Comments on: POLITICS: A Democratic Perspective On The Impact Of The 2006 Elections On U.S. Health Policy http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2006/11/09/politics-a-democratic-perspective-on-the-impact-of-the-2006-elections-on-us-health-policy/ The Policy Journal of the Health Sphere Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:04:42 -0500 hourly 1 By: acavale http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2006/11/09/politics-a-democratic-perspective-on-the-impact-of-the-2006-elections-on-us-health-policy/comment-page-1/#comment-310 acavale Sat, 30 Dec 2006 19:12:06 +0000 http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2006/11/09/politics-a-democratic-perspective-on-the-impact-of-the-2006-elections-on-us-health-policy/#comment-310 Unfortunately a truly short-sighted explanation, indeed. Here are some suggestions I hope the Democrats will be wise in looking into: 1) Creating a truly competitive and capitalistic health care industry (like it or not, that's what it has become - large conglomerates have pushed aside small/individual providers of care, physicians, pharmacies, insurers, hospitals, etc.). By leveling the playing field, the patient can be the "real" consumer of health care services, rather than the insurers. Let people decide how they want their health care! Competition will weed out bad apples and keep costs down. 2) Recognize (for the first time in their history) that Medical Liability insurance costs are one of the major causes for rise (and can be a large chunck of savings) in the cost of providing health care. Other Western democracies can sustain their health care costs mainly because they don't have worry as much about litigation costs. Creating a balanced medical liability system, possibly creating special courts with sole jurisdiction to try medical malpractice cases, may be an answer, instead of the lottery system that we have currently. 3) Stop shortchanging the physician community year after year (Medicare does not even keep up with cost of living increases to doctors). So where is the money going? 4) Stop tinkering at the edges and get to the core of the problem. Congress as well as state Governors need to address why so-called not-for-profit insurers (like Blue Cross) should be legally allowed to maintain $ 3-4 billion yearly surpluses and keep increasing premiums yearly by 12- 20 % when their payments for services have only increased 1-2 % per year? The new Congress will need a gut-check and a clean conscience in order to clean up this mess. Unfortunately, there too much talk of repealing tax cuts and bashing pharma companies - that, in my opinion, would be the wrong direction to be looking! Unfortunately a truly short-sighted explanation, indeed. Here are some suggestions I hope the Democrats will be wise in looking into:
1) Creating a truly competitive and capitalistic health care industry (like it or not, that’s what it has become – large conglomerates have pushed aside small/individual providers of care, physicians, pharmacies, insurers, hospitals, etc.). By leveling the playing field, the patient can be the “real” consumer of health care services, rather than the insurers. Let people decide how they want their health care! Competition will weed out bad apples and keep costs down.
2) Recognize (for the first time in their history) that Medical Liability insurance costs are one of the major causes for rise (and can be a large chunck of savings) in the cost of providing health care. Other Western democracies can sustain their health care costs mainly because they don’t have worry as much about litigation costs. Creating a balanced medical liability system, possibly creating special courts with sole jurisdiction to try medical malpractice cases, may be an answer, instead of the lottery system that we have currently.
3) Stop shortchanging the physician community year after year (Medicare does not even keep up with cost of living increases to doctors). So where is the money going?
4) Stop tinkering at the edges and get to the core of the problem. Congress as well as state Governors need to address why so-called not-for-profit insurers (like Blue Cross) should be legally allowed to maintain $ 3-4 billion yearly surpluses and keep increasing premiums yearly by 12- 20 % when their payments for services have only increased 1-2 % per year?

The new Congress will need a gut-check and a clean conscience in order to clean up this mess. Unfortunately, there too much talk of repealing tax cuts and bashing pharma companies – that, in my opinion, would be the wrong direction to be looking!

]]> By: Health Business Blog » Blog Archive » Health Wonk Review #20 http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2006/11/09/politics-a-democratic-perspective-on-the-impact-of-the-2006-elections-on-us-health-policy/comment-page-1/#comment-290 Health Business Blog » Blog Archive » Health Wonk Review #20 Tue, 19 Dec 2006 02:07:58 +0000 http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2006/11/09/politics-a-democratic-perspective-on-the-impact-of-the-2006-elections-on-us-health-policy/#comment-290 [...] It’s been two weeks since the mid-term elections, and Democrats and Republicans are starting to get used to the new reality. Timothy Westmoreland, writing for the Democrats on the Health Affairs Blog, says health policy will be under “watchful care” for the first time this century, while Republican Bill Roper has become a sudden convert to bipartisanship. [...] [...] It’s been two weeks since the mid-term elections, and Democrats and Republicans are starting to get used to the new reality. Timothy Westmoreland, writing for the Democrats on the Health Affairs Blog, says health policy will be under “watchful care” for the first time this century, while Republican Bill Roper has become a sudden convert to bipartisanship. [...]

]]> By: Neil Gardner http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2006/11/09/politics-a-democratic-perspective-on-the-impact-of-the-2006-elections-on-us-health-policy/comment-page-1/#comment-214 Neil Gardner Mon, 27 Nov 2006 21:26:26 +0000 http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2006/11/09/politics-a-democratic-perspective-on-the-impact-of-the-2006-elections-on-us-health-policy/#comment-214 <i>With everyone in and nobody out, costs CAN be controlled. The agency running the national system will be able to do an excellent job of negotiating reasonable prices with the pharmaceutical industry.</i> It is called monopsony, or a single buyer created usually by legal framework. Certain Military hardware purchases in the US can only be made by the US government so the US government pretty well sets the prices that can be charged. I would say that a single governmental payer for healthcare services could do much the same as long as the legal framework required providers to only deal with that single payer entity as a monopsony! Does this mean that there is a social connection between military practices and healthcare practices that can justify the existence these monopsonies ??? With everyone in and nobody out, costs CAN be controlled. The agency running the national system will be able to do an excellent job of negotiating reasonable prices with the pharmaceutical industry.

It is called monopsony, or a single buyer created usually by legal framework. Certain Military hardware purchases in the US can only be made by the US government so the US government pretty well sets the prices that can be charged. I would say that a single governmental payer for healthcare services could do much the same as long as the legal framework required providers to only deal with that single payer entity as a monopsony!

Does this mean that there is a social connection between military practices and healthcare practices that can justify the existence these monopsonies ???

]]> By: sarahweinberg http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2006/11/09/politics-a-democratic-perspective-on-the-impact-of-the-2006-elections-on-us-health-policy/comment-page-1/#comment-213 sarahweinberg Mon, 27 Nov 2006 20:30:49 +0000 http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2006/11/09/politics-a-democratic-perspective-on-the-impact-of-the-2006-elections-on-us-health-policy/#comment-213 This Democratic Party statement spends an awful lot of time discussing which expensive band-aids to try. What about the gigantic elephant in the living room? WE NEED NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE, AND WE NEED IT NOW! The Democratic Party needs to LEAD this nation to do what every other developed nation has done: set up a government-sponsored universal health coverage system to cover every resident. National health insurance will mean that every resident of the U.S. will be covered for health care equally and with dignity. No more begging for handouts for the poor. No more failure to provide needed health care to newborns regardless of who their parents are. No more compartmentalization of segments of the population into programs such as Medicaid, Medicare, SCHIP, Veterans, Military, Military families, Indian Health Service.... No more losing health coverage because you lost your job, or because your employer can't afford to pay for health insurance for you. With everyone in and nobody out, costs CAN be controlled. The agency running the national system will be able to do an excellent job of negotiating reasonable prices with the pharmaceutical industry. Absolutely enormous administrative costs of the hundreds of insurance companies with their thousands of different plans will be saved. Costs can also be controlled by using a technical advisory board to decide, on the basis of scientific evidence, which expensive treatments or diagnostic tests should be done under what conditions. Excessive use of expensive choices will be limited to those who choose to pay out of their own pockets. When the U.S. has one system that covers everyone, those running the system, as well as those deciding on its funding will deciding about their own coverage and costs. This will help curb underfunding and overly restrictive decisions about use of treatments and tests. I could go on and on and on.... But, I ask only: WHERE IS YOUR COURAGE, YOUR LEADERSHIP, O DEMOCRATS???? This Democratic Party statement spends an awful lot of time discussing which expensive band-aids to try. What about the gigantic elephant in the living room? WE NEED NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE, AND WE NEED IT NOW! The Democratic Party needs to LEAD this nation to do what every other developed nation has done: set up a government-sponsored universal health coverage system to cover every resident.

National health insurance will mean that every resident of the U.S. will be covered for health care equally and with dignity. No more begging for handouts for the poor. No more failure to provide needed health care to newborns regardless of who their parents are. No more compartmentalization of segments of the population into programs such as Medicaid, Medicare, SCHIP, Veterans, Military, Military families, Indian Health Service…. No more losing health coverage because you lost your job, or because your employer can’t afford to pay for health insurance for you.

With everyone in and nobody out, costs CAN be controlled. The agency running the national system will be able to do an excellent job of negotiating reasonable prices with the pharmaceutical industry. Absolutely enormous administrative costs of the hundreds of insurance companies with their thousands of different plans will be saved.

Costs can also be controlled by using a technical advisory board to decide, on the basis of scientific evidence, which expensive treatments or diagnostic tests should be done under what conditions. Excessive use of expensive choices will be limited to those who choose to pay out of their own pockets.

When the U.S. has one system that covers everyone, those running the system, as well as those deciding on its funding will deciding about their own coverage and costs. This will help curb underfunding and overly restrictive decisions about use of treatments and tests.

I could go on and on and on…. But, I ask only: WHERE IS YOUR COURAGE, YOUR LEADERSHIP, O DEMOCRATS????

]]> By: marklinkc http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2006/11/09/politics-a-democratic-perspective-on-the-impact-of-the-2006-elections-on-us-health-policy/comment-page-1/#comment-152 marklinkc Fri, 10 Nov 2006 13:40:48 +0000 http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2006/11/09/politics-a-democratic-perspective-on-the-impact-of-the-2006-elections-on-us-health-policy/#comment-152 I cannot wait to see Leslie Norwalk and Dennis Smith explain to Mr. Rangle how they twisted the law to restrict Medicaid eligibility for American-born babies. Tim is correct: the sunshine will be a welcome sight. I cannot wait to see Leslie Norwalk and Dennis Smith explain to Mr. Rangle how they twisted the law to restrict Medicaid eligibility for American-born babies. Tim is correct: the sunshine will be a welcome sight.

]]> By: Neil Gardner http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2006/11/09/politics-a-democratic-perspective-on-the-impact-of-the-2006-elections-on-us-health-policy/comment-page-1/#comment-151 Neil Gardner Fri, 10 Nov 2006 01:16:13 +0000 http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2006/11/09/politics-a-democratic-perspective-on-the-impact-of-the-2006-elections-on-us-health-policy/#comment-151 And maybe for the first time in six years, various experts working for the Federal Government will be free to talk about and use their expertise in discussions without having every word first cleared and censored by Bush administration PR people or else! And maybe for the first time in six years, various experts working for the Federal Government will be free to talk about and use their expertise in discussions without having every word first cleared and censored by Bush administration PR people or else!

]]>