news-record.com

BLOGS

Off the Record

The cost of health-care reform

The study by PriceWaterhouseCoopers, commissioned by the insurance industry and contending that average families will pay thousands more for medical coverage under legislation proposed by Congress, shouldn't necessarily be accepted at face value.

But it surely ought to give pause to anyone who really believes we can come out of Washington-directed health-care reform with better coverage for less cost.

It seems to me the best way to save money is to cut down on unnecessary tests and medical procedures. Then improve overall wellness through better lifestyle choices. Both require a change in American culture.

Permalink

Posted by Doug Clark on Monday, October 12, 2009 at 8:26 am

This article has been closed to new comments. Comments are generally closed after 14 days. However, comments may be closed earlier at the discretion of the News & Record.

Inappropriate content? Please report abuse.

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

tghdobro

October 12, 2009 - 9:28 am EDT

When given the option, most of my staff stayed with their traditional employer-paid health coverage. After researching it, I switched my family and I to an HSA. Now that we are in control of a growing chunk of money that is ours and not being paid to the insurance company, it has changed how we think about things. We are far more proactive with regard to exercise, diet and decision-making. We look at that HSA savings account as a nest egg for my daughter's braces and/or other planned and predictable medical expenses.

Andrew Clark

October 12, 2009 - 11:08 am EDT

The report is nothing short of ridiculous. It is based on the assumptions that have no bearing on the real world. One example is that it assumes that if a public plan cuts a payment to a hospital, a private plan must make an equal increase. It also assumes that if a cheaper plan becomes available to someone, they will keep purchasing their more expensive plan. PWC is the same group that did a study funded by tobacco companies saying that cigarette taxes would cause economic collapse. They know who's paying their checks.

How does "cutting down on unnecessary tests and medical procedures" require a change in American culture? That just requires a change in incentives. If you're paid per procedure you'll tend to do more procedures.

The reason people think we can get better coverage for less cost isn't just because it's theoretically possible or it's been done before, but because every single industrial country but us has done it! I'm sorry, but I'm not ready to believe that Americans are dumber or less competent than the rest of the world and can't do this.

Doug

October 12, 2009 - 11:20 am EDT

How does it require a change in culture?

NPR's report this morning, "How the modern patient drives up health costs," speaks very clearly to that question.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113664923

We demand more tests, more treatments, more surgeries, more medications. Too often, doctors are afraid to say no.

There are other cultural factors that drive up costs -- drunken driving, reckless driving in general, drug and alcohol abuse, violence.

The first comment points to sensible actions to control costs. That family has effected a change of culture.

Just a hundred million more, and we're there.

tonymo

October 12, 2009 - 12:40 pm EDT

Andrew, you are the poster boy for the wonderful job our government schools, and government propaganda have done brainwashing so many of our citizens. You simply accept every lie the government tells you. Then to check it, you go to your favorite left wing web sites like the Center for American Progerss, Podesta's Obama fan club.

Please explain how it is possible for two entitites to provide the same (or better as O' tells us!) coverage with more choices, and save money. There is only ONE possible way, RATIONING! That is what every single payer system does. Look at the cancer death rates in your beloved single payer systems versus here in our "terrible" system. In those countries people die awaiting MRIs and CT Scans that could have detected their cancer, and perhaps saved lives!

In 2005 the Canada Supreme Court ruled that Canadians could purchase PRIVATE care because of long wait periods. The suit was brought by an elderly Canadian who had been waiting a year for a hip replacement. Canada has about 33 million, not 300 million citizens.

In the UK thye had to make a change that would require folks wait no more than 4 hours in ER waiting rooms. I wonder how that worked. How do you write something into a plan that can affect waiting times? Why does a Wash. State medical diagnostic company advertise timely CT Scans, and MRI tests in British Columbia?

How did the CBO score a plan that does not exist! The corrupt lying Demo-Rats want an OUTLINE scored, voted on, passed so they can then put into the bill whatever they want! Apparently Andrew, you and the brainwashed government apologists, have no problem with major pieces of legislation being handled in such a dishonest manner.

How about the monumental lie that the plan, that doesn't yet exist, will reduce the deficit by $81 billion. How do they arrive at that lie? Simple. They begin collecting taxes, and making Medicare cuts in 2010, but make the benefits available in 2013. So they collect money for 10 years, then provide benefits for 7 years! Quickly now Andrew, what does that do to deficits from 10 years out? Right, it explodes them! But the Nobel Peace recipient won't "sign any bill that raises the deficit!"

Senator Hatch went to the head of the CBO and asked him to look into the potential cost savings of Tort reform. Hatch, who is/was a personl injury laywer, was told that the saving would be $41-$54 billion (Hatch said he believes it would be considerably more. But of course the corrupt Demo-Rats, being in the pockets of the trial lawyers from whom they get huge bribes (campaign contributions) refuse to touch it. So apparently saving money is not really a priority!

Connie Mack Jr

October 12, 2009 - 2:19 pm EDT

Tonymo, you are the poster boy for the wonderful job our corporate private schools, and corporate Fox network propaganda have done brainwashing so many of our citizens. You simply accept every lie the corporations tells you. Then to check it, you go to your favorite right wing web sites like the Republican Center for American Destruction and Greedy Profit, Sara Palin Brainless and Us fan club

tonymo

October 12, 2009 - 3:51 pm EDT

Dear Ms. Mack, I see you didn't actually respond to any of my points, I suspect if you could found something untrue about any of my points you would havelet us know.

Do you mean greedy, corrupt corporations like Goldman-Sachs or GE, two big Obama supporters and among the very few big winners in the Obama destruction of America economic plan. Isn't it funny how Goldman-Sachs biggest competitors were left to fail, but G-S got a big bailout, and now the O'Bummer administration is crawling with former G-S executives. I guess they were evil then, but are good now!

Back to single payer. From the wonderful British system:
A British inquest heard testimony last week into the death of an Iraq war veteran who died after getting cancerous lungs in a transplant.

Millington received the double lung transplant in April 2007. A cancerous tumor was found six months later, and the soldier died in February 2008.

The hospital said early X-rays on the donated lungs did not show any signs of cancer, and that it's not unusual for smokers' lungs to be used for transplants. (I'm really looking forward to this coming to our country!)

tonymo

October 12, 2009 - 3:59 pm EDT

(Oct. 12) -- Zachary Christie, 6, was happy about joining the Cub Scouts and was excited about a new camping utensil that functions as a spoon, fork and knife -- so excited that he took the tool to school to use it at lunch.
But the Newark, Del., boy's enthusiasm got him kicked out of school for violating a zero-tolerance policy on weapons.

Hey Connie/Andrew more abject lunacy from your side! Aren't these folks "government employees!" And you want them making our health care decisions. Thanks. but no thanks!

brian444

October 12, 2009 - 2:33 pm EDT

Everyone can thank me for turning down a $2500 MRI that would have cost me nothing. I did it for the taxpayers of NC and because the neck injury (caused by a News & Record employee) was resolving itself on its own. Also to compensate for my wife, who whisks herself off to the doctor's office at the first hint of flu-like symptoms.

Doug

October 12, 2009 - 2:38 pm EDT

You should be denied coverage for practicing violent martial arts with younger, bigger guys.

Doug Johnson

October 12, 2009 - 2:48 pm EDT

Keep up the good work Tonymo,
Andrew never lets facts get in the way of his left wing ways.
Like he posted the Washington fire dept, said there was 60,000.
I worked that day, and they gave No estimates of the crowd size.
Connie, other than your left wing crap.
Show us one lie Fox told.
Mr.Clark, you have one thing dead right, my wife is taking a dozen high cost test now.
Why, because the doctor ask her, do you ever forget things?
Hell she 67 years old, all of us forget things.
@$%#^ I went to play in a golf tournament and left my clubs at home.
Now how that for being brain dead.
Tonymo, have you noticed the liberals, never want top talk about the ambulance chasing lawyer?
Wonder why folks come from all over the world for this terrible health care we receive?
Do we need health care reform, yes!
Lets start by sending all the illegals home.
That would lower cost.
Then put a cap on law suits!
Now just for Andrew, Hussein Obama mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Andrew Clark

October 13, 2009 - 11:44 am EDT

Among the many things tonymo doesn't understand is that healthcare rationing does exist. Currently the main rationing method is income. The reason is the economic reality that for every scarce resource, such as healthcare, there must be some rationing. We don't have infinite doctors.

I still think the too many tests is an incentives problem, not a cultural one. Doctors would say no if there was reason to. As it is now, the fact that they'll get paid to run the test the patient wants is probably a big reason they are "afraid to say no."

The plan the CBO scored does in fact exist as it's being voted on by the Senate Finance Committee today. Also, to my main point that the AHIP report was bogus, here's a statement from PWC admitting as much:

"America's Health Insurance Plans engaged PricewaterhouseCoopers to prepare a report that focused on four components of the Senate Finance Committee proposal:

*Insurance market reforms and consumer protections that would raise health insurance premiums for individuals and families if the reforms are not coupled with an effective coverage requirement.
*An excise tax on employer-sponsored high value health plans.
*Cuts in payment rates in public programs that could increase cost shifting to private sector businesses and consumers.
*New taxes on health sector entities.

The analysis concluded that collectively the four provisions would raise premiums for private health insurance coverage. As the report itself acknowledges, other provisions that are part of health reform proposals were not included in the PwC analysis. The report stated on page 1:

"The reform packages under consideration have other provisions that we have not included in this analysis. We have not estimated the impact of the new subsidies on the net insurance cost to households. Also, if other provisions in health care reform are successful in lowering costs over the long term, those improvements would offset some of the impacts we have estimated."