On The Hill: Senator Lincoln Reiterates Opposition to Government-run Plan
Posted by The Campaign on December 04, 2009 at 3:07 PM
From Senator Blanche Lincoln:
"I've been very clear. I don't support a public option that is government funded or government run, and that puts the taxpayers at risk in the long run." (MSNBC, First Read, 12/4/09)
ICYMI: Clive Crook Highlights The Importance of a Strong Coverage Requirement
Posted by The Campaign on December 04, 2009 at 1:41 PM
In an article in The Atlantic, Clive Crook cites past unsuccessful reform attempts due to weak coverage requirements.
Here are a few key excerpts:
“The issue is adverse selection. If you have guaranteed access to health insurance regardless of pre-existing conditions (which the bill would provide), why buy insurance at all until you actually need it? Healthy people will opt out, and the per-person cost of servicing the remaining customers will go up. If that happens in a big way, premiums will soar”
“The Senate bill's subsidies are pretty generous; but not everybody gets them. On the other hand, the penalties under the mandate are mild. Neither group of analysts has explained its reasoning in detail--though Oliver Wyman points to the unhappy experience of individual states that have combined guaranteed issue and rating reform with weak coverage requirements."
For the full article, click here.
On The Hill: Senate in Session Saturday and Sunday
Posted by The Campaign on December 04, 2009 at 1:38 PM
Politico is reporting the following schedule for the Senate this weekend:
"The Senate convenes at 10 a.m. tomorrow with votes likely between 2 p.m and 3 p.m. They meet Sunday between noon and 6:30 p.m. with a tentative Democratic caucus scheduled for the afternoon."
Watch live on CSPAN2 or online here.
ICYMI: Economists and Analysts Say Senate Bill Does Not Curb Healthcare Spending
Posted by The Campaign on December 04, 2009 at 12:48 PM
A Bloomberg article cites several experts who do not believe the Senate bill will slow the growth of healthcare costs.
Here are a few key excerpts:
“Still, there’s a difference between lowering individual insurance expenses and curbing the growth in health-care spending, said Robert L. Laszewski, an Alexandria, Virginia- based consultant to the insurance industry.”
"The CBO study doesn’t allay concern over rising medical spending, said Uwe Reinhardt, an economics professor at Princeton University, who backs the legislation. 'While the Senate bill lays the groundwork to slow spending growth, Congress would need to make many more tough decisions that could take years to have an impact, Reinhardt said."
"Victor Fuchs, a Stanford University economist, said much of the congressional legislation shifts spending from one group to another. Prohibiting insurance companies from excluding those who are already sick increases premiums for healthy people, said Fuchs. Mandating that businesses offer coverage, as the House bill does, will shift costs to workers."
“Reinhardt said the battle to contain costs will continue. To ‘get that growth curve down in my view is a decade-long fierce campaign that may not be winnable,’ he said.”
For the full article, click here.
ICYMI: Health Care Policy Experts -- What They Are Saying About Costs
Posted by The Campaign on December 03, 2009 at 4:48 PM
Health Care Policy Experts –
What They Are Saying About Costs:
Ken Thorpe, chairman of the health policy department at Emory University:
“We don’t need pilots. We have enough information. Let’s go ahead and get on with this.” (Time, Where Did Health Care Reform Go?, 12/03/09)
Concord Coalition:
“Unfortunately, the bill currently being debated in the Senate has effectively neutered the commission’s powers…That these limitations on the commission are in the bill suggests that despite some member’s rhetoric, they are not placing concerns about health care costs at the top of their priority list. Luckily, there is still time to alter the bill in ways that could make cost control more of a priority.” (The Concord Coalition, Save the Medicare Commission!, 12/01/09)
Dr. Denis A. Cortese, CEO, Mayo Clinic:
“Experts,…like Dr. Denis A. Cortese, chief executive of the Mayo Clinic — say the measures take only baby steps toward revamping the current fee-for-service system, which drives up costs by paying health providers for each visit or procedure performed.” (The New York Times, Democrats Raise Alarms Over Health Bill Costs, 11/09/09)
Dr. Toby Cosgrove, CEO, Cleveland Clinic:
“I do not see anything in this that will keep the total cost for health care - not necessarily the government’s bill for health care, but the total bill for the country for health care, I don’t see anything in this that’s going to keep that from escalating…I think that costs are going to keep going up.” (90.3 WCPN ideastream, Clinic’s Cosgrove: Little Cost Control in Health Care Bills, 11/10/09)
Dr. Jeffrey Flier, Dean of Harvard Medical School:
“Speeches and news reports can lead you to believe that proposed congressional legislation would tackle the problems of cost, access and quality. But that’s not true. The various bills do deal with access by expanding Medicaid and mandating subsidized insurance at substantial cost—and thus addresses an important social goal. However, there are no provisions to substantively control the growth of costs or raise the quality of care. So the overall effort will fail to qualify as reform.” (The Wall Street Journal, Health ‘Reform’ Gets a Failing Grade, 11/18/09)
Ralph Neas, Head of the National Coalition on Health Care:
“…these bills do very little in terms of reining in long-term cost growth…There is not enough in the public sector and virtually none in the private sector.” (The Washington Post, Health Bills Too Timid on Cutting Costs, Experts Say, 11/03/09)
Dr. John Kitzhaber, former Oregon governor:
“I don’t believe that what’s going to come out of Congress is going to have any impact on the medical cost inflation, which is what’s really crushing individuals and businesses, and really putting the country at economic risk.” (NPR, Former Oregon Gov. Says Key To Health Care Is Costs, 11/30/09)
Robert Bixby, Executive Director, Concord Coalition:
“But this bill is not bending the cost curve. Even if these things work, it’s not of the magnitude that is needed to prevent us from going over the cliff.” (The Washington Post, In Health-Care Reform, No Deficit Cure, 11/30/09)
Jon Gruber, MIT economist:
“…said the bill ‘really doesn’t bend the cost curve.’” (Politico, Health Savings? No One Knows, 11/11/09)
Christine Eibner, economist RAND:
“Still, there isn’t agreement that such measures go far enough to slow spending. That’s ‘not being addressed much in any of the legislative proposals,’ says Christine Eibner, an economist with RAND, a think tank. Because of that, ‘I don’t think there’s any reason to think (premium growth) will moderate.’” (Kaiser Health News, Health Reform’s Impact on Premiums: Winners, Losers And, For Many, A Question Mark, 11/25/09)
David Walker, former comptroller general:
“On health care, four tests for fiscal responsible health care. Must pay for itself over ten years. Must not add to deficits beyond ten years because the country is going to last for more than ten years and the future is more than ten years. Number three, should result in a significant reduction in the tens of trillions in unfunded promises we already have for health care. And number four, should bend total health care cost curve as a percentage of the economy down not up. No bill meets that. Some don’t come close to meeting it. Otherwise, you are adding a wing to a house that is headed for condemnation and bankruptcy or foreclosure in today’s terms.” (Senate Budget Committee, Hearing, 11/10/09)
Brian Klepper, David Kibbe, Robert Laszewski, and Alain Enthoven:
“…‘by carefully avoiding reforms of the practices that drive health care’s enormous cost growth, Congress pretends to make meaningful change where little is contemplated’…Congress’ planned overhaul ‘rewards the delivery of more products and services, independent of their appropriateness, rather than rewarding results,’ the four experts write.” (Investor’s Business Daily, Some Cost Fix, 11/04/09)
David Cutler, Harvard University economist:
“‘Far and away, what happens to premiums is dependent on whether you can bend the cost curve,’ Cutler said. And there are questions as to whether the bills even meet that goal.” (Politico, Health Savings? No One Knows, 11/11/09)
ICYMI: Opinion Leaders -- What They Are Saying About Costs
Posted by The Campaign on December 03, 2009 at 4:48 PM
Opinion Leaders –
What They Are Saying About Costs
David S. Broder:
“These bills, as they stand, are budget-busters… The challenge to Congress -- and to Obama -- remains the same: Make the promised savings real, and don’t pass along unfunded programs to our children and grandchildren.” (The Washington Post, A budget-buster in the making, 11/22/09)
Robert Samuelson:
“Equally misleading…that the present proposals would slow the growth of overall national health spending. Outside studies disagree. Three studies (two by the consulting firm the Lewin Group for the Peterson Foundation and one by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, a federal agency) conclude that various congressional plans would increase national health spending compared with the effect of no legislation.” (The Washington Post, Obamacare: Buy Now, Pay Later, 11/16/09)
David Brooks:
“…the general view among independent health care economists is that these changes will not fundamentally bend the cost curve. The system after reform will look as it does today, only bigger and more expensive.” (The New York Times, The Values Question, 11/23/09)
Megan McArdle, The Atlantic:
“…according to the CBO, the savings achieved by Subtitle A, the main delivery system reform part of the bill, are trivial--not really distinguishable from zero, when you consider the uncertainties inherent in the estimates…None of these make any real changes to the incentives of either the providers of health care services, or the people who consume them. All they do is tinker with the level of the third party payments. That’s not reform. It’s wishful thinking.” (The Atlantic, Preliminary Thoughts on the CBO Report, 11/19/09)
Fred Hiatt:
“As Post health reporter Ceci Connolly explained in a front-page story last week, the House bill also does not do much to lower costs. It includes some valuable pilot programs. But it doesn’t end the tax break for employer-provided insurance, a break that is both highly regressive and encourages spending.” (The Washington Post, A High Price for Health Reform, 11/09/09)
David S. Broder:
“First,…pay for itself over 10 years. Second…not add to deficits beyond 10 years. Third…significantly reduce the tens of trillions of dollars in unfunded health care promises that we already have. Fourth…bend down — not up — the total health care cost curve as a percentage of GDP…An analysis by the Lewin Group shows that the Energy and Commerce Committee bill that was the basic blueprint for the House measure comes close to meeting the first of those tests and fails the other three, according to Walker, ‘by a wide margin.’”(Houston Chronicle, Health Reform Bill Fails to Deliver on Cost Controls, 11/11/09)
ICYMI: Mayo Clinic – A government-run plan “will not improve access or quality.”
Posted by The Campaign on December 03, 2009 at 4:35 PM
Mayo Clinic remains concerned about a government-run plan, insisting that it will not improve access, quality, or affordability of healthcare. The group believes more attention should be paid to the cost problem.
Here are a few key excerpts:
"Mayo Clinic remains concerned about a "Medicare-like" public option."
"...the proposed public options will not improve access or quality, and CBO estimates show that the premiums would increase 10-13 percent when subsidies are not factored in."
"We believe coverage can be achieved without creating or expanding a government-run, price-controlled, Medicare-like insurance model."
For Mayo Clinic's statement, click here.
AHIP’s Perspective: The Debate America Needs
Posted by The Campaign on December 03, 2009 at 3:23 PM
Today, AHIP’s President and CEO Karen Ignagni delivered a speech to the Detroit Economic Club on the need for health care reform to tackle the issue of rising health care costs.
Excerpts from her speech are below.
The full speech as prepared for delivery is available by clicking here.
Key Excerpts:
The measure of whether we succeed now – to accomplish what hasn’t been accomplished in a century of false starts - is not simply whether a bill gets passed but whether it genuinely provides health security.
********
If we don’t do what needs to be done to address costs and instead settle for passing inadequate legislation – simply to attach a ‘health care reform’ label to something – we will have made promises that will be impossible to keep. Deficits will increase, Medicare will remain financially unstable, government subsidies will be inadequate to protect families, and employers will find it much more difficult to continue to provide coverage.
*********
To expand access without constraining costs is not sustainable and the American people understand this. In fact, as polls show, millions of Americans worry that the pending legislation doesn’t do enough to bring costs under control.
*********
Unfortunately, the cost-containment discussion has been largely sidetracked. The bills currently before Congress do not include a comprehensive, system-wide plan to bend the cost curve.
*********
Indeed, as far as cost containment is concerned, it’s as though the house is on fire and the strategy is to rush to the scene with an eight-ounce glass of water.
*********
The good news is that there is still time to get it right. The barrier – and it is tall and wide – is the perception that the politics of Washington inevitably make it impossible to take on health care costs in a comprehensive fashion.
*********
Today, I’d like to offer five solutions that can promote health security for all Americans and help set the nation on a sound economic course:
1. Set a National Goal and Measure Progress.
2. Build on the Pilots and Incentives in the Senate Legislation with a Comprehensive Plan to Introduce Health Care Delivery Reforms Across the System.
3. Reform the Legal System to Protect Patients and Allow Doctors and Hospitals to Deliver “Best Practice” Medicine.
4. Empower Patients and Their Doctors to Make the Most Informed Health Care Decisions.
5. Avoiding “Reforms” that Increase Costs.
**********
We believe these issues can and must be addressed. The key is for the nation to make a commitment to reducing the growth rate of health care costs.
**********
As everyone here knows, we’ve paid a high price for avoiding tough decisions in other areas of our economy. And the devastating housing and financial crises should serve as stark lessons. If reform fails to address the unsustainable cost drivers in health care, we may be laying the groundwork for the nation’s next crisis – one that will impact every American.
**********
We can avoid that outcome. We can still change direction.
Sustainable health care reform is still within reach. The nation can provide affordable health care coverage to all Americans. To get there, all of us with a stake in the health care system need to heed the call to a higher national purpose that trumps political expediency.
ICYMI: California Medical Association Opposes Senate Bill -- Increases Costs and Restricts Access to Care
Posted by The Campaign on December 03, 2009 at 12:33 PM
The California Medical Association, the country's second largest doctors group, opposes current healthcare legislation in the Senate, asserting the proposal will increase costs and decrease elderly and low-income patients' access to care.
“'The Senate bill came so short that we could not support it, even though we solidly support healthcare reform,' said Dr. Dev GnanaDev, medical director at Arrowhead Regional Medical Center in San Bernardino, who also serves on the association’s executive committee."
"Doctors who oppose the Senate bill are concerned that it would would shift Medicare funding from urban to rural areas, move responsibility for Medicare oversight away from Congress by creating an Independent Medicare Commission and, ultimately, decrease Medicare reimbursement rates."
For the full article, click here.
ICYMI: James Capretta -- House and Senate Bills Do not 'Bend the Cost Curve', Likely to Make Cost Problems Much Worse
Posted by The Campaign on December 03, 2009 at 12:05 PM
James C. Capretta, Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and former Associate Director at the White House Office of Management and Budget, argues that Congress' proposals will most likely exacerbate health care's rising costs.
"The [Senate] bill would achieve significant Medicare savings in the coming years, but not with innovative payment policies or more efficient health care delivery. The savings would come from across-the-board payment rate cuts, applied without regard to any metric of quality..."
"...the difficult organizational changes and innovations necessary to provide better care at less cost would come from those delivering the services...[the Senate bill] would change incentives for a relatively small segment of the market, and certainly would not be enough to counter the pressures for rising costs built into today’s health entitlement programs and tax policies."
"...it shouldn’t be all that surprising that Congress is more interested in entitlement expansion than difficult and lasting reform. That’s why we are in our current budgetary predicament. And, despite protests to the contrary, the bills under development are more of the same. They are likely to make our health care cost problems much worse."
For the full article, click here.
