Monday, January 31, 2005

Weblog Commenting and Trackback by

Healthcare and the Ownership Society

By Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — Emboldened by their success at the polls, the Bush administration and Republican leaders in Congress believe they have a new opportunity to move the nation away from the system of employer-provided health insurance that has covered most working Americans for the last half-century.

In its place, they want to erect a system in which workers — instead of looking to employers for health insurance — would take personal responsibility for protecting themselves and their families: They would buy high-deductible "catastrophic" insurance policies to cover major medical needs, then pay routine costs with money set aside in tax-sheltered health savings accounts.

Elements of that approach have been on the conservative agenda for years, but what has suddenly put it on the fast track is GOP confidence that the political balance of power has changed.

With Democratic strength reduced, President Bush (news - web sites), Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas (R-Bakersfield) are pushing for action.

Supporters of the new approach, who see it as part of Bush's "ownership society," say workers and their families would become more careful users of healthcare if they had to pay the bills. Also, they say, the lower premiums on high-deductible plans would make coverage affordable for the uninsured and for small businesses.

"My view is that this is absolutely the next big thing," said former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, whose consulting firm focuses on healthcare. "You are going to see a continued move to trying to get people involved in the process by owning their own health accounts."

Critics say the Republican approach is really an attempt to shift the risks, massive costs and knotty problems of healthcare from employers to individuals. And they say the GOP is moving forward with far less public attention or debate than have surrounded Bush's plans to overhaul Social Security (news - web sites).

Indeed, Bush's health insurance agenda is far more developed than his Social Security plans and is advancing at a rapid clip through a combination of actions by government, insurers, employers and individuals.

Health savings accounts, known as HSAs, have already been approved. They were created as a little-noticed appendage to the 2003 Medicare prescription drug bill.

HSAs have had a strong start in the marketplace. Although regulations spelling out how they would work were not issued until mid-2004, as of Sept. 30, about 440,000 people had signed up. And more than one-quarter of employers say they are likely to offer them as an option.

The accounts are available only to people who buy high-deductible health insurance, either through an employer or individually. Consumers can set aside tax-free an amount equal to their deductible. Employers can contribute to workers' HSAs but do not have to. Unused balances can be rolled over from year to year, and employees take their HSAs with them when they switch jobs.

The idea that losing one's job would not automatically mean losing protection for medical costs has bipartisan appeal. "Portability" was a key feature of President Clinton (news - web sites)'s ill-fated healthcare reform plan. But the GOP approach is significantly different: Whereas Clinton would have required all employers to chip in for universal health insurance, Bush wants to leave responsibility primarily to individuals.

"This is certainly getting a lot of attention from employers," said Jack Rodgers, a healthcare analyst for PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP.

One reason is potential cost savings to employers.

A typical catastrophic health insurance plan carries an annual deductible of about $1,600 for an individual when purchased through a large employer. That means the worker pays the first $1,600 of healthcare expenses each year. By contrast, under the more comprehensive, employer-provided health insurance programs common today, the company begins to pay after about $300 in expenses have been incurred. Deductibles for families are considerably higher under both types of plans.

"There's an issue about whether these things will work," Rodgers said. "[But] we could end up coming back 10 years from now and everybody will have high-deductible plans and [health savings accounts]."

Sen. Ron Wyden (news, bio, voting record) (D-Ore.), who agrees with Bush that individuals should take more responsibility for controlling health costs, is nonetheless skeptical that HSAs, coupled with high-deductible insurance, will prove workable as a substitute for the present system.

"I think the American people are going to want more of a safety net than the administration has been willing to commit to this far," Wyden said.

Still, catastrophic health insurance is gaining credibility as a policy option.

The California Medical Assn. supports a plan that would require all residents of the most populous state to carry at least high-deductible coverage — just as automobile liability insurance is often mandatory. White House spokesman Trent Duffy said Bush was not contemplating such a requirement at the federal level.

But the existence of health savings accounts may make it easier to enact state mandates such as the California proposal.

Despite the record federal budget deficit, Bush on Wednesday proposed additional tax breaks and subsidies for HSAs, particularly for low-income families. He also called for a tax credit to help small businesses offer the plans to their employees. The low-income aid would be worth a maximum of $3,000 per family.

"Health savings accounts all aim at empowering people to make decisions for themselves, owning their own healthcare plan," the president said. Consumer-driven decision-making is more likely to control costs than having bills paid by a third party, such as an employer, he added.

"If a third party makes that payment, [the consumer] never gets to ask the question [about cost]," Bush said. "He just accepts the decision. And all of a sudden, when you have consumers starting to ask questions about cost, it is a governor on cost, at the very minimum."

During his confirmation hearings, incoming Health and Human Services (news - web sites) Secretary Michael Leavitt called for renewing the national debate over the future of the healthcare system and spoke of "the transformational need of detaching healthcare and employment."

Critics say that Bush's vision represents wishful thinking at best, and at worst, a perilous new direction in national health policy.

"One danger with this is that people will not get needed care because they want to save a few thousand bucks," said Rep. Pete Stark (D-Hayward), a leading lawmaker on healthcare.

"Healthcare isn't like buying a Chevrolet," Stark added, disputing Bush's assertion that individual patients can be empowered to control costs. "You can go to Consumer Reports and read about the new Malibu, but if I asked you to describe a regimen of chemotherapy for someone who has colon cancer, you'd be out of gas.

"We are talking about highly technical services that 99% of the public doesn't even know how to spell the names of," he said. "Secondly, there is no uniformity within the medical community as to what services ought to be used. It's a 'by guess and by gosh' sort of practice."

The combination of HSAs and catastrophic insurance is too new for any definitive data on how consumers are faring.

A study released Thursday by the Commonwealth Fund, a private foundation that supports research on healthcare policy, found that people with high-deductible policies were more likely to have trouble paying medical bills than those in traditional insurance plans. They were also more likely to skip care because of cost.

The study did not look at the combination of high-deductible plans with HSAs, but the report cautioned that the savings accounts might not solve all the problems.

Many experts believe HSAs could quickly become one of the main ways to obtain health insurance for people working in small companies or buying coverage on their own.

Workers at large companies with standard health plans may be less likely to experiment with HSAs, although many large employers are already requiring their workers to shoulder a bigger share of health insurance costs. The existence of a government-sanctioned alternative to the traditional system might accelerate that trend.

"We are not trying to do one big change for the whole country, all at once — like what sunk Hillary-care," said Grace-Marie Turner, president of the Galen Institute, a research organization that promotes conservative, market-based health reform.

"We want to let people choose this if it meets their needs, and not rip out the underpinnings of the current system."

When you couple this with the plan the Bush Adminstration floated last November to do away with the business tax cut for providing health insurance to employees one has to wonder exactly how developed is their health care plan. It should be called how to kill off the proletariat.

This is a horrible policy for people with chronic medical conditions, it doesn't address prescriptions and some prescriptions, especially for those with chronic conditions, can cost more than a house payment a month. This not only does nothing to address the uninsured it will ravage the middle class. You cannot make someone a better consumer and expect them to own a chronic condition that requires a 1500.00 dollar a month prescription, or weekly dialysis. We will see more and more people putting off care, not taking high blood pressure medications therefore having more strokes, not having mamograms therefore a rise in undiagnosed breast cancer and those nagging arm pains, it is probably a pinched nerve so more open heart surgery. It won't cause an ownership society. It will cause the lower and middle class to die off faster, and maybe that is the goal after all.

The Iraqi Elections

Well it wasn't a bloodbath, I was wrong. I guess shutting down all of Iraq for 72 hours made Iraq somewhat safe for those who wanted to vote. I am glad that I was wrong. This should in no way discount those who did lose their lives yesterday in the violence in Iraq, and there was some violence, just not what was feared and expected.

Is George W. Bush the great liberator of the Iraqi peoples? No, and for a reality based take on why not I suggest reading Publius' over at LegalFiction take on the elections. I would post a link, but I fear every time I do so blogger tells me that I am incompetent. publius

Saturday, January 29, 2005

Weblog Commenting and Trackback by

The American Embassy in Baghdad...

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - A rocket attack on the U.S. embassy compound in Baghdad's Green Zone killed two Americans and wounded four, a U.S. embassy spokesman said on Saturday. "It hit near the embassy building," embassy spokesman Bob Callahan said. "There are two dead and four who are wounded...all Americans."

The next 24 hours are going to be a bloodbath. The escalation of violence in the last week should lead us to expect no less. If it was a rocket or mortar attack as is being reported the insurgents are very brave, it is my understanding that such attacks can be traced with some success.

Will they be successful in keeping people from voting? I suspect so, at least to some degree. What a disaster, what a mess.

Day late and a dollar short

From yesterdays NYT's editorial
Krugman's Little Black Lies
The persistent gap in life expectancy between African-Americans and whites is one measure of the deep inequalities that remain in our society - including highly unequal access to good-quality health care. We ought to be trying to diminish that gap, especially given the fact that black infants are two and half times as likely as white babies to die in their first year.
Now nobody can expect instant progress in reducing health inequalities.
But the benefits of Social Security privatized, if any, won't materialize for many decades. By using blacks' low life expectancy as an argument for privatized, Mr. Bush is in effect taking it as a given that 40 or 50 years from now, large numbers of African-Americans will still be dying before their time.
Is this an example of what Mr. Bush famously called "the soft bigotry of low expectations?" Maybe not: it isn't particularly soft to treat premature black deaths not as a tragedy we must end but as just another way to push your ideological agenda. But bigotry - yes, that sounds like the right word.

Senator John Kerry, on January 27th gave a speech; I am guessing it is his first in his run for President in 2008, in it he outlined a plan to cover all uninsured children. Now, no matter how you feel about Kerry this is a good idea and one we can all get behind. The costs of healthcare do go up because of emergency room visits for colds, flu and minor aliments that could be treated at a doctors office but aren't because of lack of insurance. It is not only a wise investment in terms of dollars, it does something to address what Krugman writes about above the health inequalities minorities in this country face.

Bush's plan? More health care savings accounts, which a study released the same day as Kerry's speech, shows prevents those in the lower to moderate income brackets, facing high deductibles, from traditional prevetative medical care : filing prescriptions and having test run because it is too expensive. It does nothing to address the uninsured as usual.