|
InsuranceSpecialists Blog your source for insurance information
|
 Subscribe RSS Feed
Comments Feed
|
Three months after the passage of the health care insurance reform plan, people are still complaining that we don’t need universal health care. Some state governments are even suing the feds because they feel universal health care is somehow unconstitutional. Rather than going into a long-winded explanation of why we’re for universal health care, we offer this video, gleaned from YouTube.
Tags: friday filmstrips, health care reform, health insurance
The Christian Science Monitor reports that the number of underinsured Americans increased by over a third between 2003 and 2007, from 15 million to 25 million, and despite the passage of the health care reform bill earlier this year, there may be even more people who have some health insurance, but not enough to cover their medical costs.
A 2008 study by the nonprofit, nonpartisan Commonwealth Fund says that these underinsured citizens, working people who have to buy their own insurance, or whose employers only offer plans with high copayments and thousand-dollar deductibles are increasingly found among the middle class, and that they’re acting more and more like the 47 million Americans who have no insurance at all: skipping recommended care because they’re afraid they can’t pay for it. It is the often-ignored preventative care that medical experts say is the key to keeping healthcare costs down across the board.
According to the study, a total of 75 million working adults where either un- or underinsured in 2007, or about 42 percent of the total US population between the ages of 19-64 – increased from roughly a third of the population just four years earlier.
Cathy Schoen, senior vice president of the Commonwealth Fund, and a co-author of the study explained, “This erosion in insurance protection is putting patients, families, and the nation’s health and economic security at risk. As a nation we are losing ground. We need to move in new directions.”
The good news – at least for some, is that we’re nearing the time when some of the reforms passed last March will come to fruition. For example:
By September, insurers will no longer be able to deny coverage to a child because of a pre-existing condition, and they will no longer to be able to insure a child but exclude treatment for pre-existing conditions.
Expected by the end of this month, companies who offer health plans to employees will be required to provide coverage to retired workers between the ages of 55 and 64, who do not yet qualify for Medicare, though this plan is a temporary measure.
In addition, it is expected that the creation of the federal high-risk insurance pool will still happen by the beginning of July.
Will all of this mean an end to all underinsured and uninsured Americans? Sadly, no, but reform comes slowly, and as more measures fall into place we will see those numbers begin to drop.
Whille the debate over health insurance reform rages on, one topic not being highlighted is coverage for smoking cessation programs. According to the American Lung Association, such a program is a key strategy in the battle to reduce tobacco usage, and the health issues that result from it.
In a report released last November, “Helping Smokers Quit: State Cessation Coverage 2009,” the ALA provided an overview of various services and treatments offered in each state, by both private and public health care plans. At present, the report says, only six states provide comprehensive smoking cessation coverage for Medicaid recipients, and only five provide such coverage to state employees.
ALA president and CEO, Charles D. Connor said in a press release, at the time the report was made public, “Helping smokers across the country quit must be an integral part of any reformed health care system. Policy makers at the federal and state levels have a responsibility right now to ensure that the nearly 46 million smokers in this country have the help they need to quit.”
Added American Lung Association Chief Medical Officer Norman H. Edelan, M.D., “The addiction to tobacco is extremely deadly and costly. The single most important thing a smoker can do to improve his or her health is to quit smoking, which may take multiple tries and various treatments to stop using tobacco products for good.”
In addition to the fact that tobacco kills roughly 443,000 people in there are surveys which show several reasons for quitting, and for providing coverage to help people quit. They include:
Connor emphasizes, “All public and private health care plans should fully cover ALL FDA approved tobacco cessation treatments recommended by federal clinical practice guidelines. The American Lung Association urges Congress and the President to ensure all smokers are provided with comprehensive coverage for cessation treatments in any health care reform proposal that becomes law.”
What does comprehensive coverage entail? According to the ALA, it should include:
The American Lung Association recommends that private insurance plans offer comprehensive cessation coverage and also encourages states to require all insurance companies to cover these treatments. Currently, only seven states (Colorado, Maryland, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon and Rhode Island) have such requirements. It is believed that the lack of coverage leaves smokers who wish to quit, left without clinically proven cessation treatments.
Dr. Edelman explains, “”Smoking is extremely addictive for most people and quitting ‘cold turkey’ generally isn’t effective. The majority of smokers need help quitting. Unfortunately, smokers don’t always have easy access to these treatments and face barriers to coverage like costly co-pays and limitations on the duration of treatments.”
And Connor re-iterates, “Helping more Americans quit smoking remains a top public health priority for the American Lung Association. Quitting smoking also has economic benefits. Savings on smoking-related medical expenses benefit smokers, insurance companies, employers, and governments. We are here to provide expert support and proven resources that have helped more than one million people quit smoking for good.”
Tags: Comprehensive Coverage, health care reform, Quit Smoking
Michael McAuliff, writing for the New York Daily News hit the nail squarely on the head with the article “President Obama’s Health Care Summit Will Be Political Theater of Highest Order.” One cannot help but get the feeling of Christians and lions in the arena (with no implied suggestion about which side is which) in the current national debate over health care reform.
Actually, if you take that analogy a little farther, both sides are being gobbled up by the same hungry carnivorous beast — partisanship. From the moment Obama announced his health care summit in the spirit of compromise and indicated it would be televised, the Republicans started looking for an ambush that may or may not have been there.
On Monday, February 22, Obama announced his own health care plan largely in line with the legislation currently sitting on the table in the Senate — with a $950 billion price tag attached to it.
Americans can read what the White House has to say about the current state of health care and reform efforts on its official website. The opening statement on that page reads:
Over the past year the House and the Senate have been working on an effort to provide health insurance reform that lowers costs, guarantees choices, and enhances quality health care for all Americans.
The only problem with that is that in the process, the members of Congress from both parties have done so with a nasty spirit, routinely mischaracterizing the other’s position, and allowing rumors to run rampant in the American public.
They’ve sacrificed one of the most important elements of health care reform in the United States — public support.
Regardless of what they do manage to get passed, reclaiming that support and clearly articulating to the American people any set of new rules, regulations, and “benefits” will be a major hurdle for our warring, partisan “leaders.”
Tags: health care reform
On the eve of a “bipartisan” summit on health care legislation scheduled for Thursday, February 25, the web is alive with talk about how the current stalemate can or can’t be resolved. The New York Times weighed in Sunday with an interesting piece on, “How the G.O.P. Can Fix Health Care.”
Provocatively, the article opens by leveling blame at President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid for failing to achieve reform “because they fundamentally don’t believe in markets, incentives and the power of hundreds of millions of people to make smart choices about their health. It’s just not in the Democratic leaders’ DNA.”
The health care summit will be televised via C-SPAN and few people who plan to watch expect to see bi-partisanship at its best. The op-ed contributors for the Times piece single out the practice of “volume-based” reimbursement as a major factor in escalating health care costs.
The article goes on to discuss “value-based” reimbursement to “align the incentives of doctors, hospitals, pharmaceutical makers, and other health care providers.” The authors are making a case for high performance based on measurable outcomes and proven standard of practice paired with the intelligent use of information technology.
It all sounds great, but the profit motives involved for each of these industries — and health care in this country is comprised of separate industries with clearly identifiable self-interests — are so large and so buoyed by the efforts and monies of lobbyists, even this approach seems to be so much pie in the sky.
The health care debate has highlighted the broken nature of Washington, where party alignments clearly outweigh the public good. Health care isn’t going to be an affordable option for recession-plagued Americans until the costs of drugs are brought in line with reality and insurance companies are prevented from arbitrarily raising rates and denying necessary procedures — or coverage itself — based on risk management rather than human need.
The challenge President Obama and Congressional leaders face is not just unraveling a badly flawed health care system, but of getting their political colleagues to quit thinking about their re-election campaigns long enough to get something done. Everyone can agree the problem exists, but no one is ready to walk the political plank and make big changes.
Consumers worried about the rumor of taxes on high-value health insurance plans, the so-called “Cadillac” plans, can rest easy. Why? Because the White House and union leaders reached an accord two weeks ago which changed the cost threshold and added an eight-year exemption for collectively bargained plans.
According to a report in Modern Healthcare, the deal, which was cemented in mid-January, removed one of the major issues causing friction between the House and Senate.
The final bargain raises cost levels to $8,900 from $8,500 for individuals and to $24,000 from $23,000 for families. Union plans would have an exemption from the tax until 2018. Additionally, dental and vision benefits would be excluded from being part of the total cost beginning in 2005, and the threshold would be adjusted to account for age and gender.
“It’s subject to the final bill,” said Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO, who added that the concessions were tough-won. He also felt that they would move the unions toward an official endorsement of a merged health reform bill.
The move does come at a price, however. The original Senate proposal would have raised almost $150 billion over ten years. With the negotiated changes, the measure will only raise $90 billion, making it necessary for lawmakers to find other sources of revenue to make up for that loss. One idea is an extension of the Medicare tax to include capital gains earnings.
House Democrats have always maintained that they were wary of the Senate’s measure, saying that middle-class workers would be affected, but wealthier ones would not.
Rep. Joe Courtney (D-Conn.) has always been very critical of the tax, and has not yet endorsed the deal, telling reporters only, “It’s too soon to say.”
Tags: health care reform, medicare, taxes
Follow Our Tweets!