Archive for the ‘The Amazing Maze’ Category

ACA – What are the Employer Incentives?

Last week I wrote about the confusing incentives for employers who offer health insurance for their employees.  Are the penalties, excuse me, the “assessable payments”, a sufficient deterrent to keep employers in the health care coverage providing business?

Yet those penalties are only the half of it.

The wheel of progress?

Employers also face penalties if their plans fail to measure up to the law’s standards.

  • It must have an actuarial value of at least 60
  • Employee share of the premium must be “affordable”

The definition of affordable gets interesting.  The cost of employee only coverage cannot exceed 9.5% of household income.

9.5% of household income

Get that?  Household income! Continue reading ‘ACA – What are the Employer Incentives?’

Did you like this? Share it:

Too Much Health Care Insurance?

Can one have too much health care coverage?

Much of the debate for expanded health care coverage and for a single payer financing and delivery system arises out of concern for people without access to the traditional portals into the health care system: employment, old age, or poverty.

Abundance

But some people can have a whole lot of a good thing and still their medical bills fall through the cracks.

Take Dinah for example.

Consider the ways she had access to health care.

She was employed and had access to employer sponsored health insurance.

She was married and had access to health insurance as a dependent on her husband’s plan.

Her husband died and she became eligible for coverage as a survivor through her husband’s plan.

Her husband also had a retirement from a previous employer and she had access to coverage as a survivor on that plan.

She retired and had access to retiree health insurance from her employer.

She remarried and access to her second husband’s health insurance as a dependent.

She also had Medicare.

And still she could not get her bills paid.

There were mix ups in signing her up for some of those programs and the ones she was enrolled in could not decide which paid first, which was her primary insurance.  She came to us in tears, wanting to discard the insurance she had been paying for because it was “no good,” convinced her only option was to go on Medicaid.

Confusion reigns.

And even when people and systems have it right, confusion reigns.  Each year we get calls from people during Medicare Part D open enrollment?  They are confused and some of the vendors seem to offer extremely misleading and inaccurate information.  Why does it need to be so complicated.

Take Frank for example.

Frank was taking care of his older sister’s affairs.  She was in a nursing home and had access to Medicaid, Medicare Parts A and B and D and her retiree insurance with our plan.  Yet she could not get her prescriptions paid for.  Why?  It seems that the private pharmacy used by the nursing home did not know how to submit claims to any other payer than Medicaid.  That was straightened out.

But Frank made an astute observation.  He said each time he called one of these “pieces of the pie” as he called them, he would get a little bit more information.  He complained that each of the pieces barely understood their own role and no one understood how all of these pieces fit together.  “If they can’t see the whole picture, how do they expect an ordinary person like me to figure this out?”

Or the members who battle workers’ compensation in part to pay the medical bills for their work related injury and also to have income to pay the insurance premiums that pays for the medical bills for their non-work related medical bills.

Single payer is needed not just to provide for the have-nots, but also to bring order into a chaotic system for the haves.

Photo credit:    Stijn
Did you like this? Share it:

Health Care Reform and the Same Old Administrative Waste

During the healthcare reform debates, Republicans and others argued that malpractice awards and the litigation surrounding them contributed to the high cost of health care in this country.

100_1618

Don't wander off the beaten path

I suggest they might be looking in the wrong courtrooms.

Last week I wrote about the new age 26 rules and the costs that don’t get counted towards the already outrageous costs of health care, costs that are born by employers as they split hairs on eligibility rules.

Rather than a simple system of universal eligibility that opens one door to everyone, the United States has built a system of silos that forces Americans to navigate a maze of rules that makes distinctions based on relationships, age, residence, economic status, and other criteria.

Some get lost trying to find the right door.

Some end up in court.

In fact, there are whole industries built around two such silos, and that overhead is not counted towards the cost of health care.  Such expense only makes sense in a through the looking glass world where ideology trumps practicality. Continue reading ‘Health Care Reform and the Same Old Administrative Waste’

Did you like this? Share it:

Payment Reform that Matters to Patients

2549205564_dd368f89d5_m

Hoops

The recently passed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) does much to promote long term reform of the way physicians are paid for their services.

But could something be done now to simplify the system for both patients and their doctors?

Many health care policy experts tout the current payment system as a major contributor to distorted incentives within the current health care delivery system

Fee for service reimbursement promotes more procedures, surgeries, images, etc. at the expense of patient listening time.

So the PPACA implemented a number of pilot programs to promote efforts to develop more global approaches to reimbursement.  I have discussed some of these in previous posts. Continue reading ‘Payment Reform that Matters to Patients’

Did you like this? Share it:

Alligators and Taxes

When you are up to your neck in alligators, its hard to remember that someone needs to drain the swamp.

The American Allligator

The American Alligator

Last week, I wrote about the tax on “Cadillac plans”.  This past week, BHO reached an agreement with labor unions, the primary voice of the opposition to taxing so-called “Cadillac plans”.  The tax is still there.  My suggestion didn’t seem to make it into the discussion.  I was busy dealing with alligators.  That’s my day job.

One of our carriers had a computer glitch (a nice euphemism) that disrupted coverage for many people.  Here is a typical example of the kind of fires we had to put out – a woman went to the doctor’s office and the doctor could feel a lump in her breast but would not order a mammogram because the office had contacted the insurance carrier and had learned (incorrectly) that she had no coverage.

These incidents prompted me to wonder.  If we had a single payer health care system, couldn’t we have the same problems?

After all, we will certainly still have computers.

But we won’t have people moving from plan to plan because they changed jobs.  We won’t have people losing coverage because they lost their job, or because they got sick, lost their paycheck and therefore could not afford their health insurance premium.

Doctors and hospitals will know who is paying their bills and therefore might show a bit more patience with administrative errors.  After all, if a computer error like that should occur in a single payer system, it likely would affect a high percentage of their patients.

There would hopefully be a sense of shared crisis, not one that abandons people in a time of acute need.

Oh, and the tax compromise reached recently.  It is still a bad idea.  Now it is just an acutely complicated bad idea.

And it will do absolutely nothing to make our health care system less fragmented, less chaotic, and more humane.

It just lets in more alligators and stops up the drain even more.

Did you like this? Share it:

Archives

Bloggers - Meet Millions of Bloggers