Health care and health insurance are not the same thing – the fundamental disconnect in health care reform – Fox News

Politicians from both sides of the aisle continue to show a troubling disconnect from basic principles in their approach to health care reform. Among their many debates about changing health care, the single most essential reform reducing the cost of health care itself - is typically underemphasized or even entirely absent from the discussion. Yet that is the fundamental avenue to broader access to care, lower insurance premiums, and ultimately better health.

Instead, legislators continue to erroneously focus on increasing the percentage of people with health insurance. But the disregarded reality is that health insurance premiums are only a secondary manifestation of other factors, chiefly the cost of medical care and to a lesser extent the regulatory environment for insurance.

In a misguided attempt to insure more people at all cost, the Affordable Care Act (aka ObamaCare) doles out over $1 trillion of tax revenues to subsidize premiums and adds numerous regulations and taxes, many of which counterproductively increase premiums. At this point, there should be no need to debate the harmful impacts of this approach insurance premiums skyrocket; insurers withdraw from the marketplace; and for those with coverage, doctor and hospital choices narrow dramatically.

What is baffling is that todays Republican-dominated House and Senate both continue to focus on making insurance more affordable, mainly through cash to consumers in refundable tax credits. By ignoring the root problem, such policies artificially prop up insurance premiums for coverage that often minimizes out-of-pocket payment. This shields medical care providers from competing on price. While emerging GOP proposals rightfully strip back some of the ACAs harmful regulations and taxes, far more emphasis is urgently needed on reducing medical care costs, the core cause underlying high insurance costs.

It is also particularly disturbing that our own elected leaders ignore what we all should have already learned from those countries boasting about a fully insured population under socialized medicine. In those countries with government insurance for all, epitomized by the shameful NHS of the United Kingdom, their insured patients have far worse access to care for even the sickest patients. There are unconscionable delays for those needing urgent treatment for already diagnosed cancer (17% wait more than two months) and already recommended brain surgery (17% wait more than 18 weeks); delayed access to important medications; and factually worse outcomes from serious diseases like cancer, heart disease, stroke, high blood pressure, and diabetes compared to Americans pre-ObamaCare. Indeed, having insurance is not at all synonymous with having access to quality medical care.

Lowering the cost of medical care itself, though, is fraught with peril. It must be achieved without harming patients. That means without jeopardizing quality, restricting access, or inhibiting critical innovation of American medical care that - based on peer-reviewed data throughout the leading medical journals (see, for example, reviews such as In Excellent Health ) - is the standard of excellence for the world.

We first must create an environment where consumers care about prices and receive benefit from seeking value. But is it even realistic to suggest that people could shop for medical care and seek value, as Americans do for virtually every other good and service?

Some medical care, including emergency care, obviously does not lend itself to price consideration. But emergency care represents only six percent of health care expenditures.

Among privately insured adults under age 65, almost 60 percent of all health expenditures is for elective outpatient care; only 20 percent is spent on inpatient care and 21 percent on medications. Likewise, 60 percent of Medicaid money is spent for outpatient care. Even in the elderly, almost 40 percent of expenses are for outpatient care. Of the top one percent of spenders, the group responsible for more than 25 percent of all health spending at an average of $100,000 per person per year, a full 45 percent of care is also outpatient. Outpatient health care services dominate Americas health spending, and these are amenable to value-based decisions.

To fully leverage consumer power on health care prices, consumers must have an expanded role in directly paying for their care. Higher deductible insurance plans (HDHPs) are vehicles to position patients as direct payers for a higher proportion of their medical care. These plans are most effective when combined with large health savings accounts. When people have a reason to shop for value - when they have growing savings to protect in HSAs - the cost of care comes down without harmful impact on health. When paired with HSAs, spending of those with HDHPs decreased at least 15% annually in a March 2015 study. More than one-third of the savings by enrollees in such coverage reflected value-based decision-making by consumers. Cheaper, limited mandate, high deductible coverage; markedly expanded HSAs; and targeted tax incentives to expand their use are key to reducing medical care prices.

Leveraging the power of seniors, the biggest users of health care, is also important. The expected tripling of health expenses for a 65-year-old by 2030 projected by HealthView makes HSAs even more relevant, particularly since todays seniors with their longer lifespan need to save money for decades, not years, of future health care.

In addition, reforms must eliminate the artificial constraints on the supply of medical care. Although less publicized, almost two-thirds of the 2025 projected doctor shortage of 124,000 will be in specialists, not primary care. Medical school graduation numbers have stagnated for almost 40 years. Severe protectionist residency training program restrictions have been in place for decades. And archaic non-reciprocal licensing by states unnecessarily limits specialist patient care, especially as telemedicine proliferates. These anti-consumer practices need to be open to public scrutiny and abolished.

Primary care specifically could be far less costly with immediate modernization. Nurse practitioners and physician assistants can provide the vast majority of routine primary care, including flu shots, blood pressure monitoring, and prescription renewals. In a 2011 review, 88 percent of visits to retail clinics involved relatively simple care, 3040 percent cheaper than at physician offices and about 80 percentcheaper than at emergency departments. These clinics can potentially save hundreds of millions of dollars per year with high patient satisfaction. We need to simplify credentialing requirements for such clinics, and states should remove outmoded scope-of-practice limits on nurse practitioners and physician assistants.

The primary goal of health reform should be to reduce the costs of medical care, not to increase the number of insurance holders. Beyond regulatory reform and tax repeal, specific mechanisms to reduce the prices of health care without harming access, quality, or innovation have been proven effective, and they should be the focus of health care reform. Everything else follows.

Scott W. Atlas is the David and Joan Traitel Senior Fellow at Stanfords Hoover Institution and the author of Restoring Quality Health Care: A Six Point Plan for Comprehensive Reform at Lower Cost.

See original here:

Health care and health insurance are not the same thing - the fundamental disconnect in health care reform - Fox News

Oregon House OKs reproductive health care bill for women – The Register-Guard

SALEM The Oregon House engaged in a rare and often somber floor debate on abortion Saturday, as majority Democrats passed a womens health care bill.

House Bill 3391 requires Oregon insurers to cover many reproductive health services for women, including abortion, without charging them any out-of-pocket expense. It also extends the same coverage to unauthorized immigrants, at a two-year cost to the state of $10.2 million.

The controversial bill passed on a largely party-line 33-23 vote, after several hours of debate.

All House Republicans voted no, joined by Rep. John Lively, a Springfield Democrat.

House Democratic Leader Jennifer Williamson of Portland said the policy would mean healthier individuals and healthier families.

The amount of money a person makes should not determine their access to health care, she said.

Added Rep. Julie Fahey, a Eugene Democrat and bill chief sponsor: Health care is a basic human right.

But the bill provoked an emotional response from House Republicans, many of whom are personally opposed to abortion.

Rep. Andy Olson, an Albany Republican, recounted the story of his granddaughter, born premature at 25 weeks. The girl died as an infant. Near tears, he said that child was a whole little girl, yet could have been legally aborted under Oregon law. I cant reconcile in my mind how anyone who has a walk with God, can support this, he said, slamming his hand on his desk. I just cant get there with you.

In addition to abortion, the bill requires insurers to provide free services for women that include: birth control; prenatal and postpartum care; screenings for sexually transmitted diseases, cervical and breast cancer; breastfeeding support and supplies; counseling for domestic violence victims; and tobacco cessation.

In a concession by Democrats, religious employers would be exempt from having to provide health plans with abortion or contraceptive coverage. And one major insurer in Oregon, Providence, a Catholic organization, successfully lobbied to be removed from the requirement as well. Providence covers around 260,000 Oregonians.

The bill grants similar health and reproductive services to unauthorized immigrant women who would otherwise qualify for the coverage under the Oregon Health Plan, the states version of Medicaid, because of their low income.

OHA estimates almost 23,000 authorized immigrants would receive such services during the next two years, costing the state $10.2 million. Of that, an estimated $500,000 would cover abortions for those women.

Rep. Duane Stark, a Grants Pass Republican, said he could feel rage coming up through (his) neck when he thought about taxpayer dollars paying for those abortions. These little humans have a heartbeat 18 days after conception, he said. Science clearly shows that life begins in the womb.

But House Democrats refused to be drawn into a dragged-out fight about abortion, with only three of their 35 present members speaking up on the bill at all.

Frustrated moderate Republicans, meanwhile, said the bill would heighten partisan tensions in the final days of session. Rep. Knute Buehler, a Bend Republican and likely gubernatorial candidate, said that hes personally pro-abortion. But he voted no on the bill, in part because of its cost.

Democrats, he said, are play(ing) politics with an issue thats deeply personal.

But the Oregon Pro-Choice Coalition said in a press release that the bill will ensure that every Oregonian can decide when and whether to become a parent regardless of income, type of insurance, citizenship status or gender identity.

The bill now heads to the Senate, where it is expected to pass.

Follow Saul on Twitter @SaulAHubbard . Email saul.hubbard@registerguard.com .

More Oregon Legislature articles

See the original post:

Oregon House OKs reproductive health care bill for women - The Register-Guard

The biggest winner in the current health-care debate: Single-payer – Washington Post

We still don't know who will ultimately prevail in the debate over the future of American health care: the Republicans who want to overhaul Obamacare, or the Democrats who want to keep it in place.

But after weeks of debate, there is one clear winner so far: single-payer health care.

No, single-payer isn't going to happen at the end of this debate or even the end of this year or this decade, necessarily. But the logical foundations for it are being laid in our political debate just about every single day. And when you pair that with the rising public support for government-run health care, it's clear in which direction this wholedebate is trending.

The most surprising aspect of the current health-care debate, for me, has been how Republicans have essentially given up on making the conservative case for their bills. They aren't even arguing that the free market would lead to higher-quality care, efficiency and medical advancements, as the GOP of old might have. Instead, they are trying to obscure the reality that their bills would cut Medicaid by hundreds of millions of dollars (versus where funding is currently set) and would increase the number of uninsured Americans by potential 20 million or more.

Part of this is because that's a losing argument. The reality of entitlement programs and government benefits is that, once they are instituted, it's very, very difficult to get rid of them or even scale them back. Just look at what happened to the GOP when it suggested privatizing Social Security last decade.

That political reality has also basically forced Republicans to concede this point: that people being uninsured is a very bad thing, and that cutting funding to Medicaid is a bad thing. They have basically conceded that government involvement in health care is a good thing or, at least, a necessary thing. That wasn't the argument they were making against Obamacare eight years ago.

Democrats, meanwhile, are gradually talking themselves into supporting single-payer, it would seem. Their laser-like focus on the number who are uninsured and the Medicaid cuts has a logical conclusion. There is only one way to make sure nobody is uninsured, after all.

And there are signs that both parties' bases are indeed moving toward government health care. APew studyin January showed 60 percent of Americans felt it was the government's job to guarantee health-care coverage for all Americans up from 51 percent in early 2016.About 8 in 10 Democratic-leaning voters and 3 in 10 Republican-leaning voters agreed with this statement.

That's not quite single-payer, of course, so Pew broke it out a little bit more in its most recent study. It asked those who supported a government guarantee whether they backed single-payer or a mix of government and private programs. In this case, support for single-payer was 33 percent overall 52 percent on the Democratic side and 12 percent on the GOP side.

One of the realities of polling, though, is that when you give people more than two options, they will tend toward the middle-ground response. A "mix of government and private programs" is a pretty safe middle ground, it would seem, and may actually undersell single-payer support.

And sure enough, a Gallup poll from mid-2016 actually showed a 58 percent majority of Americans wanteda "federally funded healthcare program providing insurance for all Americans." A CBS News poll in February 2016 asked more directly about single-payer and found 44 percent support. NORC pegged it at 38 percent but only 24 percent if people were told that it would greatly increase government spending. (Philip Bump summarized all of these data here.)

What we can say with certainty, though, is that the debate over this topic has taken on a new flavor as Republicans have been working to finally undo Obamacare. And it's a flavor that reflects a growing move toward government health care.

The GOP may yet move the needle away from government health care by the time all is said and done, but the center of this political debate has moved noticeably to the left.

Go here to read the rest:

The biggest winner in the current health-care debate: Single-payer - Washington Post

Here’s How the Wealthy Gain From GOP Health Care Bill – NBCNews.com

Some Republicans are interested in easing the bill's Medicaid cuts and making subsidies for private insurance more generous at low incomes, but the math doesn't add up as long as the bill gives them $700 billion less in revenue to work with than Obamacare.

And some Republican senators have

The point is, you cannot increase the burden on lower-income citizens and lessen the burden on wealthy citizens, Senator Bob Corker, R-Tenn., told NBC News on Thursday. Thats not an equation that works.

Keeping Obamacare's tax on investment income adds $172 billion over 10 years, which is significant. But there's little talk of keeping the taxes on medical companies, which critics say are passed on in higher prices for consumers. Nor is there any indication yet that Republicans are willing to raise taxes elsewhere to make up the income.

That could leave them with the same fundamental problem: Less spending that provides fewer benefits than Obamacare can deliver.

Continued here:

Here's How the Wealthy Gain From GOP Health Care Bill - NBCNews.com

Finally Everyone Agrees: Health Care Is a Human Right – RollingStone.com

Many years ago, while researching a book chapter on health care reform, I visited a hospital in Bayonne, New Jersey that was having problems. Upon arrival, administrators told me a story that summed up everything that is terrible and stupid about American health care.

A patient of theirs suffering from a chronic illness took a bad turn and had to come in for a minor surgical procedure. The only problem was, the patient had been taking Coumadin, a common blood thinner, as part of his outpatient care.

So they brought him in to the hospital, weaned him off the Coumadin, did the surgery successfully, then sent him home. All was well until they billed the insurer. The answer came back: coverage denied, because the operation had not been conducted in "timely fashion."

Of course, had they operated in a more "timely fashion," the patient would have bled to death on the operating table. But such is the logic of the American health care system, a Frankenstein's monster of monopolistic insurance zones peppered with over a thousand different carriers, each with their own (often cruel) procedures and billing systems.

The hospitals I visited all told me they devoted enormous resources as much as half of all administrative staff, in one case to chasing claims. Patient care in American is in this way consistently reduced to a ludicrous and irrational negotiation of two competing professional disciplines: medicine, and extracting money from insurance companies.

Patients get trapped between hospitals that overcharge for simple procedures and insurers who deny coverage for serious ones. Administrative costs and profit are two of the bigger factors explaining why Americans spend about twice as much per person or more on health care compared with other industrialized countries, but get consistently worse results.

Ideas like a single-payer system, or ending the antitrust exemption for insurance companies, would be obvious fixes. But when they came up during the Obamacare debate, they were dismissed as politically unfeasible and/or too costly. Because the United States will not do what other countries do as a matter of course declare health care to be a universal human right and work backward from that premise we are continually stuck with patchwork political solutions that protect insurance and pharmaceutical company profits while leaving masses of people uninsured.

This is why it's so interesting to see so many of the opponents of universal health coverage attacking the idiotic Trumpcare bill on moral, rather than financial, grounds. Trumpcare is, like most Republican health care concepts, a depraved and transparent effort at slashing coverage and converting the benefits into tax breaks for rich people. This has resulted in howls of outrage from people who seem to have only just discovered that denying people health care might be bad for their health.

Take Paul Krugman's piece in the New York Times today, "Understanding Republican Cruelty":

"More than 40 percent of the Senate bill's tax cuts would go to people with annual incomes over $1 million but even these lucky few would see their after-tax income rise only by a barely noticeable 2 percent.

"So it's vast suffering including, according to the best estimates, around 200,000 preventable deaths imposed on many of our fellow citizens in order to give a handful of wealthy people what amounts to some extra pocket change."

This is interesting, because only last year Krugman was telling us we should abandon efforts to seek universal health care and focus "on other issues." As he put it:

"If we could start from scratch, many, perhaps most, health economists would recommend single-payer, a Medicare-type program covering everyone. But single-payer wasn't a politically feasible goal in America."

Krugman then went on to explain that the "incumbent political players" private insurers, among others simply had too much power, so it was better to give them something and get some health care than to take something away from them and get nothing.

He also said that additional tax revenue would make a more universal program politically untenable; he said this even as he admitted that such a program would probably reduce costs overall, but countered that "it would be difficult to make that case to the broad public, especially given the chorus of misinformation you know would dominate the airwaves."

Krugman's concession to what he called "Realities" meant that it was OK to leave an expected 31 million people uninsured. This was the argument last January, when most pundits and Vegas bookmakers were sure we were looking at four more years of a Democratic White House.

Instead, the monster Trump is in power, and trying to further roll back coverage in a field he surely doesn't understand through legislation he apparently doesn't even like. Reports say he has "shown little interest in what's in the bill," but that he thought the House version was "mean, mean, mean."

That doesn't mean Trump or the Republican Party plans on doing anything substantive to fix their idiotic health care bill. In a scene straight out of Swift or Gogol, Republican Senators were apparently stunned to their cores to discover via the Congressional Budget Office that their steal-from-the-poor, give-to-the-rich mutant of a bill would push 23 million people off the health care rolls.

"It knocked the wind out of all their sails," a GOP aide told reporters.

While the Republicans scramble to figure out the next step, Democrats continue to hammer the theme that Republicans want to kill their voters. I'm not a big fan of this kind of rhetoric, but I'll take it if it means the party is having an epiphany about the moral aspects of the health care debate. Surely if pushing some people off health care is killing them, then leaving tens of millions more without care is no better.

Health care is an absolute human right. On a policy level we already recognized this decades ago, during the height of the Reagan era, when the Emergency Medical and Treatment Labor Act made it illegal for public and private hospitals alike to turn patients away in an emergency. There is simply no moral justification for denying aid to a sick or dying person. Any country that does so systematically is not a country at all.

Let's hope the awful Trump era awakens us to the broader issue. The sad thing is that doing the right thing is also the smart thing. As other countries have already discovered, universal coverage systems that put the right incentives back into health care greatly reduce costs and waste. Getting there isn't "unrealistic." It's necessary, morally and otherwise.

Sign up for our newsletter to receive breaking news directly in your inbox.

View post:

Finally Everyone Agrees: Health Care Is a Human Right - RollingStone.com

Trump Backers ‘Furious’ That Senator Stood Against Health Care Bill – New York Times

The political fallout from Mr. Hellers high-profile news conference a week ago offers a vivid illustration of the new fault lines on the right in the Trump era. After years of fierce clashing between Republican hard-liners and mainstream conservatives, the purity-versus-pragmatist wars have given way to a new, Trump-centered debate that highlights how fully the president has taken over the party.

On the other hand, Mr. Heller faces enormous grass-roots pressure to stand his ground against the bill. He has clung tightly to his states popular Republican governor, Brian Sandoval, a staunch opponent of the repeal who accepted the Medicaid expansion dollars in the Affordable Care Act. More than 200,000 Nevadans have gained insurance through Medicaid since the passage of the health law.

What angered the Republican rank and file about Mr. Hellers critique was not so much his unease with the compromise Senate legislation a measure that many on the far right are also displeased with but that he would so purposefully undermine the presidents agenda.

And it is not just party activists who are displeased with the senator.

Mr. Adelson and Mr. Wynn, two of Las Vegass leading gambling titans, each contacted Mr. Heller at the request of the White House last week to complain about his opposition to the Republican-written health overhaul, according to multiple Republican officials.

One ally of Mr. Hellers acknowledged that Mr. Adelson and Mr. Wynn were unhappy with the senator at the moment and that their relationship needed some repair work.

Both billionaire donors are close to Mr. Trump, a fellow tycoon. Mr. Adelson played a pivotal role in Mr. Trumps election, showering Republican groups last year with tens of millions of dollars. Mr. Wynn is the finance chairman of the Republican National Committee and oversaw a fund-raiser on Wednesday at the presidents Washington hotel that Mr. Trump said had raised about $7 million for the party committee and his re-election campaign.

Earlier that day, America First Policies held a donor meeting for those who were in the capital for that evenings fund-raiser. Every contributor who raised the issue of the anti-Heller campaign an extraordinary offensive against a vulnerable senator in ones own party expressed approval of the attacks, according to an attendee.

Ronald M. Cameron, a major Republican donor who gave the maximum $5,400 donation to Mr. Hellers re-election campaign this year, said he would consider investing in primary race challenges to Republican lawmakers who oppose the health care bill or other White House legislative priorities.

I might support a challenger, and would certainly withhold support from someone that I thought was against Trumps agenda, said Mr. Cameron, an Arkansas poultry magnate who donated more than $2 million to committees supporting Mr. Trumps 2016 campaign and attended the Wednesday fund-raiser for his re-election.

Mr. Cameron who was solicited by America First but said he had not donated to the group said that he was not familiar with the groups ads against Mr. Heller, but that he did not object to the idea of publicly calling out lawmakers who oppose the health care bill.

They should shape up or get out of the way, he said.

Mr. Trump himself, while acknowledging the complaints of the Republican senators at the White House meeting, has in other private sessions with his aides and allies made clear that he very much approved of the onslaught against Mr. Heller. At the wedding of Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin last Saturday and then again in the White House this week, he told advisers that he supported the ad blitz, according to multiple Republican officials who have spoken to the president.

Officials with America First insist that Mr. Trump and the White House staff all supported their decision to target Mr. Heller. But there has been some unease in the administration over the strategy, which created a significant rift with the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, and other Republican senators at the very moment they were trying to forge consensus around the repeal bill.

At least one White House official sought to halt the attacks out of fear that alienating Mr. Heller would carry adverse ramifications well beyond the health debate. The Nevada senator is a crucial vote not only in the chamber where Republicans have a bare two-seat majority but also on the finance and banking committees. The two panels have jurisdiction over legislative priorities like tax cuts and presidential appointments.

Close advisers to Mr. Heller say he is open to eventually supporting the legislation, if significant changes are made.

Megan Taylor, a spokeswoman for Mr. Heller, did not respond to questions about his call with the casino magnates or the prospect of a primary race next year.

In a statement, she said Mr. Heller continues to engage with his colleagues, leadership and the administration to discuss what Nevada needs to see in this bill. But, she said, its not about Senator Heller getting to a yes; its about improving the legislation so that it achieves his goals of lowering costs and protecting Nevadas most vulnerable.

Mr. Trump and Mr. Heller have little in the way of a relationship. The senator never supported the presidents campaign, and Mr. Trump identifies him with a larger group of Nevada Republicans, including Mr. Sandoval, who either remained on the sidelines throughout 2016 or spurned him in the wake of the Access Hollywood tape disclosure last October.

The day after Mr. Trump was revealed to have boasted on that tape about sexually assaulting women, a pair of Republican lawmakers in Nevada made a show of abandoning their party nominee at a rally outside Las Vegas. In doing so, Representative Joe Heck, who was running for the Senate, and Representative Cresent Hardy, who was seeking re-election, enraged Mr. Trumps supporters.

Both lost their campaigns, making Nevada a rare bright spot in an otherwise lackluster year for Democrats.

To Nevada conservatives, it was an instructive moment and one they said Mr. Heller appears not to have learned a lesson from.

Hes making a tragic mistake that I thought had already been learned by the G.O.P. delegation in Nevada, said Wayne Allyn Root, a conservative talk show host and columnist in Las Vegas. When you abandon Trump, you dont get one Democrat, but you lose Republicans.

Both Mr. Root and Chuck Muth, another Nevada-based conservative activist, said they had been inundated with emails and calls from grass-roots Republicans who are angry about Mr. Heller. But whether that fury translates into a viable primary race challenge is far from certain. The senator will have significant financial support from his allies in Washington, and there is no obvious Republican opponent on the horizon. Mr. Tarkanian said he was also eyeing another run for the House seat he narrowly lost last year.

Another potential challenger, the state treasurer, Dan Schwartz, said he was likely to run for governor and has signaled to Mr. Heller through intermediaries that he will not take on the senator.

He will pay some price, but I just dont think its realistic, Mr. Schwartz said, citing the money needed to challenge Mr. Heller. Hes in a tight spot, but I dont think its dire.

Maggie Haberman contributed reporting from New York.

Get politics and Washington news updates via Facebook, Twitter and in the Morning Briefing newsletter.

A version of this article appears in print on July 1, 2017, on Page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Fury in Nevada for Senator Who Defied President on Health Bill.

Read the original here:

Trump Backers 'Furious' That Senator Stood Against Health Care Bill - New York Times

What exactly does Trump want from this health care bill? – CNN

On Friday morning, he awoke to fling a new wrench into already tense negotiations. "If Republican Senators are unable to pass what they are working on now," Trump tweeted, "they should immediately REPEAL, and then REPLACE at a later date!"

The message represented yet another twist in the long series of contradictions that mark his ever-shifting prescription for health care.

It wasn't the first time Trump very clearly rejected the notion of any health care layover.

But the most glaring difference between what Trump touted on the trail and what the Senate bill might deliver involves Medicaid, a program he pledged to protect, along with Medicare and Social Security, while warning that other Republican candidates might not.

The CBO, a nonpartisan agency, has estimated that the House and Senate bills would, respectively, lead to 23 and 22 million people losing insurance -- in comparison to the numbers expected under current law -- over the next ten years.

"We're going to have insurance for everybody," he told reporters. "There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can't pay for it, you don't get it. That's not going to happen with us."

Except that, according to the plans Republicans are now pushing, it will. Trump must sense this as he has twice now referred to the GOP health care plan as "mean." When former President Barack Obama derided what he called its "fundamental meanness" in a Facebook post, Trump actually responded by reminding Fox News that he used the language first.

"Well, (Obama) actually used my term, 'mean.' That was my term," Trump said. "Because I want to see -- and I speak from the heart -- that's what I want to see, I want to see a bill with heart."

Senate Republicans, however, facing the prospect of an unpopular vote much like their House colleagues nearly two months ago, have revolted against Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's proposal. All of which set the stage for Trump's endorsement Friday of repealing Obamacare and then replacing it later -- the very thing he so publicly rejected months earlier.

View post:

What exactly does Trump want from this health care bill? - CNN

Fresh polls find Republicans’ health-care proposal is still a clunker – Washington Post

A slew of new national surveys completed during the past week shed light on how voters are reacting to Republicans bills to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. The surveys show opposition continues to outpace support by a wide margin, with tepid support among Republicans and overwhelming opposition among Democrats.

Comparing polls, there is a range in how much opposition outweighs support. Among recent national live-interviewer polls, the Republicans health proposal fares best in a Fox News poll conducted June 25 to 27 that showed 27 percent of registered voters favored and 54 percent opposed the Senate Republican bill released last Thursday, a 2-to-1 margin of opposition. By contrast, a Suffolk University-USA Todaypoll starting one day earlier found a nearly 4-to-1 margin of opposition (45 percent opposed while 12 percent supported). The margin was similar in a Quinnipiac University poll begun the day Republican senators released their draft bill, with 58 percent who disapproved and 16 percent who approved. A fourth survey released this week by NPR-PBS NewsHour-Marist found a 3-to-1 margin of opposition, with 55 percent who disapproved and 17 percent who approved.

Almost all the polls on the issue had high percentages of people saying they had no opinion, probably as a result of the complicated and changing nature of legislation as well as whether the polling firm explicitly offered respondents a no opinion option. For instance, the Suffolk-USA Today survey asked whether respondents support or oppose the GOP plan, or don't you know enough to have an opinion? and found 43 percent of registered voters took that option.

There are sharp partisan differences in opinion on the GOP health-care proposals, as there is with the Affordable Care Act, but also a clear imbalance, with Democrats far more united in opposition than Republicans are in support. Across seven polls conducted since mid-month, Democratic opposition varied from 70 percent opposed in the Suffolk-USA Today poll to 84 percent disapproving in the CBS poll and Quinnipiac polls. By contrast, Republicans support for the law is lowest at 26 percent in the Suffolk-USA Today poll and highest at 63 percent in the CBS poll, a massive range indicating ambivalence toward their partys top legislative initiative.

Polls asking about the House and Senate bills dont appear to show dramatically different results, a sign that as debate over the law has continued, Republicans repeal and replace efforts do not appear to be gaining or losing popularity.

The polls also asked different groups of people Fox, Suffolk-USA Today and Quinnipiac polls all interviewed registered voters while the other polls pulled from American adults overall.

Beyond that, each of the seven polls worded their questions on the Republican health-care plan somewhat differently. Fox News asked whether voters favored or opposed the Senate health-care plan that would replace the Affordable Care Act, while NPR-PBS NewsHour-Marist asked whether people approved or disapproved of the Republican health-care plan. And NBC News-Wall Street Journal asked whether Americans thought the House bill was a good idea or bad idea.

Heres the full wording for each of the seven surveys:

Fox News: As you may know, the Senate recently released its version of a health care plan that would replace the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. Do you favor or oppose this legislation?

Suffolk-USA Today: Senate Republicans have unveiled their proposed healthcare plan to replace Obamacare. Do you support or oppose the GOP plan? Or dont you know enough to have an opinion?

Quinnipiac University: There is a Republican health care plan to replace Obamacare. Do you approve or disapprove of this Republican health care plan?

NPR-PBS NewsHour-Marist: From what you have read or heard, do you approve or disapprove of the health care plan Senate Republicans have proposed?

NBC News-Wall Street Journal: The health care bill passed by the House is a good idea or a bad idea?

CBS News: As you may know, Republicans in Congress passed a bill in the House of Representatives to repeal and replace the 2010 health care law. From what you have heard or read, do you approve or disapprove this plan?

Kaiser Family Foundation: As you may know, Congress is currently discussing a health-care plan that would repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. Given what you know about this proposed new health-care plan, do you have a generally (favorable) or generally (unfavorable) opinion of it?

Original post:

Fresh polls find Republicans' health-care proposal is still a clunker - Washington Post

A Price for the GOP’s Health Care Insanity – New York Times

Average premiums for the benchmark Obamacare plan rose 8 percent in 2016 and 21 percent in 2017, according to Kaiser Family Foundation data, while deductibles were up by about 15 percent. For some markets and plans, the premium increases were considerably higher: 67 percent in Oklahoma City; 71 percent in Birmingham, Ala.; 145 percent in Phoenix.

Same deal for employer-sponsored plans. While Sen. Obama promised during his campaign in 2008 that the average family would see health insurance premiums drop by $2,500 per year, the average family premium for employer-sponsored coverage has risen by $3,671, noted Maureen Buff and Timothy Terrell in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. That was back in 2014, and premiums continue to rise.

Meanwhile, insurers keep walking away from Obamacares unprofitable exchanges. Anthem and MDWise announced last month that they were withdrawing from Indiana, which will leave 76,000 Hoosiers in need of a new insurer. Anthem said it would be pulling out of the exchange in Ohio. Aetna warned it was pulling out of Virginia in May and Iowa in April. Humana did as much in Tennessee in February. More than 1,000 counties in the United States a third of the total are down to just one insurer, according to a Bloomberg analysis.

This was predictable. Obamacare was sold using the language of choice and competition, but it is actually reducing both, a Wall Street Journal editorial warned back in 2010, when the law was months old. Health insurance doesnt work when it isnt allowed to operate as insurance: when it cannot tailor its products to the preferences and budgets of consumers, and when it cannot make business decisions based on considerations of risk.

You do not get to insure your house after its on fire. Why should Americans have the unalienable right to wait till they get sick (at least during open enrollment) before buying health insurance?

Here, however, is where the philippic against the Affordable Care Act ends. Barack Obama inherited a broken health care model and made it worse, unless you count shunting millions of people into Medicaid as a triumph. For all the liberal angst about the Republican House and Senate bills, they are only tinkering with the same unfixable formula.

The only genuinely promising reform in the Republican health bills are proposals to nearly double contribution limits for heath savings accounts and allow them to be used to pay for premiums. Enrollment in tax-deductible, investable H.S.A.s has roughly doubled since Obamacare took effect, to about 20 million, because they help cover out-of-pocket costs for low-premium, high-deductible plans.

But as Peter Ubel of Duke pointed out last year, theyre mainly attractive to wealthier people with income to spare. Government subsidies of H.S.A.s for low-income people, Ubel writes, could turn H.S.A.s into something other than another tax break for the wealthy and make our health care system more responsive to consumer needs. This is what Singapore does, along with mandates for employees to set aside a portion of their income for H.S.A.s, and for employers to match it.

H.S.A.s can restore sanity to a market in which prices are invisible and costs keep rising, and in which the concept of insurance has lost its meaning. Republicans who want to salvage a conservative policy victory from their health care fracas would be wise to leave Obamacare alone, so that its authors can pay the price for its failure, just as the G.O.P. restores price to the rest of the health care system.

Visit link:

A Price for the GOP's Health Care Insanity - New York Times

Will Trump deliver on his health-care promises to the American people? – Washington Post

On the campaign trail and since taking office, President Trump has made some significant promises about the kind of health care hed provide for the American people.

But Trumps efforts to come through on these promises have faced several hurdles along the way. In March, the House failed to bring a bill to the floor for a vote, before later managing to pass a controversial one. The Congressional Budget Office determined that bill, if enacted, would leave 23 million more Americans uninsured in the next decade.

That House bill then moved to the Senate, and this weeks episode of Can He Do That? examines whats happened since.

On Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) decided to delay a vote on his health-care proposal, with a goal to submit a new version of the bill to the CBO by Friday. (The CBO determined the first version of the Senate bill would leave 22 million Americans uninsured in the next 10years and would reduce the deficit by $321 million.)

The new CBO review will take about two weeks, making for a pretty tight timeline for Senators to vote before August recess. The bill needs to win over 50 of the 52 Republican senators to pass.

So where do things stand now? What is President Trumps role in all of this? What changes can we expect in the Senates forthcoming version of the bill? And how far does this effort move the needle on the Republican promise to repeal and replace Obamacare?

Health policy reporter and author of The Health 202 newsletter Paige W. Cunningham answers these questions and explains whats at stake. Plus, we talk to Republican Mayor John Giles of Mesa, Ariz., about how health-care legislation affects his constituents.

Listen to the full episode below.

Each week, Can He Do That? examines the powers and limitations of the American presidency, focusing on one area where Trump is seemingly breaking precedent. We answer the critical questions about what todays news means for the future of the highest office in the nation.

Subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Stitcheror wherever you get your podcasts.

Read the original here:

Will Trump deliver on his health-care promises to the American people? - Washington Post

Prostitutes speak out against Senate health bill – CNN

Licensed prostitutes in Nevada, working in legal brothels, are organizing against legislation they say will devastate them, other prostitutes across the nation and their families.

With Obamacare (Affordable Care Act), now under threat of being repealed and replaced, "thousands of prostitutes nationwide were, for the first time, able to obtain affordable health care insurance for themselves and their families," said a press release issued Thursday.

So, dubbing itself "Hookers for Health Care," this group plans to go "on a political offensive ... lobbying politicians, protesting in the streets, and waging battle on social media to stop the Republican effort."

At the helm is Alice Little, 27, who works near Carson City at Dennis Hof's Sagebrush Ranch brothel. She thinks about the cuts being proposed, the slashes to coverage for things like pregnancies and eating disorders and is outraged by the toll it will take on women.

"When I look at the folks that are making decisions, the majority of them are male voices," she said by phone. "They have no idea how they're affecting women's lives."

About a hundred women working in Hof's seven brothels have already signed up to be involved with this new movement. She says several dozen women and counting have already agreed to sign onto a petition she's drafting and that many are waiting to have their perspecitves recorded for social media purposes.

"These ladies are often stereotyped and I want to bring some humanity to their stories," said Little, whose mother is a cancer survivor. "We are people. We have families. We have the same health concerns as other Americans."

As independent contractors, she said, prostitutes are "at the mercy of the health care marketplace to obtain our own insurance" and are often reliant on Medicaid.

"I have been fortunate to amass a strong clientele and establish myself as a financially successful businesswoman within Nevada's legal brothel industry, but that can take time," Little said in the release. In fact, she's so successful Hof says she made about $500,000 last year.

But even with her success, Little knows plenty of women need a break.

"A young woman entering our business, who in some cases may also be a single mother with limited financial means, will also need time," Little said. "Expanded access to Medicaid for her or her child may be the only way that she is able to know that they will be protected in case of medical misfortune."

It's not just the prostitutes and their families that stand to lose if this new bill passes, Little adds. Consider the housekeepers, bartenders and cashiers who also work hard to be self-sustaining Nevadans. Also, added to the list of those she hopes to protect: brothel clients.

"Under Trumpcare insurers will be able to charge older consumers five times more than young consumers," she said. "People over the age of 65 make up a very large percentage of Nevada brothel clients. If these clients are forced to pay unfairly augmented health care costs, they will not have money on hand to spend on the things that make life worth living in the first place -- like sex."

Her advocacy, however, is not mirrored by her employer. Hof describes himself as fiscally conservative, "but don't bother me about abortion, who's having sex with who and weed; it's a personal choice."

He is a Trump supporter, though, who'd love to see Obamacare get tossed out.

"I believe in people taking responsibility for their own lives, and not asking for these kind of government handouts," he said. "You start giving these working girls free or discounted health care coverage, then what comes next? ... This is definitely not a road we want to go down."

But even while Hof disagrees with the politics of "Hookers for Health Care," he supports the involvement of women who work for him. He says there are 540 prostitutes affiliated with his brothels, and "These aren't your daddy's old hookers."

By that he says he means, "These aren't street walkers. They're professional working girls that work in a legal environment."

In fact, he says half of them have college educations, 20% have master's degrees, a few have doctorate degrees and one, an Ivy League educated professor, picks up hours to help pay off her huge student loans.

"I love that they're involved," he said. "These girls are smart, they will be running our country, and they vote."

Go here to read the rest:

Prostitutes speak out against Senate health bill - CNN

GOP races to strike health care deal by Friday, before July 4 recess – CBS News

Senate Republican leaders are racing to strike a health care deal by Friday that appeases opposing factions of their conference and there appears to be no breakthrough yet in negotiations.

On one hand, there are moderate senators who are critical of the original bill's Medicaid provisions, who want more funding for opioid treatment, who want pre-existing conditions protected and who want low-income people to have access to affordable insurance.

"My focus is really again on ensuring lower-income citizens actually have the ability to have health plans that really cover the kind of things that need to be covered," said Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tennessee, who said Republicans are "moving to a place that resolves that issue."

"I'm not there yet, I know that," Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, R-West Virginia, told reporters as she headed to a closed-door Senate Republican Conference lunch. She had been pushing for an increase in opioid treatment funding.

Play Video

Senate GOP leaders are making changes to their proposed health care plan in hopes of receiving a better score from the Congressional Budget Offic...

Senate leaders have added two provisions to the measure: $45 billion in opioid treatment funding and the ability to use Health Savings Accounts (HSA) to pay for premiums.

Then there are conservatives who have been demanding for a full repeal of Obamacare, which they say the original plan wouldn't deliver.

"Unless it changes to a repeal bill, I can't vote for it," said Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, who advocated Thursday splitting the legislation into two pieces in order to improve the chances of passage.

One proposal floated by Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas is gaining some traction. It would allow any health insurance company to offer insurance plans that don't comply with Obamacare in a state if they're offering at least one that does comply with the health care law.

"I think there's a lot of appeal to that idea," Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pennsylvania, said about the plan. "Anybody that likes Obamacare so much, they would have their Obamacare plan and they would also have the freedom to buy anything they like. I think it makes a lot of sense."

Sen. John Thune, R-South Dakota, a member of Senate leadership, told reporters that Cruz's plan could potentially be added to the bill as long as it's structured in a way "that ensures that the pools aren't adversely affected."

Some, like Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, are concerned about whether Cruz's amendment would cover pre-existing conditions. Asked whether he backs the plan, he said, "It hasn't been fleshed out yet, so -- I believe that pre-existing conditions ought to be covered...There are a lot of moving parts."

Most lawmakers are leaving for their week-long July 4 recess Thursday and leadership has been aiming to reach an agreement on a revised health care bill by Friday in order to send it to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to have it scored over the break.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, warned Thursday that getting a deal by Friday is essential.

"If there's going to be one, it'll be by the end of the week. I don't think that not having a deal and going home is gonna get you a deal," he said. "I just think the further you get away from this place, the more pushback you'll get."

Members of Congress could almost certainly face unhappy constituents in their districts next week. A series of polls released Wednesday found that a majority of the public oppose the bill.

2017 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Read this article:

GOP races to strike health care deal by Friday, before July 4 recess - CBS News

On Health Care, a Promise, Not a Threat – Wall Street Journal (subscription)


Wall Street Journal (subscription)
On Health Care, a Promise, Not a Threat
Wall Street Journal (subscription)
So this is no time for gloom. This moment in fact may be, perversely, promising. The failure so far of Senate Republicans to agree on a health-care bill provides an opening. Whatever happens the next few days, moderates and centrists... To Read the ...

See more here:

On Health Care, a Promise, Not a Threat - Wall Street Journal (subscription)

40 arrested as health-care bill protesters swarm Capitol Hill this week – Washington Post

It seems everyone at the various health-care protests in Washington this week brought a story.

The Pennsylvania man who relied on the Affordable Care Act for his dialysis and was willing to get arrested so his senator understood the legislation was life and death. The D.C. woman who feared that her 27-year-old, nonverbal, autistic brother would be forced into an institution without Medicaid. And the Arlington father, Rick Hodges, who wondered if the Republican-proposed health-care bill would afford his teenage daughter with Down syndrome the opportunity to live a semi-independent life as an adult.

Its about so much more than health insurance, Hodges said. She has a preexisting condition. The country has chosen Medicaid to be the source of funding for people with disabilities. Thats terrifying for people with disabilities and their families.

Hodges joined a rally Wednesday in front of the U.S. Capitol urging the Senate to reject health-care legislation curbed in the Senate, which the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates would leave 22million more people uninsured by 2026. It was one in a string of legal and illegal protests on Capitol Hill this week decrying the bill.

[How the push for a Senate health-care vote fell apart amid GOP tensions]

On Wednesday, U.S. Capitol Police arrested 40 people who blocked hallways in Senate office buildings demanding to meet with their senators.

Please Mr. Toomey, dont let me die. Sen. Toomey, will you kill me? a group of about 10 Pennsylvania protesters with severe illnesses chanted in front of the office of Sen. Patrick J. Toomey (R-Pa.). U.S. Capitol Police officers dragged protesters away in handcuffs as they chanted, Kill the bill, dont kill me.

Similar protests were staged in the offices of Sens. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska).

Eva Malecki, a spokeswoman for U.S. Capitol Police, said officers responded to numerous incidents of protests in office buildings, making arrests if demonstrators did not leave when asked.

After officers arrived on the scene, they warned the demonstrators to cease and desist with their unlawful demonstration activities, Malecki wrote in a statement, saying that protesters were charged with crowding, obstructing or incommoding. Those who refused to cease and desist were placed under arrest.

Later in the afternoon on Wednesday, hundreds of demonstrators gathered in front of the Capitol for a rally organized by Planned Parenthood, the American Civil Liberties Union and other progressive groups. The Senate bill would block federal funding to the womens health organization.

Protesters said the fact that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) delayed a vote on the legislation until after the July4 recess meant protests were working.

Its a sign of how powerful peoples voices can be, said Erica Sackin, director of political communications at Planned Parenthood. But its too soon to claim victory. The bill is moving fast, and it may have been delayed, but we know that the fights not over.

[In the Trump era, a D.C. group has formed to help activists plan their protests]

Several high-profile Democrats spoke at Wednesdays rally, including Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), Rep. John Lewis (Ga.), House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), and Sens. Chris Murphy (Conn.) and Cory Booker (N.J.).

If there is no struggle, there is no progress, Booker said, quoting a famous line by Frederick Douglass.

At a 23-hour interfaith prayer vigil nearby, clergy members and community leaders prayed that Medicaid would be preserved and the Senate would reject the health-care legislation. The vigil was to end Thursday afternoon.

Earlier in the week, protesters dressed as women from The Handmaids Tale stormed Capitol Hill as part of a protest organized by Planned Parenthood. In the novel and subsequent TV series, a right-wing religious group rules the country and fertile women are forced into reproductive servitude.

Last week, more than 40 disability advocates were arrested in front of McConnells office after the protesters, most of whom had a disability, removed themselves from wheelchairs and staged a die-in.

Raquel Bernstein, a policy intern for the National Council for Independent Living who attended Wednesdays rally in front of the Capitol, said the bill would devastate many in the disability community who rely on Medicaid to live independently. Bernstein, 22, has arthrogryposis and is covered by her parents insurance.

The last thing people want to do is go to institutions, she said. They would go without care and die before going to an institution.

Read more here:

40 arrested as health-care bill protesters swarm Capitol Hill this week - Washington Post

Fixing the 5 Percent – The Atlantic

An oversized poster of the Seinfeld character Kramer watches over Phil Rizzutos daily routine. When Rizzuto, named for the famous New York Yankees shortstop, swallows his 6 a.m. pills, Kramer is looming over him, looking quizzical. Same for the 9 a.m., noon, 6 p.m., and midnight doses, each fistful of pills placed in a carefully labeled Dixie cup. I live on medication, he says.

Listen to the audio version of this article:Download the Audm app for your iPhone to listen to more titles.

Rizzutos daily life in Haverhill, Massachusetts, is a litany of challenges: His aides have to hoist his paralyzed legs from his bed to his motorized wheelchair and back again; keep the bag that collects his urine clean; tend to the gaping wound on his backside, which developed when he was left to lie still in bed too long; and help him avoid the panic that could claim anyone in his situationthat last one is particularly difficult since Rizzutos obsessive-compulsive disorder drives him to want to do everything for himself.

After more than a year of emergency and rehabilitative care following a devastating car accident, Rizzuto moved into a YMCA-run housing complex in this gritty New England town. But he still endured constant medical emergencies. I was back and forth and in and out of the hospitals so much, it was like I didnt know I had an apartment here, the 56-year-old says, sitting in his small studio. His open wound kept getting infected; his diaphragm, weakened by his injury and his inability to quit smoking, left him gasping for breath; his urine-collection bag slipped out; his demons kept getting the better of him. The government eventually covered the cost of his care, but the relentless need for medical attention was exhausting and demeaning.

Then he opted into a Massachusetts health-care program called One Care that focuses on people with complex medical needs who are on Medicare. One Care provides 71 hours of aide support a week, a twice-weekly visit from a massage therapist, twice-monthly psychiatric care, a wheelchair support group, and a nurse practitioner who oversees and coordinates Rizzutos care. If he struggles between visitsor just wants to talkshes available by phone, even on weekends and after hours. Now, his life has a routine and a discipline that keeps emergencies at bay. The difference its made he says, unable to fully express his gratitude. He estimates his hospital visits have dropped at least 75 percent since the One Care program took charge of his health. I would hate like hell to not have them.

The program that has helped Rizzuto is part of a nationwide movement to improve care for people struggling with very complicated medical needsso-called super-usersthe 5 percent of patients who account for about half of the countrys health-care spending. (Surgeon and New Yorker writer Atul Gawande outlined the problem and one solution in a definitive 2011 piece about the Camden Coalition of Healthcare Providers.) Some of these super-user programs say they provide cost savings of as much as 20 to 40 percent after a few years, as well as provide the kind of advantages offered to Rizzuto: fewer stressful hospital visits, better mental and physical health, and the satisfaction of being treated like a person instead of a package of problems. The program accomplishes this by shifting the focus of medical care. Instead of responding to complications, the care team tries to prevent them. You cant even get to the medical issue until youve figured out: Do they have a place to sleep, do they have housing theyre not going to lose, do they have food in their refrigerator, do they have a refrigerator? says Christopher Palmieri, the president and CEO of the nonprofit Commonwealth Care Alliance, which manages 80 percent of One Care patients, including Rizzuto.

Despite its successes, this care movement, which doesnt go by any catchy nameone doctor gave it the clunky title high-impact, relationship-based primary careis scattered among a handful of states and is advancing only very slowly across the country. There is general agreement that these programs must address a range of social and pragmatic needs, like transportation, housing, nutrition, isolation, emotional well-being, and medical problems. But the details of each program are different. Everyones trying their home brew, says Dr. Harlan Krumholz, a cardiologist and health-care researcher at Yale University and Yale-New Haven Hospital.

The one thing all of the super-user care programs have in common is a mantra that could have come from Cosmo Kramer himself: Stay the hell out of the hospital. Hospitals, these folks argue, often make sick people sicker. Theyre sources of infection to vulnerable patients. Theyre disorienting. They run costly tests and look for issues that are better left alone. Super-users, says Krumholz, represent a failure of the system.

Medical care is dangerous, says Dr. Rushika Fernandopulle, the co-founder and CEO of Iora Health, a leading practitioner of a more holistic approach to health. Fernandopulle says a big part of his companys business model involves fighting to keep people out of the hospitalnot just because its expensive, but because the care they will get puts them at higher risk for other problems. Medicare patients saw roughly a 40 percent drop in hospitalizations after Iora took over their care, Fernandopulle says.

For Fernandopulle, one patient in particular illustrates this phenomenon of snowballing medical care. That patient was an 80-year-old woman, fairly healthy but with hypertension and arthritis, who one day saw red in the toilet after urinating. She told her primary-care doctor, who sent her to a urologist; the urologist worried it might be cancer and ordered a catheter inserted. Before the procedure, a nurse asked the octogenarian if she ever felt weak or dizzy. (Of course she didthink about it.) When the woman said yes, a heart monitor was ordered: It showed a dip in her overnight heart rate. A cardiologist then scheduled the woman for a pacemaker.

This is what I mean by the vortex, Fernandopulle says, noting that inserting a pacemaker would be risky and provide no clear benefit. The womans condition might be explained in a much more low-tech way: a beet salad, for example, could be the culprit behind the red pee, and a prescribed medication might trigger the heart irregularity. I called the cardiologist and politely declined the pacemaker for this patient, Fernandopulle says. Part of the problem is that, while each doctor gets paid for each procedure he or she performs, usually no one gets paid for taking a step back and using common sense to think about what would genuinely help the patient.

The health-care system as a whole is out of balance, says Dr. Donald Berwick, the former head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services under President Obama. We put far more into hospital care than we do keeping people from having to be in the hospital. Hospital stays cost more than anything else in the health-care system; an average inpatient admission runs nearly $2,000 a day, and an intensive-care stay can easily cost $7,000 a day. In 2012, a typical hospital stay topped $10,000, according to the federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Caring for an Iora patient, on the other hand, typically costs about $3 a day and can reduce hospitalizations by 40 to 50 percent, Fernandopulle says. All of the physicians and advocates we interviewed who support this type of high-needs care are quick to note that their goal isnt to deprive people of medical care. If someone doesnt get needed heart surgery, they will end up in worse shape; no one will benefit. Their aim is appropriate, Goldilocks care: not too much, not too little.

The model hinges on establishing strong, trusting relationshipsbut that doesnt always come easily. Some patients jump on board; sometimes it takes six months to establish a connection, Tremblay says, recalling one patient who refused to talk to her for nearly five months before finally accepting help. She has become profoundly invested in her patients care. Every time we send someone to the hospital, its stressful, for both the patients and caregivers, Tremblay says. We send someone in [and] we kind of shudder, Are they going to come out better?

One big challenge to providing care for patients with complex needs is finding them. Commonwealth Care, for instance, has struggled to identify people who will benefit from its program. Any Massachusetts resident who receives both Medicare and Medicaid is eligible to join One Care. Commonwealth Care Alliance, which serves most of these patients, had to hire extra staff to track down potential clients. When Commonwealth Care started four years ago, 43 percent of these potential clients were considered unreachable, for reasons like having an unknown address. Today, that rate has shrunk to 32 percent.

Why is it so hard to track down needy patients? Some people are so isolated and disengaged that theyre largely invisible. Others patients are expensive and challenging today but might soon recover. And still others are doing fine now but might have a setback that throws them off balance for months. In fact, 60 to 80 percent of patients who are super-users now wont be a year from now, Sevin says, and different people will be.

There are also people who will be perennially expensivebecause their disease requires a costly drug, for instance. And there are those who will be expensive for a short timesay, for the few months after an organ transplant. Theres no point in wasting time trying to bring either groups medical expenses down.

Fernandopulle says the only effective way to identify people at risk for super use is to ask them two questions: How do you think your health is? and How confident are you in managing your health?

If they answer, Poor, poor, they are at huge risk, he says.

On a recent sweltering day, Rizzuto met his wheelchair support group at a small zoo in suburban Boston. Keeping cool in the above-90-degree heat wasnt easy for Rizzuto. Paralysis robs people of their ability to regulate body temperature. One of Rizzutos aides, Bill Regan, came prepared with water, ice packs, sandwiches, and a spray bottle that he frequently spritzed on Rizzutos face and legs.

Rizzuto says these interactions with other people in wheelchairs help lift his mood, though on this trip he seemed more focused on watching a brown bear, several snakes, and tiny, hyperactive cotton-topped tamarins. He never could have made it around the zoo without a motorized wheelchairthough it took Rizzuto a year to convince the state to buy it for him. One of the first things Commonwealth Care Alliance does when signing on a new One Care client is to assess the persons equipment needs, Tremblay says.

One Care is a partnership between Massachusettss Medicaid agency and the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, and it focuses solely on patients ages 21 to 64 with multiple, complex medical and behavioral issues. (An older program, Senior Care Options, takes the same approach for patients over 65.) Most of Commonwealth Cares 13,500 One Care clients earn less than $20,000 a year; some are homeless; the majority of them have a serious mental illness or substance-use disorder, as well as multiple other chronic health conditions.

This high-touch care approach is beginning to save money, says Palmieri. A report last year by the Commonwealth Fund found that among 4,500 members of One Care, patients enrolled for 12 continuous months had 7.5 percent fewer hospital admissions and 6.4 percent fewer emergency-room visits. For those enrolled in the program for at least 18 months, hospital admissions dropped 20 percent, the study found.

Although each model of high-touch care is different, the basics are the same: focusing on prevention, ensuring basic needs are met, reducing unnecessary treatment, and building relationships with patients. At Stanford University, for example, one young man with severe anxiety and obsessive-compulsive disorder required constant reassurance (in addition to his multiple medications) from doctors and emergency departments. In a traditional care system, emergency-room staff might roll their eyes and quickly send him on his way. Instead, Dr. Alan Glaseroff, the co-founder of Stanfords Coordinated Care program to treat high-needs university employees and their family members, gave the 19-year-old his phone number. At first, whenever his anxiety or OCD took control, the young man called Glaseroff or another care coordinator as many as seven times a day.

But slowly, over the course of three years, the man learned to think before he called. If he saw spots in his eyes, hed wait for a few minutes to see if they went away. He was taught to use mindfulness techniques, and if the symptom persisted, he would run through a checklist to see if it was really something to be concerned about. He ended up calling the clinic every two to three weeks, rather than multiple times a day, and learned not to lean on the clinics staff for minor issues. Now, he hardly needs us, Glaseroff says.

Creating viable long-term plans like this means far fewer emergencies. In fact, in its first three years, the Stanford program cut emergency-room visits for its 253 patients by 59 percent, hospital admissions by 29 percent, and total cost per patient by 13 percent, says Glaseroff, who teaches this model of care in two-day workshops across the country. According to the study, the Stanford practice saved the university $1.8 million and now has nearly twice as many patients.

The secret to the cost-savings, Glaseroff says, is for patients to use hospitals and doctors only when absolutely necessary and to rely for most of their care on empatheticand relatively inexpensivemedical assistants, who check in with each patient about once a week. In the past four years, in an industry known for its high burnout and turnover, not one of his practices care coordinators has left, Glaseroff says. Theyre not allowed to diagnose and treat, but theyre really good at the people stuff, he says. The core is being given responsibility for people, not for tasks.

Patients in the program have responsibilities as well as rights, Glaseroff says. They are expected to show up for their medical appointments and to come on time out of fairness to others. Theyre told to call the clinic if they can before heading to the emergency room and then wait a few minutes for a call back, Glaseroff says. They are expected to do their part to engage with their care coordinator, even if the medical system hasnt always treated them well in the past. Its patient self-managementwhat people do within their chronic illness 365 days a yearthat matters the most, he says.

For the high-touch model to work financially, large numbers of patients have to stick around long enough to recoup the upfront investment in their care. Today, there are only a few pools of people stable enough to sustain this model: people who work for major employers, like Stanford University, and those insured by the federal government.

Iora provides health care to workers at large, stable employers like the Dartmouth College Employees, the New England Carpenters Benefits Fund, a union trust, and members of Medicaid Advantage plans, like Humana and Tufts Health Plan. This gives them a big group of customers with high needs and the corporate muscle to avoid being pushed around by hospitals that dont want to lose patients, Fernandopulle says.

If he loses customers to other insurance carriers in the first year or two, hell have all the upfront costs and none of the savings. A five-year time horizon allows Iora to recoup its upfront investment and get ahead of problemscontrolling diabetes before it leads to a heart attack, for instance, says Fernandopulle, whose company oversees care for about 20,000 patients in eight states.

Iora and another company with a similar approach, Landmark Health, also provide care to people on Medicare Advantagea government-funded, privately run program. About a third of people on Medicare now belong to Medicare Advantage programs, which were created by the Affordable Care Act. The Trump administration and Republicans have proposed huge cuts to Medicaid over the next decade. Its unclear, however, whether such cuts would paralyze efforts at innovation or provide more urgency to reduce health-care spending. It is a bipartisan issue that the current costs of health care are unsustainable, Yales Krumholz says, whether driven by empathy for those who are disadvantaged and suffering or by economic imperative.

But there are also built-in disincentives to this kind of high-touch care. One of the most obvious is that hospitals make money on patients. If they succeed in decreasing readmissions, they also limit their own earnings. Despite efforts to replace fee-for-service care with so-called global payments, the fact is that currently most health-care systems are still operating in an environment where reducing emergency-department and inpatient use hurts their bottom line, says Dr. Seth Berkowitz, a primary-care doctor at Massachusetts General Hospital who studies how addressing patients social needs improves their health and lowers costs.

Moreover, the model is challenging to scale, because all health care is local. State laws, hospital structures, and needs differ from place to place. What works in Florida doesnt work in Washington state, and vice versa, notes Fernandopulle, whose frequent-flyer miles attest to his attempts to learn about new markets.

Slowly, though, these scattershot efforts may be coalescing into a larger movement. Fernandopulle says its getting easier for companies like his to raise money in the private sector. Other factors seem to be coming together, too. Technology allows health-care companies to more easily identify people at risk of becoming super-users, track their progress, and standardize some of their treatments. Theres broad public consensus, gaining momentum in recent years, that health-care costs need to come down, says Dr. J. Michael McGinnis, the executive officer of the National Academy of Medicine, an advisory body formerly known as the Institute of Medicine. Now the issue is not whether; its how.

Rizzuto is lucky that he was treated for his 2012 car accident in Massachusetts. If hed had to recover in neighboring New Hampshire, where someone elses road rage landed him in a ditch and then in a month-long coma, hed probably still be making near-weekly trips to the emergency room. The crash left his spine broken in two places and exacerbated his post-traumatic-stress disorder and a concussion that still makes him feel like I have some scramblage with my brain.

The paralysis has left him with limited control of the outer three fingers on each handrestricting his ability to play his beloved guitarand he cant breathe deeply enough or with enough control to sing anymore. His core muscles are weak, too, Rizzuto says, explaining why his torso wobbles uncontrollably as he speaks. Im so close to being a quadriplegic, its crazy, he says. Rizzuto lifts his t-shirt to reveal small, circular burn marks dotting his chest. He knows he needs to quit smokingand will have to before his upcoming surgery to close the wound on his back, but it has been a struggle. Rizzuto says he often spaces out with a cigarette between his fingers and doesnt notice hes doing himself damage until its too late. Theres just so much to get used to, he says.

But he has also come to terms with his current life. Despite everything that has happened, he still has his adult twin sons, a daughter, a granddaughter, a safe place to live, and caregivers who really care. And so he goes on living the best life he can. He even hopes to start talking to high-school kids about his experiences. Im very fortunate, Rizzuto says. I dont know why. Maybe its because Im supposed to do something with this stupid accident that happened to me.

Go here to see the original:

Fixing the 5 Percent - The Atlantic

Health Care Bill Latest: Will Republicans and Democrats Work Together? – NBCNews.com


NBCNews.com
Health Care Bill Latest: Will Republicans and Democrats Work Together?
NBCNews.com
Health Care Bill Latest: Will Republicans and Democrats Work Together? Thu, Jun 29. In an effort to reach a compromise, some moderate GOP senators are considering redrafting the health care bill to include items that could bring Democratic senators on ...

Here is the original post:

Health Care Bill Latest: Will Republicans and Democrats Work Together? - NBCNews.com

Congress responds as Trump’s attack on TV co-host distracts from health care, other business – CBS News

As the U.S. Senate looked to a day of negotiating on health care legislation Thursday, President Donald Trump at 8:52 a.m. began unleashing tweets attacking the IQ, mental stability and physical appearance of MSNBC "Morning Joe" co-host Mika Brzezinski.

White House deputy press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders defended the president's behavior in a Thursday afternoon press briefing, saying "the American people elected a fighter," and that's what they got.

But Republicans and Democrats criticized the president for his tweets -- shocking even for Mr. Trump's Twitter account -- as the Senate struggles to propose a passable bill on health care. Mr. Trump met Wednesday with senators earlier this week as he attempts to negotiate the bill, and Vice President Mike Pence on Thursday met one-on-one with senators on Capitol Hill.

The tweets also detracted from the White House's designated policy focus of the week -- energy -- and two bills expected to pass in the House Thursday to crack down on immigrants who commit crimes and attempt to re-enter the country illegally, and on "sanctuary cities" refusing to cooperate with federal immigration authorities. Mr. Trump made stricter stances on immigration -- a theme drowned out by his tweets Thursday -- a central message of his campaign.

Both Republicans and Democrats criticized the president Thursday.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina), who told CBS News' "Face the Nation" last month that the president is "his own worst enemy" with counterproductive tweets, said Mr. Trump behaved "beneath the office."

Alaska GOP Sen. Lisa Murkowski told Mr. Trump to, "Stop it!"

Rep. Lynn Jenkins, a Kansas Republican, said the president's Twitter outburst was, "not OK."

Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-Florida) pointed out that the shooting at a congressional baseball practice -- after which Mr. Trump himself urged unity -- was just two weeks ago. House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-Louisiana) is still in the hospital after he was seriously injured by a shot to the hip.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) urged "respect" and "civility."

Rep. Mike Coffman (R-Colorado) used the hashtag, "StopTheTwitterTantrums."

Democrats were even more blunt.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-California) called Mr. Trump's tweets, "so blatantly sexist I don't even know that there's any question about it."

"I just don't know why the Republicans, they can tolerate almost anything: a candidate beating up a reporter and then cheering him on as he arrives in Congress, the tweets of the president of the United States," Pelosi added, referring to Montana Republican Rep. Greg Gianforte's assault on a reporter the night before he was elected to Congress.

Rep. Lois Frankel (D-Florida), in a press conference with more than two dozen Democratic members of Congress, called Mr. Trump the "cyber bully in chief."

"And once again, he is ... embarrassing our nation with what I call his bloody tweets," Frankel said.

Other Democrats pointed out that Mr. Trump is hurting legislative progress. Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-Maine), called the president's attacks on the media a "constant distraction."

Rep. David Cicilline (D-Rhode Island) asked anyone to tell him how the president's tweets help "create jobs" or "make health care better," issues Mr. Trump has said are among his top priorities.

Mr. Trump didn't stop criticizing the media Thursday. As the House and Senate wrapped up their legislative business before the July 4 holiday, Mr. Trump, at a Department of Energy event with Vice President Mike Pence and Secretary of Energy Rick Perry Thursday afternoon, repeated his frequent line that CNN is "fake news."

2017 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.

See more here:

Congress responds as Trump's attack on TV co-host distracts from health care, other business - CBS News

Medicaid becomes big threat to GOP’s healthcare revival – The Hill

The biggest problem for Senate Republicans struggling to revive their healthcare legislation is the one that has bedeviled them from the beginning: Medicaid.

Deep cuts to the social safety net have led to a revolt from centrist GOP senators backed up by their home-state governors, who accepted federal funding under the Affordable Care Act to expand their Medicaid rolls.

They are all worried that the Senate bills unraveling of that expansion would leave millions of people without health insurance, a belief bolstered by a nonpartisan budget analysis that found 22 million more people would be uninsured in the bills first decade as law.

That would turn off Senate conservatives, whom Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnellMitch McConnellGOP leaders prepared to make big boost to healthcare innovation fund GOP scrambles to win centrist votes on ObamaCare repeal Overnight Energy: Trump vows to bring American energy dominance MORE (R-Ky.) is also struggling to win over.

Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), asked Wednesday how important it was to keep Senate language restricting Medicaids growth, told reporters its very important.

Pressed on whether his support for the legislation hinges on its inclusion, he said, Its very, very important to me.

Senate leadership is working under a tight time frame, aiming to wrap up negotiations by the end of this week and then send a revised version of the bill for the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to score over the weeklong recess. But theres deep skepticism that can happen by Friday.

Medicaid has long been seen as a high hurdle to getting healthcare reform done in the Senate.

It was less of an issue in the House, which passed its ObamaCare repeal-and-replace legislation in May after a battle that centered more on what rules insurers would have to meet in offering insurance.

Conservatives in the House and Senate alike have sought changes to ObamaCare that would lower premium costs and have looked to weaken ObamaCares rules to allow insurers to offer cheaper coverage plans.

In the Senate, Medicaid has been a much bigger part of the debate, in part because 20 Republican senators almost half of the conference represent states that accepted the expansion. These senators are concerned about how changes to the healthcare law will affect constituents across their states.

The Senate bill begins ratcheting down the federal match for expansion states in 2021, reverting it to pre-ObamaCare levels by 2024. The House took a more conservative approach and included language in its bill that would have ended the expansion in 2020.

But the Senate approach has not won over all of the senators from Medicaid expansion states, who were advocating a seven-year phaseout of the extra federal funds for Medicaid expansion.

Another unresolved issue is how to calculate spending on the Medicaid program.

Both the House and Senate bills institute a per person cap on Medicaid funding for each state. That cap would be adjusted annually for inflation, but there are disagreements on what formula should be used.

The current language in the Senate bill includes deeper cuts than the House beginning in 2025. It ties the growth rate for Medicaid funding to the consumer price index for medical care before switching it to CPI-U in 2025 which would lead to deeper cuts. This is the language that Toomey and other conservatives want to make sure stays in the bill.

In its analysis, the CBO estimated 15 million fewer people would be enrolled in Medicaid by 2026 under the Senate bill, which it said would lead to a $772 billion cut to the program.

After an effort to hold a vote on the bill this week was delayed, Capito and Portman cited Medicaid in announcing their opposition to the bill.

Portman and Capito represent Medicaid expansion states that have been hit hard by the opioid epidemic. Medicaid is a large payer of services for those with an opioid addiction.

The two had been pushing for $45 billion over a decade to combat the opioid addiction crisis. But the bill falls far short of their ask, instead including just $2 billion for fiscal 2018.

McConnell could put more money in that pot, but Capito indicated Tuesday that probably wouldnt be enough to win her vote.

Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R) who has been calling for a bipartisan compromise on healthcare said hes warned Portman against being won over by minor concessions.

I told him, If they hand you a few billion dollars on opioids thats like spitting in the ocean, compared with the billions the bill would cut from Medicaid, Kasich said at a press conference Tuesday.

One option for leadership would be to soften the Medicaid provisions for moderates and include more flexibility on insurance regulations for conservatives. An aide to Sen. Mike LeeMike LeeGOP scrambles to win centrist votes on ObamaCare repeal Overnight Healthcare: Conservatives seek changes to Senate bill | GOP may keep ObamaCare tax in health bill | Trump taps new surgeon general Conservatives seek changes to Senate healthcare bill MORE (R-Utah) confirmed he may be open to Medicaid changes if Americans were given more relief from ObamaCares Title I regulations, which are ObamaCares insurance rules.

McConnell has nearly $200 billion in savings to pad the bill in an effort to win enough support for passage. But its unclear if thats enough.

Tinkering around the edges, putting a little bit of money in for one program or another, is not going to be sufficient, Collins told reporters Wednesday. I want to see changes that would have a real impact on the Medicaid issues and the number of people insured.

When asked how to pay for a longer transition for Medicaid or a higher cap, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin HatchOrrin HatchSenators introduce 'cyber hygiene' bill Overnight Finance: CBO says debt ceiling will be hit in October | Senate passes updated Russia sanctions bill | GOP senator rips sugar deal with Mexico GOP senator on Trump's 'face-lift' tweet: 'Every once in awhile you get a dipsy-doodle' MORE (R-Utah) didnt know.

Well thats the question for everything, he said. How are we going to pay for all this stuff no matter what we do?

So, how can leadership massage the bill in a way to get both conservatives and moderates on board?

Even porcupines make love, Sen. Pat RobertsPat RobertsMedicaid becomes big threat to GOPs healthcare revival GOP senator on resolving healthcare differences: 'Even porcupines make love' GOP chairman wants 'robust' tax reform process in the Senate MORE (R-Kan.) joked.

Read the original here:

Medicaid becomes big threat to GOP's healthcare revival - The Hill

Daughters of Charity Services of Arkansas – dcsark.org

Daughters of Charity Services of Arkansas is dedicated to Christian values in our service as we provide quality, holistic care to individuals and communities in southeast Arkansas.

In the late 1980s Daughters of Charity recognized the need for healthcare services in the Arkansas Delta, Lincoln County, and Desha County.

Our first medical clinic, St. Elizabeth Health Center, opened on December 3, 1990 with humble beginnings in the city of Gould, Arkansas (Lincoln County). The clinic was established in the remodeled city jail.

We acquired our second medical facility, DePaul Health Center in Dumas, Arkansas (Desha County) on August 10, 1992. In September 1998 we opened the wellness center in Gould to provide a state-of-the-art exercise facility for the residents of Gould and communities from across southeast Arkansas. We also acquired the dental practice of Charles Woodyard, whose staff added a much-needed component to our ministry work.

In February 2007 we moved our administrative office out of DePaul Health Center and into the newly renovated Adams Building on Main Street in Dumas.

At Daughters of Charity Services of Arkansas, we see and treat people of all ages.

Read the original:

Daughters of Charity Services of Arkansas - dcsark.org

Vote on Senate health care bill delayed amid lack of …

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told Republican senators he is delaying a vote on the GOP health care bill until after the Fourth of July recess because he does not have the votes to move it to debate, two senior Senate Republican aides told ABC News.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell confirmed the delay, saying, "We're going to continue the discussions within our conference on the differences that we have."

Sen. John Thune, R-Neb., stressed that the goal was to still replace Obamacare.

"While the schedule may have slipped a little bit, we are intent on rescuing Americans from a failed system that has driven up their cost and made it more difficult for them to find coverage," he said.

Earlier today Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn told ABC News, "I expect to have the support and get it done ... and yes, we will vote this week."

At least five Republican senators said they would oppose a procedural vote on the GOP health care plan as it stands, effectively blocking the bill from reaching the Senate floor.

In order to pass the bill in the Senate, Republicans can afford only two defections; in case of a tie, they have the option of calling in Vice President Mike Pence to cast the tie-breaking vote.

Before the delay was announced, Republicans senators were invited to the White House for a meeting with President Trump.

"The president invited us to come down," McConnell said at a news conference this afternoon. "The White House has been very much involved in these discussions. They're very anxious to help, and we appreciate the invitation, and I hope all of our members will head down"

After President Trump's meeting with almost all Senate Republicans on Tuesday afternoon, McConnell stood by his previous word on the delay, stating, "I had hoped, as you know, that we could have gotten to the floor this week but we're not quite there. But I think we have a really good chance of getting there. It will just take as you little bit longer."

He remains steadfast that the delay is not a substitute for inaction. McConnell told ABC News Chief Washington Correspondent Jonathan Karl, "It will be dealt with in one of two ways -- either Republicans will agree and change the status quo or the markets will continue to collapse and we'll have to sit down with [Democratic Sen. Chuck] Schumer, and my suspicion is any negotiation with the Democrats would include none of the reforms that we would like to make both on the market side and the medicaid side." McConnell concluded, "So for all of those reasons, we need to come up with a solution."

Read more:

Vote on Senate health care bill delayed amid lack of ...