fox cities news, appleton, wi
foxpolitics.netwhats really going on in the fox cities
fox cities newsfox cities news, appleton, wi


Blogroll
Selected News Sources:
Business Jrnl of Milw
Christian Science Monitor
Daily Caller
Drudge Report
La Crosse Tribune
Milw Journal Sentinel
National Journal
New York Times
Public Policy Forum
Real Clear Politics
Stateline
The Hill
TPM
Washington Examiner
Washington Post
Washington Times
WI State Journal
Selected Blogs - from the Right:
American Mind
Blaska's Blog
Boots & Sabers
Charlie Sykes
Dad29
Freedom Eden
Heritage Foundation
Jerry Bader Blog
Life Voice
Marketplace of Ideas
Marquette Warrior
Natl Review Online
No Runny Eggs
Patrick McIlheran
Real Debate Wisconson
RedState
Rhymes with Clown
Shark and Shepherd
The Lote Tree
Vox Populi
Wall Street Jrnl, Opinions
WI State Jrnl, Opinion
Wigderson Library & Pub
Wisconsin Family Voice
WPRI
Selected Blogs - from the Left:
Big Money Blog
Blogging Blue
Brenda Konkel
Caffeinated Politics
Capital Times
FightingBob
Folkbum's rambles
Griper Blade
Huffington Post
Lost Albatross
MAL Contends
Mid coast views
Moneyed Politicians
One Wisconsin Now
Open Left
Playground Politics
Political Environment
Rock Netroots
Talk to Tony
Uppity Wisconsin
Waxing America
fox cities news, appleton, wi fox cities news, appleton, wi
Today's Blog: Time for the Guv to morph into Chris Christie
My husband and I and a couple hundred friends watched in Green Bay as ...(more)

Blogs
  • Time for the Guv to morph into Chris Christie (6/28/2011)
  • Time for Gov. Walker to talk more about the cake (3/4/2011)
  • Today, reality hits home (3/1/2011)
  • FoxPolitics News going on hiatus (1/28/2011)
  • Brown County Executive candidate forum Feb. 8 (1/28/2011)
  • Education done right (1/27/2011)
  • To Obama, the ‘We’ is Government (1/27/2011)
  • (more)



    2/14/2008
    Optional Medicare for businesses?

    Jack Lohman, sitting in for me today, is a retired business owner who lives in Colgate, blogs via “Moneyed Politicians” and authors a regular e-newsletter focused on campaign and health care reform. His views, though thought-provoking and interesting, do not reflect the views of FoxPolitics.net. Readers, have at him!

    Liberals want Medicare-for-all and conservatives say it’s too costly. Some don’t want the government involved, others trust elected politicians more than unelected CEOs. Some like the free-market “for-profit” system, others don’t want profit driving medicine. (I touched on this earlier this month.)

    So, let’s have both. How can anyone argue against that?

    For those willing to pay the extra costs of the insurance bureaucracy, let them. That 31% of the dollars includes broker sales commissions, marketing and advertising costs, high executive salaries, bonuses and stock options, ever increasing shareholder profits, and even lobbying and campaign contributions that are added to the price of the policy.

    If the conservatives want to pay it, let them. That’s the free market they espouse, and it keeps some people in jobs.

    But for those who want health “care” instead of health “insurance,” let them opt into the federal Medicare system and reimburse Medicare for its actual costs. Employers can give employees the choice, and if one is more costly they pay the difference.

    For those unfamiliar with Medicare, it’s simple. You get sick, you get care and the caregiver gets paid. But the providers get paid by the Medicare administrator – which is Madison’s non-profit WPS – instead of the insurance company the employer has chosen. This year, anyway.

    The hospital or doctor doesn’t have to fight to get paid – the payment is guaranteed and there is little or no bad debt. And they remain as private contractors to Medicare, just as is WPS. It’s the same private hospital and doctor you see today, just a different payer.

    And here’s what’s interesting. If Medicare truly is too costly, as its opponents claim, there’ll be no takers. But if Medicare is cheaper, the private insurers will have no takers! How’s that for competition and consumer choice?

    Here’s the rub. Medicare IS more efficient and private insurers will not want to compete with them. They can’t compete now, as Medicare HMO contractors, and it won’t be any easier under this system.

    However, one thing must be changed. Private insurers must provide the same level of care as Medicare does. No pre-existing disease exclusions. No limits on coverage. No gatekeeping. No denials of care. No cancelling when costs start increasing. In other words, no playing games, no under-insuring and no cheating. Patients get care when they need care.

    This doesn’t get us to a perfect system, just a more efficient and competitive one. There remain problems with both the fee-for-service Medicare system and the “flat rate” HMO/PPO models typically in the market. With FFS the physicians receive more income as the amount of care and ordering of tests increases. Sometimes too much care can be as bad as not enough care.

    Conversely, with the fixed-rate HMO/PPO models, as more tests are ordered those costs come out of the bottom line profits. So depending on the financial relationship between the physician and HMO/PPO, needed tests could go undone so the profits increase.

    All of this can be fixed if politicians have the will. Doctors and clinics should not be allowed to profit from expensive testing. Hospitals should not be able to employ physicians. The certificate of need should be reinstated and hospital overbuilding should be restrained.

    Why are we hesitant to proceed? In short, we could fix the system if we removed the insurance industry and other campaign contributions being paid to politicians to protect the status quo. Unfortunately, private interests can give campaign contributions and Medicare can’t, so the politicians will be a hard sell.

    Wouldn’t it be nice to just close up BadgerCare and Medicaid and pay WPS to handle those patients as well? Look at all of the administrative costs we’d save.


    COMMENTS

    Jack continues to live in a fantasy land where Medicare pays the actual cost of care.

    If private insurance could get away with underpaying its bill in the same way Medicare does, private insurance would be much cheaper.

    Instead, Medicare leaves private payers to pick up the tab. And what would happen if everyone underpaid the providers?

    fox cities news, appleton, wi
    James (Thu Feb 14 07:09:23 2008)

    Jack is correct.
    fox cities news, appleton, wi
    dave allen (Thu Feb 14 07:43:29 2008)

    Jo: Interesting perspective! However, what about the problem currently of the Medicare reimbursement rate? Presently, as I understand it, Medicare is only reimbursing Physicians and Hospitals at about 30-35% of established charges for services. The result is that all Providers shift that short-fall to the private insurance Providers. Your reaction??


    fox cities news, appleton, wi
    G. L. Schilling (Thu Feb 14 10:54:10 2008)

    You're right on Glenn. Any claimed Medicare success is obfuscated by artificially low reimbursement rates. Jack, how do you argue the point?

    Lots of snow here Glenn; hope you have sunshine to enjoy.

    fox cities news, appleton, wi
    Jo E. (Thu Feb 14 13:35:25)

    When I was in the health care business, for 25 years, I provided a mobile echocardiography service to physicians and clinics. We provided the $150K scanner and my technicians did about 95% of the work. We charged the doctor in the area of $300, the same as when we billed Medicare directly. The physician added his five-minute interpretation and Medicare would reimburse him $400 for the total. But for private pays the physician often billed up to $1800. Why? Because they could! Was he underpaid by Medicare or overpaid by the private insurer?

    If you guessed the latter you are right. The private insurers simply billed the employer and you see where that has gotten health care costs today.

    Medicare is not perfect, and needs some cleaning up. But by and large they are fair. One hospital in California is shying away from private pays altogether in favor of Medicare, and private insurers here are getting a lot smarter and less generous.

    The direction of health care is not good, and will soon be taken over by corporate CEOs unless we change direction fast.

    I’ve outline a number of changes we need here.

    fox cities news, appleton, wi
    Jack Lohman (Thu Feb 14 14:11:43 2008)

    Jo,
    The overall cost per capita for our medical care in this country is much higher than anywhere else in the world and the results are definitely not better. This is well documented and the individual statistics too involved for this forum. What happens is that cost shifting is everywhere and the private insurers pick up a share of that in the private billing rates. This is another example of the opaque nature of our system. We can't ever know the true cost of many services because the overhead may include part of this cost shifting. Would a Medicare for all system have a higher cost per capita than the current Medicare system? perhaps. Would the overall healthcare costs in our society go down and the actual costs be more determinable? Yes.

    fox cities news, appleton, wi
    dave allen (Thu Feb 14 15:50:30 2008)

    And guys, let me point out that if Medicare reimbursement rates were indeed artificially low, doctors would quit taking Medicare patients and the private health insurers would win out in the scenario I propose. But that is not happening, and my doctor is even calling me in for my yearly physical, which he wouldn't be doing if Medicare was a loser for him.

    But it isn't, as I've pointed out above.

    Are there doctors who have built their practices to the point that they can sluff off the lower-paying Medicare patients for the privates that pay up to quadruple the going rate? Indeed yes, but that will be short-lived as the privates get smarter.

    fox cities news, appleton, wi
    Jack Lohman (Thu Feb 14 15:57:11 2008)

    Jack has a good, reasoned argument for a positive suggestion to solve a growing crisis that is adversely affecting the economic, physical, and mental health of American families, the competitiveness and profitability of large and small businesses, and both the cost and the measurable outcomes of health care in the USA as compared to the rest of the countries in the developed world.

    We're number 1 (by far) in total per capita costs of health care, and the already wide gap is widening rapidly. But we are no longer number 1 in health care outcomes - or anywhere close to it. And our relative standing there is getting worse.

    fox cities news, appleton, wi
    clyde (Thu Feb 14 16:01:23 2008)

    Jack,
    Right on! There are more than 10 of course but if these 10 were implemented the door would then be open to more changes.


    fox cities news, appleton, wi
    dave allen (Thu Feb 14 17:07:03 2008)

    Thanks Dave. Indeed there are more things needed to fix the system, but number eleven and beyond will face the same political hurdles. The insurance and healthcare interests give $1.4 million per year in state campaign contributions to retain the status quo, and so far they are winning. That’s the price we pay for a government for sale.
    fox cities news, appleton, wi
    Jack Lohman (Thu Feb 14 19:13:04 2008)

    And Glenn, let me respond to your comment that "Medicare is only reimbursing Physicians and Hospitals at about 30-35% of established charges for services."

    That’s true. Their established charges are what we called in the industry "usual and customary" (though the outside world would call them "whatever we can get away with"). The usual and customary charges kept creeping up as providers kept pushing the envelope, yet they had nothing to do with actual costs. The $1800 per echocardiogram was the U&C charge, the $300 was actual cost. What is fair? Probably $500.

    I mentioned above that my doctor reminded me to come in for my checkup. He didn’t do that so he could lose money on me, knowing that his higher charges elsewhere would offset the loss. He’d be better off not taking my loss in the first place and pocketing the profit. He called me in because Medicare rates gave a small profit, though it was not as exorbitant as the privates.


    fox cities news, appleton, wi
    Jack Lohman (Fri Feb 15 01:23:20 2008)

    Jack, GREAT points! I can't disagree with your logic,ie would have to have access to their REAL cost data, but have had the feeling for years that there was lots of "game playing" in that area. Since you were for years, an "Insider" assume your data is right. Where do we go from here??
    fox cities news, appleton, wi
    GlennL. Schilling (Fri Feb 15 10:48:16 2008)

    Thanks Glenn. You don’t ask easy questions, do you?

    Getting the above proposal passed may take a congressional effort. Both Tammy Baldwin and Russ Feingold have proposed state “experiments” in healthcare, and this could qualify. It’d also be interesting to find out if WPS would support this, and they could perhaps even offer it on their own. But there are other options if they don’t.

    Another “state experiment” that could be under consideration is Healthy Wisconsin (HW). Actually that could be pretty good too. But state legislators are very ensnarled in insurance industry money, and they don’t want HW because it eliminates insurers from the loop. (And well it should, because they drain 31% of healthcare dollars without ever laying hands on a patient.)

    At the state level the easiest answer is to get the campaign contributions out of the political system and our politicians will fix healthcare on their own (and just about every other taxpayer issue) without interference from those who want to retain the status quo. But that requires public funding of campaigns at a cost of $5 per taxpayer per year (See here.) and is at least months off. Don’t count on this as an immediate solution, but don’t give up on it.

    Barring that, the Republicans must sit down at the table and fix the Healthy Wisconsin proposal to make the conversion easier for small businesses. But both the R’s and D’s get a lot of dollars from the insurance industry, and they don’t want changes. HW also promises a Medicare-like fee schedule so the Medical Society and hospital association are not happy with it.

    HW is already pretty good for big businesses; they are taxed at 10.5% of wages but it eliminates the 15% they currently pay for insurance premiums, for a 4.5% savings. WMC sells health insurance and they have a lot of insurance members, so that’s an uphill battle.

    Politicians could trim some of the fat from the HW proposal and reduce the costs, but not by much. And if we are going to do it, we should do it right from the start.

    But healthcare reform is a major factor in our costs for business and our sending jobs out of the country. If we could fix it at the state level with HW, we could attract new businesses and keep old businesses here. It would make Wisconsin more competitive from a business standpoint.

    But I also like the original Medicare proposal above because it offers both choice and competition.

    Sorry to spew on, but it is not an easy subject.

    fox cities news, appleton, wi
    Jack Lohman (Fri Feb 15 17:37:48 2008)




    fox cities news, appleton, wi

    sign up to receive fox politics news
    see todays issue


    Blog Archives
    2011
    June
    March
    January
    2010
    December
    November
    October
    September
    August
    July
    June
    May
    April
    March
    February
    January
    2009
    December
    November
    October
    September
    August
    July
    June
    May
    April
    March
    February
    January
    2008
    December
    November
    October
    September
    August
    July
    June
    May
    April
    March
    February
    January
    2007
    December
    November
    October
    September
    August
    July
    June
    May
    April
    March
    February
    January
    2006
    December
    November
    October
    September
    2000
    May

    Site Map | Privacy Policy   •   FoxPolitics ©2006 All Rights Reserved.   •   Site Updated 5/22/2013