Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH
07.04.2008 9:00 pm

Sunday Editorial: Where it’s fat

bullrunning_opt.jpgIn Spain, Pamplona has its annual running of the bulls. Sweetwater, Tex., has its Rattlesnake Roundup. And Washington has the annual farce of the physicians’ Medicare fee cuts.
Not familiar with that last one? It plays out when an increase in spending on Medicare expenses triggers a statutory requirement to cut the amount doctors are compensated for the care they provide to elderly and disabled Medicare patients. Which is to say, it happens just about every year, including this one.
Congress must like the idea of cutting fees. It has written the requirement into a series of budget and Medicare bills over the past 10 years. Most recently, such a provision was included in the 2003 law that created a Medicare prescription drug benefit.
We’ve never believed that cutting the fees paid to physicians is a legitimate way to reduce Medicare costs significantly — not when there are many other opportunities for saving that go unexplored.
And we’re not convinced that Congress really believes that’s the way to cut Medicare costs, either. Our skepticism is well-founded: As often as the requirement to cut fees has been triggered, it has been overridden — by Congress.

There have been some interesting plot twists in this year’s political theater. For example, instead of cutting physician fees, the House voted to cut the excessive payments made to private insurance companies that sell a type of managed care called Medicare Advantage plans.
Those plans cover about one of every five Medicare enrollees. And insurance companies get paid an average of about 13 percent more per enrollee than traditional Medicare would cost. At the high end of the range, the most wasteful plans cost about 17 percent more per enrollee. Cutting these overpayments would save about $54 billion over five years.
Yet President George W. Bush threatened to veto the proposal. Before he would have had to make good on his threat, Senate Republicans, who receive generous support from insurance industry lobbyists, used parliamentary maneuvers to kill the bill. In the meantime, Mr. Bush postponed the enforcement of any cuts in Medicare fee payments to physicians.

Republicans aren’t the only ones with lobbyist friends, however. The Democratic House bill that would have postponed the physician fee cuts also would have pushed back competitive bidding on medical equipment such as oxygen tanks, power wheelchairs and diabetic testing strips, as well as competitive bidding for medical laboratory tests.
Making these products and services subject to a bidding process could save an average of 26 percent on what the government now pays for them, according to estimates earlier this year from the Government Accountability Office. That’s how much it saved in 10 large cities during a test run.

We’re going to hear a lot about health care reform in this year’s presidential campaign. But any serious efforts to enact real reforms will have to deal with systematic overpayments to politically powerful groups, including the insurance companies and medical equipment manufacturing industries.
It turns out that giving political leaders control over Medicare’s operational costs — not unlike running with bulls or rounding up rattlesnakes — is a terrible way to handle the problem.
But it is, at least, an amusing spectacle during an otherwise slow time of year.

Photo via Flickr.com from Eneko Alonso

6 comments

Comments are closed.

This is only the surface of what will happen if we move to socialized healthcare. While these annual redistributions of Medicare dollars usually happens behind the scenes, a National socialized program, which will, by definition have to ration scarce dollars will require an annual free-for-all regarding what will be covered. Instead of running on issues like taxes and foreign policy, politiicans will run promising to cover new drug discoveries. There will be acrimonious inter-specialty lobbying. G.I. specialists will lobby against virtual colonoscopies. Family practice doctors will accuse surgeons of being overpaid. Seniors, now the users of the majority of healthcare dollars will be the targets of everyone for being healthcare hogs.It will be a mess as it is in every other socialized country. If you think it is bad now when insurance companies decide what treatments you get, wait till politicians make your medical decisions. Paging Dr. Obama.

— JJk
8:17 am July 5th, 2008

Any economist will tell you that the U.S. rations health care now, and rations it in an extraordinarily irrational way. If you don’t believe me, try calling BJC, telling them you’re uninsured and have been told you need a heart transplant. Then ask when they’ll put you on the waiting list.

We have created all kinds of incentives to provide excessive care to the elderly, through Medicare. Yet millions of children go without even the most basic care — care that would be extremely cost-efficient, given the number of potentially healthy years that lie ahead of them — because they’re not covered.

With 47 million Americans uninsured, and millions more lacking the coverage they’d need if they got sick, we create indirect cost pressure so doctors and hospitals are forced to raise prices to cover their costs of treating those who can’t afford to pay. And every time they do, more people can’t afford to pay.

Meanwhile, drug and medical device makers market staggeringly expensive new products that are only marginally better than those already on the market. And since the FDA is so underfunded that it can’t effectively screen for safety, no objective parties are assessing the value of those new products. The only source of information available to doctors and patients alike are salesmen for the companies that make them.

There’s certainly room for improvement in the Medicare program. But compare it to what was available to the elderly before (nothing, unless they were healthy enough to continue working for a company that offered health benefits) and you’ll see it’s done a good job. The irony in this whole mess is that we would save money by covering more people and allowing them to get preventive care.

— John G. Carlton
12:19 pm July 6th, 2008

The purpose of my comment was not to state that there is not room for improvement, but to demostrate that socializing (politicizing) healthcare is very stupid. First, a few corrections. The FDA’s job is only to prove safety and efficacy, not to decide if something is needed. FDA approval does not come with a code to bill medicare. That is a separate process that can be very political. Regarding the elderly of the past, you must first start with the history of how healthcare was administered back then. There was no such thing as “health care insurance”. There was hospitalization. If you went to the doctor, you paid him out of your pocket. The doctor knew that you were paying and priced things affordably. Back then, there were certainly less choices and malpractice suits were very rare. While I am not yet at the age to qualify for Medicare yet, I will be amused to sit on the sidelines while any politician tries to ration healthcare to seniors. I don’t care how many college kids you turn out at events, Seniors all vote and they all vote their pocket book. So, any solution that dilutes coverage to seniors won’t get very far.

Here is how the government will fix healthcare. They don’t want you to know, but it is the only way to accomplish what they want to do. There are an estimated 40 million uninsured. This group includes young, healthy adults who can afford insurance but don’t buy it; Older adults who would like to buy it, but can’t afford it or have pre-exisiting conditions and illegal aliens. The first and third groups are the easiest. A law will be passed socializing healthcare and the cost will be deducted from your check whether you are 22 or an illegal alien. But, you still have the problem of fitting all the unisured into a system that isn’t large enough to accomodate them. Here is what I predict. After socializing the system the problems with rationing will become glaringly apparent. Appointments will take longer to make. Surgeries will be delayed or not approved. Choices for drugs will be restricted, etc. Some people will become so upset that they will be willing to pay privately for better care. In the UK, where I used to have businesses, it was estimated that 40% either paid privately or had jobs that provied private care. The government there depends on those people paying privately because there’s no way they could cover the rest if they didn’t. Let’s say here its only 10%. That would take 35 million out of the system roughly the size of the group of the uninsured that was admitted. You will soak the rich to pay for the uninsured and under that system, they will be happy and feel lucky to do it. These privately covered citizens will still pay into the socialized system. I also predict the government will not allow companies to deduct the cost of such private coverage and will deem it income to the insured. Say a policy costs $10,000 a year. Currently, the government allows companies to deduct the $10,000 against their income. At 40% corporate tax rate, It costs the government $4,000 for that deduction. If an employee is in the say 30% tax bracket, he would have to pay $2,800 in taxes to receive the benefit which he now gets free. So, in addition to not having to pay for the costs to these privately covered people, the government would get their payroll deduction (whatever that is) plus another $6,800 in earnings taxes. Trust me, that’s where its heading.

— JJk
2:17 pm July 6th, 2008

Very well put JJK.

Mr Carlton will probably read your post and say - well you are already paying for other’s health care in the current system so why not do it the way I think we should — with a government middleman who will make the system as inefficient as possible. What he forgets and what I disagree with you is that “You will soak the rich to pay for the uninsured and under that system, they will be happy and feel lucky to do it.” The people who get robbed of their property are not going to be happy with the situation.

You hit on the real answer to the problem when you wrote about how things were before any government intervention (ie before health care insurance became prevalent after the government froze pay to employees during WWII). Physicians should charge for what they are doing for the customer and the customer should pay. “Insurance” should be just that - insurance against an unlikely event. That is not he way insurance companies work today. Health Savings accounts and high deductible programs do work that way.

I am in favor of people being able to pursue their happiness. That includes not having their property stolen from them by Mr. Carlton and Senator Obama or Senator McCain can go spend it on a few more votes.

— John Deal
5:44 pm July 6th, 2008

John,
I meant that tongue in cheek, of course. My point is once it is passed, those with the means will be happy they have the ability to pay privately. This socialist/private system does co-exist in the UK. Of course, there will be a major class warfare outcry because some will have a better system. However, some have better homes, cars, etc. If you are a union member, teacher, government worker, etc., with excellent benefits now, you will be the ones hit hardest as the new socialized care will certainly give you less. This will be a watershed economic event. I predict it will get great support from corporations anxious to dump the cost of benefits (especially if it is only paid from the employee’s check). Uunions will demand that companies make up the difference in cash, companies will tell them to go jump. it will be a msss. The only good thing would be that private insurance should cost less than it does now as everyone would have a fall-back plan for catastrophic events. I see this as a huge business opportunity as the private hospital and surgery center system is built as they exist in the UK. Actually, many of the private hospitals there are owned by US companies. The real question will be whether the government will require doctors to work for the socialist system? When I was working in the UK, doctors could work one day a week privately, the day on which they made most of their income treating private patients.

— JJk
6:55 pm July 6th, 2008

Seriously - did you even do your homework before writing this article. Obviously not. If you did you would be singing a different Tune.
You wrote …..systematic overpayments to politically powerful groups, including the insurance companies and medical equipment manufacturing industries. First off Medicare doesn’t pay manufacturers. I suggest that you honestly research the issue before you start bad mouthing an industry as a whole. Wait till you have to utilize the system. Then you’ll get it.

— Sharon
3:20 pm July 7th, 2008