Thursday, April 1, 2010

Today's health care reading

See sidebar on right side of page for a collection of all health care bill readings.

Here is today's reading of the health care bill. I'm reading the Senate bill first, then the smaller and less comprehensive reconciliation bill. Feel free to correct me or post clarifications in the comments section.

Page 30. Section 2717: Ensuring the quality of care. This section requires health insurers to "improve health outcomes through the implementation of activities such as quality reporting, effective case management, chronic disease management, medication, and care compliance initiatives." Sounds like the government is taking an active interest in "health outcomes". Wonder what regulations this little clause will create. However, Section B goes a little further as it directs the insurers to "implement activities to prevent hospital readmissions" through patient education, counseling, and "post discharge reinforcement by an appropriate health care professional." Some of this stuff is normal hospital and medical procedures but it is the government which is issuing these regulations via statute. These are the sort of clauses a bureaucrat can have a great deal of fun with in issuing regulations.

Notice the government is directing the practice of medicine here? This goes past ensuring access to health care for all Americans but instead makes it clear the government has a strong interest in "health outcomes". This section also requires insurers file annual reports with the government showing it satisfies the requirements of this section. If they don't comply, then, surprise, it states "the Secretary may develop and impose appropriate penalties for non-compliance with such requirements." So what exactly is an "appropriate" penalty? Good question. Guess that will depend on the mercy of the Secretary.

Oh, by the way, this section also requires insurers to "implement wellness and health promotion activities" (D). Page 33 explains this in more detail.

Page 34. Section 2718: Bringing down the cost of health care coverage. Guess what? All health insurers get AUDITED. This section requires issuers to submit a plan each year to the government "concerning the percentage of total premium revenue" the insurance plan spends on payments for "clinical services", "activities that improve health care quality", and (this is important) "on all other "non-claims costs" (in other words, OVERHEAD, PROFITS, WAGES) "including an explanation of the nature of such costs" (taxes are excluded of course). In other words, the government is going to require the health insurer to account for every single penny spent regardless of purpose. Keep in mind, insurance companies have to submit audited financial statements every quarter but this bill goes a little bit past that requirements. Read on.

Section (b) it titled "Ensuring that consumers receive value for their premium payments". It directs the issuer to offer "a REBATE to EACH ENROLLEE". How much is the rebate to be? The rebate is to be pro-rated based on, make sure your head is screwed on tightly, "an amount by which premium revenue expended by the issuer" on non-claims revenue (Overhead, profits, wages). exceeds 20% if a group plan and 25% if an individual plan. HOWEVER the government can change the percentage if it thinks it will destabilize the market in a state.

In fact, section (2) (page 35) states "a state shall seek to ensure adequate participation by health insurance issuers, competition in the health insurance market in the state, and value for consumers.." The important word in this sentence is "competition". If the goal of the state is ensure competition, then the state can and will take certain measures it deems needed in order to make sure the consumer has adequate "choice". Gee Kingfish, can you explain that one?

If the goal is to ensure competition, then the government is not going to allow successful, better-managed companies to gain what it thinks is so great a market share that it will affect competition. This happened in the New Deal: wage and price controls as well as production quotas and maximums were established so that "competition" was encouraged. In reality, the companies that are inefficient and poorly-run are instead allowed to operate. However, this section does terminate at the end of December 31, 2013.

Subsection (c) (p. 36) also requires hospitals to publish "a list of the hospital's standard charges for items and services provided by the hospital". I just bet the hospitals loved that one.

Copy of bill

35 comments:

Paul Mitchell said...

I am just curious, is there ANYONE that has had a medical procedure that did not ask what the cost was UP FRONT? Why does this even need to be done? Is there so high-powered MENU lobby that is wining and dining the idiots that wrote this bill?

Andrew said...

many, many people don't ask what a procedure is going to cost up front because it is medical advice coming from their trusted physician. most people believe that when their doctor recommends a procedure, they need to follow those orders without a cost-benefit analysis.

doctors' offices don't exactly encourage the inquiry on pricing either. no schedule (or menu) is provided, and normally if you ask someone in the doctor's office, they can't (or won't) give you a straight answer. usually it is some mixture of "well, it depends on what insurance you have", "I can't tell you because i don't know your deductible and co-pay", etc. they avoid giving a bottom line cost. The reason is because the cost of the procedure is radically different, depending on what the patient's healthcare status is. Medicaid, private insurance, self-insured, all produce different actual payments to the doctor. as usual, the doctor charges the uninsured or self-insured more because he is not constrained by a maximum payment like in the situation with a large insurance company.

if, god forbid, you tell them that you are not insured (even if that is by choice), or "self insured", then you become a pariah and end up bearing the highest cost.

Paul Mitchell said...

Andrew, I have never NOT asked what something is going to cost and I ALWAYS tell them that I have no insurance. Funny, I have also always found the inverse of what you said to be true. You need new friends and a new ideology.

Andrew said...

well, paul, you and i agree about nothing. that is no surprise.

i have chosen to be self-insured at different periods of time, primarily when i was younger, and i am reflecting my experience directly.

i am glad you are very in control of you. pat yourself on the back. you are doing a great job.

Paul Mitchell said...

Andrew, thanks.

Kingfish said...

Now, does that mean, profits of insurance companies are capped? If they go over a certain level, then the enrollee gets a rebate?

Anonymous said...

if, god forbid, you tell them that you are not insured (even if that is by choice), or "self insured", then you become a pariah and end up bearing the highest cost.

Oh yes, those evil doctors. They have a secret list of higher charges they pull out to ding the self-insured. And, holy shit, you should see the ultra 'top secret' list of exorbitant charges they pull out for those that dare to pay for their bills in cash. Never, never, NEVER pay in cash because doctors despise the people who pay in cash more than they do the self-insured. Doctors are evvvvviiiiillllllllll.

Anonymous said...

Promoting health...maybe they'll pay my Courthouse membership...

Anonymous said...

Contrary to Andrew's claim, it is ILLEGAL for a physician to charge different rates for the same service, no matter what insurance coverage a patient may have. Some insurance companies negotiate a discount off the charge, which is a feature they use in marketing to attract customers, since it means a reduced co-pay for the patient (i.e., 20% of the discounted charge). If you don't want to pay an insurance premium no one has previously forced you to (that has changed now, of course), and you can save your money to pay the full charge of any service you request in the future. The lack of a discount is what makes a service cost more for the uninsured than the insured. Medicare and Medicaid pay what they want (no matter what the charge is), and physicians can accept Medicaid or Medicare, or not.

Anonymous said...

Andrew wants us to pay his bills too!

Paul Mitchell said...

Anon 12:26, not to dispute your statement that it is illegal to charge different rates, but don't you then turn around and dispute your own statement?

Since Medicaid and Medicare pay less than 80% of the cost of most treatments, doesn't that tell you that different rates are charged for different users anyway?

And finally, when doctors do not have to do additional paperwork required for insurance companies, wouldn't logic tell you that using cash would be cheaper than insurance?

Anonymous said...

Uninsured / Self-insured patients do not in fact pay a higher amount than insured patients pay. This falacy completely discounts the fact that the insured patient has already paid significant sums of money for his/her medical care before they even step into an office or hospital. These may either be in the form of premiums paid by the patient / guardian or premiums paid by the employer (and received by the employee in leiu of money). The premiums purchace health care for the patient (sometimes at a negotiated reduced group fee structure) and also go to pay for insurance against large outlays of money by the patient in the event of catastrophic need (much like a bookie laying off a large bet with a larger bookie in Vegus). The providers (Doc's, hospitals, etc.) accept the reduced fee structure as a trade to gain (sometimes exclusive)something of value namely access to the group with the hope of making up the difference on volume.

That the self-insured patient dosen't have the ability (or gumption) to negotiate a lower fee on the front end for a particular service is not the fault of the insured patient. It is in fact the inherent risk of betting that you will not get sick and forgoing the cost of insurance.

Negotiating fees after the fact (where the only card you are holding is to not pay) reminds me of the scene in "Blazing Saddles" where Clevon Little is holding himself hostage..."Hold it! Next man makes a move, the patient gets it!"

Jawbreaker

Anonymous said...

Since Medicaid and Medicare pay less than 80% of the cost of most treatments, doesn't that tell you that different rates are charged for different users anyway?

Only the net is different.

Anonymous said...

Good point Jawbreaker. KF, as to you question, I believe the bill means exactly as you think.....the government has legislated the profit margin for the insurance companies. Such actions were also part of FDR's National Recovery Act, which was struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.....and subsequently led to FDR's schemes to restructure the Supreme Court, by forcing madatory retirement at 70 and increasing the number of justices to 15.

If you can't beat them.....buy them.

Anonymous said...

KF, In response to your question, here is a web link of interest regarding how Mass. is dealing with the problem of price controls.

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/04/health-care-price-controls-hit.html

Anonymous said...

Shhhhhh. The Social Democratic Party doesn't want you to know about their plans to mandate wage and price controls. They fear people would see it as ... you know ... that word they want to run away and hide from ... Socialism.

Anonymous said...

I am a nurse. The reason most Doctors and nurses cant give you a price of something is because they dont do the billing. They perform tests and use a code system that all insurance companys use to identify what was done.Any person can find a medical coding book at the book store. Doctors and nurses never see how much is being billed. this is why they dont know. you need to ask the billing dept.

Anonymous said...

Doctors don't give you fees because they do not want to. The task is delegated to another so that the Dr. can remain compasionate and caring. It is hard to remain so when bartering or bargining with a patient about the cost of their health care. In addition most doctors have no idea what the cost of a hospital stay, a radiographic procedure or a time in the OR as charged by the hospital or outpatient facility. Furthermore the facility dosen't want them to know and actively keeps them in the dark.

JB

Anonymous said...

You've made the point for me, J.B. Only in the field of medicine can the practitioner say "we don't want to haggle with you because if we do, then we may not be compassionate and caring."

So much for that Hippocratic oath, I guess.

Lawyers don't get to elect to pass on describing their fee structure and haggling with clients about what is reasonable. This happens with clients frequently. When a client tells me he can only pay X amount, I don't get to do less of a job representing him vigorously. I have to determine if I can represent him on that basis.

That goes the same for accountants, architects, and the people who offer lawn care services, for that matter.

The idea that medicine is somehow different than any other service is what creates the cognitive dissonance between the consumer and the doctor.

And, to the nurse, again, the fact that you don't know, and that you refer people to buy a book to explain your doctor's fees is hysterical. If you went to a mechanic and asked him how much it was going to cost to fix your alternator, and he couldn't answer because he wasn't the bookkeeper, you'd be pissed.

Then, if you pressed him for details, and he told you that if you really wanted to know, there was a book you could go buy, you would probably think about going to a different mechanic.

Healthcare is a service, like any other. The idea that doctors are miracle workers because their service affects health is what has perpetuated the idea that they are somehow above the tedium of actually dealing with their patients regarding the costs of their services.

I was not clear in stating that doctors have different rates for insured v. uninsured. The initial rates might be the same. But, uninsured patients do pay a higher rate than insured patients, as end users.

Ex: I have a $600 employer paid plan that requires me to only pay $25 for a visit that the doctor charges $300 for, but only gets paid $100 by the insurance company. I, as an end user, pay $25 for care and the doctor only makes $125.

Same person without insurance goes for the same visit, and is required to pay the $300 "at the time service is rendered", as the cute signs in most offices require.

The rates are the same, except that the doctor realizes the only time he'll get his full charge is from the uninsured. If they can't pay, they don't get to see the doctor.

Andrew

Anonymous said...

1) Paul Mitchell - wrong again. If you ever get an EOB after a service you will see the initial charge. It is the same for all patients who received the same service. Other columns list adjustments (e.g., discounts negotiated by insurance plans, other contracted adjustments) that may apply to an individual's situation, and affect the net payment. Gross and net are very different concepts.

2) Andrew - I see that you are a lawyer, which may explain why you can't seem to grasp simple concepts. A physician is responsible ONLY for his or her own performance, not for other physicians or facilities. If a study (e.g., a CT scan) is recommended to help determine a diagnosis or prognosis, why should anyone expect the family doctor in Duckberg to know what the radiologist in the Big City to charge? If you need a muffler and tires, is would any reasonable person expect the counter clerk at Meineke to be able to accurately know the current tire prices at Walmart?

Paul Mitchell said...

Anon 10:11, I appreciate your opinion, but I have always paid less with cash. And that appears to be the case with everyone (minus one person) that has chimed in to me.

Anonymous said...

Ex: I have a $600 employer paid plan that requires me to only pay $25 for a visit that the doctor charges $300 for, but only gets paid $100 by the insurance company. I, as an end user, pay $25 for care and the doctor only makes $125.

Same person without insurance goes for the same visit, and is required to pay the $300 "at the time service is rendered", as the cute signs in most offices require.


The rates are the same, the net charges differ.

What a rigged example. "Employer paid" plans are few and far between in the private sector.

Thanks for identifying your profession. It sheds a great deal of light on the bias within your commentaries.

Anonymous said...

Paul, you must not be much of a consumer.
If you paid cash for a car from a dealer, you paid MORE than if you financed the car.
Anybody business owners that don't know they'll make more money if they finance the goods they sell ( offered credit and get to charge interest) is probably struggling if not already out of business.
If you paid cash " off the books" ,you are aiding and abetting a businessman engaged in tax fraud...way to go. Thanks for raising all our taxes with that.
There are exceptions but good grief!
Did you pay cash for your house because if you NEVER buy on credit, I don't know how you got a loan!
Are you in a nursing home?

Anonymous said...

No one is attacking doctors...frankly, I don't know why they aren't PO'd about how the insurance industry controls what they can charge. I actually believe a highly competent doctor should be able to charge more for a procedure than the doctor at the bottom of his profession.
I'm old enough to remember when medicine and the law were professions not BUSINESSES. I think things worked better.

Paul Mitchell said...

Anon 5:30, do you really believe if you pay cash for a car, you pay MORE than someone who finances a car? REALLY?

If so, I think this is an utterly useless conversation.

Anonymous said...

Paul, I don't just THINK it, I know it if YOU bought from a car dealer. IF you bought in a private sale, sure...maybe and maybe you have a great mechanic so you had zero " as is" risk. And, maybe you haven't figured into the cost of the car any repair costs.

They got you on what you paid for the vehicle.

IF you were as smart as you imagine, you'd finance, get a pay off clause and have it both ways. Or, you'd get a price saying you'll finance with the dealer and then accept the price and whip out your check book ( or do you carry that much on you?) Do you believe ONLY GMAC made money on the interest on a Chevy sale?

And, NO, I don't buy NEW. Not since my relative with the dealership died.

Whaddaya do , Paul, offer them cash at less than Blue Book and think you walked away with a DEAL?

You advise Deuce on how to make money in the car biz?

ROFL

Paul Mitchell said...

Again, if you believe for one second that you pay LESS by financing a car, we really have nothing else to discuss.

The term is BECLOWN.

Anonymous said...

If you paid cash for a car from a dealer, you paid MORE than if you financed the car.

Absolutely and categorically FALSE.

KaptKangaroo said...

Let the Kapt. take care of this foolishness...

TIME VALUE OF MONEY.

GO get your MBA...

Anonymous said...

It's cash value of money,not time value and I do...have an MBA.

We can all agree...one hopes...that when you finance a car, you pay much more for the car.

When you finance a car through the dealership, the dealership and the manufacturer will make more of a profit on the transaction.

That is true especially for the manufacturer so it's in their interest to encourage and reward financing through them.

Are you all with me so far?

If you make more profit, you have more room to negotiate. Like if you mark up a widget 150% of your cost, you can put the widget on sale for 75% off and still profit.

Of course, I did not assume illegal transactions. If you are criminals, nevermind.

Anonymous said...

Oh, and I hope none of you have ever traded in a car during these " cash deals"

IF you guys were nearly as good at " horse trading" as the dealerships lead you to believe, the car industry might not have gotten so screwed up.

And, pray tell, which MBA course did you take that dealt with automobile industry practices in detail? You took finance and marketing and accounting and business law and statistics and economics, etc. like the rest of us. Learned all the formulas, did case analysis, read theories,problem solved, did critical paths. You can talk in jargon now and dazzle everyone.

Anonymous said...

The dealer has a car on his lot from the manufacturer. What is the difference in what he pays the manufacturer for that car if he sells that car through financing from the manufacturer vs what he receives if you buy that same car for cash?

Now, can we get on to health care.
Poor KF...all this work and all he gets are the same old " I'm agin it" and next to NOTHING specific about what's wrong with the sections provided.

Anonymous said...

Can we call you (12:51+1:18) the idiot troll?

Andrew said...

Back to healthcare, here is what you said in response to my post:

The rates are the same, the net charges differ.

What a rigged example. "Employer paid" plans are few and far between in the private sector.

Thanks for identifying your profession. It sheds a great deal of light on the bias within your commentaries.

Let's see: ad hominem attack because you don't have any valid justification for your post, check.

random claim unsupported by any citation or fact (private plans are few), check.

arguing your way right into my point, check.

the net charges do differ. that's the point. the end user, the patient, has different outcomes depending on the level of insurance that he/she has. and the less insurance, the worse the net outcome for the patient. that was my point to begin with; that, and the fact that doctors don't feel like they need to be transparent about their billing.

I have a employer paid health plan, as does my wife. I can only speak from personal experience, but since we both have it (and four out of the four friends that I asked do as well, including lawyers, UPS employees, photojournalist), I can't agree that private employer paid plans are few and far between.

I don't have any bias because I am a lawyer. I have a bias because of my personal experiences with the healthcare system, such as having an insurance company try to deny my mother's coverage in the middle of cancer treatment based on a pre-existing condition. Such as asking a doctor how much a surgery for my son was going to be, and having them tell me that I needed to give them my insurance info before they could give me an approximation. having to get a letter from my wife's ob that stated the exact date of conception of our first son so that his delivery would be covered under a policy.

y'know; little stuff like that.

Andrew

Flame on, flamer.

Anonymous said...

Rational and logical and accurate, Andrew. How refreshingly different.



Recent Comments

Search Jackson Jambalaya

Subscribe to JJ's Youtube channel

Archives

Trollfest '09

Trollfest '07 was such a success that Jackson Jambalaya will once again host Trollfest '09. Catch this great event which will leave NE Jackson & Fondren in flames. Othor Cain and his band, The Black Power Structure headline the night while Sonjay Poontang returns for an encore performance. Former Frank Melton bodyguard Marcus Wright makes his premier appearance at Trollfest singing "I'm a Sweet Transvestite" from "The Rocky Horror Picture Show." Kamikaze will sing his new hit, “How I sold out to da Man.” Robbie Bell again performs: “Mamas, don't let your babies grow up to be Bells” and “Any friend of Ed Peters is a friend of mine”. After the show, Ms. Bell will autograph copies of her mug shot photos. In a salute to “Dancing with the Stars”, Ms. Bell and Hinds County District Attorney Robert Smith will dance the Wango Tango.

Wrestling returns, except this time it will be a Battle Royal with Othor Cain, Ben Allen, Kim Wade, Haley Fisackerly, Alan Lange, and “Big Cat” Donna Ladd all in the ring at the same time. The Battle Royal will be in a steel cage, no time limit, no referee, and the losers must leave town. Marshand Crisler will be the honorary referee (as it gives him a title without actually having to do anything).


Meet KIM Waaaaaade at the Entergy Tent. For five pesos, Kim will sell you a chance to win a deed to a crack house on Ridgeway Street stuffed in the Howard Industries pinata. Don't worry if the pinata is beaten to shreds, as Mr. Wade has Jose, Emmanuel, and Carlos, all illegal immigrants, available as replacements for the it. Upon leaving the Entergy tent, fig leaves will be available in case Entergy literally takes everything you have as part of its Trollfest ticket price adjustment charge.

Donna Ladd of The Jackson Free Press will give several classes on learning how to write. Smearing, writing without factchecking, and reporting only one side of a story will be covered. A donation to pay their taxes will be accepted and she will be signing copies of their former federal tax liens. Ms. Ladd will give a dramatic reading of her two award-winning essays (They received The Jackson Free Press "Best Of" awards.) "Why everything is always about me" and "Why I cover murders better than anyone else in Jackson".

In the spirit of helping those who are less fortunate, Trollfest '09 adopts a cause for which a portion of the proceeds and donations will be donated: Keeping Frank Melton in his home. The “Keep Frank Melton From Being Homeless” booth will sell chances for five dollars to pin the tail on the jackass. John Reeves has graciously volunteered to be the jackass for this honorable excursion into saving Frank's ass. What's an ass between two friends after all? If Mr. Reeves is unable to um, perform, Speaker Billy McCoy has also volunteered as when the word “jackass” was mentioned he immediately ran as fast as he could to sign up.


In order to help clean up the legal profession, Adam Kilgore of the Mississippi Bar will be giving away free, round-trip plane tickets to the North Pole where they keep their bar complaint forms (which are NOT available online). If you don't want to go to the North Pole, you can enjoy Brant Brantley's (of the Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance) free guided tours of the quicksand field over by High Street where all complaints against judges disappear. If for some reason you are unable to control yourself, never fear; Judge Houston Patton will operate his jail where no lawyers are needed or allowed as you just sit there for minutes... hours.... months...years until he decides he is tired of you sitting in his jail. Do not think Judge Patton is a bad judge however as he plans to serve free Mad Dog 20/20 to all inmates.

Trollfest '09 is a pet-friendly event as well. Feel free to bring your dog with you and do not worry if your pet gets hungry, as employees of the Jackson Zoo will be on hand to provide some of their animals as food when it gets to be feeding time for your little loved one.

Relax at the Fox News Tent. Since there are only three blonde reporters in Jackson (being blonde is a requirement for working at Fox News), Megan and Kathryn from WAPT and Wendy from WLBT will be on loan to Fox. To gain admittance to the VIP section, bring either your Republican Party ID card or a Rebel Flag. Bringing both and a torn-up Obama yard sign will entitle you to free drinks served by Megan, Wendy, and Kathryn. Get your tickets now. Since this is an event for trolls, no ID is required. Just bring the hate. Bring the family, Trollfest '09 is for EVERYONE!!!

This is definitely a Beaver production.


Note: Security provided by INS.

Trollfest '07

Jackson Jambalaya is the home of Trollfest '07. Catch this great event which promises to leave NE Jackson & Fondren in flames. Sonjay Poontang and his band headline the night with a special steel cage, no time limit "loser must leave town" bout between Alan Lange and "Big Cat"Donna Ladd following afterwards. Kamikaze will perform his new song F*** Bush, he's still a _____. Did I mention there was no referee? Dr. Heddy Matthias and Lori Gregory will face off in the undercard dueling with dangling participles and other um, devices. Robbie Bell will perform Her two latest songs: My Best Friends are in the Media and Mama's, Don't Let Your Babies Grow up to be George Bell. Sid Salter of The Clarion-Ledger will host "Pin the Tail on the Trial Lawyer", sponsored by State Farm.

There will be a hugging booth where in exchange for your young son, Frank Melton will give you a loooong hug. Trollfest will have a dunking booth where Muhammed the terrorist will curse you to Allah as you try to hit a target that will drop him into a vat of pig grease. However, in the true spirit of Separate But Equal, Don Imus and someone from NE Jackson will also sit in the dunking booth for an equal amount of time. Tom Head will give a reading for two hours on why he can't figure out who the hell he is. Cliff Cargill will give lessons with his .80 caliber desert eagle, using Frank Melton photos as targets. Tackleberry will be on hand for an autograph session. KIM Waaaaaade will be passing out free titles and deeds to crackhouses formerly owned by The Wood Street Players.

If you get tired come relax at the Fox News Tent. To gain admittance to the VIP section, bring either your Republican Party ID card or a Rebel Flag. Bringing both will entitle you to free drinks.Get your tickets now. Since this is an event for trolls, no ID is required, just bring the hate. Bring the family, Trollfest '07 is for EVERYONE!!!

This is definitely a Beaver production.

Note: Security provided by INS
.