Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. #1
    Scrumtrulescent
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Post Count
    9,724
    CG: A trillion here, a trillion there...................

    *******************

    NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Two key proposals to improve access to health insurance could reduce the ranks of the uninsured but cost $1 trillion over 10 years, according to preliminary estimates released Monday by the Congressional Budget Office.

    The estimates are the first in a series over the next few months that will attempt to quantify the costs and benefits of various health reform options. President Obama, citing the huge part health care spending plays in the economy, has made passing reform this year a top priority.

    The report by CBO, an independent agency that scores legislative proposals for lawmakers, focuses on proposals to create health insurance exchanges and subsidize the cost of insurance for some households.

    The agency estimated that the exchange and subsidies could reduce the number of uninsured people by roughly 16 million by 2015. It is estimated there would otherwise be 51 million uninsured that year.

    The CBO estimates are based on parts of a health reform bill from Democrats on the Senate's Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee, chaired by Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass.

    The committee will start debating and amending that bill on Wednesday.

    Under the bill, the federal government would give grants to states to set up insurance exchanges that consumers could use to comparison shop for health insurance. And it would offer subsidies of varying levels to help families with incomes up to 500% of poverty level (roughly $110,000) to pay for coverage.

    The federal government would also subsidize small businesses that offer health benefits but have workers with low wages.

    The CBO stressed that its estimates are preliminary for several reasons:

    - They only reflect analysis of one part of the health committee bill. So they aren't a comprehensive look at the potential costs and savings of all measures in that bill.

    - They do not reflect the likely interactions that will occur with other elements of comprehensive health reform that may be included -- such as an expansion of Medicaid or the creation of a public insurance plan, which is the most controversial issue in the health reform debate.

    - In addition, the CBO has not yet finished its analysis of all the bill's elements, such as a proposal to let parents cover their children as dependents until they're 27.

    The health committee bill is hardly the last word on health reform. Other congressional committees have jurisdiction over other parts of health care reform.

    One is the Senate Finance Committee, which will oversee the tax proposals intended to help pay for the overhaul of the health care system.

    http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/15/news...ion=2009061607

  2. #2
    right about pizzagate Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    83,638
    Where health care costs the most (and least)

    Dartmouth researcher Elliott Fisher says America could spend 20% less and be just as healthy. His work might be the key to fixing our broken system.

    Last Updated: June 16, 2009: 4:40 AM ET

    Fisher stands next to an imaging device used in cardiac procedures that he says are done too frequently.

    (Money Magazine) -- Health-care costs are pinching just about everyone. You feel it every time your co-pays and deductibles go up, and you feel it in your paycheck - rising employer premiums are leaving less money for salaries. Medicare is on its way to financial disaster within a decade. And 46 million Americans are without health insurance.

    President Obama and congressional Democrats have put health-care reform at the top of their agenda. But how can we pay to cover the uninsured if we can barely afford the system we have today?

    Elliott Fisher may have part of the answer. He was a practicing physician for 20 years and is now lead investigator for an innovative project called the Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care. The Atlas, founded by Fisher's colleague Jack Wennberg, has do ented strange imbalances in health-care spending across the country. Whether your doctor orders a CAT scan or sends you to a specialist may depend on where you get sick, not just on how sick you are.

    But guess what? The regions that use the most health care don't get better results. That finding has gotten a lot of attention within the Obama administration because it suggests that America could spend less on medicine and end up at least as healthy. Money contributing writer David Futrelle recently spoke with Fisher about what's gone wrong and how to fix it.

    What's the evidence that we spend too much on health care?

    We've looked at regional differences in Medicare spending and asked ourselves, What do you get when you spend more? What we found is that in higher-spending regions almost all the extra spending is on discretionary service. What that means in practice is unnecessary days in the hospital, unnecessary referrals to specialists, and unnecessary diagnostic tests.

    How do you know the spending isn't making people healthier?

    Survival following a heart attack or a hip fracture, or after a diagnosis of colon cancer, is no better in the higher-spending regions than in the lower-spending ones. More health care doesn't necessarily mean better health care. In fact, mortality rates in higher-paying regions are actually a little bit higher. Hospitals are dangerous places to be if you don't need to be there.

    Because of the greater risk of picking up infections there?

    Yes, but also because it increases the chance of medical errors. When you go to the hospital, someone has to write orders for every single one of your medications. Hopefully they get it right, but maybe they don't. Then they all have to be rewritten when you are discharged. Each time you move from one setting or doctor to another, there's another opportunity for confusion and mistakes.

    Where is there the most overspending on health care?

    Miami, Manhattan, and Los Angeles are expensive. Large Eastern urban settings seem to be particularly high cost, especially those that have a lot of medical schools, like Philadelphia. But they're not all urban areas. Eastern Long Island is one of the highest-cost places in the United States.

    One driver of the differences in health-care spending is the local capacity. How many hospital beds - and how many beds in major medical-center hospitals - does an area have? How many physicians? Physicians must always stay busy to keep their practice profitable. Likewise, in hospitals a bed you have is a bed you fill. And in order for hospitals to offset the cost of caring for the uninsured, they must offer more highly profitable treatments to those who can pay. They're competing with one another to build the fanciest atriums, and they look like five-star hotels. They're bidding up orthopedics and cardiology salaries because those are revenue centers. That's what's driving up the costs of American health care.

    So where is spending lower?

    Minneapolis, San Francisco, Rochester, N.Y. You can find pairs of communities within the same state - such as Miami and Orlando - where the spending is radically different. It's very idiosyncratic.

    Spending for Medicare would fall by about 20% if everybody practiced medicine the way the lowest-spending fifth of the nation does. The question is, How do we get there from here? We need local accountability, so that doctors and hospitals work together to provide better care at lower costs. We need to reform how providers get paid.

    Under the system we have today, health-care providers are rewarded only for doing more stuff, not for providing better outcomes. And we need performance measures to show that the doctors aren't stinting on needed care to save a few bucks.

    But what makes you think you know better than doctors how best to treat their patients?

    None of us want the government telling physicians how to do their job. We want better information about the risks and benefits of specific treatments, and we want patients to be empowered to make better choices.

    There have been plenty of examples over the past 20 years of treatments being recommended by physicians that turned out to be riskier than we thought. Hormone replacement therapy for women is the poster child for this.

    Do doctors really have the time to think about the costs?

    Most want to hustle you in and out of their office pretty quickly. This is the paradox of our situation. Payers, both insurance plans and Medicare, have been squeezing the prices for individual services like office visits. What does that force the doctor to do? Shorten the visit from eight minutes to five. And to schedule more appointments than necessary to keep their offices full. The thinking seems to be: Let's crank 50 patients through the office today. And by the way, if I own a CAT scanner I'm going to order a scan on a few of them because that's how I really make my money.

    Doctors are afraid of being sued. Does that contribute to excessive treatment?

    Fear of malpractice suits is universal among physicians. It's sometimes a legitimate reason to order tests, and it's sometimes an excuse.

    How can a patient keep from being subjected to all these needless tests and procedures?

    You should go to your doctor with an at ude of healthy skepticism. And don't be afraid to ask questions. Do I really need this CAT scan? Do I really need to go to a specialist? If you don't feel as if you've gotten adequate answers from your doctor, go to another doctor.

    Medicare is soon going to bust the U.S. budget. Could the changes you are talking about prevent that?

    If you reduced expected spending growth in Medicare by one percentage point per year below where it is now, you would save over $1 trillion over the next 15 years. Medicare goes from the red to being in the black.

    Could the cost savings be enough to enable us to insure everyone?

    If we fixed the way we deliver care so that doctors are rewarded for providing good care at low cost, we could afford it. We have an incredible opportunity to make American medicine the envy of the world, and cover everybody.

    http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/15/news...ion=2009061604

  3. #3
    Orange Whip? Orange Whip? Viva Las Espuelas's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Post Count
    19,497
    does this cover illiegal aliens in the country?

  4. #4
    What stinks?
    My Team
    Oklahoma City Thunder
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Post Count
    156
    does this cover illiegal aliens in the country?
    don't they already get free health care?

  5. #5
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Post Count
    2,592
    I don't really care what kind of health care proposal they come up with as long as they don't require me to buy insurance or raise my taxes to pay for it.

  6. #6
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    113,849
    Now that Bush is out of office, CBO 10 year estimates are suddenly gold-plated?

    Not too long ago, they weren't for deficit and war cost projections. But now they are supposedly authoritative for uncompleted legislation? I wonder.

    (My own guess is CBO estimates of health care costs turn out to be too conservative -- like those for the deficit and war costs -- but how can we be so sure before the ink is even applied to the paper, much less in a form passable in Congress?)

  7. #7
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Post Count
    20,699
    a proposal to let parents cover their children as dependents until they're 27.
    Throwing a bone to the base.

  8. #8
    Scrumtrulescent
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Post Count
    9,724
    Now that Bush is out of office, CBO 10 year estimates are suddenly gold-plated?

    Not too long ago, they weren't for deficit and war cost projections. But now they are supposedly authoritative for uncompleted legislation? I wonder.

    (My own guess is CBO estimates of health care costs turn out to be too conservative -- like those for the deficit and war costs -- but how can we be so sure before the ink is even applied to the paper, much less in a form passable in Congress?)
    These days I pretty much count it as a blessing when whatever government is touting only ends up costing us twice as much while delivering half the anticipated results.

  9. #9
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    113,849
    These days I pretty much count it as a blessing when whatever government is touting only ends up costing us twice as much while delivering half the anticipated results.
    Still, it seems odd that there's a projection before there's even a completed legislative draft. Or am I mistaken about this?

    Do we actually know what all is on the table?

  10. #10
    Scrumtrulescent
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Post Count
    9,724
    Still, it seems odd that there's a projection before there's even a completed legislative draft. Or am I mistaken about this?

    Do we actually know what all is on the table?
    The article does say that the numbers are preliminary and hinted that they were working off of at least part of Kennedy's bill which is floating around congressional dems.

    I could be wrong here, but I don't think the CBO has the authority to just put out numbers on their own. I'm under the impression that they only look at stuff that someone in congress asks them to.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •