November 7th, 2010 by GruntDoc in Better Health Network, Health Policy, News, Opinion
No Comments »
Via the Texas Tribune:
Some Republican lawmakers — still reveling in Tuesday’s statewide election sweep — are proposing an unprecedented solution to the state’s estimated $25 billion budget shortfall: dropping out of the federal Medicaid program.
Hmmm. Welcome to entitlement reality, Texas-style. Currently 20 billion a year and going to go up with expanded eligibility, the article does say the Feds pay 60 percent, but doesn’t say: 1) It’s temporary, then the Federal contribution goes down or away, and 2) The Federal component doesn’t come from magical money fairies — it’s money taken from taxpayers then funneled back into a particular program.
Medicaid is not loved or respected in medicine. Decreasing reimbursements coupled to increasing requirements mean it’s at a minimum inefficient for both patients and providers.
I’m not against kicking Medicaid to the curb, PROVIDED the state has some kind of replacement program — which I’m not sanguine about.
*This blog post was originally published at GruntDoc*
September 30th, 2010 by RyanDuBosar in Better Health Network, Health Policy, News, Opinion
No Comments »
Government healthcare reform efforts are picking up the pace to roll out new reimbursement and practice models for primary care.
Medicare is giving out $10 billion for pilot projects encouraging new models of primary care, including the patient-centered medical home. New Jersey just passed legislation to explore the patient-centered medical home. Now, Massachusetts, the early adopter of mandatory health insurance, is now ambitiously planning how to take on the fee-for-service reimbursement system and moving toward accountable care organizations. Under discussion are the scope of power for state regulators, what rules will apply to accountable care organizations, and how to get rid of the existing fee-for-service system.
Blogger and pediatrician Jay Parkinson, MD, MPH, comments about the “bureaucrats in Washington” that, “they’ve decided for doctors that we’ll get paid for strictly office visits and procedures when, in fact, being a good doctor is much, much more about good communication and solid relationships than the maximum volume of patients you can see in a given day.”
Now, it’s those same bureaucrats who are changing the system, trying to find a model that will accomplish just those goals. (CMS Web site, NJ Today, Boston Globe, KevinMD)
*This blog post was originally published at ACP Internist*
September 27th, 2010 by Stanley Feld, M.D. in Better Health Network, Health Policy, News, Opinion
1 Comment »
An interesting debate occurred in the Washington Post between Michael Leavitt, former secretary of Health and Human Services and a member of the Medicare Board of Trustees from 2005 to 2009, and Dr. Don Berwick, the director of CMS.
Michael Leavitt wrote a scathing article criticizing President Obama’s Medicare Reform Act calling it an illusion. Don Berwick wrote a rebuttal to Michael Leavitt’s article.
Michael Leavitt starts off his article by stating: “Despite the report from Medicare’s trustees this month that the hospital insurance trust fund will not be depleted until 2029, 12 years later than was predicted just last year, Medicare is no better off than it was a year ago. “
The Medicare Trustees Report was strange. Nothing was done to change anything and all of a sudden, the hospital insurance fund was extended 12 years. I thought it was funny arithmetic.
Medicare Trustees is supposed to be an organization independent of the administration. Shortly afterward, Richard Foster, Chief Actuary for Medicare, who is independent of both the Medicare Trustees and the administration, wrote an “Alternative Report.” His report received little coverage in the traditional media. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Repairing the Healthcare System*
September 2nd, 2010 by BobDoherty in Better Health Network, Health Policy, Opinion
No Comments »
One of the more surprising twists and turns in the continuing debate over healthcare reform is that many physicians who now object to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) were just a few years back advocates for more federal regulation. In fact, in the early 2000s, more than 200 “provider” and consumer groups — including many state medical and national medical specialty societies that now oppose the ACA because of concerns about “excessive regulation” — were among the fiercest champions of federal legislation to mandate that health insurers comply with a Patient Bill of Rights.
A bipartisan bill introduced by Senator John McCain (R-AZ) and the late Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) would have ensured that patients have the “right” to appeal insurance company denials to independent reviewers, to choose a specialist of their choice, and to access emergency room services when needed. This effort to enact a federal Patient Bill of Rights failed, because of opposition from the insurance industry and President George W. Bush.
I bring up this history lesson because most of the key provisions in the McCain-Kennedy bill are now the law of the land, thanks to the ACA. Yet instead of applauding the new protections, many of the same physician organizations who called for a federal patient bill of rights now want to “repeal” the same consumer protections established by the ACA. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at The ACP Advocate Blog by Bob Doherty*
July 13th, 2010 by EvanFalchukJD in Better Health Network, Health Policy, News, Opinion, Research, True Stories
No Comments »
If a website touted misleading healthcare information, you’d hope the government would do something about it. But what do you do when the government is the one feeding the public bad information?
Last week the Obama administration launched the new Healthcare.gov. It’s mostly an online insurance shopping website. It’s very much a federal government version of sites like eHealthInsurance.com or Massachsetts’ HealthConnector site, which have been around for years.
So when HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, in announcing the new site, claims it gives consumers “unprecedented transparency” into the healthcare marketplace, you should wonder what she means. But that’s not the big problem with this site. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at See First Blog*
