Kaiser has just posted a report which suggests that the Medicare Buy-In will be even more expensive than I thought. It turns out that median family income for Americans 55 to 64 who don’t have insurance is just $22,510. By contrast, as I reported yesterday, median income for all Americans in that age group is substantially higher–$58,000. Many have jobs—and employer-based insurance.

This means that the Medicare Buy-In will be attracting seniors who are much poorer than average. In this country, there is a high correlation between poverty and poor health. The group most likely to opt into Medicare will be sicker—and need more care—than the average middle-aged American.

Continue reading →

There is much to be hammered out before a final health reform bill emerges from Congress. Disputes over the public plan, abortion, financing and when reforms will actually take effect continue to delay progress. But on one thing, apparently, there is broad consensus: Nearly everyone supports prevention. In fact, a recent poll found that 71% of Americans favor increased investment in disease prevention and believe it will save money in the long run.

Prevention is a broad concept, encompassing everything from flu shots to prostate screening to smoking bans to confronting racism. And just because Americans say they favor increasing funding for “prevention” does not mean they all envision the same approach. Some personal-responsibility advocates, for example, throw their support behind pay-to-play prevention efforts—like increasing insurance premiums for people who smoke or are overweight. Others, like Senator Barbara Mikulski, believe the most important investment in prevention is to guarantee access to routine screening tests—mammography, Pap smears and colonoscopies—even if evidence suggests this may not always be the case.

Continue reading →

Last night, the news broke that the “Gang of Ten” (the Senators who have been trying to break the deadlock between moderates and liberals) had come up with a two-part alternative to the public option.  Under their proposal, Americans 55 to 65 could buy in to Medicare if they choose—and if they could afford it. Meanwhile, for Americans under 55, the public option would be replaced with non-profit private insurance plans overseen by The Office of Personnel Management, the group that now administers the Federal Employees’ Plan.

Begin with expanding Medicare to people 55 to 65. This is an idea that I wrote about in Money-Driven Medicine. Bruce Vladeck, who ran Medicare during the Clinton administration, was convinced that Medicare could compete successfully with private insurers, in large part because its administrative expenses are so much lower. I agree that in the late 1990s, it would have been a good idea.

Continue reading →

A family illness has kept me away from the blog for much of the past week.

But today, I plan to post–about the  Senate compromise, and other matters.

Tomorrow, I'll begin catching up with responses to comments.

Maggie

Senate liberals and moderates have closed ranks, defeating many who hoped to use seniors’ fears of Medicare cuts to bury health care reform.

As the Assocociated Press (AP) reported: “Unflinching on a critical first test, Senate Democrats closed ranks Thursday behind $460 billion in politically risky Medicare cuts at the heart of health care legislation, thwarting a Republican attempt to doom President Barack Obama's sweeping overhaul.

“The bid by the bill's critics to reverse cuts to the popular Medicare program failed on a vote of 58-42, drawing the support of two Democratic defectors. Approval would have stripped out money needed to pay for expanding coverage to tens of millions of uninsured Americans. .  ..”

Tuesday, I appeared on GRITtv with Laura Flanders and explained why conservatives who oppose health care reform were objecting to Medicare cuts—not because they wanted to protect Medicare patients, but because they wanted to protect the for-profit insurance industry.

You’ll find the roundtable discussion, which included TNR’s Jon Cohn, The Nation’s John Nichols and Pro Publica’s Olga Pierce here: Laura Flanders – http://lauraflanders.firedoglake.com/

This vote reinforces my belief that, in the end, we will wind up with legislation that resembles  the House bill, and includes a strong public option.

Those who oppose reform have been using the recent CBO report to claim that, under the Senate bill, many Americans will pay more for health care.

That’s not what CBO said. A careful reading of the report suggests that even people in the individual market will wind up paying less because under reform, insurance is likely to cover more of their health care costs.

First, here’s what CBO actually said: For most Americans who have group insurance (usually through an employer) there will be little change in their premiums. Those who purchase their own insurance in the individual market (usually the self-employed and early retirees) could see their premiums rise by 10 percent to 13 percent in 2016.   But, “that extra cost would buy better coverage, the CBO said, and hefty federal subsidies would drive down payments by nearly 60 percent on average for low- and middle-income families.”

Continue reading →

Part 1 of this post described how the US Preventive Services Task Force’s (USPSTF’s) message about mammograms has been distorted by the press. Despite what you may have read, the Task Force did not recommend that women in their 40’s skip mammograms; it advised them to discuss the risks as well as the benefits with their doctors. And the USPSTF was not trying to save money; it is not charged with cutting the cost of care. Its only goal is to give women full information about the benefits and the limits–of mammography screening.

Below, I explain that what the task force just explained about the risks of mammography is something that it tried to tell us years ago. But Congress stood up and said “No—we don’t want women to know that.” Why? Because lobbyists for those companies who make mammography equipment did not want women to know that mammograms can lead to unnecessary surgery.

Below, I also note that some patient advocates as well as many disinterested physicians applaud the Task Force’s message. It’s just not as controversial as the media pretends. Indeed just one month ago the chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society was questioning the advantages of mammography in the pages of the New York Times.

Continue reading →

Women have a lot at stake in the debate over health care reform. Some seven in ten women are either uninsured or underinsured, and more than half report forgoing care or preventive visits because they can’t afford it. Meanwhile, insurance companies can charge women more for coverage, and can exclude them from plans because of “pre-existing conditions” like pregnancy or being victims of domestic abuse. Finally, women facing cancer or other serious illnesses are far more likely to suffer financial collapse when faced with benefit caps and high out-of-pocket spending limits.

This state of affairs is unacceptable and achieving affordable, comprehensive and accessible care for all Americans should be the goal of any final health reform bill. Both the House and Senate bills would end gender rating (the practice of charging higher premiums for women) in the individual and small business markets. Both bills also would end the practice of denying coverage because of pre-existing conditions and would set minimum benefit standards that ensure access to primary care and preventive services. Finally, the two versions both cap out-of-pocket spending and get rid of lifetime or annual benefit limits.

Yet, despite these important initiatives, controversy over women’s health issues remains strong in the reform debate—even among Democrats and traditional women’s advocates.

Continue reading →