Over at the Disease Management Care Blog, http://diseasemanagementcareblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/welcome-to-tree-of-blogs-avatar-movie.html Jaan Sidorov hosts the most recent edition of Health Wonk Review, a round-up of some of the best healthcare blogs of the past two weeks.  I find that the Review is a good way to find out about excellent blogs that I haven't heard about–while also keeping up with favorites.

Sidorov, who is a primary care general internist and former Medical Director at Geisinger Health Plan., highlights some posts which suggest that physicians are thinking about how to reform their own specialties.

Continue reading →

The media continues to report that the Massachusetts vote was a referendum on health care reform—and that this has the White House worried.

If so, the White House is wrong.

Take a look at polling conducted by Hart Research Associates for the AFL-CIO on the evening of the election, revealing who voted for Brown –and what those voters said.  Then consider separate polling done by the Washington Post together with the Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard University.  Read both reports, and you’ll have a very hard time believing that Scott Brown’s election represents a mandate on healthcare legislation.

Finally, factor in the eye-opening Kaiser Family Foundation January tracking poll,  and what it reveals about what voters do and don’t understand about health reform legislation.  If most voters have only a hazy idea of what is in the legislation, you really can’t say that they voted against the Senate bill.

Continue reading →

When explaining why the voters of Massachusetts turned Ted Kennedy’s seat over to a Republican, some commentators are suggesting that voters were appalled by the corruption they saw in Washington as Democrats struggled to put together health reform legislation:

Over at The Health Care Blog, Brian Klepper and David Kibbe write:  “The distaste expressed yesterday probably has little to do with the specific provisions of the bills . . . . But along the way, voters have witnessed  . . .  lawmaking in its worst tradition. There was the White House's deal making with powerful corporate interests like the drug manufacturers even before the proceedings began. And the tremendous lobbying contributions by health care and non-health care special interests in exchange for access to the policy-shaping process. Or the outright bribery of specific Senators and Representatives in exchange for votes. Last week's White House deal with the unions that exempted them from the tax on ‘Cadillac’ health plans until 2018 must have seemed like a perfectly OK arrangement to the people in the center of all this activity, but to normal people who read the paper, it was emblematic of the current modus operandi: If you have power and support the party in power's muddled agenda, you get a special deal.”

Continue reading →

Over at TPM, the headline characterizes Pelosi's statement as meaning that she is walking away: “Pelosi: There Aren't Enough Votes To Pass The Senate Bill.”

If Pelosi walks away, then reform is dead.

But as I read her statement, she’s saying several contradictory things at once. Cognitive dissonance. (And if I were Pelosi, that’s exactly how I would feel.) It’s as if we are looking into her mind: stream of consciousness.

But I hear hope in her words.

Over at TNR, Jon Chait is even more hopeful than I am: “This doesn't sound like walking away to me. It sounds like she or some of her members are holding out for an agreement to amend the bill through reconciliation. The good news is that this actually makes the negotiations easier in some ways. The negotiation with the Senate before required the assent Senators like Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman. Now it only requires the assent of the 50th Senator, who's probably far more willing to back a tax on the rich, beef up low-income subsidies, and do other things the House demands.

“The complicating factor is that this reopens negotiations that were previously all but settled, and may cause the House to increase its demands. That would be foolish — they should take something approximating the deal that's been on the table, pass it, and walk away.

“If the Democrats were all rational people this would have a 100% chance of happening. Since they're not, I'll call it 60%.”

I would add that the reconciliation process is limited to issues with a budgetary impact. It could happen. The Cadillac Tax would be gone (good riddance) and Nelson would lose the special deal for Nebraska (at this point probably even Nelson regrets cutting that deal.)

From Talking Points Memo: January 21, 11:34 a.m.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi just told reporters that she does not believe she has enough votes in the House to pass the Senate health care reform bill as-is — at least not yet.

"I don't see the votes for it at this time," Pelosi said. "The members have been very clear in our caucus about the fact that they didn't like it before it had the Nebraska provision and some of the other provisions that are unpalatable to them."

"In every meeting that we have had, there would be nothing to give me any thought that that bill could pass right now the way that it is," she said. "There isn't a market right now for proceeding with the full bill unless some big changes are made."

While she didn't say the option was dead — "Everything is on the table," she said — she outlined two very different options for passing a bill.

"There's a recognition that there's a foundation in that bill that's important. So one way or another those areas of agreement that we have will have to be advanced, whether it's by passing the Senate bill with any changes that can be made, or just taking [pieces of it]," Pelosi said.

"We have to get a bill passed — we know that. That's a predicate that we all subscribe to."

When will that happen? Who knows!

"We're in no rush," Pelosi said.

Reporting by Brian Beutler

I didn’t post about the vote earlier today, because I cannot begin to predict what will happen next. There are too many variables. At this point in the process, a few politicians can begin to make demands that could actually block any reform legislation this year.

I still feel strongly that Congress should try to pass a bill, even if it is legislation that I find terribly disappointing..  But –and this is crucial– it must be a bill that makes it clear that we, as a nation, believe that everyone deserves good, affordable healthcare, and that we are all willing to share in doing what it takes to provide that security for everyone.

That’s the bottom line. The bill must mark a turning point: we have made a decision that healthcare is something than any civilized society should provide to all of its citizens. If we do that, I think it will be like civil rights legislation. There will be no turning back.

This is why conservatives are so upset about the current legislation: they fear that there will be no turning back.

Going forward, I would say just one thing with some certainty: Beware of those who say that progressives must “go back to the drawing board” and work with conservatives to forge a bipartisan bill.

Conservatives don’t want reform, at least not as progressives define it:  “equal opportunity” for all who need care. “Universal coverage” is not the goal that conservatives seek. They would continue to discriminate against the sick and low-income families.  They believe that a competitive market could offer the soltuion to our health care crisis.  ((I’ll be writing about this tomorrow when I take a look at Safeway’s Solution.)

Conservatives blame the sick for being sick, and they fault the poor for being poor.  Health care reform must be compassionate, and it must be equitable.

The Senate’s controversial “Cadillac Tax” on expensive health insurance plans was supposed to raise $149 billion to help fund reform. But now, we’re told it’s been “scaled back.” Some use the verb “gutted”—though that is probably a tad strong. Still, a number of changes have been made:

• Union employees will be exempt for the tax on expensive insurance plans until 2018, five years after the legislation takes effect
• Government employees will also be exempt until 2018
• The threshold defining “expensive” plans has been lifted from $8,500 to $9,000 for individual plans and from $23,000 to $24,000 for family plans.
• The threshold will rise further for plans where premiums are higher because the work force is older or includes more women 
• Adjustments will also be made to spare plans in 17 states with particularly high health costs.
• The value of dental and vision benefits won’t count toward the thresholds

Reportedly, the changes mean that the tax will raise about $90 billion over 10 years, down from $149 billion. But my guess is that, after you tally up all of the adjustments, the bill will raise far less.

Continue reading →

Everyone knows that Haitians are in desperate need of aid. Most people don’t know how they might help. Here is some useful information:

First, Paul Farmer’s organization, Health Partners, can be trusted. Farmer has spent more than two decades working in Haiti and has done extraordinary work.

As Pulitzer prize-winning journalist Tracy Kidder, author of Mountains Upon Mountains,” observes in a New York Times Op-ed: In Haiti “there are the many projects that seem designed to serve not impoverished Haitians but the interests of the people administering the projects. Most important, a lot of organizations seem to be unable — and some appear to be unwilling — to create partnerships with each other or, and this is crucial, with the public sector of the society they’re supposed to serve. . . “

But Kidder observes: “there are effective aid organizations working in Haiti. At least one has not been crippled by the earthquake. Partners in Health, or in Haitian Creole Zanmi Lasante, has been the largest health care provider in rural Haiti. (I serve on this organization’s development committee.) It operates, in partnership with the Haitian Ministry of Health, some 10 hospitals and clinics, all far from the capital and all still intact. As a result of this calamity, Partners in Health probably just became the largest health care provider still standing in all Haiti.

“Fortunately, it also offers a solid model for independence  . . ..”

Matthew Holt’s The Health Care Blog has published this appeal from Health Partners, addressed to:  Surgeons, nurses, and other medical personnel:  “We are deeply grateful for the multitude of people who have contacted us wanting to provide medical  assistance. As patients flood to our sites from Port-au-Prince, we’re finding ourselves in need of both medical personnel and supplies. In particular, we need surgeons (especially trauma/orthopedic surgeons), ER doctors and nurses, and full surgical teams (including anesthesiologists, scrub and post-op nurses, and nurse anesthetists).

“If you are a health professional interested in volunteering, please send an email to volunteer@pih.org with information on your credentials, language capabilities (Haitian Creole or French desired), availability, and contact information.”

 “As phone lines in Haiti remain down and transportation and communication are difficult, PIH is still in the process of determining where we can set up operations in Port-au-Prince, and how we can transport patients and volunteers to our sites. We will be able to offer more concrete information after these logistical matters are resolved.”

It might seem too late to volunteer. So many Haitians are dead or dying as we speak.  But those who were badly injured are hanging on– still hoping for  help. Over the longer term, they are going to need physicians and nurses as they try to repair lives. In many cases, those who survived but are injured are orphaned children.

If you’re like me and  can’t travel to Haiti, you still can contribute. Send as little a $10—or as much as you can. I’ve contributed  to Partners In Health’s website here.

The Washington Post reports that union leaders are close to cutting a deal with Democrats on the so-called “Cadillac tax,” the 40% tax on expensive insurance plans that the Senate has proposed to help fund health care reform. According to the Post, unions would be exempted from the tax, for two years following the 2013 effective date, giving them time to negotiate new contracts with employers. For other reports on the negotiations, see Kaiser Health News.

What about employees who are not unionized? Late this afternoon, The Wall Street Journal reports that “Democrats agreed to add a provision making the tax less onerous on older workers and women, a union official said. Union sources cautioned that the agreement isn't finalized because it is still being presented to the various unions.” Meanwhile, CNN has said that labor leaders are pushing to expand the deal to exempt health plans for all Americans making under $200,000 a year: “AFL-CIO chief Richard Trumka has made looking out for all workers — not just union members — a big part of his platform.” Watch to see if this happens:  if it does, it would be a major fix.

Continue reading →