http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-healthcare-offshore-20120725,0,4219801,print.story
Posted July 29, 2012, at 6:46 a.m. To save money, doctors and insurance companies across the nation are dramatically changing the way they do business. As a result, tens of thousands of Maine patients — Medicare, Medicaid and privately insured — are beginning to see a change in their relationship with their providers. At the heart of it: Health care groups are putting greater emphasis on preventive medicine and paying more attention to patient safety and satisfaction. And the healthier and happier those doctors keep their patients, the greater their financial reward. “We’re trying (to be) more proactive instead of reactive, health-focused rather than rescue-focused,” said Dr. Ned Claxton, medical director of Central Maine Healthcare‘s new accountable care organization and president of the medical staff. Doctors currently earn money by the patient and the service provided. A 15-minute office visit, for example, nets doctors a certain amount. The more patients a doctor sees, the more money the doctor gets, regardless of whether those patients get healthier or sicker, are happy or unhappy with their care. Health care reform’s Affordable Care Act requires Medicare this year to establish a shared-savings program with doctors to improve care and cut costs. Because healthy patients cost insurance less than sick ones, and preventive care costs less than crisis or chronic care, the idea was to give doctors an incentive to keep patients healthy by giving those doctors a piece of the savings.
Has your insurance company called you recently to ask you to sign up for a wellness or disease management program? Has that same company told you it’s a free service to policyholders and promised you that they do not share the information with the departments and people who administer your benefits and claims? You – like me and millions of other Americans – are being scammed. Follow the money, my friends, and do not believe for one minute that the same company that would deny medications, health treatments and care to you would suddenly have your best interests at heart. It’s the money. It’s always been the money. As soon as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) was passed, we were all told that finally the insurance companies would have to spend more of the premium dollars they collect on actual healthcare. Look it up here for the nitty-gritty. In short, The Kaiser Family Foundation writes, “The provision requires most insurance companies that cover individuals and small businesses to spend at least 80% of their premium dollars on health care (i.e. medical claims) and quality improvement, leaving no more than 20% for administration, marketing, and profit. Large group plans must spend at least 85 percent of premium dollars on health care. Insurers failing to meet these standards will have to pay rebates to consumers beginning later this year.”
One of the reasons Americans seem so willing to tolerate the fact that 50 million of us are uninsured and almost 30 million more of us are underinsured is that most of us who have coverage assume we are OK. That nothing truly catastrophic will happen to us, and that, even if it did, our insurance policies will pay our bills and keep us whole.
Who would think that a decision to go see a movie on a Friday night could change our lives—and the lives of our families—forever? That we or a loved one, even with what we believed was decent coverage, might become a victim of violence that could leave us not only disabled for life but also potentially bankrupt and homeless?
That random act of violence in Aurora, Colorado earlier this month could have happened anywhere in America, of course—or in any other country, for that matter—but among the world’s developed nations, we live in the only one where the families of some of the injured would have to face begging for money to pay the doctors and hospitals and keep the sheriff and his foreclosure papers at bay. Talk about American exceptionalism. This is one area where, sadly, we truly are unique.
http://www.iwatchnews.org/print/10384
The Entitled Generation
IF you were born before 1946 or after 1964, you are free to go. Kindly close the door on your way out. I need a private moment with my fellow baby boomers. So. I imagine you’re all feeling a little unappreciated these days. We seem to have entered one of our periodic seasons of boomer-bashing. In rapid Op-Ed succession, we children of the postwar demographic bulge have been blamed for turning religion into an indulgent free-for-all, for giving elites a bad name and for making greed respectable, or at least acceptable. That’s just this month, and just on this page. And it’s not only conservatives beating us with the Woodstock whip. Kurt Andersen, a confessed liberal and one of our more prolific cultural omnivores, started the latest thumping July 4 with an argument that amoral self-gratification is just the flip side of social liberation: “Thanks to the ’60s, we are all shamelessly selfish.” The notion that our generation has been spoiled rotten is not a terribly new thought. A dozen years ago Paul Begala (of Bill Clinton and CNN fame) published in Esquire the classic of boomer-loathing, “ The Worst Generation.” “The Baby Boomers are the most self-centered, self-seeking, self-interested, self-absorbed, self-indulgent, self-aggrandizing generation in American history,” he declared. It’s a sturdy genre. Perhaps while Googling yourself you have come across the blog Boomer Deathwatch (“Because one day, they’ll all be dead”), a checklist of famous boomers who hit their actuarial sell-by dates. Even Barack Obama, who styles himself post-boomer though he was born in 1961, complained in “The Audacity of Hope” that today’s hyperpolarized political discourse began with the “psychodrama of the baby boom generation.” Republicans vs. Women
Even with a persistent gender gap in a presidential election year, House Republicans have not given up on their campaign to narrow access to birth control, abortion care and lifesaving cancer screenings. Far from it. A new Republican spending proposal revives some of the more extreme attacks on women’s health and freedom that were blocked by the Senate earlier in this Congress. The resurrection is part of an alarming national crusade that goes beyond abortion rights and strikes broadly at women’s health in general. These setbacks are recycled from the Congressional trash bin in the fiscal 2013 spending bill for federal health, labor and education programs approved by a House appropriations subcommittee on July 18 over loud objections from Democratic members to these and other provisions. The measure would bar Planned Parenthood’s network of clinics, which serve millions of women across the country, from receiving any federal money unless the health group agreed to no longer offer abortion services for which it uses no federal dollars — a patently unconstitutional provision. It would also eliminate financing for Title X, the effective federal family-planning program for low-income women that provides birth control, breast and cervical cancer screenings, and testing for sexually-transmitted diseases. Without this program, some women would die, and unintended pregnancies would rise, resulting in some 400,000 more abortions a year and increases in Medicaid-related costs, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a leading authority on reproductive health.
Health insurance mandate faces huge resistance in OklahomaOKLAHOMA CITY — The Supreme Court may have declared that the government can order Americans to get health insurance, but that doesn’t mean they’re going to sign up. Nowhere is that more evident than Oklahoma, a conservative state with an independent streak and a disdain for the strong arm of government. The state cannot even get residents to comply with car insurance laws; roughly a quarter of the drivers here lack it, one of the highest rates in the country. When it comes to health insurance, the effort to sign people up isn’t likely to get much help from the state. Antipathy toward President Obama’s signature health-care overhaul runs so deep that when the federal government awarded Oklahoma a large grant to plan for the new law, the governor turned away the money — all $54 million of it. The idea that the federal government will persuade reluctant people here to get insurance elicited head-shaking chuckles at Cattlemen’s Steakhouse, an iconic old restaurant in the Stockyards City neighborhood, which is lined with street banners reading “Where the Wild West still lives.” “That kind of frontier mentality maintains in Oklahoma, and it’s not a bad thing. It’s a good thing,” said Mark Cunningham, 64, an Army veteran having breakfast with a couple of friends in a dimly lighted booth recently. Considering the car insurance statistic, he said, “I suspect they’re going to run into the same kind of trouble on health insurance.” Although Obama’s health-care overhaul cleared a major hurdle last month when it was upheld by the Supreme Court, the government continues to face challenges as it implements the largest social program in decades. Among the biggest is the resistance, both personal and political, that officials face as they try to achieve the law’s most ambitious goal — extending health coverage to 30 million uninsured Americans. That includes people who will become newly eligible for Medicaid coverage and others who can buy insurance through new state exchanges. Beginning in 2014, most Americans will be required to get health coverage or face a fine come tax time. But it will not be a simple task to get so many people to purchase coverage, and the Congressional Budget Office estimates that, for a variety of reasons, fewer than half of the 30 million will actually gain coverage in that first year.
Presbyterians, TIAA-CREF hear call to divest from private health insurance firmsBy Katie Robbins
Healthcare not Wealthcare, July 27, 2012
In the midst of a fierce debate on the national level around the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the Affordable Care Act, the Divestment Campaign for Health Care made its official debut. Its stated mission: “to expose how the health insurance industry puts the need for profit above the needs of patients and to escalate public support for total removal of the private health insurance companies from our nation’s health care.”
Leading advocacy organizations dedicated to single-payer health care are committed to pursuing a divestment campaign from private health insurance companies in order to transform the treatment of health care as a commodity into a basic human right for all people in the U.S.
“We are responsible for our investments, and particularly as health care workers and patients, we see the immorality of the private health insurance companies as they deny payment for care in order to create huge profits for shareholders," says Dr. Rob Stone of Bloomington, Ind., a leader in the effort. "Those who stand for a just and equitable health care system must recognize the corrupting force of the private health insurance industry on our political process that costs tens of thousands of lives every year in addition to being a huge financial drain.”
http://www.pnhp.org/print/news/2012/july/presbyterians-tiaa-cref-hear-call-to-divest-from-private-insurance-firms
|