/PRNewswire/ -- The American Dental Association (ADA), American Benefits Council, and Communications Workers of America, along with the Academy of General Dentistry, American College of Prosthodontists, American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry, American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons, American Association of Orthodontists, Guardian Life Insurance of America, Hispanic Dental Association, Service Employees International Union, National Association of Vision Care Plans, and VSP Vision Care sent a letter yesterday asking Leaders of the House and Senate to eliminate or substantially modify the excise tax on health benefits, including flexible spending accounts (FSAs), to ensure the final health care reform legislation does not adversely impact key and important goals of health reform, like primary and prevention-oriented care.
American Dental Association President Ron Tankersley, DDS, says the provision as written, "[I]s the opposite of health care reform. It would compel many employers to drop critical dental and other coverage to avoid the tax. It dismantles exactly the type of preventive, primary care that everyone agrees this country needs more of."
The letter states, "Many employer-sponsored plans exceed or will exceed the PPACA excise tax threshold simply because the plans include many older workers or retirees with higher cost health care needs, or are concentrated in locations with high health costs. For example, the standard option BCBS Federal Employees Health Benefit plan, a basic plan that covers 3.8 million Americans today, will exceed the PPACA excise threshold in the first year of the tax (2013) for single coverage and in the third year of the tax (2016) for family coverage (CWA Report, 12/8/2009)."
The letter continues, "As a result, the excise tax could lead many employers to reduce benefits (Mercer Survey, 12/2/2009) by eliminating limited service supplemental benefits and FSAs that fund much needed and prevention-oriented dental and vision care in order to avoid the tax. Cuts in these crucial benefits will lead to a decline in access to necessary care. Patients rely on the preventive services covered by the dental, vision and limited service supplemental plans to prevent infections, slow the progress of chronic disease and facilitate early treatment of preventable conditions."
"The health care reform debate has never centered on dental, vision and other supplemental benefits," said James A. Klein, president of the American Benefits Council. "Those valuable benefits have only been included in the calculation of the excise tax to raise revenue. Several modifications are needed to improve the excise tax provision, including not applying the tax to these important supplemental benefits."
According to Louise Novotny, Research Director at Communications Workers of America, "For millions of patients and consumers, most of whom are middle and low income working Americans, the excise tax is unfair and punitive, leading to reduced health care services."
Without Congressional consensus to replace the excise tax on health benefits with another fair and broad funding source, there are solutions that can mitigate the severe harm the excise tax poses to patient care. These include:
1) Excluding FSAs, as well as managed and limited service dental, vision and stand-alone plans from the calculation of health plan costs;
2) Raising the threshold AND indexing the threshold to medical inflation;
3) Replacing the single and family coverage thresholds with a per-covered-person threshold, a fairer approach to plan cost allocation. [1]
The not-for-profit ADA is the nation's largest dental association, representing more than 157,000 dentist members. The premier source of oral health information, the ADA has advocated for the public's health and promoted the art and science of dentistry since 1859. The ADA's state-of-the-art research facilities develop and test dental products and materials that have advanced the practice of dentistry and made the patient experience more positive. The ADA Seal of Acceptance long has been a valuable and respected guide to consumer dental care products. The monthly Journal of the American Dental Association (JADA) is the ADA's flagship publication and the best-read scientific journal in dentistry. For more information about the ADA, visit the Association's Web site at www.ada.org.
The American Benefits Council represents major employers and other organizations that either sponsor directly or provide services to health and retirement plans covering more than 100 million Americans. More information is available at www.americanbenefitscouncil.org.
The Communications Workers of America (CWA), America's largest communications and media union, represents over 700,000 men and women in both private and public sectors, including over half a million workers who are building the Information Highway. The union includes some 1,200 chartered local unions across the United States, Canada and Puerto Rico. Members live in approximately 10,000 communities, making CWA one of the most geographically diverse unions. CWA is affiliated with the AFL-CIO, the Canadian Labour Congress, and the worldwide Union Network International.
[1] The number of dependents enrolled in a plan's family coverage varies; plans with larger numbers of dependents are unfairly taxed even when the per enrolled person cost reflect efficient benefits.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Showing posts with label health care reform. Show all posts
Showing posts with label health care reform. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
New National Ad Campaign Targeting Congress, Seniors Say 'DON'T CUT MEDICARE!'
/PRNewswire/ -- Today, the 60 Plus Association released a new TV ad targeting the Democrat Congress' plan to cut Medicare by half a trillion dollars, and announced a phone call campaign into the districts of 78 Members of the House of Representatives.
The ad features members of our Greatest Generation begging Congress not to cut Medicare to pay for health care reform. The 30 second TV ad begins running nationally on cable today. See the ad at www.60plus.org.
The phone calls target Members of the House of Representatives and urge concerned citizens to call their Member and urge them not to cut Medicare.
"This bill adds 111 entitlements and the only one it cuts is Medicare, how is this fair to our greatest generation? Seniors have already lost their Social Security COLA and now Speaker Pelosi wants to cut Medicare, too. As yesterday's elections prove, seniors are upset. Seniors are taking a stand and say 'Don't cut our Medicare,'" said Jim Martin, president of 60 Plus.
Titled "Enough -- Congress" the ad highlights seniors speaking in their own words to the fact that Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Harry Reid want to cut up to $500 billion from Medicare. This could mean life-saving drugs could be withheld and seniors could even be prevented from seeing their own doctors.
The ad ends with a senior stating "Don't make us pay for health care reform by cutting Medicare. We've sacrificed enough."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
The ad features members of our Greatest Generation begging Congress not to cut Medicare to pay for health care reform. The 30 second TV ad begins running nationally on cable today. See the ad at www.60plus.org.
The phone calls target Members of the House of Representatives and urge concerned citizens to call their Member and urge them not to cut Medicare.
"This bill adds 111 entitlements and the only one it cuts is Medicare, how is this fair to our greatest generation? Seniors have already lost their Social Security COLA and now Speaker Pelosi wants to cut Medicare, too. As yesterday's elections prove, seniors are upset. Seniors are taking a stand and say 'Don't cut our Medicare,'" said Jim Martin, president of 60 Plus.
Titled "Enough -- Congress" the ad highlights seniors speaking in their own words to the fact that Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Harry Reid want to cut up to $500 billion from Medicare. This could mean life-saving drugs could be withheld and seniors could even be prevented from seeing their own doctors.
The ad ends with a senior stating "Don't make us pay for health care reform by cutting Medicare. We've sacrificed enough."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Alternate Health Care Plan by the GOP
The Republican Plan for Reforming Health Care--
Here is the full text of the proposal:
http://rules-republicans.house.gov/Media/PDF/RepublicanAlternative3962_9.pdf
Here is the full text of the proposal:
http://rules-republicans.house.gov/Media/PDF/RepublicanAlternative3962_9.pdf
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Open Letter to Congress on Long Term Care Insurance and Health Care Reform
/PRNewswire/ -- As the Senate Finance Committee (SFC) resumes work this week on the health care reform bill, The National LTC Network urges Congress to consider two ideas.
First, include an above-the-line deduction for long term care (LTC) insurance premiums. Although the current version of the SFC bill allows long-term care insurance to be included in Section 125 plans (aka "cafeteria plans"), Network President and CEO Terry Truesdell comments, "While we applaud this new tax incentive, we urge Congress to offer an above-the-line deduction for LTC insurance premiums. Many employees don't have Section 125 plans. If they do, they lose the plan once they retire. I believe that an above-the-line deduction could open the floodgates, encouraging citizens to purchase this important insurance and lessen the burden on government programs when they need care."
Second, at least one current version of a health care reform bill includes a government long-term care insurance program. The inspiration for the proposed bill is CLASS ("Community Living Assistance Services and Support"), a bill first proposed in 2007.
"Since the decision of how to pay for future long-term care is so important, we want to make sure that citizens understand both the pluses and minuses of any new government program," says Truesdell.
The Network urges Congress to include a "black-box" buyer warning on program materials if a CLASS-type program is adopted. Suggested wording:
-- You are not eligible for any benefits for the first 5 years after
signup.
-- Your premium will increase if the government decides that additional
money is needed to pay current and projected future claims.
-- Since the average cost of LTC nationally is $18.50/hour/licensed home
health aide, $94/day/assisted living facility, and
$183/day/semi-private nursing home room, even with this program, you
could be responsible for a significant part of your care costs.
-- While some private LTCi policies (known as "Partnership") can protect
your assets if you need to go on Medicaid, this government program
does not.
-- You may want to supplement this plan, or replace it with, private
long-term care insurance.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
First, include an above-the-line deduction for long term care (LTC) insurance premiums. Although the current version of the SFC bill allows long-term care insurance to be included in Section 125 plans (aka "cafeteria plans"), Network President and CEO Terry Truesdell comments, "While we applaud this new tax incentive, we urge Congress to offer an above-the-line deduction for LTC insurance premiums. Many employees don't have Section 125 plans. If they do, they lose the plan once they retire. I believe that an above-the-line deduction could open the floodgates, encouraging citizens to purchase this important insurance and lessen the burden on government programs when they need care."
Second, at least one current version of a health care reform bill includes a government long-term care insurance program. The inspiration for the proposed bill is CLASS ("Community Living Assistance Services and Support"), a bill first proposed in 2007.
"Since the decision of how to pay for future long-term care is so important, we want to make sure that citizens understand both the pluses and minuses of any new government program," says Truesdell.
The Network urges Congress to include a "black-box" buyer warning on program materials if a CLASS-type program is adopted. Suggested wording:
-- You are not eligible for any benefits for the first 5 years after
signup.
-- Your premium will increase if the government decides that additional
money is needed to pay current and projected future claims.
-- Since the average cost of LTC nationally is $18.50/hour/licensed home
health aide, $94/day/assisted living facility, and
$183/day/semi-private nursing home room, even with this program, you
could be responsible for a significant part of your care costs.
-- While some private LTCi policies (known as "Partnership") can protect
your assets if you need to go on Medicaid, this government program
does not.
-- You may want to supplement this plan, or replace it with, private
long-term care insurance.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Senate Finance Committee Cuts Home Medical Equipment in Reform Package
/PRNewswire/ -- Yesterday, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) issued his recommendations for healthcare reform in his long-awaited "Chairman's mark" version of the bill. The 220-page bill contains several provisions that affect home medical equipment, ranging from power wheelchairs to anti-fraud measures. The bill does not include specific cuts to oxygen payment rates, but the American Association for Homecare believes that the threat of cuts remains.
"While we favor the goals of health care reform and aggressive measures to reduce fraud and waste in Medicare, the cuts proposed for home medical equipment and related services are unwarranted and disproportionate," said Tyler J. Wilson, President of the Association. "We don't believe the cuts will produce either savings or better care for seniors in the long run."
The draft bill includes billions of dollars in cuts to Medicare, including reductions to the home medical equipment sector that will reduce access to care for seniors. These cuts come on the heels of several years of Medicare reimbursement reductions for homecare, and they will hurt small businesses. The home medical equipment and service sector is one of the smallest and slowest-growing sectors in Medicare according to National Health Expenditures data from the federal government.
Among the cuts and negative impacts detailed in the draft Senate legislation:
Competitive Acquisition Program Expansion. The Chairman's mark would expand the number of areas to be included in Round Two of the bidding program for durable medical equipment from 79 of the largest metropolitan statistical areas to 100.
First-Month Purchase Option for Power Wheelchairs. The mark would maintain the first-month purchase option for complex power wheelchairs but eliminate the option for standard power wheelchairs. Nearly all beneficiaries elect the purchase option because they suffer from long-term, debilitating conditions that require customized equipment to meet their specific needs. Removing a beneficiary's right to choose the first-month purchase will create access-to-care problems as the provider will not be able to secure the financing to cover the costs of the power wheelchair over a 13-month period, especially given the current financial environment.
Excise Tax on Manufacturers and Importers of Medical Devices. The Chairman's mark would require an annual tax on manufacturers and importers of medical devices that are categorized as Class II or Class III devices offered for sale in the United States, costing device manufacturers approximately $29.9 billion over ten years.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
"While we favor the goals of health care reform and aggressive measures to reduce fraud and waste in Medicare, the cuts proposed for home medical equipment and related services are unwarranted and disproportionate," said Tyler J. Wilson, President of the Association. "We don't believe the cuts will produce either savings or better care for seniors in the long run."
The draft bill includes billions of dollars in cuts to Medicare, including reductions to the home medical equipment sector that will reduce access to care for seniors. These cuts come on the heels of several years of Medicare reimbursement reductions for homecare, and they will hurt small businesses. The home medical equipment and service sector is one of the smallest and slowest-growing sectors in Medicare according to National Health Expenditures data from the federal government.
Among the cuts and negative impacts detailed in the draft Senate legislation:
Competitive Acquisition Program Expansion. The Chairman's mark would expand the number of areas to be included in Round Two of the bidding program for durable medical equipment from 79 of the largest metropolitan statistical areas to 100.
First-Month Purchase Option for Power Wheelchairs. The mark would maintain the first-month purchase option for complex power wheelchairs but eliminate the option for standard power wheelchairs. Nearly all beneficiaries elect the purchase option because they suffer from long-term, debilitating conditions that require customized equipment to meet their specific needs. Removing a beneficiary's right to choose the first-month purchase will create access-to-care problems as the provider will not be able to secure the financing to cover the costs of the power wheelchair over a 13-month period, especially given the current financial environment.
Excise Tax on Manufacturers and Importers of Medical Devices. The Chairman's mark would require an annual tax on manufacturers and importers of medical devices that are categorized as Class II or Class III devices offered for sale in the United States, costing device manufacturers approximately $29.9 billion over ten years.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
AARP Reacts to President’s Health Care Townhall
AARP Chief Operating Officer Tom Nelson issued this statement following remarks by the President at a townhall event in New Hampshire on health care reform.
“AARP has been working with Democrats and Republicans to fix our broken health care system.
“While the President was correct that AARP will not endorse a health care reform bill that would reduce Medicare benefits, indications that we have endorsed any of the major health care reform bills currently under consideration in Congress are inaccurate.
“AARP supports specific measures that would help older Americans and their families – including bipartisan proposals to create a new follow-up care benefit in Medicare that would help prevent hospital re-admissions, as well as to address the Medicare prescription drug coverage gap known as the ‘doughnut hole.’ We also support the need for lawmakers and the Administration to act this year to fix what doesn’t work in the health care system.
“We share the President’s commitment to act this year, and our members appreciate his insistence that any final reform package will not reduce Medicare benefits for the millions of people that literally depend on that program as a lifeline.
“We look forward to working with leaders of both parties, including the President, to build a final package we could endorse that addresses the concerns of the 50-plus population and brings quality, affordable health care choices to every American.”
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
“AARP has been working with Democrats and Republicans to fix our broken health care system.
“While the President was correct that AARP will not endorse a health care reform bill that would reduce Medicare benefits, indications that we have endorsed any of the major health care reform bills currently under consideration in Congress are inaccurate.
“AARP supports specific measures that would help older Americans and their families – including bipartisan proposals to create a new follow-up care benefit in Medicare that would help prevent hospital re-admissions, as well as to address the Medicare prescription drug coverage gap known as the ‘doughnut hole.’ We also support the need for lawmakers and the Administration to act this year to fix what doesn’t work in the health care system.
“We share the President’s commitment to act this year, and our members appreciate his insistence that any final reform package will not reduce Medicare benefits for the millions of people that literally depend on that program as a lifeline.
“We look forward to working with leaders of both parties, including the President, to build a final package we could endorse that addresses the concerns of the 50-plus population and brings quality, affordable health care choices to every American.”
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Friday, July 3, 2009
Republicans on Senate Committee Push to Exclude Abortion Services from Health Care Reform
/PRNewswire / -- Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee are pushing for language in health care reform legislation that would eliminate coverage for abortion services. If this happens, many women could lose coverage for abortion services that their private insurance currently includes. Plus, millions of uninsured women will still lack a basic health care service despite having been promised a better quality of life.
If these senators are allowed to deny coverage of abortion services, the burden will inevitably fall on low-income women and widen the huge gap in health status and access to health care services that reforms are meant to remedy. Compared to their higher-income counterparts, low-income women are four times as likely to have an unintended pregnancy and five times as likely to have an unintended birth.
As people of faith, we believe that health care reform should expand coverage to provide for the basic services that every human being deserves; it should not deny essential services to half of the population and aggravate the troubling disparities in health care affecting minorities and low-income individuals. For example, compared to her higher-income counterpart, a low-income woman is four times as likely to have an unintended pregnancy and five times as likely to have an unintended birth.
Let there be no mistake, basic health care includes abortion services. According to the Guttmacher Institute, one in three American women will have an abortion by age 45.
Reproductive health care, including abortion services, is an essential component of women's health. Women must get a fair shake in the final health care reform bill.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
If these senators are allowed to deny coverage of abortion services, the burden will inevitably fall on low-income women and widen the huge gap in health status and access to health care services that reforms are meant to remedy. Compared to their higher-income counterparts, low-income women are four times as likely to have an unintended pregnancy and five times as likely to have an unintended birth.
As people of faith, we believe that health care reform should expand coverage to provide for the basic services that every human being deserves; it should not deny essential services to half of the population and aggravate the troubling disparities in health care affecting minorities and low-income individuals. For example, compared to her higher-income counterpart, a low-income woman is four times as likely to have an unintended pregnancy and five times as likely to have an unintended birth.
Let there be no mistake, basic health care includes abortion services. According to the Guttmacher Institute, one in three American women will have an abortion by age 45.
Reproductive health care, including abortion services, is an essential component of women's health. Women must get a fair shake in the final health care reform bill.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
AMA Supports Health System Reform Alternatives Consistent With Principles
AMA Supports Health System Reform Alternatives Consistent With Principles of Pluralism, Freedom of Choice, Freedom of Practice and Universal Access for Patients
/PRNewswire/ -- As the American Medical Association (AMA) works for health reform this year that provides all Americans with affordable, high-quality health coverage, new policy states that the AMA "support health system reform alternatives that are consistent with AMA principles of pluralism, freedom of choice, freedom of practice, and universal access for patients."
"The AMA is committed to health reform this year, and we are focused on ending our nation's uninsured crisis," said AMA Immediate-Past President Nancy H. Nielsen, M.D. "We will stay engaged with Congress and the administration to ensure that health reform proposals meet the AMA's criteria so that health reform makes a positive difference in the lives of our patients."
"We welcome and will thoughtfully consider all proposals consistent with AMA principles to provide Americans with affordable, high-quality health coverage," said Dr. Nielsen. "We look forward to the day when all Americans have health care coverage."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
/PRNewswire/ -- As the American Medical Association (AMA) works for health reform this year that provides all Americans with affordable, high-quality health coverage, new policy states that the AMA "support health system reform alternatives that are consistent with AMA principles of pluralism, freedom of choice, freedom of practice, and universal access for patients."
"The AMA is committed to health reform this year, and we are focused on ending our nation's uninsured crisis," said AMA Immediate-Past President Nancy H. Nielsen, M.D. "We will stay engaged with Congress and the administration to ensure that health reform proposals meet the AMA's criteria so that health reform makes a positive difference in the lives of our patients."
"We welcome and will thoughtfully consider all proposals consistent with AMA principles to provide Americans with affordable, high-quality health coverage," said Dr. Nielsen. "We look forward to the day when all Americans have health care coverage."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Monday, June 15, 2009
Backgrounder: As Obama Makes Pitch to AMA, the Group Tries to Call in its Political Investment in Congress
/PRNewswire / -- The American Medical Association has spent $204.4 million to influence Congress and Administrations over the last ten years, and another $26.2 million in campaign contributions over the last two decades, according to a Public Campaign Action Fund review of data at the Center for Responsive Politics website.
"When President Obama addresses the AMA today, he will be speaking to a group that is acting more like a typical Washington special interest than one that is concerned about the health and well-being of all Americans," said David Donnelly, national campaigns director of Public Campaign Action Fund.
The AMA announced its opposition to a public health insurance option last week, a central part of the health care reform legislation emerging in Washington, and a provision backed by President Obama.
The data review by Public Campaign Action Fund found that the AMA historically has given most of its money to Republican candidates and committees, but shifted its giving towards the Democrats by 48% between 2006 and 2008.
"That the AMA's PAC dramatically changed its donation pattern in just two years shows that they know they were girding for a fight against health care reform in this Congress," added Donnelly. "After nine straight elections in which they gave more to Republicans - they are making up for lost time to build relationships with Democrats. We'll see how that has worked in the weeks and months to come."
The AMA's lobbying expenditures have steadily increased over the past several years, but fell off slightly in 2008 from a high point of $22.1 million in 2007. The AMA has already spent $4.4 million in the first quarter, and its expenditures are expected to climb as the debate picks up in Congress.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
"When President Obama addresses the AMA today, he will be speaking to a group that is acting more like a typical Washington special interest than one that is concerned about the health and well-being of all Americans," said David Donnelly, national campaigns director of Public Campaign Action Fund.
The AMA announced its opposition to a public health insurance option last week, a central part of the health care reform legislation emerging in Washington, and a provision backed by President Obama.
The data review by Public Campaign Action Fund found that the AMA historically has given most of its money to Republican candidates and committees, but shifted its giving towards the Democrats by 48% between 2006 and 2008.
"That the AMA's PAC dramatically changed its donation pattern in just two years shows that they know they were girding for a fight against health care reform in this Congress," added Donnelly. "After nine straight elections in which they gave more to Republicans - they are making up for lost time to build relationships with Democrats. We'll see how that has worked in the weeks and months to come."
The AMA's lobbying expenditures have steadily increased over the past several years, but fell off slightly in 2008 from a high point of $22.1 million in 2007. The AMA has already spent $4.4 million in the first quarter, and its expenditures are expected to climb as the debate picks up in Congress.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Health Affairs Report On Mass. Mandatory Insurance Law Confirms: Strong Public Option Must Be Included in National Health Reform
/PRNewswire / -- A study released today in Health Affairs finds that a Massachusetts law requiring all to show proof of health insurance has resulted in higher costs. This predictable result confirms that President Obama's promised "public option" to private insurance must be a part of national health reform, said Consumer Watchdog.
Consumer Watchdog said that Massachusetts' experience shows that reform is unaffordable without a public option like Medicare in competition with for-profit insurance companies. Unlike Massachusetts which is dominated by non-profit insurers, the mandatory purchase approach would be much more damaging if applied nationally, where most HMOs and insurance companies are for-profit and take 25% or more of premium charges for overhead and profit.
The Massachusetts law, similar to proposals pushed by health insurers at the national level, requires every person to either buy an insurance policy or show proof that an employer provides one, but does not regulate what insurers can charge. The state does not limit health insurance overhead and profit, and does not limit how much people have to pay out-of-pocket when they get sick. As result, the study released today found that the number of adults "who reported that they did not get care that they thought they needed" has increased due to the proliferation of high-deductible health insurance policies that require patients to pay up to thousands of dollars out-of-pocket before accessing care.
"Under the mandatory purchase approach, particularly one that does not provide a public option to for-profit insurance companies, patients might be technically 'insured' but will not receive the coverage they need when they get sick," said Jerry Flanagan, Health Care Policy Director for Consumer Watchdog. "National health reform must provide the American public an option to buy coverage through Medicare whose low-overhead costs provide the most health care for our dollar. Competition with a low-cost alternative will help keep the likes of WellPoint, United Health, and Humana in check."
According to Consumer Watchdog, the biggest advantage of a voluntary public option is that it is inexpensive to administer. Medicare's low administrative overhead costs (2 percent) are well below the overhead costs charged to large companies that are self-insured (5 to 10 percent of premiums), companies in the small group market (25 to 27 percent of premiums), and individual insurance (40 percent of premiums).
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Consumer Watchdog said that Massachusetts' experience shows that reform is unaffordable without a public option like Medicare in competition with for-profit insurance companies. Unlike Massachusetts which is dominated by non-profit insurers, the mandatory purchase approach would be much more damaging if applied nationally, where most HMOs and insurance companies are for-profit and take 25% or more of premium charges for overhead and profit.
The Massachusetts law, similar to proposals pushed by health insurers at the national level, requires every person to either buy an insurance policy or show proof that an employer provides one, but does not regulate what insurers can charge. The state does not limit health insurance overhead and profit, and does not limit how much people have to pay out-of-pocket when they get sick. As result, the study released today found that the number of adults "who reported that they did not get care that they thought they needed" has increased due to the proliferation of high-deductible health insurance policies that require patients to pay up to thousands of dollars out-of-pocket before accessing care.
"Under the mandatory purchase approach, particularly one that does not provide a public option to for-profit insurance companies, patients might be technically 'insured' but will not receive the coverage they need when they get sick," said Jerry Flanagan, Health Care Policy Director for Consumer Watchdog. "National health reform must provide the American public an option to buy coverage through Medicare whose low-overhead costs provide the most health care for our dollar. Competition with a low-cost alternative will help keep the likes of WellPoint, United Health, and Humana in check."
According to Consumer Watchdog, the biggest advantage of a voluntary public option is that it is inexpensive to administer. Medicare's low administrative overhead costs (2 percent) are well below the overhead costs charged to large companies that are self-insured (5 to 10 percent of premiums), companies in the small group market (25 to 27 percent of premiums), and individual insurance (40 percent of premiums).
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Upcoming Health Legislation Can Succeed Only If It Addresses Long Term Care for All Americans
/PRNewswire/ -- President Obama, backed by Congressional leaders, has called for affordable, accessible, high-quality health care for all Americans. "But that won't be enough," says Denise Gott, "unless it also embraces the long term care needs of millions of longer-living Americans." Gott is Chairman of the Board of LTC Financial Partners LLC (LTCFP) -- http://www.ltcfp.com/ -- one of the nation's most experienced long term care insurance agencies.
"If President Obama's three goals -- universal coverage, choice, and cost control -- are to be met," Gott says, "provision for long term care must be part of the legislative mix." Obama's goals, in his own words, are listed below, followed by Gott's reasoning.
1. Obama: "All Americans have to have quality, affordable healthcare."
Gott's response: "About 46 million Americans, close to 1 in 6, lack health insurance, but many times that number lack long term care insurance. Only about 9 million Americans have it -- out of a population of more than 300 million. And among those at greatest risk, 45 and older, more than 9 in 10 go uncovered. Does it make sense to protect ourselves from shorter-term illnesses or injuries, and neglect the longer-lasting ones?"
2. Obama: "Americans have to be able to choose their own doctor and their own plan."
Gott's response: "It's great for people to have options. For example, to stick with their employer's health plan, or opt for a public alternative (if one is legislated). But when it comes to long term care, choice today is very limited. The majority who lack LTC insurance face a bleak, narrow prospect. They must spend down their assets to pay their bills; to qualify for public assistance through Medicaid, they must in effect become poor; and then they're forced into an often overcrowded nursing home when they might prefer home care or assisted living."
3. Obama: "The rising cost of healthcare has to be brought down."
Gott's response: "The government estimates that healthcare could consume one fifth of the economy in ten years, up from one sixth today. Clearly that huge drag needs to be moderated. But reflect on this: 77 million Baby Boomers are set to retire, contributing predictable long term care costs of hundreds of billions to trillions over the next two or three decades. Shouldn't we moderate these costs too?"
Gott's recommendations to the President and Congress:
* First, include strong long term care provisions in the
legislative package you're now crafting. LTC is the unseen
elephant in the room.
* Offer substantial new tax incentives to help people afford
long term care insurance as a part of their overall health package.
* Offer substantial new tax incentives to companies that include
long term care options in their health benefit plans.
* For people who can't afford long term care premiums, modify
Medicaid to allow a choice of home care or assisted living in addition
to nursing-home care.
* Avoid creating a new form of public insurance covering long
term care. Instead, reform Medicaid to serve the same purpose in an
affordable manner.
* Avoid forcing people to buy long term care insurance.
Instead, rely on communication and persuasion. For example, add
a tax-deduction checkbox to the Federal income tax return; or create
a well-publicized Internet gateway to independent long term care
insurance advisors.
* To control costs, rely heavily on prevention in the long
term care arena, just as for shorter-term health needs. A great many
adult-onset diseases, ranging from diabetes to Alzheimer's, may be
avoided or minimized through proper diet, exercise, and stress control.
Consider incentives for individuals, insurers, and employers who promote
good health later and later in life, with shorter periods of down time.
"Now's the time to make your views known to the White House, your Senators, and Congressional representatives," says Gott. A simple way to do that is to submit a form or dial a phone number found at -- http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml. Gott also encourages citizens to write their favorite TV show to suggest a segment on LTC. "When something gets on Oprah, Good Morning America, The View, or 60 Minutes," she says, "Washington listens."
"If President Obama's three goals -- universal coverage, choice, and cost control -- are to be met," Gott says, "provision for long term care must be part of the legislative mix." Obama's goals, in his own words, are listed below, followed by Gott's reasoning.
1. Obama: "All Americans have to have quality, affordable healthcare."
Gott's response: "About 46 million Americans, close to 1 in 6, lack health insurance, but many times that number lack long term care insurance. Only about 9 million Americans have it -- out of a population of more than 300 million. And among those at greatest risk, 45 and older, more than 9 in 10 go uncovered. Does it make sense to protect ourselves from shorter-term illnesses or injuries, and neglect the longer-lasting ones?"
2. Obama: "Americans have to be able to choose their own doctor and their own plan."
Gott's response: "It's great for people to have options. For example, to stick with their employer's health plan, or opt for a public alternative (if one is legislated). But when it comes to long term care, choice today is very limited. The majority who lack LTC insurance face a bleak, narrow prospect. They must spend down their assets to pay their bills; to qualify for public assistance through Medicaid, they must in effect become poor; and then they're forced into an often overcrowded nursing home when they might prefer home care or assisted living."
3. Obama: "The rising cost of healthcare has to be brought down."
Gott's response: "The government estimates that healthcare could consume one fifth of the economy in ten years, up from one sixth today. Clearly that huge drag needs to be moderated. But reflect on this: 77 million Baby Boomers are set to retire, contributing predictable long term care costs of hundreds of billions to trillions over the next two or three decades. Shouldn't we moderate these costs too?"
Gott's recommendations to the President and Congress:
* First, include strong long term care provisions in the
legislative package you're now crafting. LTC is the unseen
elephant in the room.
* Offer substantial new tax incentives to help people afford
long term care insurance as a part of their overall health package.
* Offer substantial new tax incentives to companies that include
long term care options in their health benefit plans.
* For people who can't afford long term care premiums, modify
Medicaid to allow a choice of home care or assisted living in addition
to nursing-home care.
* Avoid creating a new form of public insurance covering long
term care. Instead, reform Medicaid to serve the same purpose in an
affordable manner.
* Avoid forcing people to buy long term care insurance.
Instead, rely on communication and persuasion. For example, add
a tax-deduction checkbox to the Federal income tax return; or create
a well-publicized Internet gateway to independent long term care
insurance advisors.
* To control costs, rely heavily on prevention in the long
term care arena, just as for shorter-term health needs. A great many
adult-onset diseases, ranging from diabetes to Alzheimer's, may be
avoided or minimized through proper diet, exercise, and stress control.
Consider incentives for individuals, insurers, and employers who promote
good health later and later in life, with shorter periods of down time.
"Now's the time to make your views known to the White House, your Senators, and Congressional representatives," says Gott. A simple way to do that is to submit a form or dial a phone number found at -- http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml. Gott also encourages citizens to write their favorite TV show to suggest a segment on LTC. "When something gets on Oprah, Good Morning America, The View, or 60 Minutes," she says, "Washington listens."
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Boehner Statement on Annual Medicare and Social Security Trustees’ Report
House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) today issued the following statement after the Medicare and Social Security Trustees released a new report highlighting the deteriorating financial condition of the Medicare and Social Security programs and the urgent need for reform:
“The Social Security and Medicare trustees’ report confirms what we already knew: our nation cannot afford to continue this reckless borrowing and spending spree. While on the campaign trail last year, President Obama said, ‘when you’re in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging.’ I couldn’t agree more, but his policies are putting our kids and grandkids deeper in that hole, and deeper in debt to China and the Middle East. Not only does the Democrats’ budget double the national debt in five years and triple it in 10, but it does nothing to address the looming crisis in our entitlement programs.
“Our nation is facing a demographic tsunami of nearly 80 million retiring Baby Boomers and rising health care costs, and it is clear that we must reform Medicare and Social Security to preserve the programs’ benefits for future generations of American seniors. The Social Security and Medicare Trustees have repeatedly warned Congress and the American people that the programs must be reformed or future benefits will be threatened, and today’s report is the most dramatic warning yet. Congress can’t sit idly by while these programs go bankrupt; we must act now.”
-----
politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
“The Social Security and Medicare trustees’ report confirms what we already knew: our nation cannot afford to continue this reckless borrowing and spending spree. While on the campaign trail last year, President Obama said, ‘when you’re in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging.’ I couldn’t agree more, but his policies are putting our kids and grandkids deeper in that hole, and deeper in debt to China and the Middle East. Not only does the Democrats’ budget double the national debt in five years and triple it in 10, but it does nothing to address the looming crisis in our entitlement programs.
“Our nation is facing a demographic tsunami of nearly 80 million retiring Baby Boomers and rising health care costs, and it is clear that we must reform Medicare and Social Security to preserve the programs’ benefits for future generations of American seniors. The Social Security and Medicare Trustees have repeatedly warned Congress and the American people that the programs must be reformed or future benefits will be threatened, and today’s report is the most dramatic warning yet. Congress can’t sit idly by while these programs go bankrupt; we must act now.”
-----
politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Monday, May 11, 2009
President Obama, Sens. Kennedy & Baucus: Don't Buy Insurer 'Compromise' for Bush-era Plan to Gut State Consumer Protection Laws
/PRNewswire/ -- President Obama and U.S. Senate health care reform leaders must not override state consumer protection laws as suggested by health insurers last week, a move long-supported by insurers and the Bush Administration, said Consumer Watchdog in a letter to the president and senators. The hard-fought state laws enacted in nearly every state over the last 10 years were made necessary because Congress failed to enact Patients' Bill of Rights legislation.
In the letter, Consumer Watchdog wrote:
"Federal regulation would be a boon to the industry, and has long been on the insurer's wish list because over the last decade almost every state has developed comprehensive patient protection laws that the insurers loathe.
"Insurers would like to take advantage of the moment of reform to eviscerate HMO Patients' Bill of Rights laws enacted in nearly every state and replace them with window-dressing federal rules that clear the way for the worst of the industry's practices."
The insurers' proposal was floated last Tuesday during the U.S. Senate Finance Committee by Karen Ignagni, CEO of the HMO and health insurer lobbying organization, America's Health Insurance Plans.
Consumer Watchdog called the insurers' proposal to kill the "public option" to private insurance coverage -- the reform that the industry hates most because of its value to consumers -- in exchange for new federal regulation of the industry a "false compromise."
In the letter, Consumer Watchdog wrote:
"Insurers are not conceding a thing. They are trying to turn the squelching of a beneficial public option into a double victory. They need all of you to play along with the charade in order to succeed in killing state patient protections as well as any government competitor. If you allow the insurance industry to prevail in this deception, the worst public fears about insurers' lobbying power in Washington will be proven correct."
A similar window-dressing federal regulation scheme was last brought forward in Senator Mike Enzi's (R-WY) bill, S. 1955, in 2006 which would have gutted HMO Patients' Bill of Rights laws and state common law access to courts by enacting President Bush's promised "Association Health Plans" expansion.
In the letter, Consumer Watchdog wrote:
"The Enzi bill was described in terms similar to those used by Ignagni ... to describe the federal 'standards' the insurers are willing to accept if the public option is taken off the table. Such 'harmonization' at the federal level of 'inconsistent' state laws will result in lowest common denominator regulations enforced from an impossible distance. Done the industry's desired way, an individual's state common law right to sue an insurer for even the most egregious misbehavior would also be erased."
Ignagni has also promised the industry's agreement to cover all Americans regardless of health, and not to charge more based on characteristics like health status or gender. Even these apparent concessions are far from hardships for the insurance industry, said Consumer Watchdog, in the context of their demand that all Americans be required to purchase their product.
** Read Consumer Watchdog's analysis of health insurer and drug company contributions to members of Congress. Senator Max Baucus (D-MT), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, received more campaign contributions from the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries than any other current Democratic member of the House or Senate; the third highest contributions of any member of Congress. http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/patients/articles/?storyId=25468
** Read about a recent national poll that found that 65% of voters support giving every American of any age the option of joining Medicare; 60% are willing to pay more in payroll deductions for this option. http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/patients/articles/?storyId=24826
** Read about a national poll that found, by contrast, that only 16% of U.S. voters support, and 53% oppose, the insurance industries' plan of requiring every American to provide proof of private health insurance or face tax penalties or other fines. http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/patients/articles/?storyId=24110.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
In the letter, Consumer Watchdog wrote:
"Federal regulation would be a boon to the industry, and has long been on the insurer's wish list because over the last decade almost every state has developed comprehensive patient protection laws that the insurers loathe.
"Insurers would like to take advantage of the moment of reform to eviscerate HMO Patients' Bill of Rights laws enacted in nearly every state and replace them with window-dressing federal rules that clear the way for the worst of the industry's practices."
The insurers' proposal was floated last Tuesday during the U.S. Senate Finance Committee by Karen Ignagni, CEO of the HMO and health insurer lobbying organization, America's Health Insurance Plans.
Consumer Watchdog called the insurers' proposal to kill the "public option" to private insurance coverage -- the reform that the industry hates most because of its value to consumers -- in exchange for new federal regulation of the industry a "false compromise."
In the letter, Consumer Watchdog wrote:
"Insurers are not conceding a thing. They are trying to turn the squelching of a beneficial public option into a double victory. They need all of you to play along with the charade in order to succeed in killing state patient protections as well as any government competitor. If you allow the insurance industry to prevail in this deception, the worst public fears about insurers' lobbying power in Washington will be proven correct."
A similar window-dressing federal regulation scheme was last brought forward in Senator Mike Enzi's (R-WY) bill, S. 1955, in 2006 which would have gutted HMO Patients' Bill of Rights laws and state common law access to courts by enacting President Bush's promised "Association Health Plans" expansion.
In the letter, Consumer Watchdog wrote:
"The Enzi bill was described in terms similar to those used by Ignagni ... to describe the federal 'standards' the insurers are willing to accept if the public option is taken off the table. Such 'harmonization' at the federal level of 'inconsistent' state laws will result in lowest common denominator regulations enforced from an impossible distance. Done the industry's desired way, an individual's state common law right to sue an insurer for even the most egregious misbehavior would also be erased."
Ignagni has also promised the industry's agreement to cover all Americans regardless of health, and not to charge more based on characteristics like health status or gender. Even these apparent concessions are far from hardships for the insurance industry, said Consumer Watchdog, in the context of their demand that all Americans be required to purchase their product.
** Read Consumer Watchdog's analysis of health insurer and drug company contributions to members of Congress. Senator Max Baucus (D-MT), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, received more campaign contributions from the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries than any other current Democratic member of the House or Senate; the third highest contributions of any member of Congress. http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/patients/articles/?storyId=25468
** Read about a recent national poll that found that 65% of voters support giving every American of any age the option of joining Medicare; 60% are willing to pay more in payroll deductions for this option. http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/patients/articles/?storyId=24826
** Read about a national poll that found, by contrast, that only 16% of U.S. voters support, and 53% oppose, the insurance industries' plan of requiring every American to provide proof of private health insurance or face tax penalties or other fines. http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/patients/articles/?storyId=24110.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)