposal states that Medicare Advantage plans – the alternative that now allows older Americans, if they wish, to pay more to get insurance less likely to ration treatment– will "be prohibited from charging seniors more than they would pay for services delivered under the traditional Medicare program."
Thus, older Americans would be prohibited by law from making up the Medicare shortfall by using their own money to save their own lives. (See http://www.nrlc.org/MedEthics/JusticeArgument.html )
This means that, even as more and more doctors and other health care providers are leaving the Medicare program because of low government reimbursement rates – rates that under the Obama bill will decline still more in comparison to medical inflation– senior citizens will have nowhere to turn. Their only option will be tightly managed plans that provide less and less treatment.
In a case of genuine chutzpah, the Obama proposal then goes on to claim that "all ideas that ration care . . . will be banned" – even as it imposes what will be ever-increasing rationing on senior citizens.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
NRLC PRESS CONFERENCE 1/21/2010 STATEMENT ON HEALTH CARE RATIONING
STATEMENT BY BURKE J. BALCH, J.D.
DIRECTOR, ROBERT POWELL CENTER FOR MEDICAL ETHICS
National Right to Life Committee Press Conference
Zenger Room, National Press Building, Washington, D.C.
January 21, 2010
Since its inception, the pro-life movement has been just as concerned with protecting the lives of people with disabilities and older people from euthanasia as it has been with protecting unborn children from abortion, and we have regarded government-imposed rationing of lifesaving medical treatment, food and fluids as an unacceptable form of involuntary euthanasia.
Therefore, the pro-life movement has grave concerns about rationing elements in the pending health care legislation. This morning’s Washington Post quotes Harvard health policy professor Robert Blendon as saying that what Massachusetts voters heard was now Senator-elect Scott Brown’s message that the national health care bills would require Medicare cuts. Indeed, a great deal of the backlash, not just in Massachusetts but also nationally, comes from those with insurance realizing that their health care will be endangered if the proposed legislation is enacted.
That legislation is based upon a widely held but fundamentally fallacious assumption – that it is necessary to "bend the cost curve" of health care spending because America cannot afford to continue to increase health care spending in the future as it has in the past.
As it happens, foremost among the economists who have debunked this fallacy is the Obama Administration’s nominee for Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation in the Department of Health and Human Services, Columbia University health care economist Sherry Glied, in her 1997 book "Chronic Condition: Why Health Reform Fails." The first two of these charts are based on data from that book, updated.
The percent of the average family budget devoted to health care (including what employers pay for employees’ health insurance) has steadily grown from 3% in 1940 to 17% in 2006. This trend, and fear that it will continue unless "the cost curve is bent," lies behind the increasingly widespread view that rationing, however unpalatable, is essential. But as Glied’s book demonstrates, the trend must be seen in context.
During that same period, the percent of the average family budget devoted to food declined from almost 30% to under 15%, because of ever-increasing improvements in agricultural productivity. We can look further at the three essentials of food, clothing, and shelter combined. From 1940 to 2006, the percent of the average family budget devoted to these necessities fell from about 53% to about 33%. Consequently, the percent for health care plus food, clothing, and shelter actually dropped from 56% in 1940 to 50% in 2006. Productivity improvements in such areas as agriculture, transportation, and the assembly of clothing freed up resources enabling Americans, on average, to put significantly more resources into obtaining better health care.
While we are presently coping with severe economic downturn, research by health care economists across the ideological spectrum, from David Cutler[1] to Robert Hall and Charles Jones, shows that there is no reason, so long as productivity growth continues, why we cannot indefinitely continue to increase the proportion of our incomes that is spent to keep us alive and healthy.
The pending health legislation contains numerous mechanisms to hold down the amount of their funds Americans are allowed to use to save their own lives. As documented on our website, both the House and Senate bills would not just limit government health care spending; they would empower bureaucrats to limit what private citizens can spend to get unrationed health insurance. Senior citizens, faced with massive Medicare cuts, could be prevented by the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services from exercising the choice current law allows them to add their own money on top of the diminishing government Medicare contribution in order to get Medicare Advantage private fee-for-service plans less likely to deny treatments and diagnostic tests. Those participating in the health insurance exchanges could see their insurance choices limited to those plans most likely to deny care if government bureaucrats exclude plans less likely to ration care on the claim that they cost too much.
Under the Senate bill, an almost omnipotent commission would be directed not only to hold Medicare increases below the rate of medical inflation, but also to recommend to the HHS Secretary measures to keep increases private health care spending below medical inflation as well. The HHS Secretary would be empowered to impose so-called "quality" and "efficiency" standards on ALL health care providers governing the health care they provide not only under government programs but also under private insurance.
We don’t need this U.K.-style rationing, and the National Right to Life Committee will be working to prevent or repeal it. Last night, in an interview with George Stephanopoulos, the President suggested the possibility of a stripped-down bill, but one of the three items he mentioned as being in such a bill was "cost-containment." We will be carefully watching any such stripped-down measure to determine whether it includes provisions that, like the pending bills, would ration health care, and will be quick to publicize and oppose them.
[1] David M Cutler, Your Money or Your Life: Strong Medicine for America's Healthcare System (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004).
DIRECTOR, ROBERT POWELL CENTER FOR MEDICAL ETHICS
National Right to Life Committee Press Conference
Zenger Room, National Press Building, Washington, D.C.
January 21, 2010
Since its inception, the pro-life movement has been just as concerned with protecting the lives of people with disabilities and older people from euthanasia as it has been with protecting unborn children from abortion, and we have regarded government-imposed rationing of lifesaving medical treatment, food and fluids as an unacceptable form of involuntary euthanasia.
Therefore, the pro-life movement has grave concerns about rationing elements in the pending health care legislation. This morning’s Washington Post quotes Harvard health policy professor Robert Blendon as saying that what Massachusetts voters heard was now Senator-elect Scott Brown’s message that the national health care bills would require Medicare cuts. Indeed, a great deal of the backlash, not just in Massachusetts but also nationally, comes from those with insurance realizing that their health care will be endangered if the proposed legislation is enacted.
That legislation is based upon a widely held but fundamentally fallacious assumption – that it is necessary to "bend the cost curve" of health care spending because America cannot afford to continue to increase health care spending in the future as it has in the past.
As it happens, foremost among the economists who have debunked this fallacy is the Obama Administration’s nominee for Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation in the Department of Health and Human Services, Columbia University health care economist Sherry Glied, in her 1997 book "Chronic Condition: Why Health Reform Fails." The first two of these charts are based on data from that book, updated.
The percent of the average family budget devoted to health care (including what employers pay for employees’ health insurance) has steadily grown from 3% in 1940 to 17% in 2006. This trend, and fear that it will continue unless "the cost curve is bent," lies behind the increasingly widespread view that rationing, however unpalatable, is essential. But as Glied’s book demonstrates, the trend must be seen in context.
During that same period, the percent of the average family budget devoted to food declined from almost 30% to under 15%, because of ever-increasing improvements in agricultural productivity. We can look further at the three essentials of food, clothing, and shelter combined. From 1940 to 2006, the percent of the average family budget devoted to these necessities fell from about 53% to about 33%. Consequently, the percent for health care plus food, clothing, and shelter actually dropped from 56% in 1940 to 50% in 2006. Productivity improvements in such areas as agriculture, transportation, and the assembly of clothing freed up resources enabling Americans, on average, to put significantly more resources into obtaining better health care.
While we are presently coping with severe economic downturn, research by health care economists across the ideological spectrum, from David Cutler[1] to Robert Hall and Charles Jones, shows that there is no reason, so long as productivity growth continues, why we cannot indefinitely continue to increase the proportion of our incomes that is spent to keep us alive and healthy.
The pending health legislation contains numerous mechanisms to hold down the amount of their funds Americans are allowed to use to save their own lives. As documented on our website, both the House and Senate bills would not just limit government health care spending; they would empower bureaucrats to limit what private citizens can spend to get unrationed health insurance. Senior citizens, faced with massive Medicare cuts, could be prevented by the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services from exercising the choice current law allows them to add their own money on top of the diminishing government Medicare contribution in order to get Medicare Advantage private fee-for-service plans less likely to deny treatments and diagnostic tests. Those participating in the health insurance exchanges could see their insurance choices limited to those plans most likely to deny care if government bureaucrats exclude plans less likely to ration care on the claim that they cost too much.
Under the Senate bill, an almost omnipotent commission would be directed not only to hold Medicare increases below the rate of medical inflation, but also to recommend to the HHS Secretary measures to keep increases private health care spending below medical inflation as well. The HHS Secretary would be empowered to impose so-called "quality" and "efficiency" standards on ALL health care providers governing the health care they provide not only under government programs but also under private insurance.
We don’t need this U.K.-style rationing, and the National Right to Life Committee will be working to prevent or repeal it. Last night, in an interview with George Stephanopoulos, the President suggested the possibility of a stripped-down bill, but one of the three items he mentioned as being in such a bill was "cost-containment." We will be carefully watching any such stripped-down measure to determine whether it includes provisions that, like the pending bills, would ration health care, and will be quick to publicize and oppose them.
[1] David M Cutler, Your Money or Your Life: Strong Medicine for America's Healthcare System (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004).
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
NRLC WRITES SENATORS LISTING ABORTION, RATIONING ELEMENTS OF SENATE HEALTH BILL
The National Right to Life Committee has sent a letter to Senators setting forth the abortion and summarizing the rationing elements in the Senate health care restructuring bill, avaliable here.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
RATIONING IN SENATE BILL LIKELY TO INTENSIFY
An amendment likely to be added to the Senate health care restructuring bill by Majority Leader Harry Reid would empower federal bureaucrats to impose requirements on private insurance plans with the explicit intent of limiting Americans’ right to spend their own money, if they choose, to save their own lives.
On Wednesday, Senators Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), Joseph Lieberman (I-Ct.), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) introduced an amendment (# 3240) to the Senate health care restructuring bill, which it is widely reported Senate Majority Leader Reid (D-NV) will include in the mammoth “Manager’s Amendment” he will introduce just in advance of the key “cloture” votes designed to end debate preparatory to adopting the bill. Amendment 3240, which the sponsors went to the Senate floor Thursday to advocate, expands the powers of the Independent Medicare Advisory Board (the Board) so that it will cover not only Medicare, but also all the private insurance plans in the “exchanges” the bill establishes for people annually to choose their health insurance.
The Board would be directed to make recommendations that the Secretary of Health and Human Services could then impose that, in the sweeping and vague language of the amendment, would in their opinion promote “integrated care, care coordination, prevention and wellness, and quality and efficiency[,] ... decrease health care spending, and [bring about] other appropriate improvements.” In addition to the elements characteristic of managed care plans that would be required, note the explicit directive to “decrease health care spending.” All of the requirements presumably are aimed at forcing the privately insured to spend less on healthcare, and the list of requirements is open-ended. Plans deemed to spend too much money on health care would be evicted from the exchange.
Instead of allowing Americans themselves to balance cost, benefits, and quality when choosing among competing health plans in the exchanges, their choice would be subject to potentially drastic restrictions. Americans’ choice to spend their own money for health insurance they judge will be less likely to deny treatments and otherwise ration care would be limited.
On Wednesday, Senators Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), Joseph Lieberman (I-Ct.), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) introduced an amendment (# 3240) to the Senate health care restructuring bill, which it is widely reported Senate Majority Leader Reid (D-NV) will include in the mammoth “Manager’s Amendment” he will introduce just in advance of the key “cloture” votes designed to end debate preparatory to adopting the bill. Amendment 3240, which the sponsors went to the Senate floor Thursday to advocate, expands the powers of the Independent Medicare Advisory Board (the Board) so that it will cover not only Medicare, but also all the private insurance plans in the “exchanges” the bill establishes for people annually to choose their health insurance.
The Board would be directed to make recommendations that the Secretary of Health and Human Services could then impose that, in the sweeping and vague language of the amendment, would in their opinion promote “integrated care, care coordination, prevention and wellness, and quality and efficiency[,] ... decrease health care spending, and [bring about] other appropriate improvements.” In addition to the elements characteristic of managed care plans that would be required, note the explicit directive to “decrease health care spending.” All of the requirements presumably are aimed at forcing the privately insured to spend less on healthcare, and the list of requirements is open-ended. Plans deemed to spend too much money on health care would be evicted from the exchange.
Instead of allowing Americans themselves to balance cost, benefits, and quality when choosing among competing health plans in the exchanges, their choice would be subject to potentially drastic restrictions. Americans’ choice to spend their own money for health insurance they judge will be less likely to deny treatments and otherwise ration care would be limited.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
PRICE CONTROLS REAR THEIR UGLY HEAD
October 1, 2009. The ability of Americans to choose to use their own money to obtain insurance policies less likely to ration in the exchanges to be set up by the health restructuring bill may be in danger. Originally, state-based "exchanges" were designed to allow comparison shopping among all insurance plans that provided the basic benefits. Now, however, a proposal is afoot to authorize states to limit the value of the insurance policies all Americans using the exchanges may purchase, by allowing them to exclude policies government authorities believe "do not offer good value and cost-effectiveness." This would effectively allow the imposition of price controls, limiting consumers’ access to adequate and unrationed health care. People would be limited in their ability to use their own money to save their own lives.
As the Senate Finance Committee consideration of amendments to its health care restructuring bill drew to a close this evening, Senators Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and Kent Conrad (D-ND) got a commitment from Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) to attempt to add such a to the bill, as it is melded with the version reported from the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee in July before the product goes to the Senate floor to a vote.
In a similar vein, Senator Maria Cantwell's (D-WA) amendment narrowly passsed earlier in the day. Agreed to by a vote of 12 -11 (with Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) joining Republicans), Sen. Cantwell's amendment allows states to establish insurance plans and negotiate rates for people earning between 133 to 200 percent of the federal poverty level- removing them from the exchange.
Sen. Cantwell claimed that 75 percent of the uninsured fall into that range. However, the concern is that "government negotiation" is not really negotiation, but in practice, has been shown to be price control. When there is only one buyer, they can set a price much lower than in a competitive market. Many of the details of the Cantwell Amendment are unclear, but it is one example of how people's access to unrationed care will be limited under this bill.
As the Senate Finance Committee consideration of amendments to its health care restructuring bill drew to a close this evening, Senators Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and Kent Conrad (D-ND) got a commitment from Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) to attempt to add such a to the bill, as it is melded with the version reported from the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee in July before the product goes to the Senate floor to a vote.
In a similar vein, Senator Maria Cantwell's (D-WA) amendment narrowly passsed earlier in the day. Agreed to by a vote of 12 -11 (with Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) joining Republicans), Sen. Cantwell's amendment allows states to establish insurance plans and negotiate rates for people earning between 133 to 200 percent of the federal poverty level- removing them from the exchange.
Sen. Cantwell claimed that 75 percent of the uninsured fall into that range. However, the concern is that "government negotiation" is not really negotiation, but in practice, has been shown to be price control. When there is only one buyer, they can set a price much lower than in a competitive market. Many of the details of the Cantwell Amendment are unclear, but it is one example of how people's access to unrationed care will be limited under this bill.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)