Comments on: Medicare Smackdown Had Humble Beginnings http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2008/07/10/medicare-smackdown-had-humble-beginnings/ The Policy Journal of the Health Sphere Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:04:42 -0500 hourly 1 By: Top 10 Health Affairs Blog Posts For June | PharmaReports.net http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2008/07/10/medicare-smackdown-had-humble-beginnings/comment-page-1/#comment-22794 Top 10 Health Affairs Blog Posts For June | PharmaReports.net Wed, 16 Jul 2008 22:16:38 +0000 http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2008/07/10/medicare-smackdown-had-humble-beginnings/#comment-22794 [...] No doubt that Teddy Kennedy s dramatic return to the Capitol on Wednesday and the senatorial smackdown on Medicare that ensued were the stuff of legend. With Kennedy s vote putting the Senate Democrats over the hump on cloture on S. 3101, nine Republicans who had voted against cloture last week pivoted to produce a potentially veto-proof [...] Read more. [...] [...] No doubt that Teddy Kennedy s dramatic return to the Capitol on Wednesday and the senatorial smackdown on Medicare that ensued were the stuff of legend. With Kennedy s vote putting the Senate Democrats over the hump on cloture on S. 3101, nine Republicans who had voted against cloture last week pivoted to produce a potentially veto-proof [...] Read more. [...]

]]> By: annecarroll http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2008/07/10/medicare-smackdown-had-humble-beginnings/comment-page-1/#comment-22677 annecarroll Thu, 10 Jul 2008 23:16:00 +0000 http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2008/07/10/medicare-smackdown-had-humble-beginnings/#comment-22677 It's mind-boggling that while the blogs on Health Affairs always discuss economics and costs in their analyses, not one (including Robert Laszewski in his post on July 1) has even mentioned outcomes and impacts (i.e., are you getting what you pay for?), which is the point when it comes to evaluating whether a program that transfers money from the public sector to the private sector to accomplish a public mission (that is, for reasons OTHER than ideology) is "working," All of the research says "NO." Both types of MA plans provide no more care nor any better care than traditional Medicare does, in terms of health outcomes of seniors. (BTW, even if rural seniors are "enrolled"--i.e., "covered", can they afford to USE the plans--i.e., access?). There is no justification to continue this program, by any definition of "efficiency" or "effectiveness" that the "market-based" conservatives may use. 2. The last sentence in this blog explains why "incrementalism" in achieving public policies you really want is dangerous. Any new policy creates new stakeholders who have something to lose going forward; and if they are politically powerful stakeholders, so much the worse for you. Note that the AMA didn't settle for "incrementalism." It’s mind-boggling that while the blogs on Health Affairs always discuss economics and costs in their analyses, not one (including Robert Laszewski in his post on July 1) has even mentioned outcomes and impacts (i.e., are you getting what you pay for?), which is the point when it comes to evaluating whether a program that transfers money from the public sector to the private sector to accomplish a public mission (that is, for reasons OTHER than ideology) is “working,” All of the research says “NO.” Both types of MA plans provide no more care nor any better care than traditional Medicare does, in terms of health outcomes of seniors. (BTW, even if rural seniors are “enrolled”–i.e., “covered”, can they afford to USE the plans–i.e., access?). There is no justification to continue this program, by any definition of “efficiency” or “effectiveness” that the “market-based” conservatives may use.

2. The last sentence in this blog explains why “incrementalism” in achieving public policies you really want is dangerous. Any new policy creates new stakeholders who have something to lose going forward; and if they are politically powerful stakeholders, so much the worse for you. Note that the AMA didn’t settle for “incrementalism.”

]]>