Articles Tagged ‘American Medical Association’

« Older Entries

Medicare’s Denial Rate Nearly Double That of Private Carriers

Tuesday, October 6th, 2009

Here is a little bit of news that the mainstream media is unlikely to pick up on, especially on the same day the White House welcomed “doctors from across the United States to the White House to share their unique perspective on the struggles that American families face every day when it comes to health care.” The fact that the one hundred and fifty invite-only attendees belonged to Doctors for America, formerly Doctors for Obama, is beside the point and best left unmentioned.

In any event, Beverly Gossage, a Research Fellow for the Show-Me Institute based out of Missouri and founder of HSA Benefits Consulting, did some independent research to determine which health care insurance provider had the largest denial rate. What she ultimately found was truly shocking.

Her answer came on the fifth page of the sixteen-page document called the 2008 National Health Insurer Report Card published by the American Medical Association (AMA). Found on the page was a chart (featured below) that contrasted the percentage of denied claims of Medicare with those of private insurers, such as Aetna, Anthem, CIGNA, Coventry, and Humana, among others. 

denialsbyinsurer2008

Would you believe the denial rate for Medicare was nearly double that of the average percentage of denied claims for all the private insurance companies combined? Yep, out of the 6,938,431 claims Medicare received between March 1st, 2007 and March 10th, 2008, 475, 566 of them, or 6.85% of requests, were rejected. Compare this to UHC, which had the largest number of requests (1,127,691) out of the seven private health insurance companies, who had a denial rate of 2.68% within that same time frame.

What makes a little bit more unsettling is that AMA, who produced this report showing Medicare’s denial rate far above any private insurer, endorsed President Obama’s public-option monstrosity. With these facts in mind, do we really want our medical decisions, many of them likely to determine whether we live or die, in the hands of politicians and big government?

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in The Players | Start the Discussion

45% of Doctors Would Quit Under Obamacare

Wednesday, September 16th, 2009

The latest polling data accumulated by Investor’s Business Daily and TIPP Economic Optimism shows that not only do a mass majority of practicing physicians in the United States oppose the president’s public-option health care proposal, but nearly half of them would consider leaving their professions altogether were it ever to pass and become law. This data severely contradicts the claim made by both the White House itself as well as its medical lobbying group, American Medical Association (AMA), who have insisted that most medical professionals support the federal government’s take over of the health care industry.

IBD/TIPP randomly selected one thousand three hundred and seventy-six medical professionals from throughout the United States and mailed each one of them a survey. Two major discoveries were made based on their responses. The first was that sixty-five percent, or two-thirds, of respondents say they oppose the proposed government expansion plan. This repudiated polling data released by National Public Radio (NPR) this past Monday that suggested a “majority of physicians want public and private insurance option” as well as the Los Angeles Times front-page article that ran with the headline, “Doctors Go For Obama’s Reform.” The headline, not surprisingly, was sorely misleading as the story only referred to doctors belonging to the AMA, which, after decades of opposing any reform to the American health care system, endorsed the president’s proposal in late-July.

The other revelation was that four out of nine doctors, or forty-five percent of respondents, said they “would consider leaving their practice or taking an early retirement” should Congress pass the plan both progressive Democrats and the White House favor. IBD/TIPP estimated that about three hundred and fifty thousand physicians would quit based on 2006 figures.

And while the survey also found that seventy-one percent of physicians answered “no” when it came to the question of whether they believed “the government can cover 47 million more people and that it will cost less money and the quality of care will be better,” this figure is surprisingly quite consistent with most critical responses to the president’s proposal.

More significant then perhaps anything else in the survey was IBD/TIPP’s highlighting of the real crisis the American health care system finds itself faced with – the shortage of medical professionals, specifically doctors. Between 2003 and 2006, the number of active physicians in the United States grew by just 0.8% a year, adding a total of twenty-five thousand seven hundred doctors. Contrast this with figures that show the population in this country growing at a rate of one percent per year. It doesn’t take a genius to come to the conclusion that the population is outpacing the number of physicians who can attend to them. With the federal government threatening to make sharp cuts to health care spending in order to help pay for the president’s proposed reform measure, adding millions more patients would shut down the system entirely, even if the number of uninsured was significantly less then what the White House has predicted the number is. This, of course, would lead to rationing.

Now, why does that word sound familiar?

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Horserace | Start the Discussion

Doctors Against Obamacare Rally

Sunday, September 13th, 2009

For very obvious reasons, the 9/12 March on Washington Rally is decidedly the focus of attention within the United States conservative/libertarian movement this weekend. That said, however, it is all too easy to overlook another rally that took place two days earlier D.C. This rally had just as significant and symbolic an impact on the health care debate taking place in this country, possibly more so, then the prestigious one that transpired this past Saturday.

The September 10th gathering of the scores of medical professionals whose occupations range from doctors to nurses to technicians and who come from nearly every corner of the United States decimated the government-born myth that physicians in this nation are unanimous in their support of the government-run health care system being forced on American citizens by President Obama and the Congressional Democratic leadership. True, the American Medical Association (AMA) has thrown its support behind Obamacare. But bear in mind that its two hundred and fifty thousand members make up a paltry twenty percent of all medical professionals in this country. Added to that a recent survey that showed that eighty-six percent of specialty doctors feel the AMA has become too political and another seventy percent of respondents who oppose current Congressional and White House proposals for health-care reform. Not exactly the resounding endorsement the Obama administration was certainly looking for.

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), in addition to sponsoring the event, presented a petition to Washington lawmakers. The petition called for changes in Washington’s ‘solution’ to the current ‘health care crisis’ that addressed specific issues like independence, autonomy, privacy, the right to contract, the reduction of liability costs, among others. The full petition can be read at the Take Back Medicine website.

Among those in attendance who spoke the crowd were Dr. Phil Gingrey, representative for the 11th Congressional District of Georgia, and Dr. Hal Scherz, a pediatric urologist from Atlanta who founded the Docs for Patient Care organization that suggests practical proposals such as tort reform, insurance reform, and opening up insurance pools between states.

Visit blogger El Marco’s Looking at the Left site for photos and additional information about the Doctors Against Obamacare rally.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Horserace | Start the Discussion

Leave Medical-Malpractice Reform to the States

Thursday, September 10th, 2009

Originated from Statehousecall.org

Obama baited Congressional Republicans with med-mal reform. They should ignore it.

By John R. Graham

The only new thing in the president’s speech was his death-bed conversion to medical-malpractice reform, an opportunity which he neglected in his speech to the American Medical Association on June 15. Whether this is merely an attempt to pull either Senator Snowe or Senator Collins onside, or a good-faith effort to rope a significant number of Republicans into a “bipartisan” federal take-over of Americans’ access to medical services, history will tell. Certainly, otherwise grumpy Republican legislators thrust themselves up onto their hind legs to applaud the president’s statement.

Medical-malpractice reform has long been on the Republicans’ health-reform checklist (most of which seems to be writtten in invisible ink). Representative Gingrey of Georgia passed a bill through the House in 2005, and has re-introduced it. The key ingredient in the legislation is a cap on punitive, non-economic damages of $250,000, imposed where states themselves have failed to enact caps. The justification is that Medicare and other federal health programs suffer the costs of out of control med-mal litigation just like everyone else.

I hope the Republicans don’t take the bait. First, the president’s med-mal reform will surely read something like: “If doctors obey the new federal rules on how they practice medicine, and ration treatment accordingly, they have a safe harbor.” Organized medicine’s cartel will likely cave into this, but the incentives are obviously awful.

Second, and here I challenge long-standing Republican (and, perhaps, even conservative) doctrine, Congress has no business passing med-mal reform. I’m a med-mal hawk: I compile an annual publication, the U.S. Index of Health Ownership, that uses inputs from my colleagues Lawrence McQuillan and Hovannes Abramyan to measure states’ success in passing good med-mal legislation.

Many states still need med-mal reform, but they should do it on their own. Federalism demands it. Plus, the trend is our friend: States that neglect med-mal reform will face serious shortages of physicians. When Texas enacted effective med-mal reform, the number of physicians applying for licenses jumped up by 57 percent from 2003 to 2008. They didn’t spring out of the ground, but migrated from other states.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Policy Alternative | Start the Discussion

Oh, How Sweet It Is… to be David Axelrod

Saturday, August 22nd, 2009

In the cruel world of American politics, a dutiful staffer will toil long into the night mulling over phone banking lists and reviewing profiles of high-power donors. He exchanges his personal life for 6 a.m. conference calls and his car becomes a billboard in transit. His diet consists of stale coffee and an endless supply of nicotine. An unenviable existence, to say the least, but one that is endured in hopes of seeing his boss declared victorious on election night and of seizing the resulting opportunities that lay ahead.

For David Axelrod, those opportunities were beyond imagine. As Barack Obama’s top campaign adviser, Axelrod carefully formulated the strategy and framing that ultimately earned the far Left U.S. Senator from Illinois the Democratic Party’s nomination and eventually, the White House. Such a feat was to be rewarded even more handsomely than previous campaign managers, who typically cram themselves into strategic, though often unwelcome, roles in the new administration.

President Obama bestowed upon Axelrod the title of “Senior Adviser” for his fledgling administration. After all, the president certainly made no secret of his plans to fill the White House with his Chicago-based allies. Axelrod joined the ranks of Windy City natives, such as then-Congressman Rahm Emanuel, who later became the White House Chief of Staff, and his brother, Dr. Ezekiel “Zeke” Emanuel, who was tasked with crafting health care reform legislation for the Administration. As if hanging out with his hometown buddies wasn’t enough of an incentive, Axelrod was encouraged by his national agenda-setting role and a $200,000 annual salary.

Despite all the perks of living a politico’s dream of further expanding his sphere of influence, Axelrod appeared dissatisfied by the substantial pay cut of shifting from the private to public service sector. According to a November 2008 Politico report, the political strategist’s firm collected more than $35 million in profits since 1998 for their extensive lobbying and consulting work, $2.5 million of which came from Obama’s presidential campaign, and Axelrod would be forced to decide whether to take a leadership role in the most liberal White House in American history, or to stick with his firm in Chicago.

Luckily for David Axelrod, he never actually had to make that choice. Axelrod began his work in the White House, but did not entirely abandon his booming consulting company. Certainly, this seems like a bit of a dilemma of ethics, with one man receiving a taxpayer-funded salary, while also maintaining private sector-based income in the same field. But in typical Obama Administration fashion, this sort of moral conundrum would not deter the President’s senior adviser, who sought to capitalize on the country’s current hot button issue: health care reform.

While Axelrod worked behind the scenes to craft policy that would lead to a government overhaul of the medical industry, his firm in Chicago lobbied special interest groups to earn massive media contracts that would help dictate political discourse during the debate. According to an August 19, 2009 Associated Press report, President Obama’s efforts to push his health care reform agenda have created a “financial windfall in the election offseason to Democratic consulting firms that are closely connected” to the President and Axelrod.

These coalition groups are currently running “at least $24 million in pro-overhaul ads” with the help of GMMB, a consulting group led by a “top Obama campaign strategist” and AKPD Message and Media, the firm owned by none other than David Axelrod. Michael Axelrod, David’s son, now manages the day-to-day affairs of his father’s AKPD Message and Media, aided in part by his employee, David Plouffe, Obama’s presidential campaign manager.

One of their biggest clients, Americans for Stable Quality Care, is comprised of political and financial heavyweights like the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), American Medical Association (AMA), FamiliesUSA and PhRMA, the last promising to pony up $150 million to promote the President’s health care reform agenda.

While the Associated Press concedes that there is “no evidence that Axelrod directly profited from the group’s ads,” they also admit that he will draw $2 million from the firm over the next four years. The larger issue, Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, contends, is a “network of relationships and overlapping interests” that could become a “problem as Obama tries to win the public over on health care and fulfill his promise to change the way Washington works.”

Indeed, candidate Obama repeatedly condemned such “inside baseball” dealings, lamenting that this sort of behavior leads to the American people distrusting lawmakers to govern responsibly. Even if Axelrod is not, as he claims, directly profiting from these contracts, is it not political patronage for his firm, and really, his son, to enjoy profitable deals with longtime Obama cohorts, like the SEIU? 

And even despite attempts of both David Axelrod and AKPD to distance themselves from each other, AKDP and GMBB, a partner firm in the health care reform media blitz, both “proudly proclaim their connections to Obama on their Web sites.”

AKPD has a full page on Axelrod that includes pictures of Obama. In one photo, Obama hugs Plouffe on election night.

“We are deeply honored to have been part of Barack Obama’s historic campaign to change America and the world,” GMMB says on its Web site. GMMB’s partners include Jim Margolis, a senior strategist for Obama’s presidential campaign.

Fox News reports that  leading lobbying law expert Kenneth Gross is not at all shocked by this relationship, finding it to be only natural for such a profitable favor to be given to AKPD and GMMB. 

“To victor go the spoils. The health care message is very much like a campaign message and it’s not surprising they would use the same vendor that knows the substance of the administration’s issues,” Gross said.

It seems that the two consulting groups have even more explaining to do, as it is apparent they have profited tremendously from David Axelrod’s political affiliations on a national level (Associated Press).

Both GMMB and AKPD also have worked for Democrats this year. The Democratic National Committee paid AKPD at least $106,000 for polling, media production, communication consulting and travel costs from February through April. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee paid GMMB roughly $75,000 from February through June for ads. And GMMB took in at least $9,000 this year from Senate leader Reid’s political action committee for communications consulting.

Republicans argue that such patronage is deplorable and should serve as a cause for alarm for the American people (Fox News).

But House Republicans insist PhRMA had a hand in hiring the firms — and continue to question the motives of both the drug lobby and the White House.

“Out of all the firms Pharma could choose to do their media work, they chose David Axelrod’s firm, which still maintains Axelrod’s son on the payroll and owes Axelrod himself $2 million,” House Republican Conference spokesman Mike Lloyd wrote in an e-mail.

“It’s hard to believe the public can be assured that David Axelrod isn’t influenced by any of this in the course of the health care debate. For an administration that promised ‘change’ and to be above even an appearance of impropriety this does not even come close to passing the smell test,” Lloyd wrote.

When President Obama proclaimed that he wanted to bring about “change,” what he really meant was that he wanted more of the same, just with liberals at the helm. He got his wish with David Axelrod.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in The Players | 1 Comment »

Town Hall Diaries Part 8: Another Day, Another Fake Doctor

Wednesday, August 19th, 2009

sheila-leavittBarely a week ago, a town hall meeting in Houston sponsored by Representative Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) was marred in controversy. Of course there was the highly publicized incident in which the congresswoman was seen answering her cell phone as a constituent, a cancer survivor, was asking her question. But there was also the moment during the event when the representative called on a woman during the Q & A session named Roxana Mayer who claimed to be a primary care physician and spoke in support of Obamacare. Turns out that Ms. Mayer wasn’t a medical professional at all. She was however an Obama campaign volunteer and delegate.

The same controversy seems to have hit an already raucous town hall session sponsored by Massachusetts Representative Barney Frank that took place this past Tuesday evening. And who says lightening never strikes twice?

The individual at the center of the dispute is a woman named Sheila Leavitt. The Associated Press and other mainstream media outlets have identified her as a ‘physician from Newton, Massachusetts.’ As Mrs. Leavitt questioned Rep. Frank she said she “hoped for changes that would support primary care physicians who are not paid as much as specialists” and chastised “some of the rowdy critics” she claimed were “using the same ‘talking points’ as those who showed up at similar meetings around the country.”

Buck Right and AR15 have questioned her legitimacy as a medical professional. Buck Right found that no one named Sheila Leavitt is listed as a licensed physician on the website for the Massachusetts State Medical Board. Additionally, a poster at Free Republic searched American Medical Association’s site and failed to find a physician – either a member or non-member of AMA – named Sheila Leavitt in the Massachusetts area.

Then a commentator on Buck Right’s article identifying himself as Mrs. Leavitt’s sixteen-year-old son stated, “She stopped actively practicing medicine 26 some odd years ago — when she began the full time job of lovingly raising four children.”

That fails to adequately answer, however, the reason why she is not listed as a licensed physician. Don’t fret, though. A commentator named Granny over at Gateway Pundit notes, “Massachusetts licenses every last danged thing. If you want to fix your neighbors porch you need a $150 license to do so. If the medical licensing board website does not list her as having a medical license, then she is NOT practicing medicine in the state of Massachusetts.” Another commentator at Gateway Pundit named BullMooseGal adds further, “Whoever the lady is, she doesn’t and hasn’t published in any reputable journal in the last thirty years (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez). That wasn’t so unusual thirty or even fifteen years ago for doctors, but over the last fifteen years, medical professionals have increasingly been expected to contribute to research, so apparently raising her kids (honorable enough) and protesting (laughably) are her professions.”

As it turns out, she’s not the physician of the family. Her husband, Andrew H. Lichtman, M.D., is, according to Michelle Malkin. Let’s not all jump on her for this, though. She probably had a good reason for misrepresenting herself like she did. As with Ms. Mayer she likely did it to give herself more credibility, something her actual past activities were unlikely to do.

Kate at Small Dead Animals did a simple Google search and miraculously found a trail of far-left political activism. The Boston Herald wrote an article about her back in 2005. The story featured her plastering a town with ‘Impeach Bush’ posters and adorning her ‘88 Toyota Corolla with bumper stickers saying “War is barbaric” and “Support our troops . . . Draft Jenna & Barbara,” in addition to placing a cardboard Uncle Sam laying in state atop a black-and-white painted cardboard coffin with the words, “Fake Elections. Fake President. Real Lies. Real War.” Nope, can’t say there is anything nutty about that.

Here’s a suggestion: if the Democrats are going to have fake medical professionals hawk Obamacare, why not use ones that actually have some name recognition among Americans? 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Horserace | Start the Discussion

Obamacare Supporters Align to Combat Conservative Coalition-Building

Friday, August 14th, 2009

According to a post this week in Politico, supporters of President Obama’s plans to create a government overhaul of the health care industry have joined to fight the media and grassroots success of conservative coalitions in efforts to redirect public opinion of liberal reform proposals.

 The group, known as Americans for Stable Quality Care, plans to drop more than $12 million in media buys during the remainder of August recess. The advertising campaign began Thursday at 11 a.m., with targeted states that include Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, South Dakota and Virginia.

Americans for Stable Quality Care attempts to counter the Health Care Freedom Coalition, a free market-inspired group of powerful conservative organizations, including Americans for Tax Reform, Americans for Prosperity, American Association of Physicians and Surgeons, 60 Plus, Medical Society of the District of Columbia, among more than 60 others.

Americans for Stable Quality Care is funded largely by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), a group that vowed to spend $150 million from their own coffers to promote Obamacare. It is no surprise that PhRMA serves as the head of this coalition, as the successful passage of sweeping health care legislation would mean their monopoly on the pharmaceutical market in America. 

Some of the other member organizations are:

  • Service Employees International Union (SEIU)
    • The SEIU is the only labor union given a coveted seat at the bargaining table in the health care reform debate. With liabilities in excess of $1.5 billion and a dwindling account of only $1 billion assets, the SEIU desperately needs Obamacare to pass to ease up their financial concerns and retain members. They have been one of the most powerful voices on the Left in advocating health care reform, conducting rallies, crashing conservative events, blogging, etc.
  • American Medical Association (AMA)
    • Despite their early, vocal disapproval of President Obama’s health care reform proposals, the AMA submitted to the White House and Congressional Democrats and began supporting their proposals. According to Kathryn Serkes of the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), it was in exchange for a few extra dollars in Medicare reimbursements, even though President Obama ignored their calls for tort reform as a part of health care legislation. The AMA represents a small, diminishing number of doctors, with many leaving the professional organization due to their positions on political issues.
  • FamiliesUSA
    • FamiliesUSA is a self-described “progressive American non-profit consumer health-care advocacy organization” that focuses on grassroots activism, lobbying the Hill and financial development to promote liberal health care agenda. Their new Web site, Stand up for Health Care, includes a blog and activist mobilization page, recruiting new supporters for their cause. FamiliesUSA is certainly an arm of the liberal movement, touting affiliations with powerful Democrats in Congress, including Sen. Chris Dodd, who just so happens to act as ranking member of the Senate’s HELP (Health, Education, Labor and Pensions) Committee and who has been instrumental in the development of health care reform legislation. 

Federation of American Hospitals  

  • The Federation of American Hospitals, representing 1,700 medical institutions in the U.S., spent 71 percent of its campaign contributions in 2008 to support Democrats. Strangely enough, the group is headed by Chip Kahn, one of the masterminds behind the defeat of Hillarycare in 1993.

    Politico reports that member organizations understand the necessity of working together to fight the conservative push:

    The official provides a little more backstory: ‘These groups were part of a looser coalition that started back in January that focused on the links between health reform and the economy. Now that the debate is turning on what health reform means for the individual, they felt the need to launch a new front that addresses some of those particulars while debunking some of the myths that are floating around. Plus, these groups recognize that their collective voice packs more punch than if they were to just speak out individually.’

    Here is the advertisement with which they will blitz the airwaves:

    Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
    Posted in The Players | Start the Discussion

    Doctor Group Blasts AMA for Supporting House Democrats’ Health Care Bill

    Sunday, July 19th, 2009

    The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) released a statement Friday criticizing the leadership of the American Medical Society (AMA) for what it deems as selling out “patients and the profession for endorsing a House bill that supports government medicine.” (MSN)

    According to Kathryn Serkes, spokesperson for AAPS, the AMA endorsed House Bill 3200 in exchange for a “few dollars increase in Medicare reimbursement rates,” essentially telling patients, “It’s about the money, stupid.” Serkes added that while the AMA stood with President Obama to encourage a reduction in medical costs, they also “sent out an alert to its members urging them to contact Congress in support of a physician pay raise” on the same day.

    AAPS facilitates a website, takebackmedicine.com, that urges medical professionals to back physician-friendly and patient-centered reforms. The doctors’ group, founded in 1943, aims to “preserve the sanctity of the patient-physician relationship from third-party intrusion,” according to their mission statement. They are member-supported and do not receive funding from government grants or financial backing from corporate or pharmaceutical interests.

    AAPS believes that the AMA has “sold patient choice, patient privacy and patient control to the highest bidder.” The group has long been an alternative voice to the AMA, though Serkes asserts that does not make them “anti-reform.” “Our doctors are for reform—real reform that puts patients and doctors in control, not the government,” Serkes said.

    Serkes does not feel that the AMA is the only weak link in the medical community. “Organized medicine has been spineless. Today a surgeon from Arkansas told me that he is appalled that the American College of Surgeons sent him an email saying, in effect, that they wanted a seat at the table, and were willing to endorse the bill if that’s what it took to get that seat, she explained.

    According to Lindsey Tanner of the Associated Press, the AMA’s endorsement of the House bill, which includes a public option, is a “bold step for a traditionally conservative group with a checkered past on health reforms.” Indeed, the public option was a rather unpopular proposal for members of the AMA, who listened to President Obama promote his health care agenda at their general membership meeting in Chicago last month. Then, leading members of the AMA vocalized their opposition to his proposed reforms, and according to the Associated Press, “likened the notion to communism.”

    The AMA argues, however, that the need to insure 50 million Americans makes health care reform absolutely vital. The AMA went so far as to send letters expressing their support for the “American Affordable Health Choices Act” to all three of the committees in the House who are all tasked with structuring the bill.

    It is still unclear about the true feelings of the AMA regarding health care reform. Serkes appeared on the Fox Business Network on June 11, 2009, where she reiterated the AAPS’s unhappiness with the recent flip-flopping of their colleagues at the AMA. The headline read: “AMA May Oppose Government Health Care?”

    And apparently, that little question mark is the key. Is the AMA drifting in the direction that the political winds blow to garner legitimacy, or are they rooted in concrete principles? Will they use very modest financial gains through improvements to Medicare reimbursement as an excuse to abandon their stand against the public option? Now that they have sided with the Democrats in Congress and the White House, will they be guaranteed a perpetual place at the table during the health care debate, or will the Left ditch them the moment the AMA objects to even the most insignificant aspect of liberal health care reform?

    One thing is for certain: no matter what the AMA says, does or complies with, the AAPS intends to oppose them if they continue to exchange political expediency and dollars and cents for true health care reform that keeps patients and doctors at the focus, not bureaucrats and special interests.

    Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
    Posted in The Players | Start the Discussion

    Rebutting the single-payer argument - private insurance here to stay

    Saturday, June 20th, 2009

    Concerns over ’single-payer’ health care may be misplaced, insurers say.

    Health industry officials don’t seem concerned that health care reform plans on the table will result in a government monopoly that will drive them out of business.

    In fact, Blue Cross Blue Shield officials like Maryland’s CareFirst spokesman Michael Sullivan seem optimistic that something good can come out of the various options on the table.

    “There are a lot of things that are right up our alley and we’ve been working on a lot of things that have been proposed,” Sullivan told Corridorinc.com.

    Eliminating pre-existing condition exclusions and requiring individuals to purchase insurance as Massachusetts did are some ideas CareFirst supports.

    As for other proposals that could really trim some of the fat from the industry that makes up 17 percent  of the U.S. Economy – enhanced accountability and improved efficiency - “The details just aren’t there,” Sullivan said.

    Robert Greczyn, CEO of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina even told the Business Journals that “we’ll be having a lot of fun” with the discussions of various options – so long as they don’t include a public option.

    Greczyn, on the other hand, doesn’t think anything will get rammed through this year.

    BCBS of North Carolina has posted educational videos on nchealthreform.com, which the company says is intended to help educate North Carolina residents about health reform.

    The reform bills under discussion have other elements that all but guarantee one of the nation’s biggest industries isn’t going anywhere.

    On Friday the Tribune newspapers offered the first national rebuttal of the theory that health care reform will create a government health monopoly.

    Bruce Japsen’s article, Private insurers step into spotlight on health-care reform, argues that most plans on the table have key components that not only ensure private insurance options remain intact, but may give them an even greater roll.

    Indeed options that set up public exchanges where people can vet their options, and public pooling that let more small businesses offer benefits should increase private insurers’ customer base. The AMA is also against any Medicare/Medicaid-style expansion, as those plans are heading for insolvency and chronically underpay physicians.

    MedChi – Maryland’s association of physicians – has long campaigned against low reimbursement and late payments that harm doctors’ ability to make a living in the state.

    Sullivan said real reform will have to tackle inefficiencies in the system. Proposals CareFirst is lobbying for include eliminating the ‘fee-for-service’ approach that rewards doctors for unnecessary treatments and forces patients to make multiple appointments, rather than bringing up more than one issue in a doctor visit.

    “While we’re supportive,of efforts to expand access to health care, it’s critical that whatever shape that reform takes, we have reform that works,” Sullivan said.

    Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
    Posted in Expert Know, Policy Alternative | Start the Discussion

    How much will it cost you, and how the media breaks it down

    Thursday, June 18th, 2009

    Well, now we have a real debate, with multiple options and details emerging, including and especially how much they will cost you as a health care consumer and how much they will cost you as a taxpayer.

    Ready for the sticker shock? (I had to add this up myself, because I could not find main stream reporters who pulled out their calculators to do so.)

    Try $111,000 for the lead horse in the race: the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee’s trillion dollar proposal.

    Will the main stream media keep you informed about this and other plans’ cost? It remains to be seen.

    Jennifer Haberkorn, of the Washington times gave the basics, but did not do the math in her article Hurdles ahead for health care reform

    The HELP bill will help about 9 million Americans leave the bog of the un-insured, at a cost of $111,111 per person. And that bill hasn’t even been finished yet, so look for that cost to rise.

    How many years health insurance could you buy in your market for $111,111?

    “In contrast, Sen. Max Baucus, Montana Democrat and chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, which also is crafting a health care bill, said this week that his committee’s bill will come in at about $1 trillion, despite an early CBO estimate that the committee’s bill would be $1.6 trillion. Mr. Obama has put up about $950 billion in health care savings to help fund a reform bill,” Heberkorn writes.

    No word on how effective - will the Baucus bill help you?

    Another hidden cost is market impacts - how will a trillion dollars of new debt impact our national economy, outside of maybe providing extra cash and bonuses for insurance company execs.

    Peter Benesh, writing for Investors Business Daily reports that health care stocks have shown “little significant movement.” In Fact, he writes “Most medical sectors have trended higher since early March, following the broader markets. A couple of IBD groups — hospitals and medical computer software — have greatly outpaced the broader markets.”

    Unusual, since the conventional wisdom says uncertainty is almost always bad for markets. Perhaps investors are looking forward to trillions in new investment for Obamacare in a country that’s seen financial, auto and other sectors bailed out over the last year.

    What those crafting the reform bills seem to be forgetting is that we’re in this mess because health care costs too much and too many “middle-men” are getting rich in the current climate.

    That amounts to a billion dollar infusion of public money into an industry, which by many accounts is making too much money already.

    “Private insurance company profits are so excessive that they have agreed to voluntarily cut costs by $2 trillion over 10 years — that’s $200 billion a year,” Dan Lipsher writes in a guest column for the Summit, Colo., Daily News.

    Lipsher doesn’t source any of his facts, and gets whipping boy status for making conflicting arguments against conservative positions in his rambling tirade.

    “A government plan, on the other hand, can be required by law to pay 100 percent of the cost of necessary treatment. No more after-care bills for hundreds or thousands of dollars because the cost of a CAT scan or chemo session exceeded the “usual and customary” allowance authorized by a nameless, faceless middle manager at Aetna or Blue Cross/Blue Shield. A government plan can also set maximum charges for treatments.”  (emphasis mine)

    Hmm?  So the government can pay 100% of what it says the charges should be.  That will go over well with the free-market types.

    But the emerging queen-for-a-day of sloppy reporting has to be Catherine Arnst, senior writer for Business Week.

    Catherine has covered medicine and science for the publication since 1997, so you think she would be on top of things, but perhaps it’s gotten too easy, since she attributes very little.  Arnst might as well be writing commentary - on the Lipsher model of “Spout what you will without supporting it with facts.”

    Why the AMA will likely support health care reform

    It’s too much to cover it all, but the lowlights of unsupported claims include:

    • “The idea is to take advantage of the expanding economic rift between primary-care physicians—a group generally open to reform—and highly paid specialists who thrive in the current fee-for-service culture of U.S. medicine.” (emphasis mine)
    • Any comprehensive health-care overhaul will … almost certainly lower the incomes of some physicians. That’s especially true for the kind of specialists that dominate the AMA.
    • The U.S. spent $2.4 trillion on medical care last year. Doctors took home 31% of those dollars.

    She does back up some claims, attributing them to “a survey” – without identifying the pollster.

    And she sort-of credits Obama and White House Budget Director Peter R. Orszag for the factoid that medical-cost inflation now runs “some 6% a year” - although commas cleverly keep the fact separate from the sources.

    Obama and White House Budget Director Peter R. Orszag keep pounding away at the idea that the country faces financial ruin if medical-cost inflation, now running some 6% a year, isn’t brought under control.

    Other clever attributions include “most economists” and the ever popular “several studies.”

    Then she closes with this gem:

    “Will the AMA and its members realize it is in their best economic interest to work with the Obama Administration rather than to go into attack mode?
    “They just might this time, because of a rare division of interests within the medical profession and a popular President relentlessly pursuing an overhaul of health care.

    This appears to be her first jump into the issue, and I understand the reporter’s need to get something out on deadline that covers all points, but I’m hoping Arnst will have more solid sourcing under her belt on her next effort.

    It’s not all beating time out there:

    Kudos go to Stuart Frohm of the Midland Daily News for just laying the details out there - a practice often missing from modern sound-byte reporting.

    His article House Republicans’ health care reform plan has two dozen proposals proceeds to lay out all 24 points without qualifying any of them.

    Please continue with all the other proposals in this way, add pricing and cost comparisons, and place all your work on an easily accessible landing page, Mr. Frohm, and you will be doing the citizes of the United States a valuable service.

    We’ll be following you.

    Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
    Posted in Eye on the Media, Follow the Money, Miscellaneous | Start the Discussion

    « Older Entries