Beware of insurance giants bearing gifts

[Joanne98]

Is this supposed to make me feel better? The health-care industry offering to trim $2 trillion in "future costs" for health insurance over the next decade.

The groups aim to achieve the proposed savings by using new efficiencies to trim the rise in health-care costs by 1.5 percent a year, the officials said. ...

"We are developing consensus proposals to reduce the rate of increase in future health and insurance costs through changes made in all sectors of the health system," the groups wrote to the president. "We are committed to taking action in private-public partnership to create a more stable and sustainable health care system."
I have news for these people. I was already priced out of the present costs over a year ago and see nothing in my future that will allow me to meet payments that are contained by 1.5 percent. On a $750 monthly payment, we're talking about what, about $11.00? Sardonic laughter.

We need a affordable single payer option. Why aren't we seeing that on the table in these sham negotiations?

http://theimpolitic.blogspot.com/2009/05/beware-of-insurance-giants-bearing.html

DOCUMENT DUMP: THE BIG HEALTH CARE LETTER.

All this fuss over one little letter. I've got the full document for download here. And the early reports are true. It's signed by the presidents of Pharma, Advamed (device manufacturers), the American Medical Association (doctors), the American Hospital Association, America's Health Insurance Plans, and SEIU's Health Care project. It promises that "we will do our part to achieve your Administration’s goal of decreasing by 1.5 percentage points the annual health care spending growth rate—saving $2 trillion or more." It says that "we are developing consensus proposals to reduce the rate of increase in future health and insurance costs through changes made in all sectors of the health care system." And it gives some general areas of agreement:


• Implementing proposals in all sectors of the health care system, focusing on administrative simplification, standardization, and transparency that supports effective markets;

• Reducing over-use and under-use of health care by aligning quality and efficiency incentives among providers across the continuum of care so that physicians, hospitals, and other health care providers are encouraged and enabled to work together towards the highest standards of quality and efficiency;

• Encouraging coordinated care, both in the public and private sectors, and adherence to evidence-based best practices and therapies that reduce hospitalization, manage chronic disease more efficiently and effectively, and implement proven clinical prevention strategies; and,

• Reducing the cost of doing business by addressing cost drivers in each sector and through common sense improvements in care delivery models, health information technology, workforce deployment and development, and regulatory reforms.


Devil, details, etc. I'm looking forward to reading those consensus proposals. And one more thing: A source who I generally trust and who has deep knowledge of these conversations says that she is more confident that a public plan will be included now than she was 48 hours ago. So take that for what it's worth.


Posted by Ezra Klein on May 11, 2009 12:18 PM | Permalink

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=05&year=2009&base_name=document_dump_the_big_health_c#115042

[rockymountaindem]

1. This screams "smokescreen" and "setup"

so that when/if they don't get their way, they'll be positioned to complain that the administration "didn't meet them halfway" and blame failure on Obama rather than what I'm confident will prove the insurance companies' unwillingness to make real compromises or the inability (or unwillingness on the part of Sen. Baucus) of Senate Democrats to pull enough votes together for a public option.

[CTyankee]

2. Sure.

"A source who I generally trust and who has deep knowledge of these conversations says that she is more confident that a public plan will be included now than she was 48 hours ago."

Sure, put out a public plan and then make sure it isn't funded properly. People will get frustrated and angry that their public plan ain't worth sh*t. Then sorrowfully say "I told you so. Socialism doesn't work. The government can't help you."

Then we'll be back to square one...

[blindpig]

6. Pretty much.

A barely minimal fig leaf for bidness as usual. We will be handed a shit sandwich and be told to eat it, it is good. Soon many will declare that shit sandwiches are good, always have been, what's the matter with you?

And so it goes.

[lostnotforgotten]

3. Unless The Profit Motive Is Removed From The Equation - Health Care Will Never Be Equitable

eom

[LiberalAndProud]

4. Too little too late.

Too many of us are uninsured due to exhorbitant premiums now. How on earth this will improve anything for the currently uninsured, I fail to understand.

[Hugin]

5. Okay, I'll say this one more time... Patients are seen as 'costs' to Insurance Cos.

Therefore, how they cut costs is to deny coverage. Oh, and bump a Nurse here or there and maybe rarely a Doctor.

To a modern for-profit company costs are equated with providing the labor and services they claim to provide to customers. The only way they can cut costs is to not do the labor and provide the services or to charge less. Guess which one it will be... Now isn't that odd?

They're being tricky and they'll probably get away with it.

[subterranean]

7. Sounds like a bunch of meaningless jargon to me.

Take the second bullet item, for example. Can anyone translate that into English for me? Does it mean anything at all?