Saturday, August 31, 2013

ObamaCare’s architects reap windfall as Washington lobbyists

ObamaCare has become big business for an elite network of Washington lobbyists and consultants who helped shape the law from the inside.

More than 30 former administration officials, lawmakers and congressional staffers who worked on the healthcare law have set up shop on K Street since 2010.

Major lobbying firms such as Fierce, Isakowitz & Blalock, The Glover Park Group, Alston & Bird, BGR Group and Akin Gump can all boast an Affordable Care Act insider on their lobbying roster � putting them in a prime position to land coveted clients.

�When [Vice President] Biden leaned over [during the signing of the healthcare law] and said to [President] Obama, �This is a big f’n deal,� � said Ivan Adler, a headhunter at the McCormick Group, �he was right.�

Veterans of the healthcare push are now lobbying for corporate giants such as Delta Air Lines, UPS, BP America and Coca-Cola, and for healthcare companies including GlaxoSmithKline, UnitedHealth Group and the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association.

Ultimately, the clients are after one thing: expert help in dealing with the most sweeping overhaul of the country�s healthcare system in decades.

“Healthcare lobbying on K Street is as strong as it ever was, and it’s due to the fact that the Affordable Care Act seems to be ever-changing,” Adler said. “What’s at stake is huge. … Whenever there’s a lot of money at stake, there’s a lot of lobbying going on.”

The voracious need for lobbying help in dealing with ObamaCare has created a price premium for lobbyists who had first-hand experience in crafting or debating the law.

Experts say that those able to fetch the highest salaries have come from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) or committees with oversight power over healthcare.

Demand for ObamaCare insiders is even higher now that major pieces of the law, including the healthcare exchanges and individual insurance mandate, are being set up through a slew of complicated federal regulations.

�Congress is easy to watch,� said Tim LaPira, a politics professor at James Madison University who researches the government affairs industry, �but agencies are harder to watch because their actions are often opaque. This leads to a greater demand on K Street� for people who understand the fine print, he said.

�K Street’s agenda follows the government’s agenda. It’s not typically the other way around,” he said.

Watchdogs say the rise of the ObamaCare lobbyist is another example of the �revolving door� that turns public service into private enrichment.

�After passage of major legislation, those who have networks on Capitol Hill take exceedingly lucrative jobs with the same industries subject to the legislation,� said Craig Holman, a lobbyist for Public Citizen. �It raises questions about the [bill's] integrity.�

For K Street, healthcare lobbying has been a bright spot in what has otherwise been a down business cycle.

While lobbying revenue at major firms has been flat or declining in recent years, the healthcare law has generated steady work � a trend that is likely to continue for years to come.

That�s because ObamaCare runs on a long timeline � well into the next administration. Unless the law is severely crippled, the reform’s rules and requirements will be rolling out through at least 2020.

That�s good news for lobbyists who want to sign up clients for the long haul.

The windfall from the healthcare overhaul is being reaped at firms large and small. Some veterans of the legislative push have landed at boutique firms that are increasingly specializing in lobbying niches.

The firm Avenue Solutions, for instance, recently hired Yvette Fontenot, a former staffer for both the Senate Finance Committee, which wrote ObamaCare�s tax-related provisions, and HHS’s Office of Health Reform, which is assisting the implementation.

Since her hire in April, the four-woman firm has picked up Health Care Service Corp. as a client, and Fontenot is now lobbying for the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association and the National Electrical Manufacturers Association as well.

The Democratic firm banks about $3 million in revenue per year, records show, but is on pace for growth in 2013, earning $1.8 million through the first half of the year.

It�s not just ex-staffers who are becoming trusted ObamaCare guides � former members of Congress are lobbying on the law as well.

Former Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-N.D.) joined Alston & Bird in 2011 after dealing with healthcare and tax issues as a member of the House Ways and Means Committee.

Now Pomeroy and his one-time chief of staff, Bob Siggins, are lobbying on ObamaCare for clients such as clients such as Vision Service Plan, the National Coordinating Committee for Multiemployer Plans and Medicare � a health insurance provider.

Consulting is another avenue former staffers and officials can take to work for outside interests while they look to comply with and shape the impending regulations.

�This is not a do-it-yourself project; it’s complicated,� said Adler. �They need help from insiders to help navigate this thing correctly.�

Former senior counsel to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius Dora Hughes became a senior policy adviser at the law firm Sidley Austin last year.

Hughes is not a registered lobbyist, and told The Hill she mainly provides �strategic policy advice� while abiding by the ethics pledge not to lobby the administration. She has no congressional contacts in her sights, either.

Even the president needs some lobbying know-how when it comes to advancing ObamaCare.

The White House brought on Clinton administration veteran and former lobbyist Chris Jennings last month to help navigate the implementation of the law.

During a call with several directors of the state healthcare exchanges on Wednesday, Jennings was seated in a plum position � right next to Obama.

Wednesday, August 28, 2013

Despite Distaste For Health Law, Americans Oppose Defunding

More From Shots - Health News HealthIllicit Drugs And Mental Illness Take A Huge Global Toll HealthIn South Africa, A Clinic Focuses On Prostitutes To Fight HIVHealthDiverse Gut Microbes, A Trim Waistline And Health Go TogetherHealthLooking For Free Condoms? There's A Health Department App For That

More From Shots - Health News

Comments   You must be signed in to leave a comment. Sign In / Register

Please keep your community civil. All comments must follow the NPR.org Community rules and terms of use, and will be moderated prior to posting. NPR reserves the right to use the comments we receive, in whole or in part, and to use the commenter's name and location, in any medium. See also the Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and Community FAQ.

Please enable Javascript to view the comments powered by Disqus.

Monday, August 26, 2013

Kids With Costly Medical Issues Get Help, But Not Enough

More From Shots - Health News HealthDengue Fever Pops Up In FloridaHealthA Chat With The Doctor Can Help Kids Resist SmokingHealthSweet Cigarillos And Cigars Lure Youths To Tobacco, Critics SayHealthKids With Costly Medical Issues Get Help, But Not Enough

More From Shots - Health News

Comments   You must be signed in to leave a comment. Sign In / Register

Please keep your community civil. All comments must follow the NPR.org Community rules and terms of use, and will be moderated prior to posting. NPR reserves the right to use the comments we receive, in whole or in part, and to use the commenter's name and location, in any medium. See also the Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and Community FAQ.

Please enable Javascript to view the comments powered by Disqus.

Friday, August 23, 2013

Say What? Jargon Busters Tackle Health Insurance

More From Shots - Health News HealthAnother Study Of Preemies Blasted Over Ethical ConcernsGoverningFor Strokes, Superfast Treatment Means Better RecoveryHealthHow Hospitals Can Help Patients Quit Smoking Before SurgeryHealthSay What? Jargon Busters Tackle Health Insurance

More From Shots - Health News

Comments   You must be signed in to leave a comment. Sign In / Register

Please keep your community civil. All comments must follow the NPR.org Community rules and terms of use, and will be moderated prior to posting. NPR reserves the right to use the comments we receive, in whole or in part, and to use the commenter's name and location, in any medium. See also the Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and Community FAQ.

Please enable Javascript to view the comments powered by Disqus.

You Ask, We Answer: More Of Your Questions About The Affordable Care Act

More From Shots - Health News HealthAnother Study Of Preemies Blasted Over Ethical ConcernsGoverningFor Strokes, Superfast Treatment Means Better RecoveryHealthHow Hospitals Can Help Patients Quit Smoking Before SurgeryHealthSay What? Jargon Busters Tackle Health Insurance

More From Shots - Health News

Comments   You must be signed in to leave a comment. Sign In / Register

Please keep your community civil. All comments must follow the NPR.org Community rules and terms of use, and will be moderated prior to posting. NPR reserves the right to use the comments we receive, in whole or in part, and to use the commenter's name and location, in any medium. See also the Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and Community FAQ.

Please enable Javascript to view the comments powered by Disqus.

Friday, August 16, 2013

Strange Bedfellows Among Groups Helping Insurance Buyers

More From Shots - Health News HealthAfter These Docs Saw The Farm, They Didn't Want The CityHealthStrange Bedfellows Among Groups Helping Insurance Buyers Health CareGetting People Out Of Nursing Homes Turns Out To Be ComplicatedHealthChronic Insomnia? Hitting The Treadmill Could Help ... Eventually

More From Shots - Health News

Comments   You must be signed in to leave a comment. Sign In / Register

Please keep your community civil. All comments must follow the NPR.org Community rules and terms of use, and will be moderated prior to posting. NPR reserves the right to use the comments we receive, in whole or in part, and to use the commenter's name and location, in any medium. See also the Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and Community FAQ.

Please enable Javascript to view the comments powered by Disqus.

Strange Bedfellows Among Groups Helping Insurance Buyers

More From Shots - Health News HealthAfter These Docs Saw The Farm, They Didn't Want The CityHealthStrange Bedfellows Among Groups Helping Insurance Buyers Health CareGetting People Out Of Nursing Homes Turns Out To Be ComplicatedHealthChronic Insomnia? Hitting The Treadmill Could Help ... Eventually

More From Shots - Health News

Comments   You must be signed in to leave a comment. Sign In / Register

Please keep your community civil. All comments must follow the NPR.org Community rules and terms of use, and will be moderated prior to posting. NPR reserves the right to use the comments we receive, in whole or in part, and to use the commenter's name and location, in any medium. See also the Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and Community FAQ.

Please enable Javascript to view the comments powered by Disqus.

Thursday, August 15, 2013

Gingrich: Most GOP Lawmakers Have 'Zero' Ideas On Health Care

More From The Two-Way The Two-WayPentagon Issues Directive Aimed At Preventing Sexual AssaultBusinessFord Lowers Mileage Rating On Its C-Max HybridAnimalsMeet The Olinguito, The Newest Member Of The Raccoon FamilyAsiaZoo In China Swaps Lion For Dog, Hopes No One Notices

More From The Two-Way

Comments   You must be signed in to leave a comment. Sign In / Register

Please keep your community civil. All comments must follow the NPR.org Community rules and terms of use, and will be moderated prior to posting. NPR reserves the right to use the comments we receive, in whole or in part, and to use the commenter's name and location, in any medium. See also the Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and Community FAQ.

Please enable Javascript to view the comments powered by Disqus.

Gingrich: Most GOP Lawmakers Have 'Zero' Ideas On Health Care

More From The Two-Way The Two-WayPentagon Issues Directive Aimed At Preventing Sexual AssaultBusinessFord Expected To Lower Mileage Rating On Its C-Max HybridAnimalsMeet The Olinguito, The Newest Member Of The Raccoon FamilyAsiaZoo In China Swaps Lion For Dog, Hopes No One Notices

More From The Two-Way

Comments   You must be signed in to leave a comment. Sign In / Register

Please keep your community civil. All comments must follow the NPR.org Community rules and terms of use, and will be moderated prior to posting. NPR reserves the right to use the comments we receive, in whole or in part, and to use the commenter's name and location, in any medium. See also the Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and Community FAQ.

Please enable Javascript to view the comments powered by Disqus.

Wednesday, August 14, 2013

Medical Discount Plan In Nevada Skips Insurers

More From Shots - Health News HealthEvidence Supports Pill To Prevent Some Prostate CancersHealthIndustry Ties Raise Questions About Expert Medical Panels HealthViolence Causes Doctors Without Borders To Exit SomaliaHealthDoctors Look For A Way Off The Medical Hamster Wheel

More From Shots - Health News

Comments   You must be signed in to leave a comment. Sign In / Register

Please keep your community civil. All comments must follow the NPR.org Community rules and terms of use, and will be moderated prior to posting. NPR reserves the right to use the comments we receive, in whole or in part, and to use the commenter's name and location, in any medium. See also the Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and Community FAQ.

Please enable Javascript to view the comments powered by Disqus.

Tuesday, August 13, 2013

Let’s Talk About Health Care and I Don’t Mean the ACA

Let’s talk about health care. I don’t mean debating the Affordable Care Act. I mean health care, as in: If everyone needs health care, guarantee that everybody gets it.

I know, when it comes to health care, it’s easy to get into a debate for or against Obamacare. But we nurses see the world through a different lens: our patients.

Share this video of nurses summing up why everyone in the U.S. needs & deserves healthcare:

Good health care is a fundamental resource that keeps America’s big engine running. Every day, as we do our best to care for our patients, nurses see people with chronic disease like asthma or diabetes who can’t afford insurance costs or medication. Maybe they’re absent from work, tired, and distracted from trying to manage their health on a shoestring. They run the risk of hospitalization. They struggle for a distant unreachable shore hoping something will help. They can’t get ahead because their health keeps dragging them down. 

And yet the answer isn’t on the horizon, the answer is in our pockets, in our hands. It’s our taxes. We pay them and we ought to benefit from them.

There’s one thing that every American does. Every working American (OK, except the Wall Street crowd) pays taxes. But what do we pay taxes for? Increasingly, we wonder where our money is going, how our money is serving our communities, and how our tax money is helping us and our families.

There are dozens of arguments about what our tax dollars should be doing. But what if we spent a portion of our tax dollars on the one thing that would position every American, young and old, on the road to success? That one thing is good health. You need it to go to school, get to your job, excel at what you do, and dream big dreams that will make our country great again.

We must do better and nurses have a solution. The United States ranks first in costs but 37th in health outcomes in the world. We do even worse for infant morality and life expectancy.
So nurses are proposing another way. We’re saying that our taxes should help pay for our healthcare. It works for seniors, it works for Congress members, and it will work for all of us.

This week, we launched an online campaign, asking voters to demand this from Congress. You can learn more about the online campaign here.


Ads appearing online this week.

We’re talking about something that already exists for some, right here in the United States of America, and what can easily exist for everyone. A tax-funded national healthcare system would negotiate prices for prescription drugs, medical devices and services, specialists and more, effectively lowering the cost of delivering care. Taxpayers don’t have to worry about paying for someone else’s care. You’ll be paying for your own care, your family’s care, without raising taxes at all.

Since the tax subsidies to buy insurance under the ACA mostly move money around to pay for private insurance for some that don’t have it, and which allows the insurers to take 20 cents off the dollar, it would be more efficient to uses taxes to pay for everybody’s healthcare directly, eliminating the middleman and the shell game.


International healthcare cost vs. quality chart.

We are reaching inside the box to think outside the box; we are charting a third way. It’s time to rediscover healthcare as care rather than insurance for the first time in a long time, and let the taxes we already pay deliver what every American needs.

Laborers call for a fix to ACA’s “destructive” impact on unions

From Unions for Single Payer –

The Laborers International Union of North America (LIUNA) was one of a handful of unions that did not support the enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA or ACA). LIUNA was concerned that the law would have an adverse impact on the multiemployer plans on which their members, retirees and families rely for health coverage. The union was assured that their concerns would be addressed. These issues are not yet resolved. Terry O�Sullivan, General President of LIUNA sent this letter to the president, the vice president, Senate Majority Leader Reid, and House Minority Leader Pelosi. LIUNA represents over 500,000 workers in the construction industry.

The letter by the president of LIUNA follows similar letters by the presidents of the IBEW, IBT, UFCW, UNITE-HERE and the Roofers International Union.

July 18, 2013

President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

On behalf of the Laborers’ International Union of North America (LIUNA), I am compelled to express our concerns over the destructive consequences of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) for multiemployer health and welfare funds. During the drafting and Congressional enactment of this law, LIUNA raised serious concerns that our Union had with aspects of the law and its impacts on the health insurance system that has served millions of hard working Americans and their families over the last forty years. Many of the objections we raised were dismissed out of hand or, we were assured, would be addressed later as the law was implemented.

Unfortunately, policymakers do not seem to appreciate these non-profit, labor-management trust funds that have been providing medical, hospitalization and other health benefits to our members, retirees, and their families for generations. Were it not for these funds, most of LIUNA’s members and families would have lacked health care coverage because of the mobile work patterns in the building and construction industry. These benefits have been gained over the decades through self-help. The funds are simply pools of workers’ money funded by collectively bargained contributions that are wage substitutes.

During the legislative process that led to the enactment of the law, it was clear that the unique nature of the multi-employer plans was poorly understood by the Congress and the Administration. We were assured that our plans would not be adversely affected by the law and that as the law was implemented the issues unique to our universe would be addressed.

As you are well aware, because of our concerns over the impact the PPACA would have on the members of our Union and their families, the Laborers were one of a few handful of unions that did not support enactment of the law. Now, we have watched as the implementation of the law has progressed, our fears have become reality. Instead of working to assure that these insurance pools can continue to provide health care for the workers they serve, administrative decisions have compounded the problem.

The recent announcement by the Department of Treasury that the Administration will provide an additional year before the ACA mandatory employer and insurer reporting requirements begin, along with a delay in the required “employer shared responsibility payments”, only makes this unfair treatment worse. It is bad enough that the employer mandate only applies to companies with more than 50 employees, which excludes most of the construction industry, but now larger “low road” employers are being given an extra year to continue their efforts to subvert the law.

The ACA imposes substantially higher costs on multi-employer funds and union members, while enabling non-union employers to continue escaping responsibility and shift their employees’ health insurance costs to the taxpayers. The law enables non-union contractors to avoid any cost for their employee health insurance, giving them a grossly unfair competitive edge. ACA does not require them to provide health insurance coverage for their employees. There is a “free rider penalty”, but even that small amount applies only to “large employers” and can be easily evaded by any employer.

The ACA encourages non-union contractors to send their employees to the new Health Exchanges for Government-subsidized health insurance. Underscoring the unfairness, the Administration is interpreting ACA as preventing union members with health and welfare fund coverage from receiving Government subsidies for that coverage, even if they meet all of the subsidy eligibility standards.

In other words, non-union contractors’ employees get Government-subsidized health insurance coverage, and union members get to pay for their own coverage through collectively bargained contributions to health and welfare funds. A complicated “two trust solution” has been devised to supposedly correct this subsidy problem, but it is absolutely unworkable. Moreover, it does not address the broader problem of ACA giving non-union contractors an unfair competitive advantage. Our unions are committed to seeing the playing field leveled between the union and non-union sectors of the construction industry.

Health and welfare funds’ costs are increasing because of various benefit mandates and regulatory requirements unnecessarily imposed on the funds. But even more outrageous is ACA’s taxes on funds. The so-called temporary reinsurance tax alone will cost every health and welfare fund $63.00 per covered life for just 2014, for a fund covering 10,000 lives (members and dependents), the tax will be $630,000.00.

The proceeds of this tax will be used by the Government to subsidize insurance companies offering health plans in the Health Exchanges. In effect, ACA takes money from the pocket of each laborer covered by a health and welfare fund and gives it to forprofit insurance companies. The worker gets nothing in return. That is offensive and inexcusable.

At what point will responsible behavior be rewarded?

ACA’s costs will inevitably require increases in collectively bargained contribution rates for health and welfare. This puts more pressure on the total wage package for members. In a competitive environment, higher labor costs generally means fewer jobs.

In short, for unionized construction workers, their employers, and their health and welfare funds, the ACA is proving to be a destructive program that was supposed to control health care costs as was promised. Approximately, 3 million laborers, retirees, and their families now face the very real prospect of losing their health benefits. This, I must remind you, was something that you promised would not happen.

We believe that there are opportunities that the Administration can take to help alleviate some of the impacts that the law is having on our health care plans. We hope that you will work with us to see that these common sense changes are implemented.

Sincerely yours,

TERRY 0′SULLIVAN
General President

Laborers call for a fix to ACA’s “destructive” impact on unions

From Unions for Single Payer –

The Laborers International Union of North America (LIUNA) was one of a handful of unions that did not support the enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA or ACA). LIUNA was concerned that the law would have an adverse impact on the multiemployer plans on which their members, retirees and families rely for health coverage. The union was assured that their concerns would be addressed. These issues are not yet resolved. Terry O�Sullivan, General President of LIUNA sent this letter to the president, the vice president, Senate Majority Leader Reid, and House Minority Leader Pelosi. LIUNA represents over 500,000 workers in the construction industry.

The letter by the president of LIUNA follows similar letters by the presidents of the IBEW, IBT, UFCW, UNITE-HERE and the Roofers International Union.

July 18, 2013

President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

On behalf of the Laborers’ International Union of North America (LIUNA), I am compelled to express our concerns over the destructive consequences of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) for multiemployer health and welfare funds. During the drafting and Congressional enactment of this law, LIUNA raised serious concerns that our Union had with aspects of the law and its impacts on the health insurance system that has served millions of hard working Americans and their families over the last forty years. Many of the objections we raised were dismissed out of hand or, we were assured, would be addressed later as the law was implemented.

Unfortunately, policymakers do not seem to appreciate these non-profit, labor-management trust funds that have been providing medical, hospitalization and other health benefits to our members, retirees, and their families for generations. Were it not for these funds, most of LIUNA’s members and families would have lacked health care coverage because of the mobile work patterns in the building and construction industry. These benefits have been gained over the decades through self-help. The funds are simply pools of workers’ money funded by collectively bargained contributions that are wage substitutes.

During the legislative process that led to the enactment of the law, it was clear that the unique nature of the multi-employer plans was poorly understood by the Congress and the Administration. We were assured that our plans would not be adversely affected by the law and that as the law was implemented the issues unique to our universe would be addressed.

As you are well aware, because of our concerns over the impact the PPACA would have on the members of our Union and their families, the Laborers were one of a few handful of unions that did not support enactment of the law. Now, we have watched as the implementation of the law has progressed, our fears have become reality. Instead of working to assure that these insurance pools can continue to provide health care for the workers they serve, administrative decisions have compounded the problem.

The recent announcement by the Department of Treasury that the Administration will provide an additional year before the ACA mandatory employer and insurer reporting requirements begin, along with a delay in the required “employer shared responsibility payments”, only makes this unfair treatment worse. It is bad enough that the employer mandate only applies to companies with more than 50 employees, which excludes most of the construction industry, but now larger “low road” employers are being given an extra year to continue their efforts to subvert the law.

The ACA imposes substantially higher costs on multi-employer funds and union members, while enabling non-union employers to continue escaping responsibility and shift their employees’ health insurance costs to the taxpayers. The law enables non-union contractors to avoid any cost for their employee health insurance, giving them a grossly unfair competitive edge. ACA does not require them to provide health insurance coverage for their employees. There is a “free rider penalty”, but even that small amount applies only to “large employers” and can be easily evaded by any employer.

The ACA encourages non-union contractors to send their employees to the new Health Exchanges for Government-subsidized health insurance. Underscoring the unfairness, the Administration is interpreting ACA as preventing union members with health and welfare fund coverage from receiving Government subsidies for that coverage, even if they meet all of the subsidy eligibility standards.

In other words, non-union contractors’ employees get Government-subsidized health insurance coverage, and union members get to pay for their own coverage through collectively bargained contributions to health and welfare funds. A complicated “two trust solution” has been devised to supposedly correct this subsidy problem, but it is absolutely unworkable. Moreover, it does not address the broader problem of ACA giving non-union contractors an unfair competitive advantage. Our unions are committed to seeing the playing field leveled between the union and non-union sectors of the construction industry.

Health and welfare funds’ costs are increasing because of various benefit mandates and regulatory requirements unnecessarily imposed on the funds. But even more outrageous is ACA’s taxes on funds. The so-called temporary reinsurance tax alone will cost every health and welfare fund $63.00 per covered life for just 2014, for a fund covering 10,000 lives (members and dependents), the tax will be $630,000.00.

The proceeds of this tax will be used by the Government to subsidize insurance companies offering health plans in the Health Exchanges. In effect, ACA takes money from the pocket of each laborer covered by a health and welfare fund and gives it to forprofit insurance companies. The worker gets nothing in return. That is offensive and inexcusable.

At what point will responsible behavior be rewarded?

ACA’s costs will inevitably require increases in collectively bargained contribution rates for health and welfare. This puts more pressure on the total wage package for members. In a competitive environment, higher labor costs generally means fewer jobs.

In short, for unionized construction workers, their employers, and their health and welfare funds, the ACA is proving to be a destructive program that was supposed to control health care costs as was promised. Approximately, 3 million laborers, retirees, and their families now face the very real prospect of losing their health benefits. This, I must remind you, was something that you promised would not happen.

We believe that there are opportunities that the Administration can take to help alleviate some of the impacts that the law is having on our health care plans. We hope that you will work with us to see that these common sense changes are implemented.

Sincerely yours,

TERRY 0′SULLIVAN
General President

Tuesday, August 6, 2013

Data Dive Finds Doctors For Rent

More From Shots - Health News HealthData Dive Finds Doctors For RentHealthHarsh In Hard Times? A Gene May Influence Mom's BehaviorHealthWhen Treating Abnormal Breast Cells, Sometimes Less Is MoreHealth CareCongress May Be Getting Its Own Obamacare Glitch Fixed

More From Shots - Health News

Comments   You must be signed in to leave a comment. Sign In / Register

Please keep your community civil. All comments must follow the NPR.org Community rules and terms of use, and will be moderated prior to posting. NPR reserves the right to use the comments we receive, in whole or in part, and to use the commenter's name and location, in any medium. See also the Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and Community FAQ.

Please enable Javascript to view the comments powered by Disqus.

Friday, August 2, 2013

‘Medicare for All’ would cover everyone, save billions in first year

From PNHP –

Economist says Canadian-style, single-payer health plan would reap huge savings from reduced paperwork and from negotiated drug prices, enough to pay for quality coverage for all � at less cost to families and businesses

Upgrading the nation�s Medicare program and expanding it to cover people of all ages would yield more than a half-trillion dollars in efficiency savings in its first year of operation, enough to pay for high-quality, comprehensive health benefits for all residents of the United States at a lower cost to most individuals, families and businesses.

That�s the chief finding of a new fiscal study by Gerald Friedman, a professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. There would even be money left over to help pay down the national debt, he said.

Friedman says his analysis shows that a nonprofit single-payer system based on the principles of the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act, H.R. 676, introduced by Rep. John Conyers Jr., D-Mich., and co-sponsored by 45 other lawmakers, would save an estimated $592 billion in 2014. That would be more than enough to cover all 44 million people the government estimates will be uninsured in that year and to upgrade benefits for everyone else.

�No other plan can achieve this magnitude of savings on health care,� Friedman said.

His findings were released this morning [Wednesday, July 31] at a congressional briefing in the Cannon House Office Building hosted by Public Citizen and Physicians for a National Health Program, followed by a 1 p.m. news conference with Rep. Conyers, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and others in observance of Medicare�s 48th anniversary at the House Triangle near the Capitol steps. A copy of Friedman�s full report, with tables and charts, is available here.

Friedman said the savings would come from slashing the administrative waste associated with today�s private health insurance industry ($476 billion) and using the new, public system�s bargaining muscle to negotiate pharmaceutical drug prices down to European levels ($116 billion).

�These savings would be more than enough to fund $343 billion in improvements to our health system, including the achievement of truly universal coverage, improved benefits, and the elimination of premiums, co-payments and deductibles, which are major barriers to people seeking care,� he said.

Friedman said the savings would also fund $51 billion in transition costs such as retraining displaced workers from the insurance industry and phasing out investor-owned, for-profit delivery systems.

Over the next decade, the system�s savings from reduced health inflation (�bending the cost curve�), thanks to cost-control methods such as negotiated fees, lump-sum payments to hospitals, and capital planning, would amount to an estimated $1.8 trillion.

�Paradoxically, by expanding Medicare to everyone we�d end up saving billions of dollars annually,� he said. �We�d be safeguarding Medicare�s fiscal integrity while enhancing the nation�s health for the long term.�

Friedman said the plan would be funded by maintaining current federal revenues for health care and imposing new, modest tax increases on very high income earners. It would also be funded by a small increase in payroll taxes on employers, who would no longer pay health insurance premiums, and a new, very small tax on stock and bond transactions.

�Such a financing scheme would vastly simplify how the nation pays for care, restore free choice of physician, guarantee all necessary medical care, improve patient health and, because it would be financed by a program of progressive taxation, result in 95 percent of all U.S. households saving money,� Friedman said.

Friedman�s findings are consistent with other research showing large savings from a single-payer plan. Single-payer fiscal studies by other economists, such as Kenneth E. Thorpe (2005), have arrived at similar conclusions, as have studies conducted by the Congressional Budget Office and the General Accountability Office in the early 1990s. Other studies have documented the administrative efficiency and other benefits of Canada�s single-payer system in comparison with the current U.S. system.

Friedman�s research was commissioned by Physicians for a National Health Program, a nonprofit research and educational organization of more than 18,000 doctors nationwide, which wanted to find out how much a single-payer system would cost today and how it could be financed.

�Funding H.R. 676: The Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act � How we can afford a national single-payer health plan in 2014,� by Gerald Friedman, Ph.D., Department of Economics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Thursday, August 1, 2013

Will Obamacare Mean Fewer Jobs? Depends On Whom You Ask

More From Shots - Health News HealthWant To Be A Morning Person? Take A Few Tips From CampersHealthWhen Fleeing Zombies (Or Flu), Cooperation Saves LivesHealthPotential Treatment For Snakebites Leads To A Paralyzing TestHealthNurse Charged With Assisting In Her Father's Death

More From Shots - Health News

Comments   You must be signed in to leave a comment. Sign In / Register

Please keep your community civil. All comments must follow the NPR.org Community rules and terms of use, and will be moderated prior to posting. NPR reserves the right to use the comments we receive, in whole or in part, and to use the commenter's name and location, in any medium. See also the Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and Community FAQ.

Please enable Javascript to view the comments powered by Disqus.