Wednesday, 26 July 2017

Republicans quickly reject their own revised bill


Yesterday, Senators voted for debate, not passage.  Once they agreed to debate the first thing the Republicans did was quickly reject their own revised bill,  the Better Care Reconciliation Act, once their leading proposal for repealing and replacing Obamacare.

The Senate rejected the bill, 43 to 57, despite having added a provision from  Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) favored by conservatives and another from Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) to court centrists worried about Medicaid cuts.

The Cruz provision allowed insurers to offer several plan types including cheaper plans that cover smaller ranges of benefits as long as that state offers one plan that has the broad coverage required by Obamacare. 


The Portman provision, the Medicaid wraparound, provides $200 billion dollars of support to states whose Senators were concerned about cuts to their Medicaid programs.  The incentive of $200 billion for their states was not enough. Of the 57 votes against, 9 were Republicans.




Minda Wilson

Tuesday, 25 July 2017

its bad and know it will negatively impact Americans.

 "It's a sad day when..."

It's a sad day when your Senator votes yes for a healthcare bill even though they know its bad and know it will negatively impact Americans.  The Senators feel they have to vote yes in order to meet their promise to advance the ball on repeal and replace.


"Even Senator McCain, a man who is dying of metastatic brain cancer, who has nothing to lose, voted yes for debate, even though he is not behind the bill as it stands.  Remember, the Senators  voted yes for debate, not passage."







They did it because voting no would mean that they are 
"telling America that they are fine with Obamacare".





Thursday, 20 July 2017

Longer wait times to see a doctor, dramatic increases in the cost of insurance

"The Party’s Over"

With the death of the current incarnation of the Republican plan, we have to take a minute to consider what will continue to happen if nothing is done to repeal and replace or revise Obamacare.

The good news is that the expansion of Medicaid will continue and the federal government will continue to subsidize the states that cover those eligible for the expansion who apply.



This has had significant benefits by making working poor eligible for healthcare benefits.  In states like West Virginia, workers that are now covered have seen their wages increase, their children’s attendance at school increase and their use of the emergency rooms for medical treatments has significantly declined.  




That is where the good news ends.

In a large number of countries and in some states, there will be no carriers writing policies for coverage in the individual market.  That means that people who live in those counties/states will not be able to purchase health insurance of any type; and, the, in addition, they will be penalized for not buying insurance that is absolutely unavailable to them in any form.

For those that can purchase health insurance, including businesses, rates are expected to increase at least 20% for coverage next year.   Many companies are struggling to pay current premiums.  In certain states, including Texas, Connecticut, Maryland and Virginia, carriers have asked for premium increases in excess of than 50%.  A business that is struggling will be forced to drop their healthcare coverage.   If your business bought coverage and can no longer afford it, your employees may or may not be able to get coverage of their own, depending on where you live.

Co-pays will no longer be considered part of your co-insurance payments and, as such, may not count toward your deductible.  With individual deductibles on the increase from $2500 to as much as $5000, you might be surprised to learn that your co-payment will no longer count against your deductible.  This means that only co-insurance payments will apply.  Co-pays range from $45 to $115 per visit, depending upon the doctor.  Most plans now require a co-payment for all doctor visits and, in addition, you will be responsible for a co-insurance payment.  If you are on a 70-30 plan,  in addition to your co-payment you will be responsible for paying 30% of the amount billed to your insurance company.  This means that after you pay your co-pay, and the doctor bills the insurance company for the visit if the bill is $100 you will owe another $30 on top of your co-pay.  You now have to pay $75 for your visit, but only $30 counts towards your deductible.

The exchanges will continue to be funded by the government.  The exchanges duplicate 100% of the functionality provided by insurance company web sites. Since the taxpayers already paid for the cost of developing these insurance company sites, every year we support the exchanges we are paying again for something we already paid for.

The 5 million, plus, illegals that currently get healthcare paid for by the government will continue to receive this healthcare.  A number of subsidies paid will continue to be above and beyond what is really called for.  The Obama administration did not implement the electronic verification of citizenship nor did they implement the electronic verification of income.  Income and citizenship are input on the honors system.  We simply take your word.   Because all verifications are essentially done manually, if you claimed you were a citizen and you aren’t or you claimed an income below what you actually earned, you get the benefits you asked for.  Too bad for the tax payer!

Networks are going to get narrower.  It will get harder and harder to see a doctor.  Almost one-quarter of doctors are over 64, retirement or frustration will end their medical careers.  Since 2013, the year Obamacare went into effect, in addition to the loss of doctors due to changing careers or retiring, approximately 10% of doctors each year opt out and accept only cash.  This is especially true in the large cities and applies more specifically to professionals with excellent reputations who are tops in their fields.   These guys are so good, they can command any price, and people are willing to pay it. Why should they accept insurance when the reimbursement rates offered don’t cover the cost of doing business.

New doctors are not going into private practice; they are becoming part of large hospital systems and thus only take on patients that their hospital system will treat.  If your provider doesn’t have a contract with a big research facility and you have something that requires the sophisticated treatment such facilities can offer, you are out of luck unless you can pay for it.

The bottom line is this, the trends that started with the Affordable Care Act, less access to care, longer wait times to see a doctor, dramatic increases in the cost of insurance and even more dramatic increases in the out of pocket cost of care, will continue unless something is done.














Minda Wilson



Follow me Minda Wilson on:

Monday, 17 July 2017

Why is solving the healthcare crisis so hard

What the Heck is Going On?

It looks like the Senate has decided to stay in town while they try to put together a healthcare bill. I am sure their efforts are appreciated; but, it still seems that the focus of their efforts is not on helping American’s procure affordable health insurance.





Cutting entitlement program reimbursements to the states and providing money and tax incentives for insurance companies and their high net worth, high earning executives seems to be the Senate Republican’s solution to the healthcare problem.


Even if they maintain the capital gains taxes enacted under the Affordable Care Act, the current plan will still call for money and tax benefits specifically for insurance companies and their employees who earn more than $500,000.


This makes no sense. The promise, first by the Obama administration and now by the Trump administration, was affordability.  The solution is simple.  Catastrophic coverage coupled with the ability to put money away for future care in Health Savings Accounts.

Why can Christian Gifting Programs provide catastrophic coverage for their participants, which include more than a million Americans for less than $200 per month per person?  Under these plans, 100% of the cost of care for a catastrophic illness is paid after the first $500 is paid out of pocket.  If this coverage can be provided for approximately 1 million Americans at this cost, why can’t our government do the same?

In California, a Bronze HMO plan, the cheapest plan offered in California, costs $289.56 per month and has a $6300 deductible.   After you play your deductible, co-pays are $75 for your primary care doctor, $105 to see a specialist. In addition, you have a co-pays for tests, diagnostic exams, etc.  You are fully responsible for all bills if you go out of network and, if for some reason you become ill while you are not in California, only the initial ER care will be covered.  You will be fully responsible for any follow up or any other type of care.  This also does not include any co-insurance payments you might be responsible for.

When you compare, if you have a catastrophic event, you will have paid almost $100 more for your insurance, you will have paid out of pocket $6300 vs. $500 AND, you will be on the hook for any co-pays and co-insurance payments required.   Affordable?

Also, if we look at the difference in cost to the taxpayers between providing the HMO plan or the catastrophic plan for the 23 million people who are about to lose their insurance,

In addition to the more than $6000 each individual would save, we are also looking at a savings of about $27 billion dollars in savings in premium costs.

Enacting such a plan will result in no new taxes, will save the government billions of dollars in subsidies, will result in broader coverage and broader networks, and make healthcare affordable.  


So ask yourself this, 
"Why is solving the healthcare crisis so hard?"



Minda Wilson



Follow me Minda Wilson on:

Friday, 23 June 2017

The Senate Draft Plan is out and it is hard to believe

Affordability is Not Part of New Senate Plan
 
The Senate Draft Plan is out and it is hard to believe that it, again, failed to create some kind of solution to the ongoing issue, affordability of healthcare.   Key components include greater latitudes for states to opt out, the rollback of taxes, phase down of Medicaid expenses, and having subsidies based on income vs. age, but reducing these subsidies over time.

Phasing down of Medicaid means one thing, reduction in benefits.  It means a narrower network with fewer doctors and longer waiting lists and less access.


 
Rolling back of taxes means less money.  Less money means a bigger deficit.  As long as the government continues to subsidize healthcare the deficit will continue to grow.  One way they could save significant money would be to dismantle the exchanges, but it is not clear that that is the intention.

Subsidies based on income and not age makes tremendous sense.

Why would a person like Mark Cuban, 
who is under 65, need a subsidy?  

The people who need the money and need the care is where we should put in our safety net. 

It is surprising to consider, though, that in certain circumstances, the self-employed and/or those who must purchase individual policies may be better off without insurance.  The cost of a family policy is about $20,000+ dollars for 2018.  For those not eligible for subsidies, for example, someone making about $100,000, this is a significant expense.  In addition, the deductible for such a policy is about $2,500 per person; or about $10,000 for a family of 4.  Given this, you are looking at out of pocket expenses of about $30,000 after tax. Which means that, after paying taxes, of every dollar that is left, 35 cents will be going out for healthcare before the family has eaten, paid rent, bought clothes, paid for transportation, etc.  This is not workable.  It is unlikely that such a family will spend $30,000 on health care in any one year.  If they could save that money, or a significant portion of it to cover future catastrophic events, the family would be significantly better off.

As people on subsidies see their subsidized portion decrease, they will be in the same boat as the high earners who self-insure; except they will be earning less.

In reality, the fact that insurance costs $20,000 per family is where the problem is.  And, the fact that of that $20,000 so little, across the board, is actually spent on care, makes it more of a problem.  According to a study by the CDC, of all 18 to 64-year-olds, after subtracting the deductible from healthcare costs paid, insurance companies pay out less than 10% of the money they take in to cover the cost of care.

The solution is limiting administrative costs.  Cutting senior level compensation in the three largest insurance companies would allow significant reductions in policy costs.  So, if you look at it that way, if administrative costs were cut in half; a $9,000 savings could be achieved for next year and your policy, instead of costing $20,000, would cost $11,000.

Its our money the politicians are using to pay for these policies.  

Why couldn’t the politicians figure this out?



Tuesday, 30 May 2017

Involved in automobile accident you pay upfront first

Involved in automobile accident you pay upfront before your medical insurance does well if the courts agree that is...



Could This Really Be True?

Sarah (her name has been changed) got an EOB, explanation of benefits, saying that Blue Shield of California denied coverage for appointments related to her back injury because the doctor’s notes mentioned that the back injury was a result of a car accident.

Picture this:  You are a passenger in a car driven by your friend.  A drunk driver plows into you and you are seriously injured.  You are taken from the accident site to the ER; treated for a concussion and injuries to your back and neck.  It is clear you will need additional and ongoing treatment.  You are referred to a neurologist for the head injury, an orthopedist for the back and neck injury, and a physical therapist.



In the old days, if you were the passenger, your insurance would pay for your medical bills, even though the insurance of the person that hit you would ultimately be responsible for paying those bills.  Your insurance company would become a party to the lawsuit against the driver responsible and would attempt to recover monies advanced.  If the person who hit you was found to be at fault, the insurance company would recover what they advanced.  If the court ruled against them, they would recover nothing.  Either way, Sarah would not be responsible for coming up with the money for paying bills that would otherwise be covered by her insurance. 

The Blue Shield representative explained to Sarah that, in the case of an automobile accident, Blue Shield is no longer willing to put up the money in advance of a settlement.  What this means is Sarah is the financially responsible party to the hospital, the doctors, the physical therapist, and any other party that provided medical treatment related to the accident.  It also turns out, that since the insurance company is not responsible for these bills until the court says they are, the out of pocket payments you make are not counted towards your deductible.


The question is “Why?”


Blue Shield believes that they are in second position to the drunk driver’s insurance.  Blue Shield is only responsible for paying what the primary insured does not pay.  Both these statements are true.  Based on these beliefs, Blue Shield has decided that they should no longer advance money to those who are injured in automobile accidents unless and until it is clear that Blue Shield is the party responsible for those payments.  When they pay and it turns out they are not responsible Blue Shield risks that they won’t be able to recoup their payments.

Seems like a wise business decision.   

This seems like just another step in the process to transfer financial risk for one’s healthcare away from insurance companies.

According to the Kaiser foundation, annual premiums for employer-sponsored family health coverage reached $17,545 in 2015, with workers on average paying $4,955 towards the cost of their coverage; individual policies cost more.  Since 2015 these costs, have increased, on average, greater than 25%.   This means that a company with 50 or more employees is likely to spend over a million dollars annually on health insurance.   As a result of risk transfer, more of the costs for healthcare are being born by the employee.   In addition to the $5,000 they pay for the premium, individual deductibles are averaging $2500 and family deductibles are $10,000.  In California, the all in cost for a policy including deductibles and co-pays exceeds $30,000, if you don’t receive a subsidy.  These increases are not economically sustainable.

In any other business, when one abuses one’s customers, they go elsewhere.  New reform proposals focus on giving more power to insurance companies.  Inter-state operations allows insurance companies to build operations in multiple states, but more overhead is required to manage a larger operation.  In addition, except for federal benefits, regulations on policies in each state must still be met.  There is no guarantee that cost savings will result.  Tax breaks and subsidies may help ease the pain, but they to nothing to curb price increased that are expected to be passed onto the consumer.



There could be some price relief from disruptive product offerings coming from outside the insurance industry.  Otherwise, the will continue to experience the abusive cycle of risk transfer, price increases, and declining benefits.

Minda Wilson

Friday, 31 March 2017

The Problem Isn’t Obamacare…It’s The Insurance Companies

Primary Care Doctor Explains:

“The Problem Isn’t Obamacare…It’s The Insurance Companies”

With premiums increasing for those with coverage through the ACA marketplace, a lot of people are criticizing Obamacare. But many doctors and healthcare professionals are saying that isn’t really the problem.

Cathleen London is a primary care physician in Milbridge, a rural town in Maine. She claims the problem isn’t Obamacare itself, but rather, the entire health insurance system and insurance companies are to blame.



Writing for the Portland Press Herald, London explains she is a a primary care physician who is on the front lines every single day, as  her town is very remote, which means it takes 30 to 40 minutes to get to the emergency room, which is why her office operates as an urgent care facility as well as a family medical practice.

It’s takes an ambulance about 20 minutes to get to her clinic and specialist care about 2 hours away, so Dr. London is trained to handle about 90 percent of medical problems.


DR. LONDON EXPLAINS THE FOLLOWING, WHICH WILL SHOW YOU EXACTLY WHAT’S WRING WITH HEALTH CARE:
One evening I was almost home after a full day’s work. Around 7:30, I got a call on the emergency line regarding an 82-year-old man who had fallen and split his head open. His wife wanted to know if I could see him, even though he was not a patient of mine.

Instead of sending them to the ER, I went back to the office. I spent 90 minutes evaluating him, suturing his wound and making sure that nothing more sinister had occurred than a loss of footing by a man who has mild dementia. When I was sure that the man would be safe, I let them go.

I billed a total of $789 for the visit, repair, after-hours and emergency care costs. Stating that the after-hours and emergency services had been billed incorrectly, Martin’s Point Health Care threw out the claims and reimbursed me $105, which does not even cover the suture and other materials I used.

I called them about their decision, said that it was not right and let them know they’d lose me if they reimbursed this as a routine patient visit. They replied, “Go ahead and send your termination letter” – which I did.

The same day, Anthem Blue Cross kept me on the phone for 45 minutes regarding a breast MRI recommended by radiologists on a woman whose mother and sister had died of breast cancer. She’d had five months of breast discharge that wasn’t traceable to anything benign (and it turns out the MRI is highly suspicious for cancer).

Anthem did not want to approve the MRI unless it was to localize a lesion for biopsy, even though the mammogram had been inconclusive! This should have been a slam-dunk fast track to approval; instead, dealing with Anthem wasted a good part of my day.

Then Aetna told me there is no way to negotiate fees in Maine. I was somewhat flabbergasted. I do more here than I did in either Brookline, Massachusetts, or New York. The rates should be higher given the level of care I am providing. I have chosen not to participate with them. This only hurts patients; however, I cannot keep losing money on visits.

I do lose money on MaineCare – their reimbursement is below what it costs me to see a patient. For now, that is a decision that I am living with.

I had thought those losses would be offset by private insurance companies, but their cost shifting to patients is obscene. I pay half of my employees’ health insurance, though I’m not required to by law – I just think it is the right thing to do.

My personal policy costs close to $900 a month for me and my sons (all healthy), and each of us has a $6,000 deductible. This means I am paying rack rate for a policy that provides only bare-bones coverage.

Something is wrong with the system. In one day, I encountered everything wrong with insurance. I am not trying to scam the system. I am literally trying to survive. I am trying to give care in an underserved area.

This is not the fault of Obamacare, which stopped the most egregious problems with insurance companies.

Remember lifetime caps? 

Remember denials for pre-existing conditions? 

Remember the retroactive cancellation of insurance policies? 

Returning to that is not an option.

Indeed it is not an option, Dr. London.  If Republicans get their way eventually by repealing Obamacare, it may be where we end up again. If Republicans really get their way, it’ll be even worse than it was before.

Minda Wilson