INDIANAPOLIS (AP) - Companies that offer employee health insurance expect another steep jump in medical costs next year, and more will ask workers to share a bigger chunk of the expense, according to a new PricewaterhouseCoopers report.
For the first time, most of the American workforce is expected to have health insurance deductibles of $400 or more, the consulting firm said in a report released to The Associated Press.
Deductibles are the annual amount a patient pays out of pocket for care before insurance coverage starts. They are generally separate from co-payments and coinsurance.
Two years ago, only 25 percent of companies participating in the annual survey said they asked employees to pay deductibles of $400 or more. That grew to 43 percent in 2010 and is expected to pass 50 percent next year.
Employees who are asked to pay more through things like higher deductibles help keep cost growth in check because they use less health care.
The Government's "transplant tsar" insisted today that organ transplants were carried out on the basis of whether they would work - after it emerged that a cystic fibrosis sufferer died after receiving the lungs of a long-term smoker.
Chris Rudge, national clinical director for transplantation, said smoking was not the "issue" in the case of cystic fibrosis sufferer Lyndsey Scott, whose family have lodged a complaint after she received a double lung transplant from a 30-year smoker.
The 28-year-old, from Wigan, underwent the double transplant at Wythenshawe Hospital in Manchester in January last year and died in the July from pneumonia.
Her family have said they were not told that the donor smoked - and she would have been "horrified" to discover the organs were from a smoker of 30 years.
Mr Rudge, who said he did not know the "full details" of the case, and was speaking more generally, insisted that it mattered "far more" if lungs were working properly than if they were from a smoker.
he 28-year-old, from Wigan, underwent the double transplant at Wythenshawe Hospital in Manchester in January last year and died in the July from pneumonia.
Her family have said they were not told that the donor smoked - and she would have been "horrified" to discover the organs were from a smoker of 30 years.
Mr Rudge, who said he did not know the "full details" of the case, and was speaking more generally, insisted that it mattered "far more" if lungs were working properly than if they were from a smoker.
Yeah right......and no one would ever take radiation or chemo for cancer either.....PLLLLLLLEEEEEASE.....
...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
Yes 51% of plans change, because many of them have life time caps now that will be illegal under the new plan. That is a good thing.
As for costs going up, they were going up anyway. I am not so sure it is all health care plan because I worked with third party coordinators and they all told me years ago that current insurance plans are soon to become a way of the past as they price out fast and become unaffordable.
It's very easy to fix it.....EVERYONE STOP PAYING FOR 3 MONTHS........RESET.......We dont need the government to fix it.......WE HAVE THE POWER......REALLY.....HONEST.......HONEST....REALLY......
...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
Yes 51% will lose the health-care plan that they like and that number will rise over time and many of us are going to lose our prescription drug plans and get dumped into Medicare part D which is one of the worst plans ever developed. The whole reason for passing health-care was to lower the cost, not, it was for the government to control it. Obama said if you like your health-care plan you can keep it, lie, they knew that this bill would force employers to dump their current plans and put us in the government run plan. Vote anyone who voted for that horrible bill out of office in November, they didn't even read it before they voted on it.
First health care changes loom 1 million uninsured may be affected BY RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR The Associated Press
WASHINGTON — The first stage of President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul is expected to provide coverage to about 1 million uninsured Americans by next year, according to government estimates. That’s a small share of the uninsured, but in a shaky economy, experts say it’s notable. Many others — more than 100 million people — are getting new benefi ts that improve their existing coverage. Overall costs appear modest at this point, split among taxpayers, employers and individuals who directly benefi t, although the biggest part of the health care expansion is still four years away. For weeks, the White House has been touting the new law’s initial benefit changes, even as Obama dares Republicans to make good on their threat to repeal his signature social policy achievement. Now, a clearer picture is starting to emerge from the patchwork of press releases. In 2014, government tax credits will help uninsured workers and their families pay premiums, and Medicaid will take in many more low-income people. Eventually, more than 30 million will gain coverage, sharply reducing the number of uninsured and putting the nation on a path to coverage for all citizens and legal immigrants. Political salesmanship and an attempt to address some glaring health insurance problems are key elements of the strategy to explain the initial changes resulting from the law. After battling for a year to pass the legislation, Democrats desperately wanted to have tangible accomplishments to point to in high-stakes congressional elections this fall. But they also have to deflect lingering questions, often stirred up by opposition candidates, and doubts about the effectiveness of the overhaul and its costs. ...........................>>>>......................>>>>...........................http://www.dailygazette.net/De.....r00402&AppName=1
Dhimmitude is the Muslim system of controlling non-muslim populations conquered through jihad. Specifically, it is the TAXING of non-muslims in exchange for tolerating their presence AND as a coercive means of converting conquered remnants to islam. The ObamaCare bill is the establishment of Dhimmitude and Sharia muslim diktat in the United States . Muslims may be specifically exempted from the government mandate to purchase insurance, and also from the penalty tax for being uninsured. Islam considers insurance to be "gambling", "risk-taking" and "usury" and is thus banned. Muslims may be specifically granted exemption based on this. How convenient. So I John Smith, as a Christian, will have crippling IRS liens placed against all of my assets, including real estate, cattle, cars and etc. and even accounts receivables, and will face hard prison time because I refuse to buy insurance or pay the penalty tax. Meanwhile, Louis Farrakhan will have no such penalty and will have 100% of his health needs paid for by the de facto government insurance at our expence. Non-muslims will be paying a tax to subsidize muslims. Period. This is Dhimmitude. Dhimmitude serves two purposes: it enriches the muslim masters AND serves to drive conversions to islam. In this case, the incentive to convert to islam will be taken up by those in the inner-cities as well as the godless Generation X, Y and Z types who have no moral anchor or belief in God! If you don't believe in Christ to begin with, it is no problem whatsoever to sell Him for 30 pieces of silver. "Sure, I'll be a muslim if it means free health insurance and no taxes. Where do I sign, brother?" Now all you Obama voters get in line for your free stuff!...However, I suggest you don't hold your breath!... I recommend sending this email to all your contacts. This is desperately important and people need to know about it and what the past election has done to all of us! PS Have you heard about the summit Obama is holding this month in DC for the future Muslim business leaders in the US? He wants to increase their ability to begin business opportunities in the US for the Muslim community! Better start looking for a country that doesn't cater to the Muslims ~ Austrailia doesn't because this country will be overrun by Muslims like Europe is currently experiencing.
1. snopes.com: Health Insurance Exemptions Are various religious groups exempt from requirements to obtain health insurance? ...Dhimmitude is the Muslim system of controlling non-muslim populations conquered through jihad. Specifically, it is the TAXING of non-muslims in exchange... ...The ObamaCare bill is the establishment of Dhimmitude and Sharia muslim diktat in the United States. Muslims are specifically exempted from the... Fri, 14 May 2010 11:15:41 GMT http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/exemptions.asp
Some insurers stop writing new coverage for kids Ahead of requirement to cover kids with medical problems, some insurers drop out ap
On Friday July 23, 2010, 2:25 pm
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Some major health insurance companies have stopped issuing certain types of policies for children, an unintended consequence of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law.
Florida Insurance Commissioner Kevin McCarty said in his state UnitedHealthcare and Blue Cross Blue Shield have stopped issuing new policies that cover children individually -- not as dependents of their parents. Oklahoma Insurance Commissioner Kim Holland said a couple of insurers in her state have done likewise.
The move could affect several hundred thousand children.
Starting later this year, the law requires insurers to accept children regardless of medical problems. The companies are worried that parents will wait until kids get sick to sign them up.
Advertise on NYTimes.com Britain Plans to Decentralize National Health Care By SARAH LYALL Published: July 24, 2010 LONDON — Perhaps the only consistent thing about Britain’s socialized health care system is that it is in a perpetual state of flux, its structure constantly changing as governments search for the elusive formula that will deliver the best care for the cheapest price while costs and demand escalate. Enlarge This Image Andrew Testa for The New York Times
The new British government’s plan to drastically reshape the socialized health care system would put local physicians like Dr. Marita Koumettou in north London in control of much of the national health budget.
Even as the new coalition government said it would make enormous cuts in the public sector, it initially promised to leave health care alone. But in one of its most surprising moves so far, it has done the opposite, proposing what would be the most radical reorganization of the National Health Service, as the system is called, since its inception in 1948.
Practical details of the plan are still sketchy. But its aim is clear: to shift control of England’s $160 billion annual health budget from a centralized bureaucracy to doctors at the local level. Under the plan, $100 billion to $125 billion a year would be meted out to general practitioners, who would use the money to buy services from hospitals and other health care providers.
The plan would also shrink the bureaucratic apparatus, in keeping with the government’s goal to effect $30 billion in “efficiency savings” in the health budget by 2014 and to reduce administrative costs by 45 percent. Tens of thousands of jobs would be lost because layers of bureaucracy would be abolished.
In a document, or white paper, outlining the plan, the government admitted that the changes would “cause significant disruption and loss of jobs.” But it said: “The current architecture of the health system has developed piecemeal, involves duplication and is unwieldy. Liberating the N.H.S., and putting power in the hands of patients and clinicians, means we will be able to effect a radical simplification, and remove layers of management.”
The health secretary, Andrew Lansley, also promised to put more power in the hands of patients. Currently, how and where patients are treated, and by whom, is largely determined by decisions made by 150 entities known as primary care trusts — all of which would be abolished under the plan, with some of those choices going to patients. It would also abolish many current government-set targets, like limits on how long patients have to wait for treatment.
The plan, with many elements that need legislative approval to be enacted, applies only to England; other parts of Britain have separate systems.
The government announced the proposals this month. Reactions to them range from pleased to highly skeptical.
Many critics say that the plans are far too ambitious, particularly in the short period of time allotted, and they doubt that general practitioners are the right people to decide how the health care budget should be spent. Currently, the 150 primary care trusts make most of those decisions. Under the proposals, general practitioners would band together in regional consortia to buy services from hospitals and other providers.
It is likely that many such groups would have to spend money to hire outside managers to manage their budgets and negotiate with the providers, thus canceling out some of the savings.
David Furness, head of strategic development at the Social Market Foundation, a study group, said that under the plan, every general practitioner in London would, in effect, be responsible for a $3.4 million budget.
“It’s like getting your waiter to manage a restaurant,” Mr. Furness said. “The government is saying that G.P.’s know what the patient wants, just the way a waiter knows what you want to eat. But a waiter isn’t necessarily any good at ordering stock, managing the premises, talking to the chef — why would they be? They’re waiters.”
But advocacy groups for general practitioners welcomed the proposals.
“One of the great attractions of this is that it will be able to focus on what local people need,” said Prof. Steve Field, chairman of the Royal College of General Practitioners, which represents about 40,000 of the 50,000 general practitioners in the country. “This is about clinicians taking responsibility for making these decisions.”
Dr. Richard Vautrey, deputy chairman of the general practitioner committee at the British Medical Association, said general practitioners had long felt there were “far too many bureaucratic hurdles to leap” in the system, impeding communication. “In many places, the communication between G.P.’s and consultants in hospitals has become fragmented and distant,” he said.
The plan would also require all National Health Service hospitals to become “foundation trusts,” enterprises that are independent of health service control and accountable to an independent regulator (some hospitals currently operate in this fashion). This would result in a further loss of jobs, health care unions say, and also open the door to further privatization of the service.
Advertise on NYTimes.com Britain Plans to Decentralize National Health Care
“One of the great attractions of this is that it will be able to focus on what local people need,” said Prof. Steve Field, chairman of the Royal College of General Practitioners, which represents about 40,000 of the 50,000 general practitioners in the country. “This is about clinicians taking responsibility for making these decisions.”
AmSpecBlog Reid to Netroots: "We're Going To Have a Public Option"
By Philip Klein on 7.24.10 @ 6:54PM
LAS VEGAS -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, seeking to console liberal activists who were disappointed by the final version of the national health care law, assured them that there would eventually be a public option.
"We're going to have a public option," Reid said. "The only question is when."
Reid's general comments reflected the same overall message to progressives that President Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi delivered earlier today. It essentially boils down to: We've done a lot of stuff, but we still have a lot of unfinished business, so campaign for us again.
During a question and answer session, Reid also argued against "fear tactics of those who say Social Security is going broke. It's not."
This is part of a strategy I described earlier this week, with Democrats renewing the spectre of Social Security cuts to use as an issue to use against Republicans.
"Social Security is the most successful social program in the history of the world," he said.
I explained why it's finances are a major problem for the U.S. here.
Shows Abortion Funding Rules Would Not Apply to High-Risk Pools
Published July 28, 2010 | FoxNews.com
July 28: Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius in Washington.
A newly released congressional report found that abortion restrictions attached to the health care overhaul would not apply to high-risk insurance pools run at the state level, prompting Republican senators to urge the administration to issue new rules.
Thirteen senators wrote a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius Wednesday urging her to "act immediately" to bar states operating the high-risk pools from covering elective abortions.
"Absent such contractual requirements, it will be necessary for Congress to modify the current law," they wrote, asking for a response by Friday.
The senators referenced a Congressional Research Service report dated July 23 that found the health care law, the subsequent executive order on abortion restrictions and the contracts themselves do not explicitly prohibit the high-risk pools from covering abortions with federal money.
The high-risk program, called the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan, was meant to help those denied coverage over pre-existing conditions until the broader provisions of the law go into effect in 2014. The law set aside $5 billion in federal subsidies for the program, which is supposed to be either administered by the state or the Health and Human Services Department. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/28/study-shows-abortion-funding-rules-apply-high-risk-pools/
Obamacare Only Looks Worse Upon Further Review: Kevin Hassett By Kevin Hassett - Aug 1, 2010 9:00 PM EDT Mon Aug 02 01:00:06 UTC 2010
One of the more illuminating remarks during the health-care debate in Congress came when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told an audience that Democrats would “pass the bill so you can find out what’s in it, away from the fog of controversy.”
That remark captured the truth that, while many Americans have a vague sense that something bad is happening to their health care, few if any understand exactly what the law does.
To fill this vacuum, Representative Kevin Brady of Texas, the top House Republican on the Joint Economic Committee, asked his staff to prepare a study of the law, including a flow chart that illustrates how the major provisions will work.
The result, made public July 28, provides citizens with a preview of the impact the health-care overhaul will have on their lives. It’s a terrifying road map that shows Democrats have launched America on the most reckless policy experiment in its history, the economic equivalent of the Bay of Pigs invasion.
Before discussing what the law means for you, we have to look at what it does to government. That’s where the chart comes in handy. It includes the new fees, bureaucracies and programs and connects them into an organizational chart that accounts for the existing structure. It’s so carefully documented that a line connecting two structures cites the legislative language that created the link.
Ornate System
This clearly is a candidate for most disorganized organizational chart ever. It shows that the health system is complex, yes, but also ornate. The new law creates 68 grant programs, 47 bureaucratic entities, 29 demonstration or pilot programs, six regulatory systems, six compliance standards and two entitlements.
Getting that massive enterprise up and running will be next to impossible. So Democrats streamlined the process by granting Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius the authority to make judgments that can’t be challenged either administratively or through the courts.
This monarchical protection from challenges is extended as well to the development of new patient-care models under Obama’s controversial recess appointment, Donald Berwick, whom Republicans are calling the rationer-in-chief. Berwick will run the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, where he can experiment with ways to use administrative fiat to move our system toward the socialized medicine of Europe, which he has at times embraced.
Closer to Home
A sprawling, complex bureaucracy has been set up that will have almost absolute power to dictate terms for participating in the health-care system. That’s what the law does to government. What it does to you is worse.
Based on the administration’s own numbers, as many as 117 million people might have to change their health plans by 2013 as their employer-provided coverage loses its grandfathered status and becomes subject to the new Obamacare mandates.
Those mandates also might make your health care more expensive. The Congressional Budget Office predicts that premiums for a small number of families who buy their insurance privately will rise by as much as $2,100.
The central Obamacare mechanism for increasing insurance coverage is an expansion of the Medicaid program. Of the 30 million new people covered, 16 million will be enrolled in Medicaid. And you could end up in the program whether you want it or not. The bill states that people who apply for coverage through the new exchanges or who apply for premium-subsidy credits will automatically be enrolled in Medicaid if they qualify.
Hurting the Elderly
To pay for this expansion, the bill takes $529 billion from Medicare, with roughly 39 percent of the cut coming from the Medicare Advantage program. This represents a large transfer of resources, sacrificing the care of the elderly in order to increase the Medicaid rolls.
For all this supposed reform, you, the American taxpayer, can expect a bill to the tune of $569 billion.
Front and center among the new taxes is the 40 percent excise tax on those lucky people with so-called Cadillac health plans. The higher insurance costs that are driven by the government mandates will push many more ordinary plans into Cadillac territory.
If the idea of taxing people with coverage deemed too good doesn’t bother you, maybe the new 3.8 percent tax on investment income will. That will apply even to a small number of home sales, those that generate $250,000 in profit for an individual or $500,000 for a married couple.
In vivid color and detail, Congressman Brady’s chart captures the huge expansion of government coming under Obamacare. Harder to show on paper is the pain it will cause.
Logged
