A Look at Health Care Reform
The conceptual dust and confusion that surrounds the issue of health care reform at the moment is exceeded only by the emotion the issue generates. So it seems like a good time to examine the issue – first, what's being considered.
There is currently no final Bill in either the House or the Senate to discuss. You can find the text of the House Bill currently working its way through committees, H.R. 3200 (America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009) here. But that text may change before it reaches the floor of the House. The Senate looks set to produce two competing bills from different committees. The House and the Senate will both have to produce drafts for a vote. If they pass, the house bill and the Senate bill will have to be reconciled in a joint House-Senate Conference Committee. and then there will be a final bill to vote on. Laws and sausages…
It's probably important to clear up what's not on the table:
- We're not turning into Canada. I hear the comparison a lot. Canada has a single-payer system where the government pays people's medical bills. The Obama Administration has said pretty clearly that it will not sign a single-payer law (even though liberal groups like The Progressive Democrats of America wanted exactly that). A single-payer system is not on the table.
- We're not talking about creating a system of free health care. We have that already: it's called Medicaid. Most of the people in America without health insurance make too much to qualify for Medicaid, but can't afford health insurance. The current reform effort is focused on making health insurance more affordable, and then makig people buy it (like we already make them buy auto insurance if they own a car). We are not talking about free health care.
- We are not talking about socialized medicine: a system in which the government operates health care facilities and employs health care professionals. We have that already for veterans and members of the Armed Forces (and their families). But no one is suggesting that we expand that to include the general public. So we are not talking about socialized medicine.
Sometime soon we'll take a look at the issues that are on the table – and how they might impact the business world.
© a.drian
Law | Greg Cruey | 31 July 2009 |
2 Comments
Other Links to this Post
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
By hsr0601, July 25, 2009 @ 9:11 pm
The House leaders reached a deal on Medicare payments: A “Pay for Value” reimbursement system that rewards doctors and hospitals that achieve the best outcomes at the lowest cost.
As a result, The House gained a lot of votes, a lot of people who were withholding support.
The federal Medicare program insures some 44 million elderly and disabled Americans at an annual cost of $450 billion, almost one-fifth of total U.S. health care spending.
Supporters of the agreement say it could save the Medicare System more than $100 billion a year and improve care, that means $1trillian over a decade. (Please visit http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=820455&catid=391 for detailed infos)
The Times in a July 7 editorial argued “As much as 30 percent of all health-care spending in the U.S. -some $700 billion a year- may be wasted on tests and treatments that do not improve the health of the recipients,” Thus the remaining $239 billions over a decade do not matter.
No one can disagree with this best outcome / evidence-based system, and private insurance, too, will be greatly influenced by this change with the focus on value over volume. !
THANK YOU !
By hsr0601, July 26, 2009 @ 2:21 am
Let’s score this SECRET, KEY and GAME CHANGER first, CBO !
The House leaders reached a deal on Medicare payments: A “Pay for Value” reimbursement system that rewards doctors and hospitals that achieve the best outcomes at the lowest cost.
As a result, The House gained a lot of votes, a lot of people who were withholding support.
The federal Medicare program insures some 44 million elderly and disabled Americans at an annual cost of $450 billion, almost one-fifth of total U.S. health care spending.
Supporters of the agreement say it could save the Medicare System more than $100 billion a year and improve care, that means $1trillian over a decade. (Please visit http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=820455&catid=391 for detailed infos)
The Times in a July 7 editorial argued “As much as 30 percent of all health-care spending in the U.S. -some $700 billion a year- may be wasted on tests and treatments that do not improve the health of the recipients,” Thus the remaining $239 billions over a decade do not matter.
No one can disagree with this best outcome / evidence-based system, and private insurance, too, will be greatly influenced by this change with the focus on value over volume. !
Dr. Armadio at Mayo clinic says, “If we got rid of that stuff, we save a third of all that we spend and that is 2.5 trillion dollars on health care. A third of that and that is 700 billion dollars a year. That covers a lot of uninsured people.”
THANK YOU !