Healthcare Industry to Propose $2 trillion in cost cuts

[Carmen813]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30672330/

Here are the highlights.

..In a rare move before the administration has unveiled all the details of its proposal, the industry groups are trying to strike a deal now with Obama officials to help get coverage for all Americans in the hopes they can stave off legislation that would restrict their profitability in future years. Obama has courted industry and provider groups; he invited representatives to a health care summit discussion at the White House. There is a sense among some of the groups that this may be the best opportunity to strike a deal before public opinion turns against them, fueled by anger over costs.

Insurers, for example, want to avoid creation of a government health plan that would directly compete with them to enroll middle-class workers and their families. Drug makers worry that in the future, new medications might have to pass a cost-benefit test before they can win approval. And hospitals and doctors are concerned the government could dictate what they get paid to care for any patient, not only the elderly and the poor.

It's unclear whether the proposed savings will prove decisive in pushing a health care overhaul through Congress this summer, as Democratic leaders have vowed to do. Covering the estimated 50 million uninsured Americans could cost from $1.2 trillion to $1.5 trillion over 10 years. To pay for that, lawmakers would have to identify specific savings in government programs like Medicare, or come up with new revenues....

..But the industry offer shows a willingness to help find the money. That's far different from the situation in the 1990s, when insurers and other key groups successfully opposed the Clinton administration's plan to cover all Americans.

..."The AP source said the groups include America's Health Insurance Plans, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association and the Service Employees International Union..."

Basically shows that the healthcare industry is trying to meet Obama halfway, by moving forward with cost-cutting procedures in exchange for providing universal (but mandated) coverage and not having to compete with a national plan.

Compared to their response to Clinton, this is very encouraging. I think we might actually get some meaningful legislation passed later this year. The threat of needing to compete with a government funded national health care program seems to be paying off, with the industry coming to the table with their own proposals. Cost cutting is one of the biggest hurdles we need to overcome, not just for national programs, but for things such as medicare as well.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Carmen813
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30672330/

Here are the highlights.

..In a rare move before the administration has unveiled all the details of its proposal, the industry groups are trying to strike a deal now with Obama officials to help get coverage for all Americans in the hopes they can stave off legislation that would restrict their profitability in future years. Obama has courted industry and provider groups; he invited representatives to a health care summit discussion at the White House. There is a sense among some of the groups that this may be the best opportunity to strike a deal before public opinion turns against them, fueled by anger over costs.

Insurers, for example, want to avoid creation of a government health plan that would directly compete with them to enroll middle-class workers and their families. Drug makers worry that in the future, new medications might have to pass a cost-benefit test before they can win approval. And hospitals and doctors are concerned the government could dictate what they get paid to care for any patient, not only the elderly and the poor.

It's unclear whether the proposed savings will prove decisive in pushing a health care overhaul through Congress this summer, as Democratic leaders have vowed to do. Covering the estimated 50 million uninsured Americans could cost from $1.2 trillion to $1.5 trillion over 10 years. To pay for that, lawmakers would have to identify specific savings in government programs like Medicare, or come up with new revenues....

..But the industry offer shows a willingness to help find the money. That's far different from the situation in the 1990s, when insurers and other key groups successfully opposed the Clinton administration's plan to cover all Americans.

..."The AP source said the groups include America's Health Insurance Plans, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association and the Service Employees International Union..."

Basically shows that the healthcare industry is trying to meet Obama halfway, by moving forward with cost-cutting procedures in exchange for providing universal (but mandated) coverage and not having to compete with a national plan.

Compared to their response to Clinton, this is very encouraging. I think we might actually get some meaningful legislation passed later this year. The threat of needing to compete with a government funded national health care program seems to be paying off, with the industry coming to the table with their own proposals. Cost cutting is one of the biggest hurdles we need to overcome, not just for national programs, but for things such as medicare as well.

Actually I don't think that's accurate since what Obama has been floating is a plan where people could choose to buy the government health care instead of the private health care. Its the threat of having to compete with the hugely efficient Medicare system (which has amazingly low overhead costs) which is scaring the private health insurance companies that can use up to 30 percent of their premiums recieved for "overhead" instead of the like 2 percent Medicare uses for "overhead".

 

[Carmen813]

Medicare's overhead is more like 15%, the 2% figure is calculated a bit differently. However, 15% is still lower than 30%, and is probably the reason they are providing substantial alternatives.

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: Carmen813
Medicare's overhead is more like 15%, the 2% figure is calculated a bit differently. However, 15% is still lower than 30%, and is probably the reason they are providing substantial alternatives.

It's also difficult to get the best treatment with Medicare.

 

[Carmen813]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

Originally posted by: Carmen813
Medicare's overhead is more like 15%, the 2% figure is calculated a bit differently. However, 15% is still lower than 30%, and is probably the reason they are providing substantial alternatives.

It's also difficult to get the best treatment with Medicare.

And impossible without health insurance. No system's perfect.

 

[rchiu]

Of course the healthcare industry is afraid. Obama admin has shown that they are the most interventionist admin in the history of USA with the involvement in AIG/Fannie/Freddie/Big 3's. And their skill in vilifying certain groups, demonstrated in the AIG bonues case, is unparellel.

But hey, if they can get the health care industry which has been sucking American dry to play nice a little, I am all for it.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: rchiu
Obama admin has shown that they are the most interventionist admin in the history of USA with the involvement in AIG/Fannie/Freddie/Big 3's.

I hope you're kidding.

 

[Pliablemoose]

Insurance Inc, knows they'll outlast Obama and run the show again soon enough...

 

[Starbuck1975]

Actually I don't think that's accurate since what Obama has been floating is a plan where people could choose to buy the government health care instead of the private health care. Its the threat of having to compete with the hugely efficient Medicare system (which has amazingly low overhead costs) which is scaring the private health insurance companies that can use up to 30 percent of their premiums recieved for "overhead" instead of the like 2 percent Medicare uses for "overhead".

Medicare has a major cash flow crisis looming in the not too distant future, and is largely a failed and unsustainable program. Sure seniors love it, but it is essentially a program of robbing Peter to provide health care to Paul. I don't think we want to model a universal health care plan based on Medicare.

 

[Darthvoy]

Originally posted by: Carmen813
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30672330/

Here are the highlights.

..In a rare move before the administration has unveiled all the details of its proposal, the industry groups are trying to strike a deal now with Obama officials to help get coverage for all Americans in the hopes they can stave off legislation that would restrict their profitability in future years. Obama has courted industry and provider groups; he invited representatives to a health care summit discussion at the White House. There is a sense among some of the groups that this may be the best opportunity to strike a deal before public opinion turns against them, fueled by anger over costs.

Insurers, for example, want to avoid creation of a government health plan that would directly compete with them to enroll middle-class workers and their families. Drug makers worry that in the future, new medications might have to pass a cost-benefit test before they can win approval. And hospitals and doctors are concerned the government could dictate what they get paid to care for any patient, not only the elderly and the poor.

It's unclear whether the proposed savings will prove decisive in pushing a health care overhaul through Congress this summer, as Democratic leaders have vowed to do. Covering the estimated 50 million uninsured Americans could cost from $1.2 trillion to $1.5 trillion over 10 years. To pay for that, lawmakers would have to identify specific savings in government programs like Medicare, or come up with new revenues....

..But the industry offer shows a willingness to help find the money. That's far different from the situation in the 1990s, when insurers and other key groups successfully opposed the Clinton administration's plan to cover all Americans.

..."The AP source said the groups include America's Health Insurance Plans, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association and the Service Employees International Union..."

Basically shows that the healthcare industry is trying to meet Obama halfway, by moving forward with cost-cutting procedures in exchange for providing universal (but mandated) coverage and not having to compete with a national plan.

Compared to their response to Clinton, this is very encouraging. I think we might actually get some meaningful legislation passed later this year. The threat of needing to compete with a government funded national health care program seems to be paying off, with the industry coming to the table with their own proposals. Cost cutting is one of the biggest hurdles we need to overcome, not just for national programs, but for things such as medicare as well.

You know what I would tell the health care industry? FUCK YOU. Again, the systemic problem with the health care industry is that it is seeking profit maximization. You simply cannot have that when you are dealing with people's health care because you start marginalizing some of them. Of course the industry is scared and the solution they are providing is only temporary. Hopefully Obama will not listen to them. One must not forget the malfeasance they have done simply because they are now trying to "play nice."

 

[theeedude]

Too little, too late. We need universal single payer insurance plan.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Actually I don't think that's accurate since what Obama has been floating is a plan where people could choose to buy the government health care instead of the private health care. Its the threat of having to compete with the hugely efficient Medicare system (which has amazingly low overhead costs) which is scaring the private health insurance companies that can use up to 30 percent of their premiums recieved for "overhead" instead of the like 2 percent Medicare uses for "overhead".

Medicare has a major cash flow crisis looming in the not too distant future, and is largely a failed and unsustainable program. Sure seniors love it, but it is essentially a program of robbing Peter to provide health care to Paul. I don't think we want to model a universal health care plan based on Medicare.

All insurance is robbing Peter to pay Paul. And yes, we do want a universal health plan based on Medicare.

 

[First]

A combination of gov't coverage and private insurance as an adjunct has worked very well in many countries. We'll see if it becomes possible to maintain a general level of quality care though.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: techs
the hugely efficient Medicare system (which has amazingly low overhead costs) which is scaring the private health insurance companies that can use up to 30 percent of their premiums recieved for "overhead" instead of the like 2 percent Medicare uses for "overhead".

there's that tired old fallacy again.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: rchiu
Obama admin has shown that they are the most interventionist admin in the history of USA with the involvement in AIG/Fannie/Freddie/Big 3's.

I hope you're kidding.

Nope I am not, and I am not the only one thinking that way. WSJ

Quote:

The White House's role in restructuring Chrysler has sent a shudder through the community of lawyers and lenders in the field of bankruptcy and corporate workouts. Critics complain that the administration has violated a bedrock principle of American capitalism and unfairly demonized financial firms that are vital to the functioning of the economy and its eventual recovery.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: techs
the hugely efficient Medicare system (which has amazingly low overhead costs) which is scaring the private health insurance companies that can use up to 30 percent of their premiums recieved for "overhead" instead of the like 2 percent Medicare uses for "overhead".

there's that tired old fallacy again.

Sane person definition of fallacy: the reasoning mistakes by which people, usually right-wingers, reach their wrong conclusions.

Right-wing definition of fallacy: the truth, when it disagrees with their biases and ideology.

The fact is that the private insurance system is massively bloated and more expensive than alternatives, and has the money as a result to propagandize people like ElFenix.

 

[Shortass]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: rchiu
Obama admin has shown that they are the most interventionist admin in the history of USA with the involvement in AIG/Fannie/Freddie/Big 3's.

I hope you're kidding.

Nope I am not, and I am not the only one thinking that way. WSJ

Quote:

The White House's role in restructuring Chrysler has sent a shudder through the community of lawyers and lenders in the field of bankruptcy and corporate workouts. Critics complain that the administration has violated a bedrock principle of American capitalism and unfairly demonized financial firms that are vital to the functioning of the economy and its eventual recovery.

Yeah, and later in the article: "Many of the lenders believed the administration wouldn't let Chrysler file for bankruptcy. "The plan was to call the government's bluff. The game was to game the government," said a manager of a distressed-debt fund."

Creditors were attempting to force Chrysler to pay back the full amount of their debt, assuming the government would bail out the 'too big to fail' automaker. They were wrong and now they're butthurt because Chrysler is going to be forced to liquidate like any other normal business would under the capitalistic model and the creditors won't get their money back. Boo fucking hoo.

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: Shortass

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: rchiu
Obama admin has shown that they are the most interventionist admin in the history of USA with the involvement in AIG/Fannie/Freddie/Big 3's.

I hope you're kidding.

Nope I am not, and I am not the only one thinking that way. WSJ

Quote:

The White House's role in restructuring Chrysler has sent a shudder through the community of lawyers and lenders in the field of bankruptcy and corporate workouts. Critics complain that the administration has violated a bedrock principle of American capitalism and unfairly demonized financial firms that are vital to the functioning of the economy and its eventual recovery.

Yeah, and later in the article: "Many of the lenders believed the administration wouldn't let Chrysler file for bankruptcy. "The plan was to call the government's bluff. The game was to game the government," said a manager of a distressed-debt fund."

Creditors were attempting to force Chrysler to pay back the full amount of their debt, assuming the government would bail out the 'too big to fail' automaker. They were wrong and now they're butthurt because Chrysler is going to be forced to liquidate like any other normal business would under the capitalistic model and the creditors won't get their money back. Boo fucking hoo.

mmmmm...mmmmm that right there was some goood pwnage

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Too little, too late. We need universal single payer insurance plan.

K. I think the single payer should be Haliburton.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Sane person definition of fallacy: the reasoning mistakes by which people, usually right-wingers, reach their wrong conclusions.

Right-wing definition of fallacy: the truth, when it disagrees with their biases and ideology.

The fact is that the private insurance system is massively bloated and more expensive than alternatives, and has the money as a result to propagandize people like ElFenix.

Please Craig, like you and your dingbat left wing socialist buddies are any better...you want a model for efficiency look at the mass heath care system and explain how that is "better" than what is currently available given that Obama is proposing much the same thing??

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: Shortass

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: rchiu
Obama admin has shown that they are the most interventionist admin in the history of USA with the involvement in AIG/Fannie/Freddie/Big 3's.

I hope you're kidding.

Nope I am not, and I am not the only one thinking that way. WSJ

Quote:

The White House's role in restructuring Chrysler has sent a shudder through the community of lawyers and lenders in the field of bankruptcy and corporate workouts. Critics complain that the administration has violated a bedrock principle of American capitalism and unfairly demonized financial firms that are vital to the functioning of the economy and its eventual recovery.

Yeah, and later in the article: "Many of the lenders believed the administration wouldn't let Chrysler file for bankruptcy. "The plan was to call the government's bluff. The game was to game the government," said a manager of a distressed-debt fund."

Creditors were attempting to force Chrysler to pay back the full amount of their debt, assuming the government would bail out the 'too big to fail' automaker. They were wrong and now they're butthurt because Chrysler is going to be forced to liquidate like any other normal business would under the capitalistic model and the creditors won't get their money back. Boo fucking hoo.

mmmmm...mmmmm that right there was some goood pwnage

:thumbsup:

 

[Genx87]

I dont expect this to stop democrats from taking over health care. And with it we get to experience the quality and efficiency we see every other day of the week within our govt.

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: senseamp
Too little, too late. We need universal single payer insurance plan.

K. I think the single payer should be Haliburton.

Why would we outsource such a huge system to a foreign company?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: Craig234

Sane person definition of fallacy: the reasoning mistakes by which people, usually right-wingers, reach their wrong conclusions.

Right-wing definition of fallacy: the truth, when it disagrees with their biases and ideology.

The fact is that the private insurance system is massively bloated and more expensive than alternatives, and has the money as a result to propagandize people like ElFenix.

Please Craig, like you and your dingbat left wing socialist buddies are any better...you want a model for efficiency look at the mass heath care system and explain how that is "better" than what is currently available given that Obama is proposing much the same thing??

OK. Info there is a start.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
Insurance Inc, knows they'll outlast Obama and run the show again soon enough...

Looks like us health care providers are going to get yet another screwing. 😉

BTW, all this talk about "efficiency" of government is nonsense. "Overhead"? That the thing they reduce by passing all the work to the health care providers. That's why some practices have had to cut back on trained staff to afford the increase costs of getting things done with insurance (and to be fair the private insurance is almost as bad). Want to see a nurse or doctor go nuts? Say "prior authorization". That's the process where we spend a fair amount of time trying to get a medication approved for a patient. That's time we don't spend taking care of the patient. With Medicaid it's a joke. In NY, the prescriber has to contact Medicaid for the authorization, and then the pharmacist has to do the same thing. Why twice? No one has any idea. Further prior auth is a joke. Virtually every claim is approved. Why bother?

So we have to do all this crap, but we just had a very expensive brand name medication go generic. All the private insurance companies have allowed us to bill for the generic, but on average it takes 3 months for Medicaid to get around adding a drug to it's formulary. That's going to cost millions for just one drug. Does government tell you how wonderful that is? Nope, because it would look bad. It never happened.

Sure government "overhead" is lower, but it does so at the expense to others and its inefficiencies. I'd rather they spend more money updating the system they use and decrease the long term TCO to everyone. Nope, not a chance. Can't happen because it's government run. A business can reallocate resources by a change of policy. A government entity needs to change it's statutory regulations. Government isn't designed to change on the fly, and therefore it's always behind the curve when it comes to adapting policies. We've been trying to get rid of some glaring problems with HIPPA, and Congress is too busy to bother. Imagine how it's going to be if they get complete control over health care?

Now at this point someone usually brings up Sweden or some such place. Well this isn't Europe. We buy and sell policy by pandering to groups and special interests. Obama could have selected someone who has an intimate knowledge of medicine. He picked paper pushers instead.

If Congress can't get the simple things right, explain to me how they will understand and get right the nuances and needs of what is probably the most complex and intricate industry on the planet. They've been screwing things up beyond all recognition for decades, and NOW they are going to get it all right? Pull the other one.