The Scoop

Key Documents

July 28, 2009

The Lewin Group’s National & State Analyses of the July 15 Draft of the American Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009

The Heritage Foundation commissioned The Lewin Group, a highly respected health care policy and management consulting firm, to examine the impact of the American Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 (H.R. 3200).

Among other provisions, the bill would create a new public plan, modeled on Medicare, to compete with private health plans in a newly established health insurance exchange. In addition to national results, Lewin produced local level impacts of the draft legislation for a select group of states, which include Maine, Montana, Nebraska, New MexicoPennsylvania and Virginia.

Maine. In Maine, the impact of the health care bill on private coverage, the uninsured, physicians and hospitals is as follows:

- 72 percent of privately insured Maine residents would transition out of private insurance.
- 78 percent of Maine residents with employer-based coverage would lose their current insurance.
- 86 percent of Maine residents in a health insurance exchange would end up in the public plan.
- 32 percent of the uninsured in Maine would still lack coverage.
- Physicians in Maine would see their net annual income decline by $271.7 million, with an average loss in income of $55,692 per physician.
- Hospitals in Maine could see their net annual income fall by $694.4 million, with hospital total margins dropping to -12.1 percent.

Maine Press Release

Montana. In Montana, the impact of the health care bill on private coverage, the uninsured, physicians and hospitals is as follows:

- 52 percent of privately insured Montana residents would transition out of private insurance.
- 62 percent of Montana residents with employer-based coverage would lose their current insurance.
- 80 percent of Montana residents in a health insurance exchange would end up in the public plan.
- 32 percent of the uninsured in Montana would still lack coverage.
- Physicians in Montana could see their net annual income decline by $36.6 million, an average loss in income of $13,877 per physician.
- Hospitals in Montana could have their net annual income fall by about $268.5 million, with hospital total margins dropping to -4 percent.

Montana Press Release

Nebraska. In Nebraska, the impact of the health care bill on private coverage, the uninsured, physicians and hospitals is as follows:

- 65 percent of privately insured Nebraska residents would transition out of private insurance.
- 71 percent of Nebraska residents with employer-based coverage would lose their current insurance.
- 84 percent of Nebraska residents in a health insurance exchange would end up in the public plan.
- 31 percent of the uninsured in Nebraska would still lack coverage.
- Physicians in Nebraska could see their net annual income decline by $230.7 million, an average loss in income of $44,953 per physician.
- Hospitals in Nebraska could have their net annual income fall by about $753.6 million, with hospital total margins dropping to -3.9 percent.

Nebraska Press Release

New Mexico. In New Mexico, the impact of the health care bill on private coverage, the uninsured, physicians and hospitals is as follows:

- 45 percent of privately insured New Mexico residents would transition out of private insurance.
- 51 percent of New Mexico residents with employer-based coverage would lose their current insurance.
- 82 percent of New Mexico residents in a health insurance exchange would end up in the public plan.
- 49 percent of the uninsured in New Mexico would still lack coverage.
- Physicians in New Mexico could see their net annual income decline by $136.7 million, as a consequence of the new public plan.
- Hospitals in New Mexico could have their net annual income fall by about $314.6 million, with hospital total margins dropping to 1 percent.

New Mexico Press Release

Pennsylvania. In Pennsylvania, the impact of the health care bill on private coverage, the uninsured, physicians and hospitals is as follows:

- 51 percent of privately insured Pennsylvania residents would transition out of private insurance.
- 59 percent of Pennsylvania residents with employer-based coverage would lose their current insurance.
- 32 percent of Pennsylvania residents in a health insurance exchange would end up in the public plan.
- 49 percent of the uninsured in Pennsylvania would still lack coverage.
- Physicians in Pennsylvania could see their net annual income decline by $321.4 million, an average loss in income of $6,480 per physician.
- Hospitals in Pennsylvania could have their net annual income fall by about $2.7 billion, with hospital total margins dropping to -1.6 percent.

Pennsylvania Press Release

Virginia. In Virginia, the impact of the health care bill on private coverage, the uninsured, physicians and hospitals is as follows:

- 55 percent of privately insured Virginia residents would transition out of private insurance.
- 60 percent of Virginia residents with employer-based coverage would lose their current insurance.
- 84 percent of Virginia residents in a health insurance exchange would end up in the public plan.
- 29 percent of the uninsured in Virginia would still lack coverage.
- Physicians in Virginia could see their net annual income decline by $350.2 million, an average loss in income of $14,537 per physician.
- Hospitals in Virginia could have their net annual income fall by about $2 billion, with hospital total margins dropping to -3.5 percent.

Virginia Press Release

Tags: , , , , , , ,

  • Bookmark and Share
Comments Author: Marguerite Higgins
  • awunsch
    Well Bru, what do you think will happen when you argue with the insurance company about coverage and that insurance company is the government. You can't sue, you can't go to another insurance company, you can't pay out of pocket - look at the H.R.3200. The Gov'ts job is to ensure that proper care and regulations are followed, not to provide care. Medicare is too expensive, we are told (by the dems and others) so we are going to go to bigger medicare like system and it will cost less? Right. This entire process (too important to wait, too important to read the docs etc) is wrong, incompetant and disengenuous. Most people like their care but worry about the rising cost of premiums so fix the problem (tort reform so defensive medicine(be the doctors) isn't needed, portability so you don't lose your insurance between jobs, no pre existing conditions, allowing small businesses to pool to get better rates, buy insurance across states etc. Start with that. The dems say they can save money to pay for this new big public program, well then show us by saving the money in medicare.
    If they want a public option or universal health care ala "other nations" then vote on that for starters so all are on the same page. My guess is that would never pass. There is a good reason for that. You may like that system (then go to those nations and live) but I have heard enough of these stories to know that if you are seriously ill, you don't want to be on that type of system. By the way, I also don't want to pay for illegals health care. I used to live in San Diego and know what cost the illegals burdened the state with. Cheer and keep reading (not just dem's stuff or repubs stuff but check it all out and read the bills)
  • BruSays
    awunsch...please cut with the crap on "You may like that system (then go to those nations and live." That's Third Grade dialog. And if you've heard enough about other nations' successful Single Payer programs, then perhaps you've heard also about these STATISTICAL FACTS: They're infant mortality figures are lower than ours and their life expectancies are longer than ours. Those two factors alone would be enough to make a Third Grader pause and wonder, "Hey, maybe they're onto something." And in 2000, the World Health Organization (WHO) ranked the United States at 37 (after Costa Rica and before Slovenia) in health care. Pull this up: http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

    So you're "if you get seriously ill...." is a load of crap. They're stories, not fact.

    And finally, illegal immigrants ARE NOT covered in any of the proposed bills. Where do you guys get this stuff? You make it up? Oh, that's right, I forgot. You're buying the misinformation put out there by the private health care corporations and pharmaceuticals.
  • sarms58
    Bru>>> STATISTICAL FACTS: They're infant mortality figures are lower than ours and their life expectancies are longer than ours. Those two factors alone would be enough to make a Third Grader pause and wonder, "Hey, maybe they're onto something." And in 2000, the World Health Organization (WHO) ranked the United States at 37 (after Costa Rica and before Slovenia) in health care. Pull this up: http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.htm...

    Please do a little more research before you start talking about infant mortality rates...THEY ARE NOT COUNTED THE SAME...to use that as a "fact" is to misrepresent the issues...the very thing we need to avoid...
  • BruSays
    Please, they are certainly close enough to arrive at the conclusions as stated. Statistical variation isn't going to move us from 37 to 7 any more likely than from 37 to 57. They've crucial value is comparative and your attempt to discredit them is a smoke-screen.
  • melllowfelllow
    This health care debate brings to light one of the 'weapons' that our paid representatives use against us - KJR2S = Knee Jerk Reactions to Symptoms. The process is totally opposite to that of our founding fathers. First, much excitement is 'ginned up' about an existing problem [the problem may be real or imaginary, but it is not new]. After the excitement and urgency have been created, a mysterious bill of 1000+ pages 'MUST BE PASSED IMMEDIATELY' to save 'whatever'. A minority [0??] of our paid representatives read the bill prior to voting [and it is definitely not read with the scrutiny that they would apply to a 1000+ page contract that they were personally signing], most discussion is based on 'released talking points' or 'discovered phrases' as opposed to the overall 'system' that their vote is addressing [this makes a giant assumption that the contents are cohesive, compatible with one another, and capable of functioning as a system]. We need time, discussion, and training to address complex legislation.
    It is obvious from their words that many of our paid representatives have abdicated their moral and fiduciary responsibilities [yes, I believe that our paid representatives have a fudiciary responsibility to their constituents, and all citizens and future citizens of these United states] to their employers, the citizens of these United States. The fact that news reporters [??] do not report and continue to give our paid representatives cover should not stop us from pushing what is right.
    This country was founded by a diverse group of people who took up the mantle of 'representatives of the people'. They engaged in direct conversation and discussed, reasoned, discussed, and reasoned until they "got 'r done".
    Let us continue to shine light on the facts, discuss the facts [not to be confused with 'ideas without substance' and 'emotional platitudes'], and inform our paid representatives of our thoughts.
  • mikekison
    Green dog, red dog, brown dog, yeller dog, or really just a plain old Obama lap dog. A quick analysis of the so-called “blue dog” democrats voting record in the 110th Congress indicates that on the most important issues affecting small, independent business, they voted similarly to their fellow rank and file cronies, that is to say – against small and independent businesses. What’s the big deal with giving them credit for holding the line against the government takeover of the healthcare industry? They met in closed door session out of the light of public scrutiny. What did they get in return for their support of this takeover legislation? An exemption for businesses with payrolls less than $500,000. What did they get in return? Don’t tell us it is altruistic. Their voting record indicates otherwise. If you the people want to make a difference, then start communicating with your so-called elected officials.

    1. Will they give up their current healthcare to use this new obamacare?
    2. Why not test first in the home states of the key authors?
    3. What is the rush?
    4. If the majority of the people, you, who actually pay taxes, are against this takeover, then why are they pushing so hard to complete this takeover?
    5. There is no place in your healthcare for big brother intrusion.
  • julioklein
    HEALTH CARE OR EUTHANASIA ? WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN TO THE OLD PERSON?

    READ ( ALINSKY RULES FOR RADICALS), SO YOU CAN UNDERSTAND WHERE WE ARE.

    20 MILLIONS OF ILLEGAL WILL BENEFIT,SO REST THIS 20 MILLIONS,THERE ARE NOT
    50,000000 WITH NO INSURANCE,BESIDE THAT THEY SEND BILLIONS YEARLY TO DIFFERENT COUNTRY (American dollars)AND COST TAX PAYERS BILLIONS ON SEVERAL DIFFERENT ITEMS AS WELFARE,FOOD STAMPS,HOSPITALS,JAILS AND ALL
    REFORM OR APPLY IMMIGRATION LAWS,TO SEND THEY BACK AND SECURE OUR FRONTIER THAT IS THE REFORM WE AMERICANS NEED.
  • anthonymoore
    The Obama Health Care Plan is like a TV commercial I saw the other night where a man ask a child if she would like to have a horse? The childs face lights up when they parade a pony out but than the enthusiasm turns to disappointment when she realizes the pony she is getting is a plastic horse. This will happen to the consumer if this single payer plan passes.
  • fmoolten
    The above excerpts misrepresent the main thrust of the Lewin analysis. Lewin is fully owned by UnitedHealth Group, an insurance company, and so one might expect some bias. Perhaps the Lewin analysis did entail some biased assumptions, but in general, it comes across as objective and fact-based.

    It's therefore surprising that its projections indicate that passage of the House bill would provide very substantial benefits to American healthcare as a whole, and to the majority of Americans, most of whom would enjoy better access at lower cost. A minority would end up with a net sacrifice - many physicians and hospitals, high income individuals whose taxes would rise, and some young and healthy uninsured individuals who would pay more for premiums (or a tax penalty for remaining uninsured). Almost all others would come out ahead.

    Details can be found at http://www.lewin.com/content/publications/Lewin...
  • VoiceofReasoning
    Bravo, my friend you are absolutely correct as Republican politicians continue to use the Lewin group studies to derail Health Care reform even though Lewin group is a subsidiary of United Health Care and huge Health Insurance industry.

    This is too important to fall prey to fear mongering, conspiracy theories and spin doctors on the truth created by the RNC and backed up by Fox cable news programs along with shock jocks on conservative radio. All should realize that the giant Health Care Industry in American has increased spending with more paid lobbyist on both sides GOP and Dems alike to stop health care reform in America. Note below the ranking of the world’s health systems provided by the World Health Organization. Strangely, how the Government option or single payer healthcare appears on the top of the list. Wonder why, The US Health Care 800 billion dollars a year industry is shelling out 1.4 million dollars a day with anti reform lobbing, and now the RNC will add 1 million dollars towards anti reform commercials. The record earnings of these US Health Insurance companies with one company posting a whopping 155% increase over last year at this time is astounding, but still, seeking more profits by raising premiums.

    Note three video clips from the PPS’s Bill Moyers Journal in depth news regarding US Health Care industry. Second clip is an interview with Health Care Insurance executive, Wendell Potter with the truth behind insurance in America. You may have to copy and paste link into a new browser if clicking on the link doesn’t open.

    Bill Moyers Journal:
    http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07102009/watc...
    http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07102009/watc...
    http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07172009/watc...


    1 France, 2 Italy, 3 San Marino, 4 Andorra, 5 Malta, 6 Singapore, 7 Spain, 8 Oman, 9 Austria, 10 Japan, 11 Norway, 12 Portugal, 13 Monaco, 14 Greece, 15 Iceland, 16 Luxembourg, 17 Netherlands, 18 United Kingdom, 19 Ireland, 20 Switzerland, 21 Belgium, 22 Colombia, 23 Sweden, 24 Cyprus, 25 Germany, 26 Saudi Arabia, 27 United Arab Emirates, 28 Israel, 29 Morocco, 30 Canada, 31 Finland, 32 Australia 33 Chile, 34 Denmark, 35 Dominica, 36 Costa Rica, 37…….. United States of America, 38 Slovenia, 39 Cuba, 40 Brunei, 41 New Zealand, 42 Bahrain, 43 Croatia, 44 Qatar, 45 Kuwait, 46 Barbados, 47 Thailand, 48 Czech Republic, 49 Malaysia, 51 Dominican Republic, 52 Tunisia, 53 Jamaica, 54 Venezuela, 55 Albania, 56 Seychelles, 57 Paraguay, 58 South Korea, 59 Senegal, 60 Philippines, 61 Mexico, 62 Slovakia, 63 Egypt, 64 Kazakhstan 65 Uruguay, 66 Hungary, 67 Trinidad and Tobago, 68 Saint Lucia, 70 Turkey, 71 Nicaragua, 72 Belarus, 73 Lithuania, 74 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, 75 Argentina, 76 Sri Lanka, 77 Estonia, 78 Guatemala, 79 Ukraine, 80 Solomon Islands, 81 Algeria, 82 Palau, 83 Jordan, 84 Mauritius, 85 Grenada, 86 Antigua and Barbuda, 87 Libya, 88 Bangladesh, 89 Macedonia, 90 Bosnia-Herzegovina, 91 Lebanon, 92 Indonesia, 93 Iran, 94 Bahamas, 95 Panama, 96 Fiji, 97 Benin, 98 Nauru, 99 Romania, 100 Saint Kitts and Nevis, 101 Moldova, 102 Bulgaria, 103 Iraq, 104 Armenia, 105 Latvia, 106 Yugoslavia, 107 Cook Islands, 108 Syria, 109 Azerbaijan, 110 Suriname, 111 Ecuador, 112 India, 113 Cape Verde, 114 Georgia, 115 El Salvador, 116 Tonga, 117 Uzbekistan, 118 Comoros, 119 Samoa, 120 Yemen, 121 Niue, 122 Pakistan, 123 Micronesia, 124 Bhutan, 125 Brazil, 126 Bolivia, 127 Vanuatu, 128 Guyana, 129 Peru, 130 Russia, 131 Honduras, 132 Burkina Faso, 133 Sao Tome and Principe, 134 Sudan, 135 Ghana, 136 Tuvalu, 137 Ivory Coast, 138 Haiti, 139 Gabon, 140 Kenya, 141 Marshall Islands, 142 Kiribati, 143 Burundi, 144 China, 145 Mongolia, 146 Gambia, 147 Maldives, 148 Papua New Guinea, 149 Uganda, 150 Nepal, 151 Kyrgyzstan, 152 Togo, 153 Turkmenistan, 154 Tajikistan, 155 Zimbabwe, 156 Tanzania, 157 Djibouti, 158 Eritrea, 159 Madagascar, 160 Vietnam, 161 Guinea, 162 Mauritania, 163 Mali, 164 Cameroon, 165 Laos, 166 Congo, 167 North Korea, 168 Namibia, 169 Botswana, 170 Niger, 171 Equatorial Guinea, 172 Rwanda, 173 Afghanistan, 174 Cambodia, 175 South Africa, 176 Guinea-Bissau, 177 Swaziland, 178 Chad, 179 Somalia, 180 Ethiopia, 181 Angola, 182 Zambia, 183 Lesotho, 184 Mozambique, 185 Malawi, 186 Liberia, 187 Nigeria, 188 Democratic Republic of the Congo, 189 Central African Republic, 190 Myanmar
  • BruSays
    Voice of Reasoing...
    Please don't attempt to clarify and enlighten some others on this blog with facts, statistics, real-case situations, and cite other nations' past successes. For one, they won't and can't counter those specific facts and statistics because they lose so completely with them. Instead, they have to throw in the typical scare tactics and make up the purported failures of anything tax payer supported.

    (I'm still waiting to read of the horrors and complete failure of our police protection, fire protection, Interstate Highway program, street cleaning programs, traffic light operations, FAA, 90% of our airports, and other tax payer funded, obscenely broken systems.)
  • awunsch
    Lots of facts and figures, and obviously lots of assumptions. The congress needs to decide whether it wants to fix healthcare or whether it wants to force a universal health care or public option on us. The latter is a debate that has not taken place and which, I would guess, is not what the people want (Obama and far left excepted). To try and address the fixes needed to our health care system, while at the same time trying to push universal health care on us, will end up in a disaster. Better nothing gets done. Regardless of what the dems say, a public option is merely a foot in the door to get to a universal health care plan.
  • BruSays
    And just what, what in the world is wrong with Single Payer? Drinking too much of the "socialized medicine" the corporate health care industry is feeding you? Were Americans provided the facts, were Americans shown the statistics, and were Americans not lied to by corporate health insurance scare tactics, we'd then join the rest of the industrialized world and provide better health care for less money. This isn't a matter of "what if"? The facts are there. Awunsch - you've been duped.
  • BruSays
    First - It's amazing that anyone would lend significant credance the Lewin Group....owners of health insurance companies themselves. It is much like asking ExxonMobil for their input on energy conservation. They certainly all have opinions let's not kid ourselves where their loyalties lie.

    Second, let's look at VIRTUALLY EVERY INDUSTRIAL NATION IN THE WORLD and see what they have. Germany, Italy, France, Canada, Norway, Sweden, Japan, Spain, Portugal, Denmark....all have Single Payer programs and all have less expensive health care, universal heatlh care, and all have higher life expectancies and lower infant mortality rates.

    Third, let's follow the money. Congressmen (on both sides of the aisle), so-called "grass-roots" groups, the Lewin Group, health insurance corporations, pharmaceutical corporations - ALL are in this for the money. Either their jobs depend on the status quo or their campaign financing depends on the status quo. When are we going to wake up and realize we are being DUPED by these heavily-funded corporations who are playing you like a fiddle! Everybody...please, dig a little deeper and learn for yourself that Single Payer will cost less. We don't have to guess about this; we just need to look around the world!
  • BruSays
    And another thing!! What's with this BS about "the government wants to centralize decisions in Washington." Again, a lie tactic pushed by the corporate health industry. Can anyone out there who's on Medicare describe their problems with "Washington" on receiving their heart operation or their meds or their walker? But you can be darn sure we ALL have our stories about our doctors having to argue with our insurance company or check first with our insurance company or having to finagle a way to get something covered by our insurance company, or something being denied coverage by our insurance company. Ask any doctor about their hellish stories on dealing with not one (centralized) but a dozen (still centralized) inusrance companies. And ask your doctor about how much fun it is for them to send paperwaork to all these different companies.

    And here's some fun homework to do: investigate how much the CEOs, upper management, middle-level management, and the lower-level mangagement (the ones who deny coverage for this or for that) earn each year at your health insurance company.
  • bobbyhawk
    Bru,
    You speak without knowledge. You should read the bill first, then comment. The bill allows for central control of ALL insurance through the US insurance commissioner, so its not BS that the government wants to centralize decisions is Washington. This is spelled out clearly in the bill. Further this same commissioner can refuse to insure any individual it wants to based solely on costs. If you medical costs are to high this commissioner can keep you from getting medical insurance and therefore medical treatment, this too is spelled out clearly in the bill. Medicare and Medicaid are both in the red by several billion dollars. Congress needs to get there hands on more money for these programs, this medical bill is the way for them to get their hands on ALL medical dollars available in the United States. There are other more effective ways to solve problems. This approach is doomed to the same failure now facing medicare and medicaid.
  • BruSays
    Bobbyhawk,

    Please cite the exact text in any of the 5 versions of health care bills that states the commissioner can refuse to insure any individual it wants based solely on costs. And while you're working on that, please enlighten us all and list the private health care companies which accept everyone and anyone, regardless of pre-conditions, regardless of age or health, regardless of ability to pay. And let's end the myth that Medicare and Medicaid are doomed. They're not. You're uninformed and repeating back the BS the insurance companies (of which the Lewin Group is part of) are planting.

    That we cannot adopt a universal, Single Payer health care system like virtually EVERY INDUSTRIALIZED NATION ON EARTH has is ludicrous. The reason we can't is the money being put out by the health care corporations and pharmaceutical companies who are deliberately ginning up the works and putting out absurd scare tactics - and you're swallowing it all, hook, line and sinker.
  • Nathan
    As a mathematician, statistician, and pragmatic thinker, I cannot possibly give these findings any credence at all whatsoever. Average physician in Virginia will lose income of $14,537? Really? Based on what?

    There are way too many variables to possibly come up with these figures, not to mention the unknowns like inflation and the human factor- people can vote with their feet after everything is said and done if they don't want to support a government plan.

    The hippocracy is more than I can bear- polls show that 60+% of Americans like their current health plan, but 72% of Maine will jump ship as soon as they have the option?

    Thank you Lewin Group for pulling these numbers out of your asses, and continuing to muddy what should be a very real debate on a very expensive piece of legislation.
  • bobbyhawk
    As a mathematician and statistician, you should be well aware that solving problems means getting to the root cause. How and where does regulation (law) which is a risk avoidance tool, equate to a problem solving tool? It simply does not add up (sorry could not avoid the pun). I agree we need to study the causes of high costs, but not through regulation/legislation. Statistics are good tools at helping define root cause, these could be employed to study the causes to high costs and recommend corrective action
  • BruSays
    Nathan....bobbyhawk is a plant.
  • markinboston
    I have not seen these numbers anywhere else online. I can't find the study, and it seems hard to believe a plan to cover the uninsured will cause a majority to lose their private health insurance, especially since the insurance companies are fighting tooth and nail to insure their income stream is uninterrupted.

    I really don't understand why the Obama plan is such a problem for some people, especially since I assume (as Republicans) they already have insurance. Are you afraid your neighbors might get healthcare at a reasonable cost? Is that it? Fear they will get care and not have to pay for it the way you do, with hard work and a strong work ethic??

    Yes, I know Washington can't be trusted, etc., but we already have Medicare, which is run by the Federal government. Aside from funding difficulties, Medicare is well run and treats our seniors well. Do you want to cancel Medicare and Medicaid so our parents just fend for themselves? So they can die without care or medications they can't afford? Clearly, that would be evil. Calling health insurance reform plans "evil" is childish, IMO.

    The CIA FACTBOOK lists all our industrial peers above us for infant mortality and lifespan, two key indicators of overall health in a country. That means they do better then we do, and it costs them LESS per person than what we spend. EVEN REPUBLICANS like Rep. Blunt concede we need to change.

    A healthy country can be comptitive and strong. As things are, between debt and the healthcare crisis, we stand to become a 3rd rate country unless we change.

    What we have now is more and more expensive, and less and less effective. Blaming lazy people for not having healthcare is rediculous, when millions and millions of working Americans have no health insurance, or are underinsured. They work hard, but are subject to bankruptcy if they get ill or injured.

    We are a strong nation. We can do much better than what we have now.

    If a system is efficient, we should adapt it to our needs, and it should not matter whether it is a single payer system or revised health insurance such as proposed with HR 3200. Clearly, what we have now is failing to provide what we need. Time for a change. If you don't like change, please just get out of the way and stop whining like a bunch of children.
  • bobbyhawk
    What you do not understand is that systemic problem solving can not be solved using regulation (law), Further you have not read the bill as your comments indicate you do not understand what it provides. If you are complaining that the problem is simply costs, then lets work on assigning the root causes related to cost. This has not occurred. Since no root causes are have been studied and determined, then any action taken has little chance of effecting these undetermined causes. How can you expect to fix something for which the root causes have not been determined?
    Allowing the government take over the system, does not fix the system, it simply transfers the system to another entity. Every single problem that exists with the current healthcare system will still exist if the system is transfered to the government, worse the government is expecting to add to the misery by implementing their ideas of forced cost and age constraints.
    You simply cannot use regulator means as problem solving tools. True corrective action can only come from accurately identifying the root causes that contribute to the problem. Root causes are those things you can switch on and off like a light switch, once discovered. You must remember that congress and the current administration are attorneys. They simply have no clue as the the approach needed to solve problems. And given their current approach, this is dangerously obvious.
    Just chopping costs by forcing medical personnel and medical institutions to accept less money for their services will only result in less available medical personnel, institutions, and provided treatment options. We should focus on helping our current medical system address its causes for high costs as opposed to simply forcing government intervention through regulatory control. Just ask yourself this question, what of anything has the US government ever managed well? Our current medicare, medicaid, and social security systems have been mismanaged by the government to the point of complete failure. And you propose that this same government manage our entire health care system?
  • markinboston
    bobbyhawk - thanks for an articulate and intelligent post. It's really refreshing compared to the usual mindless drivel I see online. Thanks very much.

    I completely agree with you, that having Congress deal with health insurance issues transfers problems without solving them. However, I think that needing to resolve problems will be so urgent that it will drive solutions, and if we review other national insurance plans for effective solutions we should be able to adapt and adopt workable solutions, and modify them as needed.

    I disagree that Medicare and SSA have been mismanaged to the point of failure. I think demographic trends adding large numbers of seniors to Medicare, and looting Medicare to fund other programs has created real and very difficult problems. Medicare reimbursements are low. Hospitals and MD's hate being paid poorly, and I don't blame them.

    I am no expert, but clearly we pay more and get less than all our industrial competition. A Massachusetts study determined that about 33% of medical costs were due to administrative costs! That is a huge amount of money when you consider in 2007 we paid about 2.2 trillion US dollars for healthcare nationally.

    Large healthcare systems are incredibly complicated, and resolving ethical and caregiving treatment issues will be hard, but if Canada (for example) can have a reasonably functional system, so can we.

    I have no illusions things will be perfect. Problems are significant. Solving them will take a lot of work and it is guaranteed that 100% of the population will NOT be happy. That's life. Doctors make mistakes. Some people will do their best to drug hunt or otherwise abuse the system, but at least we can have a system in place that promotes a healthy, competitive society, IMO. We need a paragidm change or we risk becoming a 3rd rate nation.
  • BruSays
    Markinboston...bobbyhawk is plant.
  • sarms58
    Mark>>> I really don't understand why the Obama plan is such a problem for some people, especially since I assume (as Republicans) they already have insurance. Are you afraid your neighbors might get healthcare at a reasonable cost? Is that it? Fear they will get care and not have to pay for it the way you do, with hard work and a strong work ethic??<<<

    Mark, I fear I will have to continue to pay for mine and pay for theirs...the delta between what I pay for my plan and what the government will charge for the public option will be subsidized by taxes...I don't see this as the solution to the high cost of health care; I see it as a way to transfer (more) income...
  • bobbyhawk
    I find in interesting as a 20 year veteran of problem solving, that our congress is trying to problem solve through the use of regulation. Regulation is not a problem solving tool. Regulation is a risk reduction tool. Before a risk reduction tool can be used, other key events must have taken place.
    1) The problem or problems must have been clearly stated
    2) Problem solving tools must be applied to each problem to seek out the applicable root causes
    3) Each root cause must have a countermeasure assigned and tested
    4) Each tested countermeasure must be validated as effective
    5) As part of the implementation of validated effective countermeasures, controls must be implemented to ensure the risk of the root cause reoccurring has been eliminated or greatly reduced. This is where regulatory requirements and their related inspections or audits would come into play

    As can be seen by the flow above, the Democratic party has drafted legislation for issues with which there are not assignable causes. They have proposed countermeasures for assumed symptoms not causes, therefore this congressional approach of using regulation to attempt to fix un-known causes, has no logical recourse other than failure.
  • sarms58
    bobbyhawk,

    As a fellow root cause analyst, I find the legislative process to be opposite the process we use to investigate and correct significant issues...they pick solutions that sound good but since they've not actually done a detailed analysis, they can't really predict the result...the Lewin group most certainly has a bias (we all do) but at least they've attempted to take the proposed solutions and project the impact forward using real data vice wishful thinking...the law of unintended consequences seems to come into play more often with government actions...
  • jobspharma
    It gives more informative message for me. Thanks for posting it.
    staffing power
blog comments powered by Disqus