Tag: "Medicare"

Let Private Compete with Public Insurance

Supporters of the public option, a government run health insurance plan to compete with private insurers, say that it will make everyone better off by forcing private firms to provide health insurance for less. But if that is the case, why not allow already existing public plan options to compete with the private sector?

Give people in Medicare, state Medicaid plans, the Veterans Administration, and state SCHIP plans the choice of staying in the government run program or taking an equivalent voucher for the purchase of private health insurance and private medical care, perhaps with a health savings account option for any leftover funds.

Read More » »

Jun 24, 2009 | 10 comments | by

For This We Added an Unfunded Liability Greater than Social Security’s?

Between 2003 and 2007, elderly beneficiaries dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid experienced a two-fold increase in unmet prescription drug needs. In 2003, 10.8% reported difficulty affording prescription drugs, which grew to 21.3% in 2007.

The new Medicare drug benefit did little to close large pre­scription drug access gaps between elderly white and African-American beneficiaries and healthier and sicker beneficiaries. For example, three times as many elderly African-American beneficiaries (17.6%) went without a prescribed medi­cation in 2007 as white beneficiaries (6.2%).

Jun 19, 2009 | 5 comments | by

Medicare Beneficiaries Spend 28% of Income on Health Care

Medicare beneficiaries spent an average of $4,394 of their own money on health care services in 2005-about 28% of income.

And this is the system single-payer advocates want ALL of us to be a part of?

Jun 19, 2009 | 4 comments | by

More on Kennedy’s Health Bill

As it turns out, the bill is not actually Senator Kennedy’s – who is sidelined with critical illness and we wish him well. This bill was apparently drafted by the committee staff under the nominal leadership of Sen. Dodd. Both Keith Hennessey and the Republican Policy Committee have provided analyses.

  • Everyone will be required to buy health insurance – either directly or through an employer.
  • A federal health board will define “essential health benefits” that everyone must have and will undoubtedly make cost-effectiveness (rationing) decisions like similar boards in Britain and other countries.
  • If you fail to purchase insurance, you will be taxed and the size of tax penalties will be determined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Secretary of the Treasury. (A rather incredible delegation of power!) A similar “play-or-pay” tax will be imposed on employers.
  • Outside the place of work, insurance will be purchased in a government-controlled exchange and the exchange must include at least one government-run health plan.
  • The government health plan will pay Medicare rates plus 10%, which is bad news for seniors. More than 100 million people may move from private coverage to Medicare but since young people will be paying higher rates, seniors will be the least preferred patients (last to get access to doctors).
  • Existing plans will be grandfathered, but all other plans must implement managed care type rules that interfere with the doctor-patient relationship (“case management,” “best clinical practices,” “evidence-based medicine,” etc.).
Jun 10, 2009 | 10 comments | by

Is U.S. Health Care More Egalitarian than European Systems?

Yes. At least according to Tyler Cowen:

The “poorest” people are not those with low incomes but rather those with low human capital endowments.  That includes the elderly because, even if they are very talented, on average they will die sooner.

Through Medicare, the U.S. government subsidizes the health care of the elderly…… the subsidy is especially large for people in the last year of life or so, namely the very poorest.

Western European welfare states may be more efficient, because they do more to expand routine health care access for the relatively young and this may have a higher rate of return.  But those same systems are in critical regards less egalitarian.  Bravo to them.

Jun 10, 2009 | 3 comments | by

Cradle-to-the-Grave Health Care

Sen. Kennedy is overreaching in an attempt to nationalize the US health care system:

  • Everyone would have access to "essential health care benefits," with no annual or lifetime limits.
  • Subsidies would be available for everyone earning up to $110,000 (family of four).
  • Medicaid would be open to everyone with incomes up to $33,075 (family of four).
  • Employers would have to pay premiums or a fine and so could every individual, unless paying premiums or fines would cause "exceptional financial hardship."

This last point is worth considering. Why should anyone have to pay taxes or obey regulations in cases of exceptional financial hardship?

Satire Alert 

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14IRDDnEPR4

Kennedy sends up trial balloons; Obama and Baucus get rolled

Jun 08, 2009 | 8 comments | by

New Entry for Worst Study of the Year Award

President Obama frequently parrots the thoroughly discredited "statistic" that one third of personal bankruptcies are medical bankruptcies. The propagandists of "medical bankruptcy" have now upped the ante with a new study published this week, in which Drs. David Himmelstein, Steffie Woolhandler, and colleagues, report that 62 percent of personal bankruptcies in 2007 were "medical bankruptcies." The authors are leaders of the Physicians for a National Health Program, who have promoted government-monopoly medicine for decades.  Unfortunately, the media swallowed their new report uncritically.

Read More » »

Jun 08, 2009 | 14 comments | by

How Much Does It Cost the Government to Administer Its Own Health Plans?

Greg Dattilo and Dave Racer, based on CBO reports, calculate costs of administering health care:

  • When the federal government administers its own health programs, it spends twice as much – 26% on administration, compared to 12.7% in the private sector. 
  • When government contracts out administration, as it does with Medicare, the cost is only 5.7%.
  • However, the 5.7% number hides public sector costs that are included in private sector accounting.
Jun 04, 2009 | 3 comments | by

Where Health Care is Really, Really Expensive

McAllen, Texas….. is one of the most expensive health-care markets in the country. Only Miami – which has much higher labor and living costs – spends more per person on health care. In 2006, Medicare spent fifteen thousand dollars per enrollee here, almost twice the national average. The income per capita is twelve thousand dollars. In other words, Medicare spends three thousand dollars more per person here than the average person earns.

Compared with patients in El Paso and nationwide, patients in McAllen got more of pretty much everything – more diagnostic testing, more hospital treatment, more surgery, more home care…… McAllen costs Medicare seven thousand dollars more per person each year than does the average city in America. But not, so far as one can tell, because it's delivering better health care.

Jun 03, 2009 | 2 comments | by

Solving the Problems of the Medically Underserved with Walk-in Clinics

If Barack Obama is serious about curtailing health care costs, promoting electronic medical records and electronic prescribing, and is increasing access to care, he could make a huge leap forward with a single decision: let Medicare cover the services of walk-in clinics and encourage states to do the same with Medicaid. In principle, these clinics could meet all kinds of needs of the medically underserved. A new study finds of 1,200 clinics nationwide, only 10% of walk-in clinics are in poor neighborhoods. That's because the clinics go where the money is. The solution: let Medicare and Medicaid pay the same market rates everyone else pays – rather than pre-determined government rates.

May 29, 2009 | 5 comments | by
« Previous Page — Next Page »