Posts Tagged Ted Kennedy
The Government We Deserve: Healthcare Edition
Posted by Hal Andrews in Data Advantage, For Consumers, Healthcare Financing, Healthcare News, Healthcare Policy, Healthcare Reform on October 17th, 2009
So, the battle is joined – the passage of the Senate Finance Bill has forced every healthcare participant whose oxen might be gored into the open, and the fighting is fierce.
I don’t have a dog in the fight from an economic standpoint, unless Washington, D.C. decides to give everyone a full indemnity policy like the New Hampshire state union employees. As a result, I have had a freedom to think and speak in a way that few of my colleagues can.
It took me a while to realize that I would be so alone in this regard. I have been very fortunate to participate for the past five years in two different groups of nationally recognized healthcare executives with very diverse experiences. Several of them are very publicly prominent in the debate, and others are quietly influential. I have hoped that these groups might coalesce, create a blueprint for reform, and lead the way forward. While I am disappointed that has not happened, I am really surprised at how resolutely the group members have retreated to their economic realities or their philosophical ideals. In short, there has been no sustained dialogue with the goal of determining how hospitals, physicians, insurance companies, device manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies and others can create a reformed system. At the same time, I have observed all of us bemoan that “healthcare reform” is really “insurance coverage reform”, and not so impressive at that.
The result is that We, the People, have turned it over to Washington, D.C. In the coming weeks, 535 people who know a lot about politics, a little about the art of compromise, and almost nothing about how approximately 20% of the economy works will decide our future. The 20% of us employed in healthcare have failed to reform ourselves through real and shared sacrifice. The 80% is angry enough not to care that they don’t know the difference between a scalpel and a saw.
In the words of Dandy Don Meredith, some people in healthcare will need to “turn out the lights, the party’s over”. The tricky part is that we won’t know until the very end who that is.
On Wednesday, The Wall Street Journal ran an opinion piece called “Paying the Health Tax in Massachusetts” by an author named Wendy Williams. In it, Ms. Williams lamented that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts changed the definition of acceptable coverage. Her family’s policy no longer meets the requirement, so she must either (a) buy a more expensive policy, which she does not think she needs, or (b) enroll in the government option.
What caught my eye was the following:
“Mr. Romney and Sen. Ted Kennedy publicly promised that the middle class – that is, people like us – would not be taxed and that our health-care costs would actually decrease if the plan became law.
My husband and I weren’t convinced. It all seemed inane, but we are neither politically or socially conservative and figured the plan wouldn’t affect us much. Besides, who could be against a plan that covers more people for less money?”
Here in the South, we might respond to that statement by saying, “I’m not sure I would have told that”, but I am afraid the subject is too serious to be that dismissive.
Ms. Williams, in four sentences, has summarized the debate.
First, in order to get elected, politicians have to tell people (us) what we want to hear. Politicians rarely make the call for sacrifice, and today’s America is not interested in that much anyway. Elections for 473 of the 535 positions will be held in 2010. For each of those 473, the calculus over the next 60 days is about how a vote on healthcare reform will play at home between now and November 4, 2010 (Note: “what will get me reelected” is sometimes phrased as “what my constituents want” but rarely as “what does my country need” or “what does courage require”).
Second, We, the People, know better. What is wrong with us? We aren’t that stupid, and we don’t even like Congress. On the other hand, we do seem to like something for nothing. The members of the Greatest Generation have given way to individuals who are more interested in their personal good than the common good. Most of us just listen for what we want to believe and ignore the rest; some of us listen to talk radio and shout at the rest. The Greatest Generation gave way to the Baby Boomers, who seem to be the majority of those in power. The generation of Timothy Leary and “Turn on, tune in, drop out” seems to have taken the “drop out” part to heart, except that Leary’s hope for self-reliance has morphed into singular self-interest.
*********
It is time for We, the People, to wake up:
- As we proved spectacularly in Tennessee, you cannot cover more people for less money. No one in Washington, D.C. should know that better than Nancy-Ann Deparle.
- The results of the Massachusetts experiment are that costs have increased, while quality and access have decreased. These results should be terrifying since Massachusetts had one of the lowest uninsured rates in the nation at the start of the Massachusetts Connector program. Up next, “global payments”, aka capitation – good luck with that at Partners.
- In The Washington Post, Alec MacGillis reports that maybe the Mayo Clinic is not a model for reform since they restrict access to Medicare and Medicaid patients. As we continue to report, the Mayo Clinic does not deliver high healthcare value.
- The Senate Finance Bill pretends that physicians will take a 25% cut in pay in 2011 to achieve the $900B cost; it appears that AMA has convinced Senator Reid otherwise.
Sir Winston Churchill famously stated that:
“Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” He also said, “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” Let’s hope that we do not allow Washington, D.C. to test the former, and let’s see if America can prove Sir Winston wrong on the latter.
Health Reform on September 30, 2009
Posted by Hal Andrews in For Consumers, Healthcare Policy, Healthcare Reform on September 30th, 2009
A few thoughts on today’s news:
- As widely reported, the Senate Finance Committee rejected two amendments to Senator Baucus’s America’s Healthy Future Act of 2009 to establish a “public option”. The New York Times reported that Mr. Baucus voted against the amendments even though he thinks the public option is a good idea. Senator Baucus, perhaps taking the mantle of Senator Kennedy’s legacy, said, “My job is to put together a bill that will become law. In the Senate that means my job is to put together a bill that gets 60 votes.” It is a pity that more members of Congress fail to remember that is the reason we elected them.
- In today’s edition of The New York Times, David Leonhardt’s column “’Cadillac Tax’ Offers Opportunity” (at least that is what the title was in the print edition) calls out special interests for subjugating the national interest to their personal interest. As stated previously, I am convinced that shared sacrifice on the part of all Americans is an essential component of comprehensive reform of the healthcare (insurance, delivery, and wellness) system. In particular, Mr. Leonhardt points out that the unions, whose members would likely be disproportionately affected by the “Cadillac Tax”, are vigorously fighting the concept. Calling out the A.F.L.-C.I.O. is serious business at the Old Grey Lady, so credit Mr. Leonhardt with speaking the truth. Mr. Leonhardt points out correctly that limiting the growth in the cost of healthcare is a key goal of reform – I say “correctly” because some folks in Washington have forgotten that is the real issue. Mr. Leonhardt also cites research from RAND Corporation and others that conclude that there is not a difference in health status between those with “Cadillac” plans and “Chevy Malibu” plans. Mr. Leonhardt also quotes Jonathan Gruber, a health economist at M.I.T., as saying, “Taking someone who’s uninsured and giving them insurance unambiguously improves their health”. I am not sure the evidence supports that, which I will discuss in more detail soon.
- Today’s USA Today headline is “Millions in waste clogging Medicaid” (their capitalization, not mine). I am neither the first nor almost certainly the last to suggest that, if the White House really believes that health reform can be funded by eliminating fraud, abuse and waste, then time’s-a-wasting. Why do we need new legislation if we can address our cost issue with rooting out fraud, abuse and waste? Isn’t that the role the Office of the Inspector General? If the government is certain of the fraud, abuse, and waste and cannot end it, then why do we want the government taking more responsibility in healthcare? Perhaps We, the People, should require the Government to be faithful in the small things before granting them authority over the large things.
Thoughts on the Healthcare State of the Union
Posted by Hal Andrews in For Consumers, Healthcare Policy, Healthcare Reform on September 9th, 2009
I will give the President his due – he is a magnificent speaker, on par with Clinton, Reagan, Kennedy and Lincoln as one of the greatest orators in American history. However, the task before the country is to reorganize almost 20% of the United States economy in 90 days to preserve our economic stability, so extraordinary oratory is not enough. With that, a few thoughts from a healthcare businessman, not a politician, on tonight’s speeches:
- Is it possible for Republicans to be more tone deaf than to have a cardiac surgeon from Louisiana give a response to the President’s address? Maybe they thought Dr. Kevorkian would give a rebuttal. Is malpractice reform really the best Republican idea? At best, it is a 1% solution to the issues before us. As to rationing, it already happens, even if subtle ways. Cardiac surgery is not one of those subtleties – cardiac surgeons are not famous for performing bypasses on indigent patients.
- President Obama spoke for almost an hour and talked almost exclusively about health insurance reform. Does it concern you to think that it takes an hour tonight, in addition to most of August, to talk about insurance reform? Insurance reform is the easy issue for the American citizens – perhaps no other issue in the history of polling is so heavily slanted as it is against the insurance industry. If it takes all year to address the low-hanging fruit, how will Congress ever understand healthcare delivery? For a guess, see the first bullet above.
- As to the insurance reform suggestions, it sure sounds poll-tested – no caps on lifetime coverage (who pays for that?), no denials for pre-existing conditions, etc. Do Congress and the White House really think that the insurance companies will fail to pass the proposed taxes and incremental costs onto the policyholders?
- We will discuss in much more detail next week our “747 concept”. For now, we beg the White House to expand their search for examples of what is right and replicable about healthcare value. Professor Nicholas John Spykman once said, “Geography is the most fundamental factor in the foreign policy of states because it is the most permanent. Ministers come and ministers go, even dictators die, but mountain ranges stand unperturbed.” The theory of geography as destiny applies to healthcare, too, as does demography. Intermountain Healthcare has done some really innovative things, and Brent James, M.D. is well-regarded, but much of Intermountain’s success is due to a largely homogenous, if not teetotalling, population.
- When did the cost of health insurance for Congress become the benchmark for “affordable”? Is that compared to plans for union members?
- The President firmly stated that the public option has to be self-sustaining from premiums? History suggests how that works – lower premiums=fewer benefits. The public example is CoverTN; the private examples are often fined by insurance regulators for misleading consumers on the amount of the benefit. History also suggests that government sponsored plans are subject to lobbying for increased benefits, which usually become unfunded mandates. If the public option has to pay for itself from premiums, and Congress establishes minimum benefits, then premiums increase, right?
- In speaking on healthcare for an hour, the President mentioned value only once.
- In speaking on healthcare for an hour, the President never mentioned individual behavior or personal responsibility, except for the proposal to require everyone to obtain healthcare coverage like auto liability coverage. Anyone notice that was one of the three times (the others being malpractice caps and no federal funding of abortion) that the Democratic side of the chamber sat on their hands?
- The President called out Alabama as the example of a state in which a single insurer dominating a market, with the clear inference that less payer competition is worse for Americans. The Hospital Value Index™ study suggests just the opposite of what the President stated – higher value markets are usually characterized by less competition on the payer side, whereas lower value markets are often characterized by more competition on the payer side.
- Finally, the President finished with a predictable appeal to Senator Kennedy’s legacy. Two things come to mind: First, watching Speaker Pelosi glowing while hearing the stirring tribute to Senator Kennedy was ironic, given that she appears to have failed to grasp his legislative genius. History suggests that Senator Kennedy would take as much ground on healthcare reform as he could get this year, and return next year to fight for more. That stands in stark contrast to Speaker Pelosi’s stance that there is no bill without a public option. Second, as to the President’s remarks regarding Senator Kennedy’s appeal to morality, if we have learned anything in this country, isn’t it that morality as the foundation for government policy is built upon sand? Wasn’t morality the underlying justification for the idiocy regarding death panels? We might be better off if both parties left morality to the church, as the separation of church and state suggests.
So, now the hard work begins. The good news is that there are 747 hospitals that are exemplars for healthcare reform, and next week, Washington will know who they are.
the provisions of title I of draft legislation called the Affordable Health Choices Act
Posted by Editor in Healthcare News, Healthcare Policy, Healthcare Reform on July 2nd, 2009
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE Douglas W. Elmendorf, Director
U.S. Congress
Washington, DC 20515
July 2, 2009
Honorable Edward M. Kennedy
Chairman Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) have completed a preliminary analysis of the provisions of title I of draft legislation called the Affordable Health Choices Act, (labeled BAI09F54.xml)………………………….
Senate’s Health-Care Draft Calls for Most to Buy Insurance, Nixes Obama’s ‘Public Option’
Posted by Editor in Healthcare Policy, Healthcare Reform on June 19th, 2009
Friday, June 19, 2009
A draft proposal in the Senate to overhaul the nation’s health-care system would require most people to buy health insurance, authorize an expansion of Medicaid coverage and create consumer-owned cooperative plans instead of the government coverage that President Obama is seeking……….
Senate’s Health-Care Draft Calls for Most to Buy Insurance, Nixes Obama’s ‘Public Option’
Health Care Reform: Draft Proposal
Cost Concerns Arise Under the Affordable Health Choices Act
Posted by Hal Andrews in Healthcare Policy, Healthcare Reform on June 16th, 2009
Congressional Budget Office, June 15th, 2009 – Cost concerns arise after preliminary analysis of major provisions related to health insurance coverage under the Affordable Health Choices Act. See the link below for the analysis.
It’s The Economy Stupid…(and The Mother of All Entitlements)
Posted by Hal Andrews in For Consumers, Healthcare Policy, Healthcare Reform on June 15th, 2009
This is a very, very big week in health care reform in D.C. Among other things, the Senate HELP Committee plans to begin a mark-up of its plan on Wednesday, the Senate Finance Committee may issue their plan, and the House is prepared to flesh out the Tri-Partite (Ways and Means, Energy and Commerce, and Education and Labor) Plan.
Keep in mind that there are two separate initiatives that have become intertwined.
To quote James Carville, the first, and critical issue, is the U.S. economy. The U.S. could actually go bankrupt – for those of you who doubt it, please remember all the way back to August 2008 when GM, Chrysler, AIG, and Citigroup were privately owned. The unfunded liability for Medicare and Social Security now exceeds $100T ($100,000,000,000,000). Coupled with unprecendented deficits for the forseeable future, “bending the curve” for Medicare is critical to the sheer solvency of the U.S. The health care reform proposals emanating from the Senate Finance Committee are focused on this problem.
The second, but very different initiative, is an entitlement proposal that exceeds the scope of anything in the history of the world. Suddenly, and without any real debate, America has decided to provide health care coverage for all (except for the undocumented aliens, who, of course, used to be known as our forefathers). Don’t get me wrong – I think that health care coverage for everyone is a nice idea, and I think that health care coverage for children is a moral imperative (See “One Man’s Bipartisan Health Care Coverage Plan”). However, the Senate HELP Committee has taken Rahm Emanuel’s admonition not to waste a crisis to heart, and the result is a plan that embeds the Federal government in almost every facet of the health care system.
The flavor of the week in Washington is the Conrad Co-Op Plan, which appears to be financial sleight of hand, Washington-style. As I understand it, the Congressional Budget Office will score a “public plan” option as a federal expense for which revenue (i.e., taxes and reimbursement cuts) must be accounted. Sen. Conrad’s Co-Op would implement the same health insurance exchange/Massachusetts Connector plan as Sen. Kennedy desires; however, since the Co-Ops would be independent not-for-profit entities, the CBO would not have to “score” them.
As you consider what is before the nation, stay focused on what is necessary for the solvency of the country as opposed to a policy ideal of a few.
Remarks by The President at the annual conference of the American Medical Association
Posted by Editor in Healthcare News, Healthcare Policy, Healthcare Reform on June 15th, 2009
WASHINGTON — President Obama went before a convention of receptive but wary doctors on Monday to make the economic case for a health care overhaul, both for the nation and for the physicians’ own bottom lines……
The New York Times: Cost Concerns as Obama Pushes Health Issue
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT AT THE ANNUAL CONFERENCE OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
Congressional Budget Office – Cost Concerns Arise after Preliminary Analysis of Major Provisions Related to Health Insurance Coverage Under the Affordable Health Choices Act
Posted by Editor in For Consumers, Healthcare News, Healthcare Policy, Healthcare Reform on June 15th, 2009
The Timing of Health Care Reform
Posted by Hal Andrews in For Consumers, Healthcare Reform on June 11th, 2009
As stated previously, numerous people do not believe reform will happen, or at least not this year. One of the striking elements of the Kennedy bill is a FY 2010 start date, or October 1, 2009. According to this article in Roll Call yesterday afternoon, President Obama met with the ranking members of the Senate Finance Committee and the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee (with Senator Dodd pinch-hitting for Senator Kennedy) to insist that Congress pass health care reform this year.

