Healthcare Savings - Ideas That Work (not Obamacare)

[WhiskeyGirl]

An interesting study with some history -

...the resulting American health care model proved a clever way to ensure that the money would roll in from patients, employers, and government, it contained a flaw that is proving fatal. The flaw is that health care consumers have been removed from participating in decisions regarding their care. Our approach to health insurance ignores the important role consumers play in controlling costs and enhancing quality. Dr. Gorman found that people who pay for their own care cut utilization by 10% to 30% with no discernable effect on health. Saving even 10% of Wisconsin’s 2002-2003 health care spending would have saved $260 million.

...The regulatory binge in U.S. health care since the 1970s has produced nearly 50 kinds of federal and state health services’ regulations, which by 2002 was costing roughly $340 billion, about 20% of total health spending of $1,560 billion.

More promising recent reforms emphasize a return to consumer-directed health spending in which consumers who spend less on their health benefit directly. Health Savings Accounts made their debut in 2002. Early results from employers offering these and less consumer-friendly arrangements suggest that people spending their own money spend less, have fewer hospital admissions and emergency room visits, and are more meticulous in their use of prescription drugs. As Health Savings Account balances will likely build up rapidly for the majority of  people who are in good health, they also provide hope for the fiscal Titanic that is Medicare.

Programs that work -

In 2002, the State of Colorado turned conventional wisdom on its head with a pilot program that allowed about 146 severely disabled Medicaid patients to use state funds to hire and fire their own home health aides. Average monthly spending dropped by 21%. Care was better and patients split the savings 50/50 with the state, allowing them to buy needed equipment like voice-activated telephones.

This study is from 2006 -

Two clear choices face those who would shape future U.S. health care policy. Continuing to follow old habits of layered regulation, third party payment, and increasing government control will continue the current cost spiral and the recent deterioration in patient care. To protect a bankrupt Medicare program, government involvement will be extended into every nook and cranny of U.S. medical care. The regulatory overload will end private medicine and encourage those who can afford it to purchase their health care abroad.

The major difference between U.S. spending on health and U.S. spending on education is that a majority of health spending still takes place in the private sector. Educational spending, even at universities, is largely controlled by government. The extent of government control matters. High spending on primary and secondary education produces 15-year-old Americans that consistently rank in the bottom third on international achievement tests. In contrast, high spending on U.S. health care produces significant benefits for American patients.

Private control makes it more likely that funds will be channeled to areas important to consumers. When the spending is on health, the money flows to patient care. In privately-controlled systems, infrastructures end up designed to cure maladies, promote full recoveries, and shorten treatment times. People willingly pay for prompt care, diagnostic tests to lower their risk, on drugs and devices that ease compliance with medical regimes, and for
research into treatment modalities likely to cure disease and dysfunction.

In politically-controlled systems, money flows to issues of concern to politicians. At any one time, less than 5% of the population in most industrialized countries needs sophisticated medical care. In terms of votes, the concerns of the sick are inevitably outnumbered by the concerns of the well.

Hmmm...politicians control stimulus spending, taxpayers get the debt.  For some reason, stimulus money is going to stimulate foreign countries...

How much healthcare money will continue to save foreigners?  Less money for Americans, more for foreigners...taxpayers get stuck with the bill.

http://www.wpri.org/Reports/Volume19/Vol19no10.pdf

Lots of good reading.

[WhiskeyGirl]

Another program that works and saves money - "Wisconsin Senior Care" - a state prescription program for seniors, instead of Medicare Part D.

“I am extremely thankful for the Obama Administration’s decision to extend Wisconsin’s SeniorCare waiver,” said Congressman Ron Kind. “Seniors all over Wisconsin repeatedly tell me what a life-saver the SeniorCare program is to them, and their interests are our top priority. This program is a pillar of innovation, saving millions of dollars while providing more comprehensive and less expensive coverage than Medicare Part D. Simply put, Wisconsin’s program should be a model for the federal government, not the other way around.”

http://www.superiortelegram.com/event/article/id/36747/group/Community/

For many people, the program saves them money, compared to Part D. There's a $30 annual fee, co-pays of $5 for generics and $15 for brand-name drugs, and a deductible based on income.

For the federal government, it's a good deal because the state is allowed to negotiate prices with drug companies. That's not allowed with Part D. SeniorCare costs the federal government $588 per person; Part D costs $1,690.

http://www.postcrescent.com/article/20090822/APC06/908220612

I wonder how much Barack's drug company enhancements will cost taxpayers?  Seniors?  Medicare?  Medicaid?  Part D participants?

[Edward]

I suggest..
Open and free market competition for all doctors and hospitals for charges below 5000.00
That is right..It is pay as you go below 5k
You can shop around and find a doctor who works cheap just like you shop for a mechanic to work on your car or a carpenter to work on your house.

Let them compete with each other for CASH business !! Keep the government Out Of Your Personal Life.

Above 5000.00 a major medical insurance policy and IF you are disabled or retired with income below 50k a year, then the government flips the bill for the major medical insurance policy.

How more simple can it get ..

Vote for Edward for president... A vote for Edward is a vote for common sense.

 

[WhiskeyGirl]

I suggest..
Open and free market competition for all doctors and hospitals for charges below 5000.00
That is right..It is pay as you go below 5k
You can shop around and find a doctor who works cheap just like you shop for a mechanic to work on your car or a carpenter to work on your house.

Let them compete with each other for CASH business !! Keep the government Out Of Your Personal Life.

Above 5000.00 a major medical insurance policy and IF you are disabled or retired with income below 50k a year, then the government flips the bill for the major medical insurance policy.

How more simple can it get ..

Vote for Edward for president... A vote for Edward is a vote for common sense.

How many people ask the doctor or any provider what they charge?

I've see signs at the urgent care centers offering school or sports physicals for $30.  When I asked someone at the urgent care, they said it helps keep the doors open and they can be scheduled around their other business.

How many folks know what their provider is being paid?

If suntan places can advertise so many visits for $x, why not physical therapists?  Chiropractors?

I also believe if people had to take the first $5,000 out of their pocket, they would be paying attention, and demanding value.

It's easy to spend when it's someone elses money, or you have a blank check.

I remember when employers offered 'catastrophic' plans for like $5 a week, or $20 a month.  The HMO alternative was like $70 a week.  Many folks saved money by paying for their everyday expenses out of pocket.

They don't offer those bargains anymore, to many signed up for them.  I was told by one person, they go into a separate 'bucket' and not enough other folks to pay for those that have high utilization.  If someone wants first dollar coverage, they should pay more.

I think the government could afford 'major medical' or 'catastrophic' for most everyone (there are always a few exceptions).

jmho