- Costs imposed by expanding coverage to all Americans
- Savings from reducing health care costs
- Savings from replacing emergency care with preventative care
If you were a lobbyist for the health insurance industry, and you wanted to make health reform seem like a bad idea, what could you do? You could hire an accounting firm to measure only the costs and none of the savings.
That’s just what America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) did: They hired PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC) to produce a report about “four components” of the Senate health reform proposal — incidentally, four components that all contributed costs, rather than savings. The rest of the bill — dozens of other components — was boiled down to this statement:
The reform packages under consideration have other provisions that we have not included in this analysis. We have not estimated the impact of the new subsidies on the net insurance cost to households. Also, if other provisions in health care reform are successful in lowering costs over the long term, those improvements would offset some of the impacts we have estimated.
Even the most bitter partisans would admit that at least some provisions of health care reform will save money, which makes the PWC report at best inaccurate, and at worst an outright lie. In one fell swoop, AHIP has not only shown that the insurance industry is not a partner in the health reform effort, they’ve shown that they’re willing to cook the books to try to stop it.
The Democrats premise is that we are going to save $400 or $500 million dollar in medicare spending in the next ten years. Two problems with that:
1) If it could be done, why hasn't it been done already
2) When has any government program like social security, medicare or medicaid ever cut the fat and reduce costs, uh NEVER.
Let's put the medicare cost savings plan into place, scrap the current health reform bills and start over.
Alex said it below
1) the reupblican congress had SIX years of dominance under Bush, and nary a peep was made about reforming either the health care system as a whole, or of medicaid cost reduction reform specifically.
Now you're seeing BOTH occur under a democratic administration, Just as we saw both robust health insurance reform under Clinton/Gore, and a bi-partisan welfare reform which was also enacted under Clinton.
We currently have a weak bill out of the senate finance committee. There will be some tort reform in the final bill, I know, and very likely a public option (we'll see) We're making progress, and I don't see why we should scrap it based on obstructionist republican tactics, or an anonymous pajama-clad sniper in the innerwebz.
Thank you, and good day.
1) It hasn't been done because the people who benefit most from this bassackwards system don't want it done, and they are the ones with access to congress.
2)Well, according to you, if there was any fat to cut, it already would have been done. So which is it, there is no fat to cut, or congress won't cut it? Your first point says there is no fat to cut, but your second point says there is fat and congress won't cut it.
3) The VA (government program) saves huge amounts by negotiating drug prices (cuts the fat)
To point #1;) Ask the GOP.
To point #2:) Under Clinton, google Al Gore and the ReInventing Government initiative. Federal payrolls were reduced by 100's of thousands.
Second Paragraph, second sentence should read: "Just as we saw both robust health insurance reform proposed under Clinton/Gore" As we know, republicans and conservadems scuttled that effort.
To be fair, there should be at least two more factors that are meausured, in addition to the three you brought up, Jeff:
1) The increased utilization of healthcare services by those newly covered by insurance. The studies I've seen show at least some offset of the ER-to-preventative savings from people using the system for things they may not have had to
2) The decreased cost of private insurance
We should be measuring the cost to the entire system, not just the cost to the government.
The bigger thing, by far, is to acknowledge that all of these figures are ESTIMATES that may or may not end up being remotely close to the projections. There needs to be a mechanism to drastically alter the program in 5 years if it is not delivering on the promises it was sold based upon.
I do mean to be snarky, DtM, but you're a nice guy, so sorry in advance:)
According to studies DtM has seen, under a universal a system, families will now:
a)go to the local waterpark for a good time
b)take in a movie
c)take the whole gang to the local clinic 'cause now it's free and so much fun!
Except for the minuscule, statistically inconsequential population of hypochondriacs, I don't see people flocking to the local clinic just because it is free. They will go when they need to.
"1) The increased utilization of healthcare services by those newly covered by insurance. The studies I've seen show at least some offset of the ER-to-preventative savings from people using the system for things they may not have had to"
Are you talking about preventative services they otherwise could not have afforded. I would say that is a potential advantage of reform. Furthermore, ER care is tremendously inefficient and expensive. We should see some cost advantage of formerly uninsured seeking traditional care (which is cost effective, but not generally gauranteed to the uninsured( rather than ER care (where their care is expensive, but where urgent care is gauranteed by legislation)
You can't assume that all care that is accessed is necessary. Not all healthcare that is forgone is the impactful, preventative type.
"“Peter Orszag, director of the Congressional Budget Office, estimates that 5 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product- — $700 billion per year – goes to tests and procedures that do not actually improve health outcomes" - Progressive Policy Institute
I would argue that some of the care that will be delivered to people covered under new insurance, or the Public Option, will fall into this category. That is all i'm saying.