Updated November 14, 2009 Report: Government Paid More Than $47B in Medicare Claims by AP
A new federal report shows the government paid more than $47 billion in questionable Medicare claims.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The government paid more than $47 billion in questionable Medicare claims including medical treatment showing little relation to a patient's condition, wasting taxpayer dollars at a rate nearly three times the previous year.
Excerpts of a new federal report, obtained by The Associated Press, show a dramatic increase in improper payments in the $440 billion Medicare program that has been cited by government auditors as a high risk for fraud and waste for 20 years.
It's not clear whether Medicare fraud is actually worsening. Much of the increase in the last year is attributed to a change in the Health and Human Services Department's methodology that imposes stricter documentation requirements and includes more improper payments -- part of a data-collection effort being ordered government-wide by President Barack Obama this coming week to promote "honest budgeting" and accurate statistics.
Still, the fiscal 2009 financial report -- covering the first few months of the Obama administration -- highlights the challenges ahead for a government that is seeking in part to pay for its proposed health care overhaul by cracking down on Medicare fraud. While noting that several new anti-fraud efforts were beginning, the government report makes clear that "aggressive actions" to date aimed at reducing improper payments had yielded little improvement.
In recent years, the suspect claims have included Medicare prescriptions from doctors who were dead, and requests for payment for medical supplies such as blood glucose strips for sexual impotence and diabetic shoes for leg amputees. Patients, many of them new citizens who barely speak English, are sometimes recruited by brokers who go door-to-door offering hundreds of dollars for use of their Medicare numbers.
Obama is expected to announce new initiatives this coning week to help crack down on Medicare fraud, including a government-wide Web site aimed at providing a fuller account of health care spending and improper payments made by various agencies. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services also will launch a Web interactive next month that will allow users to track Medicare payment information by categories such as state, diagnosis and hospital.
The government paid more than $47 billion in questionable Medicare claims including medical treatment showing little relation to a patient's condition, wasting taxpayer dollars at a rate nearly three times the previous year.
I must agree that there is 'waste'....but dont forget there is also the inability of 'the government machine' to discern....and medicine IS NOT an exact science.....and the 'public' doesn't know about it's own body messages......and tort reform.......folks think MD's are responsible for their 'behaviors and choices'......
so be careful what the government wants to treat you with and how......
SHOW ME THE $$ TRAIL.....AND....give me the definition of WASTE-government style of course.....
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
I have misgivings that the health bill presented to the Senate by [Senate Majority Leader] Harry Reid will be a shrewdly contrived Trojan horse. The Clinton visit to Congress, and the proposal to “just” pass a bill, inspired the following conjecture: All contentious issues will be removed from the Senate bill. With those issues removed, it would be difficult to produce the 60 votes required to filibuster and kill it. In fact I suspect the “detoxified” health bill will pass. The Senate bill will then be submitted to committee, to be reconciled with the House version. All of the contentious issues will then be restored, passed by the House, and returned for Senate confirmation. The Senate cannot filibuster a resolution committee bill. A mere plurality of votes will then allow the bill to pass American will have a new and unwanted health plan.
If in fact our legislatures pass the bill by this devious means there will be an uprising against the Democrats come 2010 elections along with any Republicans that go along with them.
Starner Jones, MD I am a seventh generation Mississippian and wanted to come back here after going somewhere else for college and medical school. My extracurricular interests are golf, hunting, fishing and college football. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This should be on the front page of every newspaper in America —in large bold letters. This was a "letter to the editor" in August 29th Jackson , MS newspaper.
Dear Sirs:
"During my last night's shift in the ER, I had the pleasure of evaluating a patient with a shiny new gold tooth, multiple elaborate tattoos, a very expensive brand of tennis shoes and a new cellular telephone equipped with her favorite R&B tune for a ring tone. Glancing over the chart, one could not help noticing her payer status: Medicaid.She smokes more than one costly pack of cigarettes every day and, somehow, still has money to buy beer.
And our Congress expects me to pay for this woman's health care? Our nation's health care crisis is not a shortage of quality hospitals, doctors or nurses. It is a crisis of culture — a culture in which it is perfectly acceptable to spend money on vices while refusing to take care of one's self or, heaven forbid, purchase health insurance. A culture that thinks "I can do whatever I want to because someone else will always take care of me". Life is really not that hard. Most of us reap what we sow. Don't you agree?
November 16th, 2009 China questions costs of US healthcare reform
Posted by: James Pethokoukis Tags: Uncategorized, budget deficit, China, healthcare reform, national debt
Guess what? It turns out the Chinese are kind of curious about how President Barack Obama’s healthcare reform plans would impact America’s huge fiscal deficit. Government officials are using his Asian trip as an opportunity to ask the White House questions. Detailed questions.
Boilerplate assurances that America won’t default on its debt or inflate the shortfall away are apparently not cutting it. Nor should they, when one owns nearly $2 trillion in assets denominated in the currency of a country about to double its national debt over the next decade.
Nothing happening in Washington today should give Beijing any comfort or confidence about what may happen tomorrow. Healthcare reform was originally promoted as a way to “bend the curve” on escalating entitlement costs, the major part of which is financing Medicare and Medicaid. That is looking more and more like an overpromised deliverable.
For instance, a new study from the U.S. government’s Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services finds that the healthcare reform bill recently passed in the House of Representatives would increase healthcare spending to 21.3 percent of GDP by 2019 compared with 20.8 percent under current law. That’s bending the curve the wrong way. The study also questions the “long-term viability” of the $500 billion in Medicare cuts meant to help pay for expanded insurance coverage.
In addition, the CMS study gives a clearer cost estimate than the one provided by the Congressional Budget Office. According to the CBO, the 10-year cost of PelosiCare is $894 billion. But that analysis includes early years with little government spending, According to the CMS, the House approach would cost $1 trillion from 2013-2019, or some $140 billion a year when fully put into effect.
Few realists in Washington think any of the current reform plans make a significant dent in the long-term healthcare cost to government. Indeed, the Senate Budget Committee recently held hearing about creating a bipartisan commission to find solutions to America’s entitlements problems.
If healthcare reform really bent the curve, there would be a no need for such a commission to do Healthcare Reform 2.0.
The Chinese might want to keep up the questioning.
Now that one bill has passed in Congress for “health reform,” let us remind ourselves why we doing “reform” in the first place. The president said we are in a health care crisis because the cost of heath care nationwide was skyrocketing and the trend is unsustainable. Well, what would the newly passed House bill do to solve that crisis? Nothing. Congress, in its haste to pass something, forgot why they were working on reform. There is nothing in the House bill that addresses the cost trends. It apparently would add millions of people to those already covered by some medical insurance. This increases cost. The bill would mandate certain items, such as requiring insurance companies to insure everyone regardless of preconditions, age or gender. This will increase costs. The bill says nothing about limiting malpractice awards, which cause expensive, defensive medicine. There is nothing about changing the restriction on not being able to buy insurance from other states, which would increase competition and drive down insurance costs. The bill claims it would not add to the deficit — but that is only because there are increased taxes to pay for the trillion in new costs and because Congress plans to take $500 billion from Medicare — which Congress will never pass for fear of the seniors, a strong voting bloc. Also, according to analysis by the Congressional Budget Office, the so-called public (government) option would have higher premiums than the average private insurance plan. Congress proves once again to be incompetent. It should scrap the bill being considered and look at ways to address the main reason for the out-of-control costs in health care — all medical care is paid for by a third party, either the government or insurance companies. One way to slow costs is to have various policies (private insurance, Medicare, and Medicaid) with higher deductibles and co-payments so the consumer will shop for medical care by comparing price vs. value. That is how we all shop for TVs, computers, clothes, cars, etc., and the price of all these purchases has been declining for decades.
I can sum up America’s health care debate by looking at how the proponents of the current reform characterize their opposition. In the Nov. 12 Gazette, one letter [“Shame on Murphy for rejecting health plan”] states that those who oppose health care reform are basically people who say, “I got mine, let them get theirs.” Then the Nov. 12 Gazette editorial [“Murphy treads fine line on health care”] says that Scott Murphy’s vote against the house bill came down to opposing the cost of the new entitlement as opposed to appreciating its benefits. Re the first argument, I have private health insurance, yet I am also for government action that provides health care for the uninsured. But does fixing the uninsured problem mean that we have to change the entire health care system? If my kitchen sink was broken, would I ask the workman to tear down the entire kitchen? No, I would zero in on the specific problem. Second, there are those who oppose (including me) the gigantic, $1 trillionplus cost of this new entitlement — a cost that is piled on top of current government debt and the unfunded liabilities of Social Security and Medicare. Your editorial states that we should also appreciate the benefits. Well, I just don’t see the benefits. We want to provide health care to everyone and reduce the cost along the way. The current legislation reduces costs through the public option. There are many more ways to really reduce costs, but they aren’t included in the legislation. Finally, the legislation provides health care to all by requiring everyone to buy insurance. Wow, you could have done that in a lot less then 2,000 pages, plus it seems un-American to force people that way. If Congress really wanted health care reform for everyone, they would pass a bipartisan plan that includes the best ideas from both sides. Not everyone would be happy, but I believe a majority of Americans would get on board and we could have a lasting solution to our health care problem.
Compulsory national health insurance may be unconstitutional
George Will George Will is a nationally syndicated columnist.
PHOENIX — In 2006, long before there was an Obama administration determined to impose a commandand-control federal health care system, a young orthopedic surgeon walked into the Goldwater Institute here with an idea. The institute, America’s most potent advocate of limited government, embraced Eric Novack’s idea for protecting Arizonans from health care coercion. In 2008, Arizonans voted on Novack’s proposed amendment to the state’s Constitution: “No law shall be passed that restricts a person’s freedom of choice of private health care systems or private plans of any type. No law shall interfere with a person’s or entity’s right to pay directly for lawful medical services, nor shall any law impose a penalty or fine, of any type, for choosing to obtain or decline health care coverage or for participation in any particular health care system or plan.” Proponents were outspent 5-1 by opponents who argued, meretriciously, that it would destroy Arizona’s Medicaid program, with which many insurance companies have lucrative contracts. Nevertheless, the proposition lost by only 8,687 votes out of 2.1 million cast, and Arizonans will vote on essentially the same language next November. But does not federal law trump state laws? Not necessarily. Clint Bolick, a Goldwater Institute attorney, says, “It is a bedrock principle of constitutional law that the federal Constitution established a floor for the protection of individual liberties; state constitutions may provide additional protections.” In 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court held that under the Constitution’s system of “dual sovereignty,” states’ “retained sovereignty” empowers them to “remain independent and autonomous within their proper sphere of authority.” The court has been critical of the “federalism costs” of intrusive federal policies, and recently has twice vindicated state sovereignty in ways pertinent to Novack’s plan. In 2006, the court overturned an interpretation of federal law that would have nullified Oregon’s “right to die” statute. The court said states have considerable latitude in regulating medical standards, which historically have been primarily state responsibilities. ...................>>>>...........>>>>.............http://www.dailygazette.net/De.....r00901&AppName=1
Sen. Reid’s Government-Run Health Plan Requires a Monthly Abortion Fee Posted by GOP Leader Press Office on November 19th, 2009
Just like the original 2,032-page, government-run health care plan from Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-NV) massive, 2,074-page bill would levy a new “abortion premium” fee on Americans in the government-run plan.
Beginning on line 7, p. 118, section 1303 under “Voluntary Choice of Coverage of Abortion Services” the Health and Human Services Secretary is given the authority to determine when abortion is allowed under the government-run health plan. Leader Reid’s plan also requires that at least one insurance plan offered in the Exchange covers abortions (line 13, p. 120).
What is even more alarming is that a monthly abortion premium will be charged of all enrollees in the government-run health plan. It’s right there beginning on line 11, page 122, section 1303, under “Actuarial Value of Optional Service Coverage.” The premium will be paid into a U.S. Treasury account – and these federal funds will be used to pay for the abortion services.
Section 1303(a)(2)(C) describes the process in which the Health Benefits Commissioner is to assess the monthly premiums that will be used to pay for elective abortions under the government-run health plan and for those who are given an affordability credit to purchase insurance coverage that includes abortion through the Exchange. The Commissioner must charge at a minimum $1 per enrollee per month.
A majority of Americans believe that health care plans should not be mandated to provide elective abortion coverage, and a majority of Americans do not believe government health care plans should include abortion coverage. Currently, federal appropriations bills include language known as the Hyde Amendment that prohibits the use of federal funds to pay for elective abortions under the Medicare and Medicaid programs, while another provision, known as the Smith Amendment, prohibits federal funding of abortion under the federal employees’ health benefits plan.
Leader Reid’s 2,074-page health care monstrosity is an affront to the American people and drastically moves away from current policy. The National Right to Life Committee has called the Reid abortion language “completely unacceptable.” The American people deserve more from their government than being forced to pay for abortion. The pro-life Stupak/Pitts amendment passed the House by a vote of 240 to 194, enjoying the overwhelming support of 176 Republicans and 64 Democrats. The Stupak/Pitts Amendment codifies current law by prohibiting federal funding of elective abortions under any government-run plan or plans available under the Exchange. The Reid plan ignores the will of a bipartisan majority of the House, and indeed the American people, by rejecting this bipartisan amendment.
Health care reform should not be used as an opportunity to use federal funds to pay for elective abortions. Health reform should be an opportunity to protect human life – not end it – and the American people agree. House Republicans have offered a common-sense, responsible solution that would reduce health care costs and expand access while protecting the dignity of all human life. The Republican plan, available at HealthCare.GOP.gov, would codify the Hyde Amendment and prohibit all authorized and appropriated federal funds from being used to pay for abortion. And under the Republican plan, any health plan that includes abortion coverage may not receive federal funds.
I don't believe that any candidate or elected official can claim to be a fiscal conservative and a social liberal - how are social programs to be paid? I never understood former President Bush's characterization of himself as a "compassionate conservative".
I would suggest that most Americans (including conservatives) care about the welfare of their fellow Americans of all socio-economic classes. What distinguishes liberals from conservatives is the source of support and services to the needy and the role of government.
We have seen the first call for what people will realize as 'rationing' but not until it s too late- The call by the administration for women to put off mammograms and have them less. Eventually xrays and catscans and MRI tests will be rationed as well in order to give luxury health care to illegal immigrants and anyone in the world who wants to jump on the Good Ship USS Gravy-train.
"While Foreign Terrorists were plotting to murder and maim using homemade bombs in Boston, Democrap officials in Washington DC, Albany and here were busy watching ME and other law abiding American Citizens who are gun owners and taxpayers, in an effort to blame the nation's lack of security on US so that they could have a political scapegoat."
Updated November 22, 2009 Health Care Bill Moves Toward Senate Debate by FOXNews.com
The Senate has approved a key procedural measure to advance the health care bill to a floor debate.
WASHINGTON -- Sweeping health care legislation cleared its first hurdle Saturday in the Senate on a party-line vote, paving the way for debate on a massive health insurance overhaul.
The 60-39 vote opens the door for debate on the $848 billion legislation to start after Thanksgiving. The measure is designed to extend coverage over six years to an estimated 31 million Americans who lack it and crack down on insurance industry practices that deny benefits.
The White House released a statement saying, "The president is gratified that the Senate has acted to begin consideration of health insurance reform legislation. Tonight's historic vote brings us one step closer to ending insurance company abuses, reining in spiraling health care costs, providing stability and security to those with health insurance and extending quality health coverage to those who lack it. The president looks forward to a thorough and productive debate."
The rare Saturday session amounted to a first round in the fight to pass the bill in the full Senate, where Democratic holdouts announced they would support at least the measure to open debate on the bill, avoiding an early knockout by Republicans.
Sens. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana waited until Saturday to say they would vote yes for a floor debate. Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska announced Friday his support for moving the bill forward.
All three cautioned that their votes to start debate should not be construed a support for the bill in its current form.
"It is a vote to move forward to continue the good and essential and important and imperative work that is under way," said Landrieu,who scored $100 million in additional funding for her state's health care services for low-income residents. "I've decided that there's enough significant reforms and safeguards in this bill to move forward but more work needs to be done."
Lincoln, who faces a tough re-election next year, said she still would support a filibuster if the so-called "public option," a government-run insurance plan, remains in the health care bill..........................>>>>...............................>>>................................http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/21/senate-crucial-vote/
Logged
