Latest News 
Source: Center for American Progress
Health reform, when fully implemented, will create 250,000 to 400,000 jobs a year, according to a new study by David Cutler of Harvard University and the Center for American Progress, and Neeraj Sood, of the health policy center at the University of Southern California.
The new study draws together research that Cutler and Sood had done separately.
Sood and two co-authors had previously analyzed data from 38 industries over 19 years to show that increases in health premiums result in a loss (or slower growth) in jobs. On the contrary, he and his colleagues concluded, slowing health care cost growth generates jobs. (To show that the effect they found was related to health costs and not to other industry factors, Sood and colleagues compared U.S. industries to those in Canada, where the government pays health costs.)
Cutler, along with health economics experts at the Commonwealth Fund, had done previous research estimating the savings from health reform, and predicted it would slow the growth of premiums by .75 to 1.5 percentage points annually. Without health reform, they projected, premiums will rise 71 percent by 2019, but reform could chop 8.4 to 12.3 percentage points off the growth.
Putting the two studies together generates the conclusion: "We estimate that health care reform that reduces premium growth will add between 250,000 and 400,000 jobs annually over the next decade."
– 02/17/10
The five top U.S. health insurance companies rolled up a record $12.2 billion in profits in 2009 – up 56% from 2008, according to a recent report from Health Care for America Now!, a reform coalition of which CWA is a member.
"The outsize earnings are a vivid reminder that without comprehensive national health care reform the gatekeepers of our broken health insurance system always will put the short-term interests of Wall Street before the needs of millions of patients and a national economy plagued by joblessness," the report concludes.
One of those insurers, WellPoint, has recently come under fire for premium hikes of up to 39%. The other four largest insurers are UnitedHealth, Aetna, Humana and Cigna. All but Aetna showed sharply higher profits in 2009. HCAN compiled the earnings data from insurance company filings with the federal Securities and Exchange Commission.
At the same time the insurers were fattening their balance sheets, millions of Americans lost coverage, the report says. The top five insurance companies reported 2.7 million less Americans covered by private coverage, although the number they covered through government programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, rose by 688,000.
In part, the report explains, fewer Americans were covered because so many lost their insurance when they lost jobs. "But many others – exact tallies are trade secrets – were victims of an industry practice called purging," the report continues, "in which sharply higher premiums push individuals with health problems or employers with sicker or older workforces away from coverage."
– 02/16/10
By a nearly two-to-one margin, voters want both major political parties to keep trying to pass comprehensive health reform, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.
In the poll, 63% said lawmakers should "keep trying to pass a comprehensive health-care reform plan," while only 34% said Congress should "give up." Voters were evenly split on whether President Obama was doing the right amount or not enough to reach out to Republicans, but, by a two-to-one margin, said strongly that Republicans were not doing enough to compromise with the president.
Meanwhile, the president is making another effort to bring the Republicans and Democrats together. President Obama has called a bipartisan health summit for Feb. 25. In discussing his plans, the president said that he was continuing to work toward the goals of controlling costs, ending insurance company abuses and making sure insurance is available and affordable for people. He's not willing to give up on those goals, he said, but will listen to all ideas about the best way to achieve them:
"When I was in Baltimore talking to the House Republicans, they indicated, we can accomplish some of these goals at no cost. And I said, great, let me see it. And I have no interest in doing something that's more expensive and harder to accomplish if somebody else has an easier way to do it.
"So I'm going to be starting from scratch in the sense that I will be open to any ideas that help promote these goals. What I will not do, what I don't think makes sense and I don't think the American people want to see, would be another year of partisan wrangling around these issues; another six months or eight months or nine months worth of hearings in every single committee in the House and the Senate in which there's a lot of posturing. Let's get the relevant parties together; let's put the best ideas on the table. My hope is that we can find enough overlap that we can say this is the right way to move forward, even if I don't get every single thing that I want.
"But here's the point that I made to [Republican Congressional leaders]: Bipartisanship can't be that I agree to all the things that they believe in or want, and they agree to none of the things I believe in and want."
– 02/11/10
We've been understandably focused on the details of health reform legislation: Will our benefits get taxed? Will there be a public option? What will premiums be? Who will be eligible for coverage? Of course, we need to think about these questions — it's important to get health reform right. But it's also worth remembering why we need health reform in the first place.
WellPoint, the country's largest health insurer, is socking individual members in California with premium increases of 30% to 39%, the Los Angeles Times reported. And as if that annual rate hike is not enough, the insurer (doing business in California as Anthem Blue Cross), says it plans to bump premiums up more often than once a year.
WellPoint said it needed the premium increase to cover rising medical costs. But the company itself says that its medical costs increased 8.9% last year — a large amount, to be sure, but hardly 39%. Clearly, the premium increases leave a generous margin for profit and for executive pay.
In the same announcement in which it said costs were going up 8.9%, WellPoint told Wall Street that it rang up $4.7 billion in profit in 2009, including $2.7 billion in the fourth quarter alone — nearly double the profit from the previous year's fourth quarter. Its CEO pockets nearly $10 million a year in pay, benefits and stock options.
"The Company continues to price its business so that expected premium yield exceeds total cost trend, where total cost trend includes medical costs and selling, general and administrative ("SG&A") expense," WellPoint said in the announcement. Translation: We're going to keep raising premiums more than medical costs plus administrative expense — which, by the way, is 17% of the premium dollar — so profits will continue to go up.
Also contributing to the size of the increases is the way insurance group customers to set rates, as explained by The New Republic's health blogger, Jonathan Cohn. Insurers companies create risk pools by grouping people by geography and/or by demographic factors such as age and gender. As the members in one particular pool age, they get more care, and premiums for that group go up faster. That causes young and healthy members to drop coverage, which adds to the number of uninsured and pushes premiums up even faster for those who remain.
WellPoint's hefty increases have caught the attention of Congress and of Kathleen Sebelius, the Secretary of Health and Human Services. But while federal officials can pressure WellPoint, they're limited in what they can do to head off rate-gouging.
Unless health reform becomes law.
How could health reform help? Although they differ in details, bills passed by the House and Senate would:
- Make for fairer risk pooling by combining large numbers of people into insurance exchanges (a national exchange in the House bill, state exchanges in the Senate bill). The bills would prohibit insurers from charging more for women (now a routine practice) and limit the amount that insurers can charge older enrollees relative to younger members.
- Establish minimum percentages of premium that insurers have to spend on care (85% in the House bill, 85% for large employers and 80% for small employers and individuals in the Senate bill). WellPoint is currently at 84.8% -- meaning under the House bill, it would have to cut premiums by a little, not raise them 39%.
- Set up a process to review the justification for premium increases before they could go into effect.
- Also, the House bill would create a public health insurance plan that people could choose if private insurers raised rates too much. The resulting competition should keep private premiums lower.
– 02/10/10
We've been understandably focused on the details of health reform legislation: Will our benefits get taxed? Will there be a public option? What will premiums be? Who will be eligible for coverage? Of course, we need to think about these questions - it's important to get health reform right. But it's also worth remembering why we need health reform in the first place.
Rashidam Shakirova waited for an insurance company to approve her enrollment - and while she was waiting, delayed treatment for a lump she felt in her breast. Finally, after several months she hired a lawyer, and the insurer began coverage. By then, however, the cancer has spread, and although she received treatment, doctors think she has less than five years to live, the New York Times reported.
"If I had gotten it when I was supposed to, I would have gone back to work and felt fine and my life would not have been broken," she told the Times. "I'm paying taxes. I'm not here for charity. I want to work; I want to contribute and be functional in society."
For other people, the problem isn't getting coverage from an insurance company. The problem is keeping the coverage they have.
Jennifer Latham, a Colorado preschool teacher, suffered a brain injury and multiple fractures when her car was slammed by a suspect fleeing police. She spent a month in the hospital and a month in a rehab center. But soon after she got home, she received a letter from her insurance company, saying they had cancelled her claim and wouldn't pay her $185,000 in medical bills, according to an article in the Boulder Daily Camera.
The insurer said it was justified in cancelling because when she applied for the insurance, she hadn't told the company about a previous emergency room treatment for shortness of breath.
Coverage denied, coverage delayed, coverage withdrawn - all part of our broken system.
How could health reform help? Although they differ in details, bills passed by the House and Senate would:
- Prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage based on pre-existing medical conditions.
- Prohibit insurance companies from cancelling policies when people get sick.
- In addition, the Senate bill would penalize employers who require a waiting period for coverage of more than 60 days - a provision that would have gotten Rashidam Shakirova coverage about the time she first felt the lump in her breast.
Getting rid of denying coverage for pre-existing conditions is popular; Republicans as well as Democrats say they support it. Some have suggested, given the political complexity of passing comprehensive reform legislation, just passing a law requiring insurance companies to sell policies to anyone who wants one. But passing small, popular pieces of reform without a comprehensive package creates more problems.
In this case, simply preventing insurers from denying coverage would mean that people could go uninsured until they get sick, then quickly buy a policy. Like selling homeowners insurance to people whose houses are already on fire, that would drive up premiums for everyone. So the comprehensive reform bills say everyone has to buy health insurance.
What about people who can't afford the full cost of coverage? To make it possible for everyone to buy coverage, the comprehensive bills set up a system of sliding-scale subsidies for moderate-income people.
– 02/08/10
We've been understandably focused on the details of health reform legislation: Will our benefits get taxed? Will there be a public option? What will premiums be? Who will be eligible for coverage? Of course, we need to think about these questions - it's important to get health reform right. But it's also worth remembering why we need health reform in the first place.
We've got two fresh reminders of how out-of-control health costs are stretching the resources of working families, employers and government.
- Health insurance costs are primed for another double-digit increase, according to a recent survey of insurers by a benefits adviser, Buck Consultants. In responses from more than 100 insurers and HMOs covering 78 million people, Buck projects increases in premiums for 2010 of 11.1% for PPOs and 10.3% for HMOs. "The double-digit cost increases that Buck Consultants expect are over twice the rate of general inflation in the U.S. expected in 2010. Thus, the marketplace isn't nearly moderating health costs on its own without the influence of health reform," writes health blogger Jane Sarasohn-Kahn. And cost escalation isn't exactly news. From 1999 to 2009, the average cost of employer-provided family coverage has jumped from $5,701 to $13,375, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. And the share of that premium paid by workers has more than doubled as well - from $1,543 to $3,515.
- Governments and the economy in general are feeling the pain, just as families and employers are. A new report by Medicare's Office of the Actuary, released today, finds that health spending grew to consume a record 17.3% of the economy last year, up from 16.2% in 2008. A nearly half of that $2.5 billion in health spending comes from the federal government. "The report appears likely to fuel further debate about the health bills now stalled in Congress," the Los Angeles Times said. "In the absence of change, the report raises a grim prospect for the country - a healthcare system consuming an ever greater and potentially unsustainable share of the economy even as private health coverage lags." And with the federal deficit ballooning, "the big drivers are mandatory spending on Medicare and Medicaid - huge, rapidly growing costs that are outside the purview of Obama's (or any president's) annual recommendations for discretionary spending," the Wall Street Journal's Health Blog commented.
How could health reform help? Although they differ in details (such as subsidy levels), bills passed by the House and Senate would:
- Help moderate-income families buying their own insurance with premium subsidies.
- Help small employers, who often can't afford coverage, with tax credits if they buy health insurance for workers.
- Allow those buying their own insurance to join in an exchange, bringing down average costs by pooling risk.
- Bring down government costs by phasing down subsidies to insurance companies providing Medicare coverage and by slowing future growth of payments to hospitals, medical equipments companies and providers. This would save hundreds of millions of dollars, but would not change Medicare benefits or reduce payments to doctors.
- Develop new payment models to control future costs by experimenting with recognizing "accountable care organizations" that provide good quality at reduced cost and "bundled payments" to hospitals and doctors which would reward lower-cost care.
- Since Medicare has been a leader in developing new payment models in the past, private insurers are likely to follow suit with any changes that help control costs. This would help control costs for companies and those who get insurance from employers.
- The Senate bill would create an independent board to take stronger action to control costs in Medicare.
- The House bill would require the government to negotiate lower drug prices.
– 02/04/10
Posted by: Bill Salganik |
Quiet talks continue in Washington on how to move health reform forward, as the Los Angeles Times reported.
"We're still inside the five-yard line," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Sunday, as reported by the Wall Street Journal.
Similarly, CWA and its allies are deciding how best to make reform a reality. Medical and consumer groups also are working to find a way to fix the health system.
On Capitol Hill, "behind the scenes party leaders have nearly settled on a strategy to salvage the massive legislation," the L.A. Times said. "They are meeting almost daily to plot legislative moves while gently persuading skittish rank-and-file lawmakers to back a sweeping bill."
Over the next few weeks, the newspaper said, Democratic leaders may put together a plan to have the House of Representatives pass the Senate's version of the health reform bill, and, more or less simultaneously, have both Houses agree on a series of fixes to the Senate bill.
CWA was among the backers of a new Coalition of Health Care Coalitions announced last week. Other participants include Health Care for America Now, the American College of Cardiology and Families USA. CWA and its partners will continue to seek meaningful reform of the health system without a tax and benefits which would punish working families.
– 02/01/10
Supporters of the tax on high-premium health benefits said it would lower health costs. Here's how it's supposed to work, they said: Employers will cut benefits to avoid the tax, meaning higher out-of-pocket costs for workers; to avoid paying those costs, the workers would cut out unnecessary doctor visits, saving costs for the system.
A new study in this week's New England Journal of Medicine adds more evidence that the theory of cost savings through higher out-of-pocket costs isn't true.
The study tracks Medicare health plans, such as HMOs, that increased the co-pay for doctor visits. It compared records of more than 800,000 patients - some in health plans that raised co-pays, some in similar plans that kept co-pays level. Those facing higher co-pays did, in fact, make fewer doctor visits - but they ended up needing more hospital care, driving overall costs up.
By raising co-payments, the study estimated, health insurers collected an additional $5,950 in co-pays from each 100 patients, and fewer doctor visits saved another $1,200 for the insurance company, for a total apparent saving of $7,150. But those 100 patients, on average, generated an extra two hospital admissions and 13 days of hospital care, for an added cost of $24,000 - more than three times as much as was "saved."
The results are consistent with other research showing that higher co-payments can lead to more hospitalizations when patients defer needed preventive care.
Why does this matter? As Congress considers how to move forward with health reform, the Senate's health reform bill would tax high-premium benefits, the House's bill wouldn't. Some are suggesting the House should pass the Senate's bill. CWA thinks that's the wrong way to go because the benefits tax is misguided policy.
– 01/29/10
"Don't walk away from reform," President Barack Obama told Congress last night in his State of the Union address. While the politics have become more difficult, the need for health reform remains, he said. Here, from the official transcript, is the section of his speech dealing with health reform:
"And it is precisely to relieve the burden on middle-class families that we still need health insurance reform. (Applause.) Yes, we do. (Applause.) "Now, let's clear a few things up. (Laughter.) I didn't choose to tackle this issue to get some legislative victory under my belt. And by now it should be fairly obvious that I didn't take on health care because it was good politics. (Laughter.) I took on health care because of the stories I've heard from Americans with preexisting conditions whose lives depend on getting coverage; patients who've been denied coverage; families -- even those with insurance -- who are just one illness away from financial ruin.
"After nearly a century of trying -- Democratic administrations, Republican administrations -- we are closer than ever to bringing more security to the lives of so many Americans. The approach we've taken would protect every American from the worst practices of the insurance industry. It would give small businesses and uninsured Americans a chance to choose an affordable health care plan in a competitive market. It would require every insurance plan to cover preventive care.
"And by the way, I want to acknowledge our First Lady, Michelle Obama, who this year is creating a national movement to tackle the epidemic of childhood obesity and make kids healthier. (Applause.) Thank you. She gets embarrassed. (Laughter.)
"Our approach would preserve the right of Americans who have insurance to keep their doctor and their plan. It would reduce costs and premiums for millions of families and businesses. And according to the Congressional Budget Office -- the independent organization that both parties have cited as the official scorekeeper for Congress -- our approach would bring down the deficit by as much as $1 trillion over the next two decades. (Applause.)
"Still, this is a complex issue, and the longer it was debated, the more skeptical people became. I take my share of the blame for not explaining it more clearly to the American people. And I know that with all the lobbying and horse-trading, the process left most Americans wondering, 'What's in it for me?' "But I also know this problem is not going away. By the time I'm finished speaking tonight, more Americans will have lost their health insurance. Millions will lose it this year. Our deficit will grow. Premiums will go up. Patients will be denied the care they need. Small business owners will continue to drop coverage altogether. I will not walk away from these Americans, and neither should the people in this chamber. (Applause.)
"So, as temperatures cool, I want everyone to take another look at the plan we've proposed. There's a reason why many doctors, nurses, and health care experts who know our system best consider this approach a vast improvement over the status quo. But if anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors, and stop insurance company abuses, let me know. (Applause.) Let me know. Let me know. (Applause.) I'm eager to see it.
"Here's what I ask Congress, though: Don't walk away from reform. Not now. Not when we are so close. Let us find a way to come together and finish the job for the American people. (Applause.) Let's get it done. Let's get it done. (Applause.)"
– 01/28/10
Health insurers quietly funneled millions of dollars to the Chamber of Commerce to pay for ads attacking health reform, National Journal reported recently.
The insurance industry's trade association and lobbying arm, America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) hit up the largest for-profit insurers to chip in to the Chamber's efforts to help sink reform, according to the report. And the big insurance companies - Aetna, Cigna, Humana, UnitedHealth and WellPoint - each ponied up a seven-figure contribution.
At the same time it was collecting millions to block reform legislation, AHIP was saying publicly that it supported reform. AHIP disguised its own role in funding the ads, passing the money through the Chamber of Commerce, to avoid backlash, one lobbying source told National Journal.
Apart from the millions they've been quietly slipping to the Chamber of Commerce, the insurers have also been lavishing big bucks on lobbying - including $4.7 million last year by WellPoint and $4.5 million by United Health, according to The Hill.
All this serves as a reminder of who benefits from the status quo - and it isn't ordinary consumers and patients.
– 01/26/10
Page 2 of 32 pages < 1 2 3 4 > Last »
