Fact Check: CBO's Analysis of McCarran-Ferguson Repeal Shows No Effect
Posted by The Campaign on October 30, 2009 at 11:15 AM
"The analysis also takes into account the provisions of section 262 of Division A regarding the application of federal antitrust laws to health insurers. CBO estimates that implementing those provisions would have no significant effects on either the federal budget or the premiums that private insurers charged for health insurance. For an analysis of a similar proposal, see CBO’s cost estimate for H.R. 3596, the Health Insurance Industry Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2009 (October 23, 2009)."
For the full analysis, click here.
ICYMI: Study Sees Family Health Spending Rise Under Senate Plan
Posted by The Campaign on October 30, 2009 at 1:40 AM
The Lewin Group's analysis of the Senate Health Plan shows rising costs. See below for a few key excerpts:
"U.S. families would spend an average of $218 more per year on health care under health overhaul legislation approved by the Senate Finance Committee..."
"...the bill falls far short with respect to the need to reduce federal health spending and fix existing programs."
For the full article, click here.
FACT CHECK: The Truth About McCarran-Ferguson
Posted by The Campaign on October 29, 2009 at 10:00 AM
Recently, the McCarran-Ferguson Act has become the focus of the reform debate. However, there are some misconceptions about the effect repealing the McCarran-Ferguson Act would have on costs and competition. Below are some key facts about this:
The Congressional Budget Office issued a report earlier this week which stated "would have no significant effect on the premiums that private insurers would charge for health insurance." For the full report click here.
Politico reports "CBO: Repealing insurance anti-trust exemption won't affect premiums" For the full article click here.
Bloomberg news reported on this issue late last week. Here are some key highlights from the article:
- " A proposal by the U.S. Congress to limit health insurers’ 64-year-old antitrust exemption won’t increase competition..."
- Robert Laszewski, an Alexandria, Virginia-based consultant to the industry said "Either the people who are proposing this are really naïve about how insurance is regulated, or they are just playing political games with the voters."
- "Repealing the exemption is 'not the silver bullet that I think some proponents are claiming,' said Greaney, who headed the Justice Department’s health-care antitrust unit in the 1980s. 'It certainly is not going to make a big difference in terms of the competitiveness of the markets.'"
- "'I think it’s going to fizzle,' [Laszewski] said of the antitrust repeal. 'They had themselves a couple of good days rattling sabers, but I think now their aides are going to be in their ears, whispering, "Hey, this doesn’t mean a whole lot."'"
FACT CHECK: Government-run Plan and Anti-Fraud Measures
Posted by The Campaign on October 29, 2009 at 9:54 AM
Today, Democrats in the House released the "Affordable Health Care for America Act" which includes a government-run plan. One part of the government-run plan is the inclusion of anti-fraud measures.
A summary of the bill states "Sec. 326. Application of fraud and abuse provisions. Applies Medicare’s anti-fraud and abuse protections to the public health insurance option."
However, today The Wall Street Journal reported on existing fraud in the health care system, particularly within the Medicare and Medicaid programs. The article noted these two programs are "especially susceptible" to fraud. Click here for the full article.
Here are some other facts from the story that make this provision problematic:
"The U.S. loses at least $60 billion to health-care fraud every year, and some estimates put the cost as high as 10% of the nation's total health-care spending, which exceeds $2 trillion.""Medicare, the federal insurance program for the elderly and disabled, and Medicaid, the federal-state program for the poor, are especially susceptible.""The Medicare program, which spends more than $400 billion a year, reviews only 3% of those claims, he said. Medicare has reported that it improperly paid more than $10 billion in claims in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, 2008."
ICYMI: AHIP Perspective: AHIP’s Robert Zirkelbach on Controlling Rising Health Care Costs
Posted by The Campaign on October 29, 2009 at 9:48 AM
AHIP’s Robert Zirkelbach in an article on out-of-pocket costs and rising health care costs:
"‘We don't believe a cap is the best way to control rising health care costs,’ said Robert Zirkelbach, a spokesman for America's Health Insurance Plans, the industry trade group. To curb high bills, he said, ‘policymakers need to address the underlying cost of medical care, which is the key driver of rising health care costs.’”
For the full article click here.
ICYMI: Chicago Tribune's Steve Chapman -- GRP Could Eventually Become Only Option
Posted by The Campaign on October 29, 2009 at 9:34 AM
Steve Chapman, of the Chicago Tribune, questions whether a government-run plan will rely on cost-shifting like Medicare. Some key excerpts are below:
“Health economists Regina Herzlinger of Harvard and Robert Book of the Heritage Foundation note that on a per-person basis, Medicare has higher administrative costs than private firms.” “A ‘public option’ might duplicate one of Medicare's means of saving money: limiting reimbursements to doctors and hospitals to far less than what private insurers pay. But 19 health care organizations that support reform explained the flaw in that approach. ‘Under the current Medicare system, a majority of doctors and hospitals that care for Medicare patients are paid substantially less than it costs to treat them,’ they said in an open letter to Congress. ‘Many providers are therefore already approaching a point where they can not afford to see Medicare patients.’”“…if a new government-run plan tries the same trick [underpaying providers and hospitals], it will have trouble attracting providers and therefore patients. If it pays the same rates as private insurers, it will lose that big competitive edge.”“If the Washington-run plan charges too little to pay its expenses, will it raise rates, thus antagonizing what could be a sizable group of voters? Or will Congress cough up the money to keep it going? You know the answer.”"In the end, the key to the success of this program, writes Cato Institute analyst Michael Cannon, is that "government possesses both the power to hide its true costs (which keeps its premiums artificially low) and to impose costs on its competitors (which unnecessarily pushes private insurance premiums higher)."
"With those artificial advantages, the public option could eventually become the only option."
For the full article, click here.
AHIP Statement on Affordable Health Care for America Act
Posted by The Campaign on October 29, 2009 at 12:26 AM
AHIP Statement on Affordable Health Care for America Act
Washington, D.C. – Karen Ignagni, President and CEO of America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), released the following statement today in response to the Affordable Health Care for America Act:
“The promise of health care reform has been that if you like your current coverage you can keep it. We are concerned that this proposal will break this promise by increasing health care costs for families and employers across the country and significantly disrupting the quality coverage that millions of people rely on today.
“The lack of system-wide cost containment is a missed opportunity. Without a greater focus on health care costs, families and employers will not be able to afford coverage and health care costs will rise at a rate much faster than the overall economy is able to sustain.
“We share the concerns that doctors, hospitals, employers, and patients have all raised about the significant disruption a new government-run plan would have on the current health care system. A new government-run plan would bankrupt hospitals, dismantle employer coverage, exacerbate cost-shifting from Medicare and Medicaid, and ultimately increase the federal deficit.
“Estimates show that a government-run plan would cause millions of people to lose their current coverage. Moreover, massive Medicare Advantage cuts would cause millions of seniors to lose their Medicare Advantage coverage altogether, while millions more would face benefit cuts and higher out-of-pocket costs.
“Health plans strongly support comprehensive, bipartisan health care reform and have proposed sweeping insurance market reforms and new consumer protections to ensure that every American has guaranteed access to affordable health care coverage. Experience in the states has shown that insurance market reforms must be paired with an effective personal coverage requirement for these reforms to work. While this legislation recognizes the key linkage of market reforms and a personal coverage requirement, more needs to be done to ensure coverage is affordable and our health care system is sustainable.
“As the process progresses, health plans will continue to work to advance bipartisan legislation this year that will cover all Americans, make coverage more affordable, and improve quality.”
ICYMI: Business Coalition Letter on Health Care Reform
Posted by The Campaign on October 28, 2009 at 7:37 PM
A business coalition made of up a cross section of business groups from the U.S. Chamber to the National Association of Manufacturers sent a letter to Majority Leader Harry Reid outlining their top priorities "the priority issues and standards that employers believe are necessary for health care reform." Here are some key excerpts from the letter:
"No matter who pays the bills – individuals, employers or the government – we must have reform that leads to relief in health insurance premiums, results in a more sustainable rate of growth in health costs and sets us on an irreversible path of paying for value, not volume."
"A public plan, particularly when combined with Medicare, Medicaid and other government plans, would be highly disruptive and destabilizing to the private health care marketplace."
"Achieving broad participation in the insurance market requires a combination of affordable coverage – including low-cost catastrophic coverage – and adequate financial incentives to encourage as many individuals as possible to obtain and maintain continuous health coverage."
For a copy of the full letter, click here.
ICYMI: Highlights of Steve Pearlstein Q & A on Washington Post
Posted by The Campaign on October 28, 2009 at 7:16 PM
The Washington Post's Steve Pearlstein does a weekly Q&A on washingtonpost.com, and lately he has focused on health care reform. Here are some highlights of this week's session:
"Health insurance companies aren't ridiculously profitable over time."
"If you want to understand why health care costs more here than anywhere else in the world, it is the cost (not the utilization) of health care procedures and drugs, the unit cost."
"The insurers are the middle men here -- they collect a fee, which some people feel is excessive, but the fee isn't the big driver of costs or cost growth. It is the providers, what they are paid, how they organize themselves, what incentives they have, etc."
"I don't really think Americans are really so keen on the government running things that private companies can do."
For the full Q&A, click here.
MUST READ: Wall Street Journal -- Lawmakers Target Medicare and Medicaid Fraud
Posted by The Campaign on October 28, 2009 at 6:48 PM
The Wall Street Journal reports on the amount of fraud in Medicare and Medicaid and how it could effect the debate around a government-run plan. Here are some key excerpts from the article:
"The U.S. loses at least $60 billion to health-care fraud every year, and some estimates put the cost as high as 10% of the nation's total health-care spending, which exceeds $2 trillion."
"Medicare, the federal insurance program for the elderly and disabled, and Medicaid, the federal-state program for the poor, are especially susceptible."
"Sen. John Cornyn (R., Texas) said government officials still need to figure out why Medicare and Medicaid have a higher rate of fraud than private insurers, especially since Congress is considering creating a public-insurance program."
"Medicare alone...receives 4.4 million claims each day, which have to be paid between 14 and 30 days."
"The Medicare program, which spends more than $400 billion a year, reviews only 3% of those claims, he said. Medicare has reported that it improperly paid more than $10 billion in claims in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, 2008."
Click here for the full article.
