Comments on: Building A Health Marketplace That Works

By: Four Health Care Reforms for 2009 | Health Care Reform 2009

Four Health Care Reforms for 2009 | Health Care Reform 2009 — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 21:00:56 +0000

[...] Enthoven AC. Building a health marketplace that works. Health Affairs blog, July 31, 2009. (Accessed September 9, 2009, at http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2009/07/31/building-a-health-marketplace-that-works/.) [...]

By: mmchmbrs

mmchmbrs — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 14:30:16 +0000

This all sounds so complicated. I have been a nurse for 22 years. What I see are people that eat the wrong foods, are sedentary, smoke and drink to excess and have become debilitated as a result. The big killers are directly related to these risky behaviors – specifically, emphyzema, heart disease and diabetes. Diabetes causes it’s own vast array of health problems. It is my belief that those people that choose not care for themselves and change risky behavior should pay for those choices. I am 51 years old and have no medical problems as I have always eaten a healthy diet even when I wanted to do otherwise, exercised and I do not smoke. Yet, I suffer the high cost of my insurance to pay for the poor choices of others. Marooyn Chambers, BSN, RN

By: Bob Stone

Bob Stone — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 13:58:40 +0000

It appears that most commentators on the Health Reform Debate continue to focus almost solely on the financial issues. This is probably appropriate given that what is really being debated is coverage and payment reform. There is very little in any of the bills under consideration in either the House of the Senate that actually speaks to health and/or health care reform. The unfortunatel consequence of whatever “solution” might actually clear Congress and be signed into law is that it will prove to be inadequate to address the health care cost issue — at least without some de facto price controls — becasue it will have failed to address the principal cause of escalating cost, namely the insatiable demand that is the inevitable by-product of building a system designed to treat illness, not to promote lifelong health.

By: Careful What You Wish For | The Incidental Economist

Careful What You Wish For | The Incidental Economist — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 15:08:25 +0000

[...] Starr, Robert Reich, and Robert Kuttner.) Therefore, I’d like the private insurance market to work well. I’m also very familiar with the Medicare experience (and its problems) with both public and [...]

By: James Mhyre

James Mhyre — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 17:12:50 +0000

I would suggest that the term “health marketplace” invokes two separate but interrelated markets, the health insurance marketplace and the health care marketplace. As a full time physician and occasional patient, I keep looking for economic reforms that encourage the patient and their physicians to choose conservative, less expensive options for care management. I will know that we have achieved health care marketplace reform when I see television advertisements from hospitals and other providers claiming to be the least expensive, not just the provider of superior quality and convenience, and cost will matter to me. As it is now, I do not know what the costs will be for just about any decision in my health care until after the fact, nor do I much care since it is mostly paid for by my insurance plan.

By: Health Care. (united health care, universal health care) » Blog Archive » What People Don’t Know about Health Insurance Exchanges

Wed, 12 Aug 2009 17:30:14 +0000

[...] Note: For more on health insurance exchanges and health reform, see Building A Health MarketPlace That Works by Alain [...]

By: acavale

acavale — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 23:44:46 +0000

This is the first time I have read anyone talk about the fallacies of the employer-based one-size-fits-all plans. It is not clear to me why this is not addressed more openly. Being a physician, a small business owner, employer and patient, I get to see all parts of the health insurance market. The main thing that has struck me many times is how unequal employer-based plans are – too much for younger/healthier employees, too skimpy for older-less healthier employees.

I would certainly welcome an exchange based on such principles, especially if it could simplify processes for potential patients/members and participating physicians. Other innovative ideas, such as options for patients and doctors to engage in tele-medicine and other types of medical interactions (with appropriate reimbursement) that allows care to be delivered/received without disruption of work or needing travel, should be encouraged. Currently all types of payers (govt and private) are least interested in offering such options.

By: Bill Stapleton

Bill Stapleton — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 21:29:34 +0000

We could easily create insurance exchanges today. If health insurance brokers could discount commissions, you would quickly see electronic exchanges with lower costs that reduce small group commissions which run as high as 6-8% of premium in many states.

Unfortunately it is against the law for brokers in the small group market (under 50 employees) to accept a lower commission than the insurance company dictates. Why would an employer go to an electronic exchange when he receives the services of a broker for “free.”

By: bett martinez

bett martinez — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 15:32:39 +0000

Cases for “reform” get laid out as logically as you like. Meanwhile reality happens. Here’s a question quoted from editor of The Scientist:

An interesting story in The Washington Post today details the lobbying blitz being mounted by healthcare companies — including Big Pharma — surrounding the push to reform the country’s healthcare system.

The Post story says that the industry is spending a staggering $1.4 million a day and employing the assistance of former legislators, ex-Congressional staffers, and other DC insiders to try and influence lawmakers central to the ongoing debate. While the article focuses on the ethical issues that attend hiring lobbyists so intimately knowledgeable of (read: cozy with) legislators and the internal workings of Congress, I can’t help but wonder how the outlay of that kind of green affects the functioning of pharmaceutical companies.

Is the vast expenditure going to cause some slowdown in drug discovery/development? I’m sure Big Pharma companies can justify devoting so much money to lobbying Congress on the crucial issue of healthcare reform to their stakeholders, but what about the beneficiaries of pharmaceutical innovation? On balance, is the patient best served by Big Pharma lobbying or by Big Pharma bringing new drugs into existence and onto the market?

What do you think?

Bob Grant, Associate Editor – The Scientist

Attended a CME Conference for doctors and other health professionals last week, and one psychiatrist/professor from George Washington U echoed similar thoughts. Maybe the entire system needs an overhaul, a bypass, a transplant??

By: Twitted by csshark2138

Twitted by csshark2138 — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 14:07:38 +0000

[...] This post was Twitted by csshark2138 [...]