Monday, January 7, 2013

Fwd: qotd: Growth of national health expenditures, 2011

_______________________________________________
Quote-of-the-day mailing list
Quote-of-the-day@mccanne.org
http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/quote-of-the-day

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: qotd: Growth of national health expenditures, 2011
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2013 14:44:24 -0800
From: Don McCanne <don@mccanne.org>
To: Quote-of-the-Day <quote-of-the-day@mccanne.org>



Health Affairs
January 2013
National Health Spending In 2011: Overall Growth Remains Low, But Some
Payers And Services Show Signs Of Acceleration
By Micah Hartman, Anne B. Martin, Joseph Benson, Aaron Catlin, the
National Health Expenditure Accounts Team

Abstract

In 2011 US health care spending grew 3.9 percent to reach $2.7 trillion,
marking the third consecutive year of relatively slow growth. Growth in
national health spending closely tracked growth in nominal gross
domestic product (GDP) in 2010 and 2011, and health spending as a share
of GDP remained stable from 2009 through 2011, at 17.9 percent. Even as
growth in spending at the national level has remained stable, personal
health care spending growth accelerated in 2011 (from 3.7 percent to 4.1
percent), in part because of faster growth in spending for prescription
drugs and physician and clinical services. There were also divergent
trends in spending growth in 2011 depending on the payment source:
Medicaid spending growth slowed, while growth in Medicare, private
health insurance, and out-of-pocket spending accelerated. Overall, there
was relatively slow growth in incomes, jobs, and GDP in 2011, which
raises questions about whether US health care spending will rebound over
the next few years as it typically has after past economic downturns.

Out-Of-Pocket Spending

Faster growth in 2011 reflects higher cost sharing for group health
insurance plans and increased enrollment in consumer-directed health
plans that have higher deductibles, copayments, or both. Additionally,
increases in the number of uninsured people over the past few years had
resulted in more direct out-of-pocket spending than might otherwise have
been the case.

Medicaid

Slower growth in Medicaid spending reflected states' efforts to control
expenditure growth as the enhanced federal matching rates expired and
state revenues continued to increase at a slow rate. With fewer federal
matching dollars and continued pressure on their budgets, some states
implemented cost-control measures that included provider reimbursement
reductions, eligibility restrictions, benefit reductions, and increased
cost sharing.

Medicare

Medicare spending for physicians' services also accelerated in 2011,
increasing 7.6 percent compared to 3.2 percent growth in 2010, even as
the increase in physicians' fees was lower in 2011. Faster
fee-for-service spending growth for physician services, therefore, is
attributable to a rebound in the volume and intensity of services after
unusually slow growth in 2009 and 2010.

Conclusion

In 2011 national health spending increased 3.9 percent—the same rate of
growth experienced in 2009 and 2010. The recent recession had an
immediate and noticeable effect on the health sector because of high
unemployment, loss of private health insurance coverage, and a reduction
in the resources available to pay for health care. All of these factors
contributed to historically low growth in aggregate health spending
during 2009–11.

In 2011, however, there were some signs of change, evident in faster
growth in nonprice factors such as the use and intensity of health care
goods and services. Additionally, insurance coverage expanded in 2011
for dependents under age twenty-six, and overall private health
insurance coverage did not decline as had been experienced in the prior
three years.

Nonetheless, economic, income, and job growth in 2011 was modest and
less than might normally be expected during an economic recovery. This
fact raises questions about whether the near future will hold the type
of rebound in health care spending typically seen a few years after a
downturn. Data for the years 2012 and 2013 will provide important
indications of the state of the US health system as the major insurance
expansions associated with the Affordable Care Act grow nearer on the
horizon.

http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/32/1/87.abstract


Comment:

National Health Expenditures (NHE), 2011

$2,700.7 - NHE, billions

17.9 - NHE as percent of GDP

$8,680 - NHE per capita

In 2011, health care costs grew at the same rate as the growth in the
gross domestic product (GDP). Thus the recent severe recession and slow
recovery, plus the initial phase of implementation of the Affordable
Care Act, have not had a major impact on the growth of health care spending.

At a time when Medicare spending is under close scrutiny, especially for
potential opportunities to reduce the federal deficit, the fact that the
volume and intensity of services have increased disproportionately
warrants scrutiny. Physician behavior may drive reforms that could have
other consequences, favorable, or more likely unfavorable.

Shifts in Medicaid spending should raise red flags. More of the costs
are being shifted to states at a time that they are facing budget
crises. States are responding with measures such as provider
reimbursement reductions, eligibility restrictions, benefit reductions,
and increased cost sharing. These changes can result in greater
impairment of access just at a time when massive enrollment increases
are anticipated. This can have very serious consequences for a welfare
program that is already critically underfunded.

Out-of-pocket spending is increasing, especially due to an increase in
enrollment in consumer-directed health plans with high deductibles - a
market strategy to reduce health care spending by erecting financial
barriers to care.

Although reducing the increase in health expenditures down to the rate
of increase in the GDP sounds like good news, the trends behind the
numbers should have us all deeply concerned.

Need I say, a single payer...

Friday, January 4, 2013

Fwd: qotd: Uwe Reinhardt explains the complexities in pricing of Medicare Advantage plans

_______________________________________________
Quote-of-the-day mailing list
Quote-of-the-day@mccanne.org
http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/quote-of-the-day

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: qotd: Uwe Reinhardt explains the complexities in pricing of
Medicare Advantage plans
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2013 10:04:49 -0800
From: Don McCanne <don@mccanne.org>
To: Quote-of-the-Day <quote-of-the-day@mccanne.org>



The New York Times
January 4, 2013
The Complexities of Comparing Medicare Choices
By Uwe E. Reinhardt

The roughly 50 million Americans covered by the federal Medicare program
have a choice of receiving their benefits under the traditional,
free-choice, fee-for-service Medicare program or from a private,
managed-care Medicare Advantage plan. The private plans have a steadily
increasing number of enrollees — currently 13 million, or 27 percent of
beneficiaries.

A fundamental question that has engaged health-policy researchers and
commentators for some time is whether coverage of Medicare's standard
benefit package under Medicare Advantage plans is cheaper or more
expensive than it is under traditional fee-for-service Medicare.

The answer is yes.

At the risk of going over ground already covered in Economix and in the
scholarly literature on the subject, this answer may warrant some
explanation.

(At this point, Professor Reinhardt provides an excellent explanation,
with numerous helpful links, of the complexities in pricing of the
Medicare Advantage plans. If you wish to understand this topic better,
and understand why his answer is "yes," the full article is well worth
reading. DMc))


NYT Reader Comments:

Don McCanne
San Juan Capistrano, CA

The only correct "yes" is that Medicare Advantage plans are more
expensive. The extra cost is invisible to beneficiaries because it is
borne by taxpayers. The plans can be considered less expensive only if
you believe that it is fair for taxpayers to provide the private plans
with extra funds for their ability to cheat through well documented
favorable selection (HSR DOI: 10.1111/1475-6773.12006) and the gaming of
risk adjustment (GAO 12-51, Jan 12, 2012 and NBER Working Paper No. 16977).

While we're at it, we should also mention the profound administrative
waste of not only the Medicare Advantage plans but also the private
Medigap plans (the latter paid by excessive premiums), and the
administrative burden that they place on the health care delivery system.

Congress should stop wasting our public funds in these efforts to push
us into private plans. If they took the same public and private funds
already being spent and used those to improve the benefits of the
traditional Medicare program (especially reducing cost sharing and
capping out-of-pocket spending), then we would have an even better
Medicare program. In fact, it could become the basis of the Improved
Medicare for All that many of us long for but has remained elusive to a
large extent because of the elevated stature that the private insurance
industry holds in the Halls of Congress.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/04/the-complexities-of-comparing-medicare-choices/

Thursday, January 3, 2013

Fwd: qotd: Sen. Mark Kirk's lesson for us

_______________________________________________
Quote-of-the-day mailing list
Quote-of-the-day@mccanne.org
http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/quote-of-the-day

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: qotd: Sen. Mark Kirk's lesson for us
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 14:23:15 -0800
From: Don McCanne <don@mccanne.org>
To: Quote-of-the-Day <quote-of-the-day@mccanne.org>



The Hill
January 3, 2013
Sen. Kirk returns to Senate after year-long recovery from stroke
By Emily Goodin

Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) returned to the Senate on Thursday after nearly
a year's absence.

Kirk, who had a stroke in January 2012, walked up the Capitol steps
holding a cane and with the help of Vice President Biden and Sen. Joe
Manchin (D-W.Va.).

Cheers rang out as Kirk began his climb. He walked into the Capitol
shortly before noon, when the 113th Congress was gaveled into session.

http://thehill.com/capital-living/275411-sen-kirk-returns-to-cheers-applause

And...

Chicago Sun-Times
January 2, 2013
Sen. Mark Kirk's message to stroke victims: 'Don't give up'
By Natahsa Korecki

(Sen. Mark Kirk) spoke with the Sun-Times in a sit-down interview in the
U.S. Capitol one day before he plans his dramatic climb up the Capitol
steps. He offered a new perspective on the Illinois Medicaid program and
what it offers to those with low incomes.

He does plan to take a closer look at funding of the Illinois Medicaid
program for those with no income who suffer a stroke, he said. In
general, a person on Medicaid in Illinois would be allowed 11 rehab
visits, he said.

"Had I been limited to that, I would have had no chance to recover like
I did," Kirk said. "So unlike before suffering the stroke, I'm much more
focused on Medicaid and what my fellow citizens face."

Kirk has the same federal health-care coverage available to other
federal employees. He has incurred major out-of-pocket expenses, which
have affected his savings and retirement, sources familiar with Kirk's
situation said.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/17348299-418/mark-kirk-says-he-would-support-an-assault-weapons-ban.html


Comment: It was quite moving watching the live C-SPAN broadcast of Sen.
Mark Kirk today, climbing the Capitol steps to the resounding ovation
given to him by his colleagues in the Senate. After his severely
debilitating stroke, his message to other stroke victims is, "Don't give
up," and he didn't.

He has had a year to think about stroke victims on Medicaid in Illinois
and what the limit of a total of eleven rehabilitation visits must mean
to them. This is clearly an inhumane public policy that must be changed.

But what about all of the other patients with major medical problems who
do not get the care that they need because they are uninsured, or
Medicaid doesn't provide adequate access, or private insurance...

What about private insurance? Sen. Kirk has coverage through the Federal
Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) - a menu of private health
plans. That is about as good coverage as you can get today, yet with the
major out-of-pocket expenses, it has not protected his savings and
retirement.

We have a much bigger problem in health care other than simply trying to
figure out how we can get Medicaid patients adequate rehabilitative
services after a stroke.

If only Sen. Kirk's colleagues in the Senate and House could learn from
his travails. They might begin to consider that we really do need a
comprehensive health care system that takes care of all of us - an
Improved Medicare for All.

In the battle for reform, remember Sen. Kirk's words, "Don't give up."