Dear Colleagues:
Today in the evening, I participated in a White House Office of Health Reform conference call to discuss health insurance reform. The call was intended as a briefing for physicians to discuss issues related to health reform. It started at 8:35pm and lasted for an hour. The call was moderated by Dr.Kavita Patel, who serves with Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett and worked herself a practicing Internal medicine physician. According to her information ~ 1900 physicians participated and > 400 questions were submitted in advance.
After a briefing about the status of the current health reform efforts ( see http://www.healthreform.gov) Dr. Patel answered several questions submitted in writing and then also by people who queued for a life Q&A sessions.
Several of these questions can be grouped as follows but this does not represent a complete list:
1) Medicare Advantage plans and how they can be adjusted to provide competitive and similar-priced services to all Medicare recipients. This question focused on the preferred financing of CMS for Medicare Advantage plans.
2) Increased reimbursement for primary care services and emphasis on quality versus quantity of care. Dr.Patel clearly identified with practicing primary care docs because she herself experienced the grueling schedule and resulting deficiencies in quality of care.
3) Training of more primary care physicians by dramatically increasing funding for the National Health Service Corps programhttp://nhsc.hrsa.gov/. Unfortunately, she missed addressing the necessary funding increase and removing of restrictions for primary care residency positions.
4) One doctor suggested moving from a fee-for-service reimbursement system to a global fee schedule, which in my opinion is sorely needed.
5) Another doctor suggested an end-of-life conference at the White House to rationally discuss this controversial issue and to debunk the "death-panel" propaganda perpetuated by some media outlets and political pundits.
6) In a final question a doctor asked why CMS does not reimburse for preventive care services.Definitely, a golden opportunity to change the current reimbursement system to emphasize and validate our daily effortsd and hard work.
In summary, this was an excellent opportunity to connect, to listen and to ask questions in a relaxed, well organized and calm atmosphere. The focus is on primary care: to emphasize preventive services, and to provide funding for increased reimbursement.
I am pleased that rational thought can prevail and I applaud the White House of Health Reform for their efforts. They announced more phone calls in the future. I strongly urge each of you to participate and to engage in a thoughtful conversation.
Yours
Bernd
Bernd Wollschlaeger,MD,FAAFP,FASAM
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Monday, August 24, 2009
Universal Health Insurance
Attached you find a summary of a bill (HR676)which so far has not been discussed during the current healthcare refom debate.It should be at least considered as an option and not discarded just because its politically difficult to promote.
Bernd Wollschlaeger,MD
H.R. 676, “The United States National Health Care Act,”
Or “Expanded & Improved Medicare For All”
Introduced by Rep. John Conyers, Jr.
Brief Summary of Legislation
The United States National Health Care Act (USNHC) establishes a unique American universal health insurance program with single payer financing. The bill would create a publicly financed, privately delivered health care system that improves and expands the already existing Medicare program to all U.S. residents, and all residents living in U.S. territories. The goal of the legislation is to ensure that all Americans will have access, guaranteed by law, to the highest quality and most cost effective health care services regardless of their employment, income or health care status. In short, health care becomes a human right. With 47 million uninsured Americans, and another 50 million who are underinsured, the time has come to change our inefficient and costly fragmented non-system of health care.
Who is Eligible
Every person living or visiting in the United States and the U.S. Territories would receive a United States National Health Insurance Card and ID number once they enroll at the appropriate location. Social Security numbers may not be used when assigning ID cards.
Health Care Services Covered
This program will cover all medically necessary services, including primary care, inpatient care, outpatient care, emergency care, prescription drugs, durable medical equipment, hearing services, long term care, palliative care, podiatric care, mental health services, dentistry, eye care, chiropractic, and substance abuse treatment. Patients have their choice of physicians, providers, hospitals, clinics, and practices. There no co-pays or deductibles under this act.
Conversion To A Non-Profit Health Care System
Doctors, hospitals, and clinics will continue to operate as privately entities. However, they will be unable to issue stock. Private health insurers shall be prohibited under this act from selling coverage that duplicates the benefits of the USNHC program. Exceptions to this rule include coverage for cosmetic surgery, and other medically unnecessary treatments. Those workers who are displaced as the result of the transition to a non-profit health care system will be the first to be hired and retrained under this act. Furthermore, workers would receive their same salary for up to two years, and would then be eligible for unemployment benefits. The conversion to a not-for- profit health care system will take place as soon as possible, but not to exceed a 15 year period, through the sale of U.S. treasury bonds.
Cost Containment Provisions/ Reimbursement
The USNHC program will negotiate reimbursement rates annually with physicians, allow for global budgets (monthly lump sums for operating expenses) for hospitals, and negotiate prices for prescription drugs, medical supplies and equipment. A “Medicare For All Trust Fund” will be established to ensure a dedicated stream of funding. An annual Congressional appropriation is also authorized to ensure optimal levels of funding for the program, in particular, to ensure the requisite number of physicians and nurses need in the health care delivery system.
H.R. 676 Would Reduce Overall Health Care Costs
Families Will Pay Less
Currently, the average family of four covered under an employee health plan spends a total of $4,225 on health care annually – $2,713 on premiums and another $1,522 on medical services, drugs and supplies (Employer Health Benefits 2006 Annual Survey, Kaiser Family Foundation and Health Research and Educational Trust; U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Expenditure Survey.) This figure does not include the additional 1.45% Medicare payroll tax levied on employees. A study by Dean Baker of the Center for Economic Research and Policy concluded that under H.R. 676, a family of four making the median family income of $56,200 per year would pay about $2,700 for all health care costs.
Business Will Pay Less
In 2006, health insurers charged employers an average of $11,500 for a health plan for a family of four. On average, the employer paid 74% of this premium, or $8,510 per year. This figure does not include the additional 1.45% payroll tax levied on employers for Medicare. Under H.R. 676, employers would pay a 4.75% payroll tax for all health care costs. For an employee making the median family income of $56,200 per year, the employer would pay about $2,700.
The Nation Will Pay About the Same, While Covering All Americans
Savings from reduced administration, bulk purchasing, and coordination among providers will allow coverage for all Americans while reducing health care inflation in the long term. Annual savings from enacting H.R. 676 are estimated at $387 billion (Baker).
Proposed Funding For USNHC Program
· Maintain current federal and state funding for existing health care programs
· Establish employer/employee payroll tax of 4.75% (includes present 1.45% Medicare tax)
· Establish a 5% health tax on the top 5% of income earners, 10% tax on top 1% of wage earners
· ¼ of 1% stock transaction tax
· Close corporate tax loopholes
· Repeal the Bush tax cuts for the highest income earners
Bernd Wollschlaeger,MD
H.R. 676, “The United States National Health Care Act,”
Or “Expanded & Improved Medicare For All”
Introduced by Rep. John Conyers, Jr.
Brief Summary of Legislation
The United States National Health Care Act (USNHC) establishes a unique American universal health insurance program with single payer financing. The bill would create a publicly financed, privately delivered health care system that improves and expands the already existing Medicare program to all U.S. residents, and all residents living in U.S. territories. The goal of the legislation is to ensure that all Americans will have access, guaranteed by law, to the highest quality and most cost effective health care services regardless of their employment, income or health care status. In short, health care becomes a human right. With 47 million uninsured Americans, and another 50 million who are underinsured, the time has come to change our inefficient and costly fragmented non-system of health care.
Who is Eligible
Every person living or visiting in the United States and the U.S. Territories would receive a United States National Health Insurance Card and ID number once they enroll at the appropriate location. Social Security numbers may not be used when assigning ID cards.
Health Care Services Covered
This program will cover all medically necessary services, including primary care, inpatient care, outpatient care, emergency care, prescription drugs, durable medical equipment, hearing services, long term care, palliative care, podiatric care, mental health services, dentistry, eye care, chiropractic, and substance abuse treatment. Patients have their choice of physicians, providers, hospitals, clinics, and practices. There no co-pays or deductibles under this act.
Conversion To A Non-Profit Health Care System
Doctors, hospitals, and clinics will continue to operate as privately entities. However, they will be unable to issue stock. Private health insurers shall be prohibited under this act from selling coverage that duplicates the benefits of the USNHC program. Exceptions to this rule include coverage for cosmetic surgery, and other medically unnecessary treatments. Those workers who are displaced as the result of the transition to a non-profit health care system will be the first to be hired and retrained under this act. Furthermore, workers would receive their same salary for up to two years, and would then be eligible for unemployment benefits. The conversion to a not-for- profit health care system will take place as soon as possible, but not to exceed a 15 year period, through the sale of U.S. treasury bonds.
Cost Containment Provisions/ Reimbursement
The USNHC program will negotiate reimbursement rates annually with physicians, allow for global budgets (monthly lump sums for operating expenses) for hospitals, and negotiate prices for prescription drugs, medical supplies and equipment. A “Medicare For All Trust Fund” will be established to ensure a dedicated stream of funding. An annual Congressional appropriation is also authorized to ensure optimal levels of funding for the program, in particular, to ensure the requisite number of physicians and nurses need in the health care delivery system.
H.R. 676 Would Reduce Overall Health Care Costs
Families Will Pay Less
Currently, the average family of four covered under an employee health plan spends a total of $4,225 on health care annually – $2,713 on premiums and another $1,522 on medical services, drugs and supplies (Employer Health Benefits 2006 Annual Survey, Kaiser Family Foundation and Health Research and Educational Trust; U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Expenditure Survey.) This figure does not include the additional 1.45% Medicare payroll tax levied on employees. A study by Dean Baker of the Center for Economic Research and Policy concluded that under H.R. 676, a family of four making the median family income of $56,200 per year would pay about $2,700 for all health care costs.
Business Will Pay Less
In 2006, health insurers charged employers an average of $11,500 for a health plan for a family of four. On average, the employer paid 74% of this premium, or $8,510 per year. This figure does not include the additional 1.45% payroll tax levied on employers for Medicare. Under H.R. 676, employers would pay a 4.75% payroll tax for all health care costs. For an employee making the median family income of $56,200 per year, the employer would pay about $2,700.
The Nation Will Pay About the Same, While Covering All Americans
Savings from reduced administration, bulk purchasing, and coordination among providers will allow coverage for all Americans while reducing health care inflation in the long term. Annual savings from enacting H.R. 676 are estimated at $387 billion (Baker).
Proposed Funding For USNHC Program
· Maintain current federal and state funding for existing health care programs
· Establish employer/employee payroll tax of 4.75% (includes present 1.45% Medicare tax)
· Establish a 5% health tax on the top 5% of income earners, 10% tax on top 1% of wage earners
· ¼ of 1% stock transaction tax
· Close corporate tax loopholes
· Repeal the Bush tax cuts for the highest income earners
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Speak Up Against Propaganda
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Letter To The Editor:
RE: Recess Rally
Naturally, every American has the constitutional right to free speech but healthcare protesters are going too far by likening Obama to Hitler or claiming that government will control when people die. It especially puzzles me that the many of those protesters opposing meaningful and necessary healthcare reform are Medicare recipient benefiting from a government controlled, single-payer system! Would those same people be willing to turn in their Medicare cards in protest too? Would those people consider me a “death panelist” because I follow Florida Law and need to discuss advanced directives with them? According to their “logic” hospitals, nursing homes, home health agencies, hospices, and health maintenance organizations (HMOs), which are required to provide their patients with written information concerning health care advance directives, are part of the “death panels” too!
We have to tune down the hyperbolic and toxic rhetoric fueled by fearmongers and anti-government nut wings and return to a rational dialogue to resolve an urgent problem: how to provide healthcare for all Americans.
Bernd Wollschlaeger, MD,FAAFP,FASAM
Family Physician
Letter To The Editor:
RE: Recess Rally
Naturally, every American has the constitutional right to free speech but healthcare protesters are going too far by likening Obama to Hitler or claiming that government will control when people die. It especially puzzles me that the many of those protesters opposing meaningful and necessary healthcare reform are Medicare recipient benefiting from a government controlled, single-payer system! Would those same people be willing to turn in their Medicare cards in protest too? Would those people consider me a “death panelist” because I follow Florida Law and need to discuss advanced directives with them? According to their “logic” hospitals, nursing homes, home health agencies, hospices, and health maintenance organizations (HMOs), which are required to provide their patients with written information concerning health care advance directives, are part of the “death panels” too!
We have to tune down the hyperbolic and toxic rhetoric fueled by fearmongers and anti-government nut wings and return to a rational dialogue to resolve an urgent problem: how to provide healthcare for all Americans.
Bernd Wollschlaeger, MD,FAAFP,FASAM
Family Physician
Friday, August 21, 2009
Lets Get Real:
Over the last few months I witnessed the almost hyperbolic rhetoric used by my colleagues in organized medicine calling for a “battle for freedom” to protect the “sacrosanct patient-physician relationship” against the perceived intrusion by “big government.” They are now joining the chorus of fearmongers who paint the apocalyptic vision of a world dominated by government rationing of healthcare and imaginary death panels forcing seniors to sign living wills condemning them to die.
Meanwhile, those of us who call for a rational discussion about the issues are being marginalized.
The worst if still to come: in exchange for their support of health care reform health insurance companies are being handed the big price: to offer insurance to the uninsured without having to change their business practice. Fiercely defended by Republicans, ideologically motivated leaders in organized medicine and conservative Democrats the CEOs of health insurance companies can continue to reap fat profits by limiting and rationing healthcare for millions of policyholders who are clueless that their policies may not deliver the promised coverage. This win-win situation for insurance companies will result in a loose-loose situation for the average healthcare consumer because the basic principle of meaningful health care reform is missing: tight regulation of the health insurance market.
Uwe Reinhardt, a renowned economics professor at Princeton, got it right. In his recent blog entry “Who Needs The Public Option?” http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/21/who-needs-the-public-option/#more-27531 he states that “Citizens in the rest of the industrialized world have long had easy-to-understand, reliable, life-cycle health insurance. They do not wake up at night worrying that their health insurance might be rescinded over some willful or inadvertent omission on health status during the application for insurance. Nor do they worry that they and their families will lose their health insurance coverage when the family’s breadwinner loses a job or switches jobs or location of residence. It would be very rare, indeed, in those countries to see a middle-class family lose all of its savings and perhaps even its home over unpaid medical bills……….our health insurance system leaves most Americans basically “unsured”: Private, job-based health insurance purchased in the large-group market is stable and reliable only as long as an employee keeps that job. It is not permanent, nor portable. It leaves Americans exposed to considerable financial risk over their life cycle. It is not “insurance,” but “unsurance.”
Even though, I do not agree with his assertion that a public option is not a necessary condition for healthcare reform I wholeheartedly support his argument that we “must convince the public and the legislators who do not trust it that with the help of government – including a wide set of new government regulations – the industry can transform itself into a structure that can offer Americans the same permanent, reliable, easy-to-understand life-cycle financial security that citizens in other nations take for granted and Americans crave.”
The main challenge remains: either creating a purely private-sector model that will offer individuals reliable, life-cycle health insurance with relatively stable premiums, and at premiums that are defensible, or opting for a taxpayer funded single payer health care system (Medicare For All). As long as the typical employment-based health insurance premium for family coverage is $12,688 per year - and rising exponentially – I opt for the only logical solution: single payer healthcare for all Americans!
Bernd Wollschlaeger,MD,FAFP,FASAM
Meanwhile, those of us who call for a rational discussion about the issues are being marginalized.
The worst if still to come: in exchange for their support of health care reform health insurance companies are being handed the big price: to offer insurance to the uninsured without having to change their business practice. Fiercely defended by Republicans, ideologically motivated leaders in organized medicine and conservative Democrats the CEOs of health insurance companies can continue to reap fat profits by limiting and rationing healthcare for millions of policyholders who are clueless that their policies may not deliver the promised coverage. This win-win situation for insurance companies will result in a loose-loose situation for the average healthcare consumer because the basic principle of meaningful health care reform is missing: tight regulation of the health insurance market.
Uwe Reinhardt, a renowned economics professor at Princeton, got it right. In his recent blog entry “Who Needs The Public Option?” http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/21/who-needs-the-public-option/#more-27531 he states that “Citizens in the rest of the industrialized world have long had easy-to-understand, reliable, life-cycle health insurance. They do not wake up at night worrying that their health insurance might be rescinded over some willful or inadvertent omission on health status during the application for insurance. Nor do they worry that they and their families will lose their health insurance coverage when the family’s breadwinner loses a job or switches jobs or location of residence. It would be very rare, indeed, in those countries to see a middle-class family lose all of its savings and perhaps even its home over unpaid medical bills……….our health insurance system leaves most Americans basically “unsured”: Private, job-based health insurance purchased in the large-group market is stable and reliable only as long as an employee keeps that job. It is not permanent, nor portable. It leaves Americans exposed to considerable financial risk over their life cycle. It is not “insurance,” but “unsurance.”
Even though, I do not agree with his assertion that a public option is not a necessary condition for healthcare reform I wholeheartedly support his argument that we “must convince the public and the legislators who do not trust it that with the help of government – including a wide set of new government regulations – the industry can transform itself into a structure that can offer Americans the same permanent, reliable, easy-to-understand life-cycle financial security that citizens in other nations take for granted and Americans crave.”
The main challenge remains: either creating a purely private-sector model that will offer individuals reliable, life-cycle health insurance with relatively stable premiums, and at premiums that are defensible, or opting for a taxpayer funded single payer health care system (Medicare For All). As long as the typical employment-based health insurance premium for family coverage is $12,688 per year - and rising exponentially – I opt for the only logical solution: single payer healthcare for all Americans!
Bernd Wollschlaeger,MD,FAFP,FASAM
Thursday, August 06, 2009
Healthcare For All
Dear Friends and Colleagues:
Attached a superb article by Dr. Dennis Mayeaux,President of the Florida Academy of Family Physicians, which was published in todays Miami Herald.
Yours
Bernd
Posted on Thu, Aug. 06, 2009
Key to reform is doctor access for all
BY DENNIS MAYEAUX
dennismayeaux@yahoo.com
Comprehensive healthcare reform is a political and social challenge that has escaped this country for more than 30 years. This year, divergent interests are coming together to finally fix our healthcare system. There are proposals in Congress that would provide high quality, affordable healthcare and give people the choice of keeping their current insurance plan and their family physician, internist or other primary-care doctor.
As a family physician, I see the effects of our broken healthcare system every day. Let's face it. Access to coverage is never guaranteed. It is not easy to treat patients who are uninsured because they can't afford coverage or are unable to get coverage because of age or a pre-existing condition. Every day even insured patients are refused care because of coverage denials. I am tired of seeing my patients struggle paying for the healthcare they need. Healthcare reform can't come soon enough.
What does it take to make this happen?
• We first need legislation that covers everyone, requiring insurance companies to sell plans regardless of family history, or pre-existing conditions, and to guarantee that patients can renew their coverage after they've become sick.
• Legislation also needs to ensure that once people have insurance, they also have access to a primary-care physician. Unfortunately, there is a growing shortage of primary-care doctors to meet that need. The reformed system must value primary care if we want medical students to choose careers such as Family Medicine. We need family physicians to keep people healthy, provide early treatment for the most common health problems and coordinate comprehensive and seamless care when subspecialty attention is needed.
There is some good news. We have a vehicle that can begin making all these improvements happen. It's called the Affordable Health Choices Act being debated in the U.S. Senate. The House of Representatives is considering a similar bill, which also includes a focus on primary care. These proposals promise to ensure affordable health coverage for nearly everyone.
It's time to stop playing politics and solve the healthcare crisis. We must find a uniquely American solution that controls skyrocketing healthcare costs and gives our patients peace of mind when it comes to their healthcare.
Our Surgeon General nominee, family physician Regina Benjamin, hopes to be ``America's Family Physician.'' Having a family physician is vital to every Floridian's health. Let us support that goal by providing access to all.
Meaningful and sustainable healthcare reform is possible if Congress passes legislation that gives everyone in the United States access to a patient-centered medical home, where their doctor will ensure they get the care they need, when they need it and where they need it.
Dr. Dennis Mayeaux is president of the Florida Academy of Family Physicians.
Attached a superb article by Dr. Dennis Mayeaux,President of the Florida Academy of Family Physicians, which was published in todays Miami Herald.
Yours
Bernd
Posted on Thu, Aug. 06, 2009
Key to reform is doctor access for all
BY DENNIS MAYEAUX
dennismayeaux@yahoo.com
Comprehensive healthcare reform is a political and social challenge that has escaped this country for more than 30 years. This year, divergent interests are coming together to finally fix our healthcare system. There are proposals in Congress that would provide high quality, affordable healthcare and give people the choice of keeping their current insurance plan and their family physician, internist or other primary-care doctor.
As a family physician, I see the effects of our broken healthcare system every day. Let's face it. Access to coverage is never guaranteed. It is not easy to treat patients who are uninsured because they can't afford coverage or are unable to get coverage because of age or a pre-existing condition. Every day even insured patients are refused care because of coverage denials. I am tired of seeing my patients struggle paying for the healthcare they need. Healthcare reform can't come soon enough.
What does it take to make this happen?
• We first need legislation that covers everyone, requiring insurance companies to sell plans regardless of family history, or pre-existing conditions, and to guarantee that patients can renew their coverage after they've become sick.
• Legislation also needs to ensure that once people have insurance, they also have access to a primary-care physician. Unfortunately, there is a growing shortage of primary-care doctors to meet that need. The reformed system must value primary care if we want medical students to choose careers such as Family Medicine. We need family physicians to keep people healthy, provide early treatment for the most common health problems and coordinate comprehensive and seamless care when subspecialty attention is needed.
There is some good news. We have a vehicle that can begin making all these improvements happen. It's called the Affordable Health Choices Act being debated in the U.S. Senate. The House of Representatives is considering a similar bill, which also includes a focus on primary care. These proposals promise to ensure affordable health coverage for nearly everyone.
It's time to stop playing politics and solve the healthcare crisis. We must find a uniquely American solution that controls skyrocketing healthcare costs and gives our patients peace of mind when it comes to their healthcare.
Our Surgeon General nominee, family physician Regina Benjamin, hopes to be ``America's Family Physician.'' Having a family physician is vital to every Floridian's health. Let us support that goal by providing access to all.
Meaningful and sustainable healthcare reform is possible if Congress passes legislation that gives everyone in the United States access to a patient-centered medical home, where their doctor will ensure they get the care they need, when they need it and where they need it.
Dr. Dennis Mayeaux is president of the Florida Academy of Family Physicians.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Why our AMA Supports Healthcare Reform
I think that we need to respond to the misperception, even deliberate propaganda, that our AMA is not informing its members regarding its position towards healthcare reform.
There are multiple resources readily available from our AMA.
* AMA Web Site: http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/advocacy/health-system-reform.shtml
* AMA News: http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/
* Health System Reform Bulletin: http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/news/newsletters-journals/health-system-reform-bulletin.shtml
Also a recent article highlights the important issue why our AMA supports health system reform initiatives (http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2009/07/27/gvl10727.htm )
"The AMA is supporting the legislation partly on the strength of its Medicare payment reform plan, which would spend an estimated $245 billion over 10 years to align physician rates more closely with the costs of providing care. But the Association also backed the bill because it would use health insurance market reforms to cover most Americans, offer a choice of plans to consumers through a health insurance exchange, dedicate new money to boost primary care services and address physician work force problems."
Lets not forget that we also face major Medicare payment cuts and our AMA is proactively involved preventing these cuts.
For more information see http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/solutions-managing-your-practice/coding-billing-insurance/medicare/payment-action-kit-medicare.shtml
Lets not use our AMA as the piñata de jour! Lets stand together and focus on the task ahead. Divided we will fail!
Yours
Bernd
AMA - Outreach Recruiter
There are multiple resources readily available from our AMA.
* AMA Web Site: http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/advocacy/health-system-reform.shtml
* AMA News: http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/
* Health System Reform Bulletin: http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/news/newsletters-journals/health-system-reform-bulletin.shtml
Also a recent article highlights the important issue why our AMA supports health system reform initiatives (http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2009/07/27/gvl10727.htm )
"The AMA is supporting the legislation partly on the strength of its Medicare payment reform plan, which would spend an estimated $245 billion over 10 years to align physician rates more closely with the costs of providing care. But the Association also backed the bill because it would use health insurance market reforms to cover most Americans, offer a choice of plans to consumers through a health insurance exchange, dedicate new money to boost primary care services and address physician work force problems."
Lets not forget that we also face major Medicare payment cuts and our AMA is proactively involved preventing these cuts.
For more information see http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/solutions-managing-your-practice/coding-billing-insurance/medicare/payment-action-kit-medicare.shtml
Lets not use our AMA as the piñata de jour! Lets stand together and focus on the task ahead. Divided we will fail!
Yours
Bernd
AMA - Outreach Recruiter
Friday, July 24, 2009
Rogue Doctor Forced to Resign!
PCMA STATEMENT
July 24, 2009, For Immediate Release. The Pinellas County Medical Association
(“PCMA”) is aware of the inflammatory email sent by Dr. David McKalip regarding
President Obama and “Obama Care.”
Dr. McKalip’s act has been denounced by the Florida Medical Association. In
response to the Florida Medical Association’s request for an apology, Dr.
McKalip issued a public apology.
Following our awareness of the communication, the PCMA immediately called an
emergency special meeting of its Board of Governors and authorized the release
of this statement.
The Pinellas County Medical Association regrets and is appalled by the
statements and act of Dr. David McKalip. Dr. McKalip acted in poor taste
and on his own accord when preparing and issuing his message, with neither
the knowledge nor approval of the Pinellas County Medical Association or
its Board of Governors. The Pinellas County Medical Association joins with
the Florida Medical Association in denouncing and condemning Dr. McKalip’s
act and his offensive “Obama Care” statements. Dr. McKalip’s act in no way
reflects the opinions of the Pinellas County Medical Association or its
Board of Governors. Dr. McKalip has submitted his resignation as
President- Elect and as a member of the Board of Governors of the Pinellas
County Medical Association, and his resignation has been accepted
July 24, 2009, For Immediate Release. The Pinellas County Medical Association
(“PCMA”) is aware of the inflammatory email sent by Dr. David McKalip regarding
President Obama and “Obama Care.”
Dr. McKalip’s act has been denounced by the Florida Medical Association. In
response to the Florida Medical Association’s request for an apology, Dr.
McKalip issued a public apology.
Following our awareness of the communication, the PCMA immediately called an
emergency special meeting of its Board of Governors and authorized the release
of this statement.
The Pinellas County Medical Association regrets and is appalled by the
statements and act of Dr. David McKalip. Dr. McKalip acted in poor taste
and on his own accord when preparing and issuing his message, with neither
the knowledge nor approval of the Pinellas County Medical Association or
its Board of Governors. The Pinellas County Medical Association joins with
the Florida Medical Association in denouncing and condemning Dr. McKalip’s
act and his offensive “Obama Care” statements. Dr. McKalip’s act in no way
reflects the opinions of the Pinellas County Medical Association or its
Board of Governors. Dr. McKalip has submitted his resignation as
President- Elect and as a member of the Board of Governors of the Pinellas
County Medical Association, and his resignation has been accepted
Rogue FMA Board Member Goes Too Far
A truly sad day for organized medicine when passion turned into blind hatred.
The attempted "apology" is pathetic and I hope that our leadership is taking the appropriate corrective action.
Our FMA deserves better and now is the time to come together to reconsider our position.
Yours
Bernd
Posted on Fri, Jul. 24, 2009
Doctor criticized over Obama e-mail
BY ADAM C. SMITH
St. Petersburg Times
A prominent St. Petersburg doctor and conservative activist has drawn a flood of criticism for e-mailing an image depicting President Obama as a witch doctor with a loin cloth, exotic head dress and bones in his nose.
``ObamaCare, coming soon to a clinic near you,'' reads the caption on the e-mail forwarded earlier this week by St. Petersburg neurosurgeon David McKalip.
Several popular liberal blogs, including Talking Points Memo, Huffington Post and Daily Kos, highlighted McKalip's e-mail Thursday and castigated him for racism. McKalip said he was flooded with calls from people attacking him over the e-mail, which he said he had forwarded to ``a limited group'' of about 150 people.
``I am not a racist. I am simply a person speaking up to make sure patients don't get hurt by the government and by insurance companies,'' said McKalip, who earlier this month organized ``tea party'' rallies across Florida denouncing Obama's healthcare overhaul proposals.
``Because I've been so effective in pointing out how the government plans are going to hurt patients in very serious ways the only way they can neutralize my message is to discredit me personally.''
McKalip, who has written guest columns for the St. Petersburg Times on tax and healthcare issues, teaches at the University of South Florida and is president-elect of the Pinellas County Medical Association and a board member of the Florida Medical Association -- which denounced McKalip's e-mail and urged him to apologize to President Obama.
He has become an increasingly visible political activist, founding advocacy groups including Cut Taxes Now, the Florida Taxpayers Alliance and Doctors for Patient Freedom.
McKalip noted that he helped organize a career counseling day several years ago for African-American Boy Scouts and blamed liberal activists for promoting the witch doctor image more than he ever did. He called the e-mail ``satire,'' but later Thursday night released a statement apologizing directly to Obama.
``I recognize that this image is offensive and hope that the nation refocuses on assuring all Americans have access to high-quality, affordable healthcare with no party interfering in the patient-physician relationship,'' McKalip said.
He is expecting protesters outside his office soon. The Daily Kos site is encouraging people to lodge complaints against him with his affiliated hospitals, USF, and the state Department of Health.
Adam C. Smith can be reached at asmith@sptimes.com
The attempted "apology" is pathetic and I hope that our leadership is taking the appropriate corrective action.
Our FMA deserves better and now is the time to come together to reconsider our position.
Yours
Bernd
Posted on Fri, Jul. 24, 2009
Doctor criticized over Obama e-mail
BY ADAM C. SMITH
St. Petersburg Times
A prominent St. Petersburg doctor and conservative activist has drawn a flood of criticism for e-mailing an image depicting President Obama as a witch doctor with a loin cloth, exotic head dress and bones in his nose.
``ObamaCare, coming soon to a clinic near you,'' reads the caption on the e-mail forwarded earlier this week by St. Petersburg neurosurgeon David McKalip.
Several popular liberal blogs, including Talking Points Memo, Huffington Post and Daily Kos, highlighted McKalip's e-mail Thursday and castigated him for racism. McKalip said he was flooded with calls from people attacking him over the e-mail, which he said he had forwarded to ``a limited group'' of about 150 people.
``I am not a racist. I am simply a person speaking up to make sure patients don't get hurt by the government and by insurance companies,'' said McKalip, who earlier this month organized ``tea party'' rallies across Florida denouncing Obama's healthcare overhaul proposals.
``Because I've been so effective in pointing out how the government plans are going to hurt patients in very serious ways the only way they can neutralize my message is to discredit me personally.''
McKalip, who has written guest columns for the St. Petersburg Times on tax and healthcare issues, teaches at the University of South Florida and is president-elect of the Pinellas County Medical Association and a board member of the Florida Medical Association -- which denounced McKalip's e-mail and urged him to apologize to President Obama.
He has become an increasingly visible political activist, founding advocacy groups including Cut Taxes Now, the Florida Taxpayers Alliance and Doctors for Patient Freedom.
McKalip noted that he helped organize a career counseling day several years ago for African-American Boy Scouts and blamed liberal activists for promoting the witch doctor image more than he ever did. He called the e-mail ``satire,'' but later Thursday night released a statement apologizing directly to Obama.
``I recognize that this image is offensive and hope that the nation refocuses on assuring all Americans have access to high-quality, affordable healthcare with no party interfering in the patient-physician relationship,'' McKalip said.
He is expecting protesters outside his office soon. The Daily Kos site is encouraging people to lodge complaints against him with his affiliated hospitals, USF, and the state Department of Health.
Adam C. Smith can be reached at asmith@sptimes.com
AMA Supports Reform
Kudos to Dr.Cecil Wilson, President Elect of the AMA, whose letter to the editor was published in todays Miami Herald.
He should be applauded for standing up for what we know is right: comprehensive healthcare reform benefiting all Americans.
Thank you Dr. Wilson for your commitment to our profession and the public health.
Bernd Wollschlaeger,MD,FAAFP,FASAM
AMA Member & Outreach Recruiter
============================================================================
AMA to Miami Herald: AMA Supports Reform
July 23, 2009 (published)
Miami Herald
Letter to the Editor
Floridians without health-insurance coverage are in dire straits (Report: 3,560 Floridians will lose health insurance every week, July 16). For their sake, we must achieve meaningful healthcare reform that provides all Americans with access to affordable, high-quality coverage.
The American Medical Association is committed to health reform this year that covers the uninsured, improves quality and ensures patients get the best value from healthcare spending. Important progress has been made with the House and Senate vigorously working on legislation. The AMA will stay actively engaged to make certain health reform that will improve the health of America's patients is accomplished.
The uninsured crisis playing out in Florida is one that can be seen all across America.
We must seize the opportunity this year to pass comprehensive health reform.
Cecil B. Wilson, MD
President-elect, American Medical Association
He should be applauded for standing up for what we know is right: comprehensive healthcare reform benefiting all Americans.
Thank you Dr. Wilson for your commitment to our profession and the public health.
Bernd Wollschlaeger,MD,FAAFP,FASAM
AMA Member & Outreach Recruiter
============================================================================
AMA to Miami Herald: AMA Supports Reform
July 23, 2009 (published)
Miami Herald
Letter to the Editor
Floridians without health-insurance coverage are in dire straits (Report: 3,560 Floridians will lose health insurance every week, July 16). For their sake, we must achieve meaningful healthcare reform that provides all Americans with access to affordable, high-quality coverage.
The American Medical Association is committed to health reform this year that covers the uninsured, improves quality and ensures patients get the best value from healthcare spending. Important progress has been made with the House and Senate vigorously working on legislation. The AMA will stay actively engaged to make certain health reform that will improve the health of America's patients is accomplished.
The uninsured crisis playing out in Florida is one that can be seen all across America.
We must seize the opportunity this year to pass comprehensive health reform.
Cecil B. Wilson, MD
President-elect, American Medical Association
Thursday, July 16, 2009
AMA and Healthcare Reform
Attached todays press release from the AMA regarding its support for H.R. 3200. Obviously, our AMA is supporting the legislation which DOES contain a stripped down version of the public health insurance option. I wonder why their press release omits this important fact? Maybe, to avoid stirring up discussion and potential opposition from the hardliners within our AMA? Nevertheless, the press release is also a small baby step into the right direction and I hope that its not followed by two steps backwards. We will see.For more information about the bill see http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BILLSUMMARY-071409.pdf .
Yours
Bernd
NEWS FROM THE AMA
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 16, 2009
AMA SUPPORTS H.R. 3200, “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009”
House Bill Expands Access to High Quality, Affordable Health Care for Americans
WASHINGTON– Today, the American Medical Association sent a letter to House leaders supporting H.R. 3200, “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009.”
“This legislation includes a broad range of provisions that are key to effective, comprehensive health system reform,” said J. James Rohack, M.D., AMA president. “We urge the House committees of jurisdiction to pass the bill for consideration by the full House.” H.R. 3200 includes provisions key to effective, comprehensive health reform, including:
* Coverage to all Americans through health insurance market reforms
* A choice of plans through a health insurance exchange
* An end to coverage denials based on pre-existing conditions
* Fundamental Medicare reform, including repeal of the flawed sustainable growth rate (SGR) formula
* Additional funding for primary care services, without reductions on specialty care
* Individual responsibility for health insurance, including premium assistance to those who need it
* Prevention and wellness initiatives to help keep Americans healthy
* Initiatives to address physician workforce concerns
“The status quo is unacceptable,” Dr. Rohack said. “We support passage of H.R. 3200, and we look forward to additional constructive dialogue as the long process of passing a health reform bill continues. This is an important step, but one of many steps in the process. The AMA is actively engaged with Congress and the administration to achieve health reform that best meets the needs of patients and physicians. We are committed to passing health reform this year consistent with principles of pluralism, freedom of choice, freedom of practice, and universal access for patients.”
# # #
Yours
Bernd
NEWS FROM THE AMA
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 16, 2009
AMA SUPPORTS H.R. 3200, “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009”
House Bill Expands Access to High Quality, Affordable Health Care for Americans
WASHINGTON– Today, the American Medical Association sent a letter to House leaders supporting H.R. 3200, “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009.”
“This legislation includes a broad range of provisions that are key to effective, comprehensive health system reform,” said J. James Rohack, M.D., AMA president. “We urge the House committees of jurisdiction to pass the bill for consideration by the full House.” H.R. 3200 includes provisions key to effective, comprehensive health reform, including:
* Coverage to all Americans through health insurance market reforms
* A choice of plans through a health insurance exchange
* An end to coverage denials based on pre-existing conditions
* Fundamental Medicare reform, including repeal of the flawed sustainable growth rate (SGR) formula
* Additional funding for primary care services, without reductions on specialty care
* Individual responsibility for health insurance, including premium assistance to those who need it
* Prevention and wellness initiatives to help keep Americans healthy
* Initiatives to address physician workforce concerns
“The status quo is unacceptable,” Dr. Rohack said. “We support passage of H.R. 3200, and we look forward to additional constructive dialogue as the long process of passing a health reform bill continues. This is an important step, but one of many steps in the process. The AMA is actively engaged with Congress and the administration to achieve health reform that best meets the needs of patients and physicians. We are committed to passing health reform this year consistent with principles of pluralism, freedom of choice, freedom of practice, and universal access for patients.”
# # #
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
Healthcare Reform Debate: Shall We Include Single-Payer In The Debate?
Dear Friends and Colleagues:
Attached an editorial from yesterdays Seattle Times written by Dr. John Geyman is professor emeritus of Family Medicine at the Universityof Washington, past president of Physicians for a National Health Program, and a member of the Institute of Medicine.
He argues that legislators are "only considering options that build on the present system."He adds that "after months of work, legislative committees in Congress have brought forth drafts of proposals that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is starting to score in terms of cost and effectiveness. As expected, the costs of these incremental proposals are high BECAUSE they are based on the CURRENT dataset of health care costs and on data provided by insurance company actuaries. "He is correct that legislators refuse to even consider a single-payer option and that the CBO has yet to score such an option and how it would compare to the models proposed during the current debate.
He ends the editorial with the following challenge: " President Obama has brought forward the concept of audacity of hope. Is it too audacious now to hope that the legislators we elect to Congress can see beyond their campaign contributions and the lobbying efforts by corporate stakeholders to require that single-payer be scored?"
Yours
Bernd
The Seattle Times
July 6, 2009
A pay-go option for health-care reform
By John Geyman
As Congress recessed for the July Fourth holiday, the debate over
health-care reform was reaching a fever pitch. Now the top domestic issue
for the Obama administration, the biggest questions are how much a reform
bill will cost and how to pay for it, quite aside from how effective a
"reform package" will be.
Skyrocketing costs that are out of control are the hallmark of our present
system. Yet legislators have already acceded to pressures and dollars from
stakeholders in the present system (within which costs are revenue) and are
only considering options that "build on the present system."
After months of work, legislative committees in Congress have brought forth
drafts of proposals that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is starting
to score in terms of cost and effectiveness. As expected, the costs of these
incremental proposals are high. The first number of $1.6 trillion over 10
years (while still leaving 36 million Americans uninsured) sent these
committees back to the drawing board. At the moment, leading Senate
Democrats are hailing $1 trillion over 10 years as potentially doable.
After presiding over huge deficits during their eight years in power,
Republicans are now demanding "pay as you go" (pay-go) policies. Together
with Blue Dog Democrats, they are threatening to act as spoilers of any
health-care-reform bill on its price tag alone.
Given the dimensions of these difficult economic times including a $1.8
trillion deficit for 2009, $5 trillion in new federal debt over this year
and next, and rising unemployment, pay-go makes good sense. And the
president is making the case that his health-care plan must pay for itself.
Conventional "wisdom" (as generated by the mainstream corporate media) says
that any health-care reform will cost a lot, and that there is no pay-go
option. But there is.
Single-payer financing (public financing coupled with a private delivery
system, a reformed "Medicare for All"), as embodied in Rep. John Conyers'
bill (HR 676 in the House) with its 83 co-sponsors, will yield savings of
some $400 billion a year. That's enough to assure universal coverage for all
Americans while eliminating all co-pays and deductibles ? the ultimate
pay-go. Single-payer will give us far more efficient, affordable, effective
and reliable health care than our present multipayer system. Health insurers
have known for years that they can't compete on a level playing field with
single-payer, and have only been surviving by favorable tax policies and
other subsidies from the government.
This recent testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science
and Transportation by Wendell Potter, former head of corporate
communications at Cigna, says it all: "I know from personal experience that
members of Congress and the public have good reason to question the honesty
and trustworthiness of the insurance industry. Insurers make promises they
have no intention of keeping, they flout regulations designed to protect
consumers, and they make it nearly impossible to understand or even to
obtain information we need."
Many studies over the past two decades, including those by the CBO, the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the nonpartisan Economic Policy
Institute, have concluded that single-payer can assure universal coverage
and still save money. HR 676 needs to be brought out of the closet and put
on the table for CBO scoring against other options being considered in
Congress, all of which cost much more and fail to provide universal
coverage.
President Obama has brought forward the concept of audacity of hope. Is it
too audacious now to hope that the legislators we elect to Congress can see
beyond their campaign contributions and the lobbying efforts by corporate
stakeholders to require that single-payer be scored?
(Dr. John Geyman is professor emeritus of Family Medicine at the University
of Washington, past president of Physicians for a National Health Program,
and a member of the Institute of Medicine.)
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2009424809_guest07geyman.html
Attached an editorial from yesterdays Seattle Times written by Dr. John Geyman is professor emeritus of Family Medicine at the Universityof Washington, past president of Physicians for a National Health Program, and a member of the Institute of Medicine.
He argues that legislators are "only considering options that build on the present system."He adds that "after months of work, legislative committees in Congress have brought forth drafts of proposals that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is starting to score in terms of cost and effectiveness. As expected, the costs of these incremental proposals are high BECAUSE they are based on the CURRENT dataset of health care costs and on data provided by insurance company actuaries. "He is correct that legislators refuse to even consider a single-payer option and that the CBO has yet to score such an option and how it would compare to the models proposed during the current debate.
He ends the editorial with the following challenge: " President Obama has brought forward the concept of audacity of hope. Is it too audacious now to hope that the legislators we elect to Congress can see beyond their campaign contributions and the lobbying efforts by corporate stakeholders to require that single-payer be scored?"
Yours
Bernd
The Seattle Times
July 6, 2009
A pay-go option for health-care reform
By John Geyman
As Congress recessed for the July Fourth holiday, the debate over
health-care reform was reaching a fever pitch. Now the top domestic issue
for the Obama administration, the biggest questions are how much a reform
bill will cost and how to pay for it, quite aside from how effective a
"reform package" will be.
Skyrocketing costs that are out of control are the hallmark of our present
system. Yet legislators have already acceded to pressures and dollars from
stakeholders in the present system (within which costs are revenue) and are
only considering options that "build on the present system."
After months of work, legislative committees in Congress have brought forth
drafts of proposals that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is starting
to score in terms of cost and effectiveness. As expected, the costs of these
incremental proposals are high. The first number of $1.6 trillion over 10
years (while still leaving 36 million Americans uninsured) sent these
committees back to the drawing board. At the moment, leading Senate
Democrats are hailing $1 trillion over 10 years as potentially doable.
After presiding over huge deficits during their eight years in power,
Republicans are now demanding "pay as you go" (pay-go) policies. Together
with Blue Dog Democrats, they are threatening to act as spoilers of any
health-care-reform bill on its price tag alone.
Given the dimensions of these difficult economic times including a $1.8
trillion deficit for 2009, $5 trillion in new federal debt over this year
and next, and rising unemployment, pay-go makes good sense. And the
president is making the case that his health-care plan must pay for itself.
Conventional "wisdom" (as generated by the mainstream corporate media) says
that any health-care reform will cost a lot, and that there is no pay-go
option. But there is.
Single-payer financing (public financing coupled with a private delivery
system, a reformed "Medicare for All"), as embodied in Rep. John Conyers'
bill (HR 676 in the House) with its 83 co-sponsors, will yield savings of
some $400 billion a year. That's enough to assure universal coverage for all
Americans while eliminating all co-pays and deductibles ? the ultimate
pay-go. Single-payer will give us far more efficient, affordable, effective
and reliable health care than our present multipayer system. Health insurers
have known for years that they can't compete on a level playing field with
single-payer, and have only been surviving by favorable tax policies and
other subsidies from the government.
This recent testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science
and Transportation by Wendell Potter, former head of corporate
communications at Cigna, says it all: "I know from personal experience that
members of Congress and the public have good reason to question the honesty
and trustworthiness of the insurance industry. Insurers make promises they
have no intention of keeping, they flout regulations designed to protect
consumers, and they make it nearly impossible to understand or even to
obtain information we need."
Many studies over the past two decades, including those by the CBO, the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the nonpartisan Economic Policy
Institute, have concluded that single-payer can assure universal coverage
and still save money. HR 676 needs to be brought out of the closet and put
on the table for CBO scoring against other options being considered in
Congress, all of which cost much more and fail to provide universal
coverage.
President Obama has brought forward the concept of audacity of hope. Is it
too audacious now to hope that the legislators we elect to Congress can see
beyond their campaign contributions and the lobbying efforts by corporate
stakeholders to require that single-payer be scored?
(Dr. John Geyman is professor emeritus of Family Medicine at the University
of Washington, past president of Physicians for a National Health Program,
and a member of the Institute of Medicine.)
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2009424809_guest07geyman.html
Sunday, July 05, 2009
Insurance Mandate Gains Support
Attached a letter to President Obama supporting an employer mandate SUPPORTED by the President and CEO of Walmart and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), the largest healthcare employees union in the US.
This serves as evidence that those of us who do support an insurance mandate DO NOT belong to the extreme left-wing fringes as claimed by our colleagues in organized medicine!
Yours
Bernd
"We are for shared responsibility. Not every business can make the same contribution, but everyone must
make some contribution."
June 30, 2009
President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500
Dear President Obama,
As the Congress considers legislation reforming our health care system, many difficult choices lie ahead.
During the debate, we must keep our eyes trained on one clear imperative: reforming health care is
necessary not just to improve the health of all Americans, but also to remove the burden that is crushing
America’s businesses and hampering our competitiveness in the global economy.
As the nation’s largest private employer, the nation’s largest union of health care workers with over one
million members, and a think tank that has been a leader on health care policy, we have worked closely in
support of health care reform since 2006, when we came together to help break the stalemate that had
defined the health care debate for too long. Now, to move the debate forward once again, we are coming
together to advance what we believe are important proposals that should be included in the current efforts
to reform our nation’s health care system.
We believe now is the time for action on this vital issue. We commend the leadership of elected officials
who are committed to enactment of reform, and we appreciate the commitment to inclusion and
transparency which has been present thus far.
We are entering a critical time during which all of us who will be asked to pay for health care reform will
have to make a choice on whether to support the legislation. This choice will require employers to
consider the trade off of agreeing to a coverage mandate and additional taxes versus the promise of
reduced health care cost increases.
Today, health care costs more because we don’t cover everyone – the average family premium costs an
additional $1,100 because our system fails to provide continuous coverage for all Americans. And losing
coverage pushes people already dealing with financial hardship to the verge of financial collapse. One
accident or unexpected illness can financially ruin them. In 2008, half of all people filing for home
foreclosure cited medical problems as a cause.
A large and growing uninsured population also cripples our broader economic growth. The higher taxes
and premiums needed to meet rising health care costs threaten to consume the benefits of nearly all
economic growth over the next four decades, according to research published in the journal Health
Affairs. And the U.S. economy is losing up to $244 billion every year in lost productivity due to the
uninsured according to a new analysis by the Center for American Progress.
From a business perspective, health reform could not be more critical. A majority of Americans—158
million—receive their coverage through their job or their spouse’s job, according to the Kaiser Family
Foundation. But few businesses will be able to keep up with the pace at which premiums are rising.
Premiums are expected to rise by 20 percent in less than four years, according to research by professors at
Harvard University -- costing 3.5 million workers their jobs, and cutting insured workers’ average annual
incomes by $1,700.
Fiscally, the growing cost of health care is poised to drive our federal budget over a cliff. A recent report
by the Senate Finance Committee found that by 2017, “health care expenditures are expected to consume
nearly 20 percent of the GDP.” In his former role as Director of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO),
current Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag testified to Congress that, “the single
most important factor influencing the federal government’s long-term fiscal balance is the rate of growth
in health care costs.”
We believe payment reform and efficiency initiatives need to be at the center of healthcare reform. The
President and the Congress have put forward good ideas to improve the productivity of our health care
sector. These policies need to be strengthened and adopted because health care reform without controlling
costs is no reform at all.
We are for shared responsibility. Not every business can make the same contribution, but everyone must
make some contribution. We are for an employer mandate which is fair and broad in its coverage, but any
alternative to an employer mandate should not create barriers to hiring entry level employees. We look
forward to working with the Administration and Congress to develop a requirement that is both sensible
and equitable.
Support for a mandate also requires the strongest possible commitment to rein in health care costs.
Guaranteeing cost containment is essential. One way to ensure savings was recently advanced by former
Senate Majority Leaders Howard Baker, Tom Daschle and Bob Dole, “Implement pre-specified targets
for spending growth and enact a “trigger” mechanism that automatically enforces reductions,” (Crossing
Our Lines, Bipartisan Policy Center) President Obama suggested strengthening the role of Med Pac to
help enforce spending discipline.
With smart, targeted policies, we can create a financially-viable health care system that enables workers
to change jobs without losing their care, and allows businesses to become more nimble. Health care costs
will no longer stand in the way of their ability to retool for the 21st century. Focusing on health care cost
savings – and demonstrating a strong commitment to achieving these savings– would make this bill a win
/ win for employers, individuals and America’s competitiveness.
Respectfully,
John Podesta President & CEO Center for American Progress (CAP)
Andrew L. Stern President & CEO Service Employees International Union (SEIU)
Mike Duke President Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
This serves as evidence that those of us who do support an insurance mandate DO NOT belong to the extreme left-wing fringes as claimed by our colleagues in organized medicine!
Yours
Bernd
"We are for shared responsibility. Not every business can make the same contribution, but everyone must
make some contribution."
June 30, 2009
President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500
Dear President Obama,
As the Congress considers legislation reforming our health care system, many difficult choices lie ahead.
During the debate, we must keep our eyes trained on one clear imperative: reforming health care is
necessary not just to improve the health of all Americans, but also to remove the burden that is crushing
America’s businesses and hampering our competitiveness in the global economy.
As the nation’s largest private employer, the nation’s largest union of health care workers with over one
million members, and a think tank that has been a leader on health care policy, we have worked closely in
support of health care reform since 2006, when we came together to help break the stalemate that had
defined the health care debate for too long. Now, to move the debate forward once again, we are coming
together to advance what we believe are important proposals that should be included in the current efforts
to reform our nation’s health care system.
We believe now is the time for action on this vital issue. We commend the leadership of elected officials
who are committed to enactment of reform, and we appreciate the commitment to inclusion and
transparency which has been present thus far.
We are entering a critical time during which all of us who will be asked to pay for health care reform will
have to make a choice on whether to support the legislation. This choice will require employers to
consider the trade off of agreeing to a coverage mandate and additional taxes versus the promise of
reduced health care cost increases.
Today, health care costs more because we don’t cover everyone – the average family premium costs an
additional $1,100 because our system fails to provide continuous coverage for all Americans. And losing
coverage pushes people already dealing with financial hardship to the verge of financial collapse. One
accident or unexpected illness can financially ruin them. In 2008, half of all people filing for home
foreclosure cited medical problems as a cause.
A large and growing uninsured population also cripples our broader economic growth. The higher taxes
and premiums needed to meet rising health care costs threaten to consume the benefits of nearly all
economic growth over the next four decades, according to research published in the journal Health
Affairs. And the U.S. economy is losing up to $244 billion every year in lost productivity due to the
uninsured according to a new analysis by the Center for American Progress.
From a business perspective, health reform could not be more critical. A majority of Americans—158
million—receive their coverage through their job or their spouse’s job, according to the Kaiser Family
Foundation. But few businesses will be able to keep up with the pace at which premiums are rising.
Premiums are expected to rise by 20 percent in less than four years, according to research by professors at
Harvard University -- costing 3.5 million workers their jobs, and cutting insured workers’ average annual
incomes by $1,700.
Fiscally, the growing cost of health care is poised to drive our federal budget over a cliff. A recent report
by the Senate Finance Committee found that by 2017, “health care expenditures are expected to consume
nearly 20 percent of the GDP.” In his former role as Director of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO),
current Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag testified to Congress that, “the single
most important factor influencing the federal government’s long-term fiscal balance is the rate of growth
in health care costs.”
We believe payment reform and efficiency initiatives need to be at the center of healthcare reform. The
President and the Congress have put forward good ideas to improve the productivity of our health care
sector. These policies need to be strengthened and adopted because health care reform without controlling
costs is no reform at all.
We are for shared responsibility. Not every business can make the same contribution, but everyone must
make some contribution. We are for an employer mandate which is fair and broad in its coverage, but any
alternative to an employer mandate should not create barriers to hiring entry level employees. We look
forward to working with the Administration and Congress to develop a requirement that is both sensible
and equitable.
Support for a mandate also requires the strongest possible commitment to rein in health care costs.
Guaranteeing cost containment is essential. One way to ensure savings was recently advanced by former
Senate Majority Leaders Howard Baker, Tom Daschle and Bob Dole, “Implement pre-specified targets
for spending growth and enact a “trigger” mechanism that automatically enforces reductions,” (Crossing
Our Lines, Bipartisan Policy Center) President Obama suggested strengthening the role of Med Pac to
help enforce spending discipline.
With smart, targeted policies, we can create a financially-viable health care system that enables workers
to change jobs without losing their care, and allows businesses to become more nimble. Health care costs
will no longer stand in the way of their ability to retool for the 21st century. Focusing on health care cost
savings – and demonstrating a strong commitment to achieving these savings– would make this bill a win
/ win for employers, individuals and America’s competitiveness.
Respectfully,
John Podesta President & CEO Center for American Progress (CAP)
Andrew L. Stern President & CEO Service Employees International Union (SEIU)
Mike Duke President Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
Is Our AMA in Trouble?
s our American Medical Association in trouble? Well, an article by Nicholas Kristoff published in the New York Times on June 25th provided some food for thought.
Yes, we know now that our AMA's position regarding a public insurance option is a maybe but not an outright no. Nevertheless, the heated debate within our organization and the ideological rigidity displayed by some has created the impression that the AMA is AGAIN opposed to a meaningful reform of our healthcare system. Right or wrong, the impression counts and its out there.
Furthermore, our membership is indeed dwindling and as an outreach recruiter I can attest to the fact that its getting harder and harder to convince doctors to join or rejoin. For some we are too soft and for others not tough enough. For some we are too much on the right, for others too much on the left. The media reports regarding our recent Annual meeting does not help in that effort either.
In Florida alone our membership decreased by 14%! Having listened and spoken to hundreds of doctors in South Florida I can list a few reasons that our leadership must consider:
1)Doctors in private practice want to have their problems addressed and resolved today, rather than tomorrow. They are afraid that they are being forced to close shop and merge with larger groups , or to end up as hospital employees. I visit private offices every week and many are on the verge of financial insolvency!
2)Far too much time is being wasted on ideologically-motivated debate, and too little on the development and deployment of practical practice solutions. Talk the Talk, or Walk the Walk?
3)Our AMA delegation is comprised of individuals representing their own political interest and are detached from the constituents they supposedly should represent.
Therefore, I have resigned from the AMA delegation and return to where I came from: union style grass-root organizing, listening to our members and to find alternative modalities of membership representation. The Web 2.0 technology demonstrates what a few can do using these tools, and they can successfully bypass the encrusted and inflexible structures of organized medicine.
The time for change has come even for our AMA. The questions remains: will our AMA embrace or resist change? Thats an existential question for our organization and circling the wagons will only hasten our demise.
Looking forward to your comments.
Bern Wollschlaeger,MD,FAAFP,FASAM
AMA Member
June 25, 2009
OP-ED COLUMNIST
The Prescription From Obama’s Own Doctor
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
As a society, we trust doctors to be more concerned with the pulse of their patients than the pulse of commerce. Yet the American Medical Association is using that trust to try to block a robust public insurance option as part of health reform.
In fact the A.M.A. now represents only 19 percent of practicing physicians (that’s my calculation, which the A.M.A. neither confirms nor contests). Its membership has declined in part because of its embarrassing historical record: the A.M.A. supported segregation, opposed President Harry Truman’s plans for national health insurance, backed tobacco, denounced Medicare and opposed President Bill Clinton’s health reform plan.
So I hope President Obama tunes out the A.M.A. and reaches out instead to somebody to whom he’s turned often for medical advice. That’s Dr. David Scheiner, a Chicago internist who was Mr. Obama’s doctor for more than two decades, until he moved into the White House this year.
“They’ve always been on the wrong side of things,” Dr. Scheiner told me, speaking of the A.M.A. “They may be protecting their interests, but they’re not protecting the interests of the American public.
“In the past, physicians have risked their lives to take care of patients. The patient’s health was the bottom line, not the checkbook. Today, it’s just immoral what’s going on. It’s abominable, all these people without health care.”
Dr. Scheiner, 70, favors the public insurance option and would love to go further and see Medicare for all. He greatly admires Mr. Obama but worries that his health reforms won’t go far enough.
Dr. J. James Rohack, the president of the A.M.A., insisted to me that his group is committed to making health insurance accessible for all Americans, and that its paramount concern is patient health.
“When you don’t have health insurance, you live sicker and you die younger,” he said. “And that’s not something we’re proud of as Americans.”
He added that the A.M.A. is not necessarily opposed to a public option, and I have the impression that it might accept a pallid one built on co-ops. Dr. Rohack wouldn’t repudiate his association’s letter to the Senate Finance Committee warning against a new public plan. That letter declared: “The introduction of a new public plan threatens to restrict patient choice by driving out private insurers.”
I don’t mind the A.M.A. lobbying on behalf of doctors in the many areas where physicians and patients have common interests. The association is dead right, for example, in calling for curbs on lawsuits, which raise medical costs for everyone.
An excellent study published in 2006 in The New England Journal of Medicine found that for every dollar paid in compensation as a result of lawsuits against doctors, 54 cents goes to legal and administrative costs.
That’s an absurd waste of money. Moreover, aggressive law leads to defensive medicine, in the form of extra medical tests that waste everybody’s money. Tort reform should be a part of health reform.
Yet when the A.M.A. uses its lobbying muscle to oppose major health reform — yet again! — that feels like a betrayal. Doctors work hard to keep us healthy when we’re in their offices, and that’s why they win our trust and admiration — yet the A.M.A.’s lobbying has sometimes undermined the health of the very patients whom the doctors have sworn to uphold.
I might expect the American Association of Used Car Dealers to focus exclusively on wallet-fattening, but we expect better of physicians.
In fairness, most physicians expect better as well, which is why the A.M.A. is on the decline.
“It’s what has led to the decline of the A.M.A. over the last half century,” said Dr. David Himmelstein, a Massachusetts physician who also teaches at Harvard Medical School. “At this point only one in five practicing doctors are in the A.M.A., and even among its members about half disagree with its policies.” To back that last point, Dr. Himmelstein pointed to surveys showing a surprising number of A.M.A. members who support a single-payer system.
For his part, Dr. Himmelstein co-founded Physicians for a National Health Program, which now has more than 16,000 members. The far larger American College of Physicians, which is composed of internists and is the second-largest organization of doctors, is also open to a single-payer system and a public insurance option. It also quite rightly calls for emphasizing primary care.
The American Medical Student Association has issued a sharp statement disagreeing with the A.M.A.
The student association declared that it "not only supports but insists upon a public health insurance option."
Look, a public option is no panacea, and it won’t automatically set right the many shortcomings in our health system. But if that option is killed in gestation, then we’re back to Square 1 and there’s little hope of progress in solving the vast challenges confronting us.
So, President Obama, don’t listen to the A.M.A. on this issue. Instead, for starters, call your doctor!
Yes, we know now that our AMA's position regarding a public insurance option is a maybe but not an outright no. Nevertheless, the heated debate within our organization and the ideological rigidity displayed by some has created the impression that the AMA is AGAIN opposed to a meaningful reform of our healthcare system. Right or wrong, the impression counts and its out there.
Furthermore, our membership is indeed dwindling and as an outreach recruiter I can attest to the fact that its getting harder and harder to convince doctors to join or rejoin. For some we are too soft and for others not tough enough. For some we are too much on the right, for others too much on the left. The media reports regarding our recent Annual meeting does not help in that effort either.
In Florida alone our membership decreased by 14%! Having listened and spoken to hundreds of doctors in South Florida I can list a few reasons that our leadership must consider:
1)Doctors in private practice want to have their problems addressed and resolved today, rather than tomorrow. They are afraid that they are being forced to close shop and merge with larger groups , or to end up as hospital employees. I visit private offices every week and many are on the verge of financial insolvency!
2)Far too much time is being wasted on ideologically-motivated debate, and too little on the development and deployment of practical practice solutions. Talk the Talk, or Walk the Walk?
3)Our AMA delegation is comprised of individuals representing their own political interest and are detached from the constituents they supposedly should represent.
Therefore, I have resigned from the AMA delegation and return to where I came from: union style grass-root organizing, listening to our members and to find alternative modalities of membership representation. The Web 2.0 technology demonstrates what a few can do using these tools, and they can successfully bypass the encrusted and inflexible structures of organized medicine.
The time for change has come even for our AMA. The questions remains: will our AMA embrace or resist change? Thats an existential question for our organization and circling the wagons will only hasten our demise.
Looking forward to your comments.
Bern Wollschlaeger,MD,FAAFP,FASAM
AMA Member
June 25, 2009
OP-ED COLUMNIST
The Prescription From Obama’s Own Doctor
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
As a society, we trust doctors to be more concerned with the pulse of their patients than the pulse of commerce. Yet the American Medical Association is using that trust to try to block a robust public insurance option as part of health reform.
In fact the A.M.A. now represents only 19 percent of practicing physicians (that’s my calculation, which the A.M.A. neither confirms nor contests). Its membership has declined in part because of its embarrassing historical record: the A.M.A. supported segregation, opposed President Harry Truman’s plans for national health insurance, backed tobacco, denounced Medicare and opposed President Bill Clinton’s health reform plan.
So I hope President Obama tunes out the A.M.A. and reaches out instead to somebody to whom he’s turned often for medical advice. That’s Dr. David Scheiner, a Chicago internist who was Mr. Obama’s doctor for more than two decades, until he moved into the White House this year.
“They’ve always been on the wrong side of things,” Dr. Scheiner told me, speaking of the A.M.A. “They may be protecting their interests, but they’re not protecting the interests of the American public.
“In the past, physicians have risked their lives to take care of patients. The patient’s health was the bottom line, not the checkbook. Today, it’s just immoral what’s going on. It’s abominable, all these people without health care.”
Dr. Scheiner, 70, favors the public insurance option and would love to go further and see Medicare for all. He greatly admires Mr. Obama but worries that his health reforms won’t go far enough.
Dr. J. James Rohack, the president of the A.M.A., insisted to me that his group is committed to making health insurance accessible for all Americans, and that its paramount concern is patient health.
“When you don’t have health insurance, you live sicker and you die younger,” he said. “And that’s not something we’re proud of as Americans.”
He added that the A.M.A. is not necessarily opposed to a public option, and I have the impression that it might accept a pallid one built on co-ops. Dr. Rohack wouldn’t repudiate his association’s letter to the Senate Finance Committee warning against a new public plan. That letter declared: “The introduction of a new public plan threatens to restrict patient choice by driving out private insurers.”
I don’t mind the A.M.A. lobbying on behalf of doctors in the many areas where physicians and patients have common interests. The association is dead right, for example, in calling for curbs on lawsuits, which raise medical costs for everyone.
An excellent study published in 2006 in The New England Journal of Medicine found that for every dollar paid in compensation as a result of lawsuits against doctors, 54 cents goes to legal and administrative costs.
That’s an absurd waste of money. Moreover, aggressive law leads to defensive medicine, in the form of extra medical tests that waste everybody’s money. Tort reform should be a part of health reform.
Yet when the A.M.A. uses its lobbying muscle to oppose major health reform — yet again! — that feels like a betrayal. Doctors work hard to keep us healthy when we’re in their offices, and that’s why they win our trust and admiration — yet the A.M.A.’s lobbying has sometimes undermined the health of the very patients whom the doctors have sworn to uphold.
I might expect the American Association of Used Car Dealers to focus exclusively on wallet-fattening, but we expect better of physicians.
In fairness, most physicians expect better as well, which is why the A.M.A. is on the decline.
“It’s what has led to the decline of the A.M.A. over the last half century,” said Dr. David Himmelstein, a Massachusetts physician who also teaches at Harvard Medical School. “At this point only one in five practicing doctors are in the A.M.A., and even among its members about half disagree with its policies.” To back that last point, Dr. Himmelstein pointed to surveys showing a surprising number of A.M.A. members who support a single-payer system.
For his part, Dr. Himmelstein co-founded Physicians for a National Health Program, which now has more than 16,000 members. The far larger American College of Physicians, which is composed of internists and is the second-largest organization of doctors, is also open to a single-payer system and a public insurance option. It also quite rightly calls for emphasizing primary care.
The American Medical Student Association has issued a sharp statement disagreeing with the A.M.A.
The student association declared that it "not only supports but insists upon a public health insurance option."
Look, a public option is no panacea, and it won’t automatically set right the many shortcomings in our health system. But if that option is killed in gestation, then we’re back to Square 1 and there’s little hope of progress in solving the vast challenges confronting us.
So, President Obama, don’t listen to the A.M.A. on this issue. Instead, for starters, call your doctor!
Prescription Drug Overdose
On June 23, 2009 Florida Gov. Charlie Crist has signed legislation aimed at curbing the growing black market of illegal prescription drugs flowing from South Florida pain clinics across the eastern United States. The new law, passed nearly unanimously in the Legislature, will require doctors and pharmacists to record patient prescriptions for most drugs in a state-controlled database.
Its about pain to reign in on the explosive growth of "pain clinics" in South Florida operated by unscrupulous owners, some associated with the criminal underworld and organized crime.
The number of overdose deaths are soaring, too!
Unfortunately, the prescription drug monitoring program cannot be implemented until the end of 2011 and so far funding is pending.
As physicians we must continue to push for the comprehensive implementation of such program because our patients and fellow citizens are being harmed by drug dealers in a white coat.
Lets not be complacent but proactive. We just won ONE battle but not the war against drugs.
Yours
Bernd
Posted on Tue, Jun. 30, 2009
Prescription drug overdose deaths soar in Florida
BY SCOTT HIAASEN
shiaasen@MiamiHerald.com
Florida continues to see a rapid rise in fatal overdoses caused by prescription-drug abuse -- a trend fueled by a cottage industry of cash-only pain clinics -- while deaths from illegal drugs wane, according to a report from the state's medical examiners released Tuesday.
Nearly 1,000 deaths were caused in 2008 by the potent painkiller oxycodone -- a 33 percent increase from 2007, the report says. Four years ago, only 340 deaths statewide were attributed to oxycodone, the most popular drug in the black-market pill trade supplied by pain clinics.
Conversely, deaths from cocaine overdoses declined by 23 percent, to 648 in 2008.
Overall, prescription drugs accounted for 75 percent of the drugs found in overdose victims last year, the report says.
''The magnitude and severity of prescription drug abuse calls for strong, coordinated action,'' said Bill Janes, the director of the state's Office of Drug Control, in a written statement.
Florida took a step in that direction when the Legislature passed a law creating a statewide database to monitor prescription sales and increasing oversight of pain clinics, which operate with little scrutiny.
The prescription database is designed to detect addicts and drug dealers buying pills from multiple doctors -- often by faking ailments or medical records -- a practice known as ``doctor shopping.''
''It's almost impossible to monitor different people shopping doctors,'' said Dr. Joshua Perper, Broward County's medical examiner. ``A person can get hundreds or thousands of pills.''
This can also lead to dangerous drug combinations. Perper said the most common overdoses involve mixing several drugs, with oxycodone and anti-anxiety drugs such as Xanax and Valium among the most common combinations.
Though the new prescription monitoring law takes effect Wednesday, the database is not expected to begin operating until late next year.
Broward has become the nation's capital of illegal prescription drug trafficking, police say, with nearly 100 storefront pain clinics feeding a black market in pain pills stretching through Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee, West Virginia and Massachusetts. Florida leads the nation in oxycodone sales -- largely because of these clinics -- according to U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration data.
In 2008, Perper's office detected oxycodone in 171 Broward County overdose deaths -- more than twice the number found in 2005.
The highest number of oxycodone overdoses were reported in Pinellas and Pasco counties, where the drug was detected in 308 deaths last year.
The medical examiner in that district, Dr. Jon Thogmartin, attributes the unusually high number to advanced detection techniques employed by his lab.
''Prescription drugs have really begun, to a significant degree, to replace illicit drugs,'' Thogmartin said.
Thogmartin said many victims overdose on pills prescribed to them by licensed doctors.
To health advocates, this shows that doctors practicing as pain-management specialists need more training and more oversight from the state medical board.
''It's unacceptable to open up a practice and call yourself a pain management physician and start writing prescriptions,'' said Dr. Laura Brown, a Bradenton physician on the board of the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians. ``That's not pain management.''
Its about pain to reign in on the explosive growth of "pain clinics" in South Florida operated by unscrupulous owners, some associated with the criminal underworld and organized crime.
The number of overdose deaths are soaring, too!
Unfortunately, the prescription drug monitoring program cannot be implemented until the end of 2011 and so far funding is pending.
As physicians we must continue to push for the comprehensive implementation of such program because our patients and fellow citizens are being harmed by drug dealers in a white coat.
Lets not be complacent but proactive. We just won ONE battle but not the war against drugs.
Yours
Bernd
Posted on Tue, Jun. 30, 2009
Prescription drug overdose deaths soar in Florida
BY SCOTT HIAASEN
shiaasen@MiamiHerald.com
Florida continues to see a rapid rise in fatal overdoses caused by prescription-drug abuse -- a trend fueled by a cottage industry of cash-only pain clinics -- while deaths from illegal drugs wane, according to a report from the state's medical examiners released Tuesday.
Nearly 1,000 deaths were caused in 2008 by the potent painkiller oxycodone -- a 33 percent increase from 2007, the report says. Four years ago, only 340 deaths statewide were attributed to oxycodone, the most popular drug in the black-market pill trade supplied by pain clinics.
Conversely, deaths from cocaine overdoses declined by 23 percent, to 648 in 2008.
Overall, prescription drugs accounted for 75 percent of the drugs found in overdose victims last year, the report says.
''The magnitude and severity of prescription drug abuse calls for strong, coordinated action,'' said Bill Janes, the director of the state's Office of Drug Control, in a written statement.
Florida took a step in that direction when the Legislature passed a law creating a statewide database to monitor prescription sales and increasing oversight of pain clinics, which operate with little scrutiny.
The prescription database is designed to detect addicts and drug dealers buying pills from multiple doctors -- often by faking ailments or medical records -- a practice known as ``doctor shopping.''
''It's almost impossible to monitor different people shopping doctors,'' said Dr. Joshua Perper, Broward County's medical examiner. ``A person can get hundreds or thousands of pills.''
This can also lead to dangerous drug combinations. Perper said the most common overdoses involve mixing several drugs, with oxycodone and anti-anxiety drugs such as Xanax and Valium among the most common combinations.
Though the new prescription monitoring law takes effect Wednesday, the database is not expected to begin operating until late next year.
Broward has become the nation's capital of illegal prescription drug trafficking, police say, with nearly 100 storefront pain clinics feeding a black market in pain pills stretching through Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee, West Virginia and Massachusetts. Florida leads the nation in oxycodone sales -- largely because of these clinics -- according to U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration data.
In 2008, Perper's office detected oxycodone in 171 Broward County overdose deaths -- more than twice the number found in 2005.
The highest number of oxycodone overdoses were reported in Pinellas and Pasco counties, where the drug was detected in 308 deaths last year.
The medical examiner in that district, Dr. Jon Thogmartin, attributes the unusually high number to advanced detection techniques employed by his lab.
''Prescription drugs have really begun, to a significant degree, to replace illicit drugs,'' Thogmartin said.
Thogmartin said many victims overdose on pills prescribed to them by licensed doctors.
To health advocates, this shows that doctors practicing as pain-management specialists need more training and more oversight from the state medical board.
''It's unacceptable to open up a practice and call yourself a pain management physician and start writing prescriptions,'' said Dr. Laura Brown, a Bradenton physician on the board of the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians. ``That's not pain management.''
Monday, June 29, 2009
Resignation from the Florida AMA Delegation
I herewith notify you about my decision to resign from the AMA delegation for the reason stated in my e-mail sent to the delegation on June 15th.
I am saddened that I am forced taking this step but our AMA delegation does not represent the diverse opinions of the AMA members it claims to represent.
Furthermore, no attempts are being made to change that!
Therefore, I think its for the benefit of our FMA to select another AMA Delegate at the upcoming FMA Annual meeting who conforms with the political ideology of this delegation. I certainly do NOT!
Hopefully, my decision will not affect our friendship and I look forward seeing you again soon.
Yours truly,
Bernd
I am saddened that I am forced taking this step but our AMA delegation does not represent the diverse opinions of the AMA members it claims to represent.
Furthermore, no attempts are being made to change that!
Therefore, I think its for the benefit of our FMA to select another AMA Delegate at the upcoming FMA Annual meeting who conforms with the political ideology of this delegation. I certainly do NOT!
Hopefully, my decision will not affect our friendship and I look forward seeing you again soon.
Yours truly,
Bernd
Medicare Fraud Continues!
Crackdown on Medicare fraud
On several occasions I reported on this blog http://floridadocs.blogspot.com/ about the audacious and callous Medicare fraud and abuse activity here in South Florida. During my tenure as DCMA President I met twice with representatives and senior executives of First Coast Service Options (FCSO) , the regional Medicare administrator, to discuss and understand why on one hand doctors in South Florida are being nickeled and dimed for legitimate services rendered but on the other hand billions of dollars are being paid out for obvious fraudulent claims. The most egregious example is the ongoing payment for HIV infusion “treatments” which, according to the court testimony of a leading HIV treatment expert, are obsolete, replaced for years by more effective oral antiretroviral drugs and not being utilized in clinical practice anymore. In most cases unscrupulous clinic owners, aided and abetted by medical doctors, set up such HIV Infusion clinics, recruited Medicare recipients suffering from HIV/AIDS and billed Medicare for services never rendered, In a series of award winning articles published in the Miami Herald Jay Weaver pointed out the continuous payment for those “services “ despite assurance made by First Coast Service Options that the payment were ceased. In a meeting with FCSO I personally received assurances that “ no such checks are being issued anymore.” Obviously, thats not the truth. I a recent article published on Saturday, June 27th 2009 http://www.miamiherald.com/news/front-page/v-print/story/1116390.html Experts estimate Medicare loses at least $60 billion to fraud every year, with Miami-Dade County at the center of the national crisis. I a recent crackdown agents broke up a Miami-based ring that allegedly schemed to defraud Medicare of $100 million by filing false claims for obsolete HIV therapy across five states. Two of the eight suspects have fled to Cuba.The organization, which was paid $30 million by the federal health insurance program, exported a fraudulent local business enterprise to Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina and South Carolina by using empty storefronts and post office boxes, authorities said. What is being done to stop the bleeding of precious Medicare dollars? Well, I personally have written letters to the editors of local newspapers pointing out the obvious mismanagement of funds by FCSO. I have written to each and every member of the congressional delegation from Florida and only ONE responded advising me to contact the Officer of Inspector General to file a complaint! Thats it! Meanwhile, Medicare still considers such treatment "reasonable and necessary" and continues to pay hundreds of millions of dollars for fraudulent claims every year. FCSO refuses to consider the one and ONLY option: stop payment of ALL HIV infusion therapy claims in Florida/South Florida. The response: We can't because patients who actually need the treatment would be denied services -- a policy no-no at Medicare. But experts have testified that no one needs this treatments anymore!! If any patient would require such treatment it would be an exception and Medicare could consider payment on a case by case basis! Lets be clear: Medicare officials know the claims are fraudulent. Medicare says it has adopted technology to block false claims for HIV infusion treatment, yet the government program still misses hundreds of millions of dollars annually. To add insult to injury on September 12th, 2008 the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) announced that First Coast Service Options, Inc. (FCSO) has been awarded a contract of up to five years for the combined administration of Part A and Part B Medicare claims payment in Florida, Puerto Rico, and U.S. Virgin Islands. This represents not only a contract renewal but EXPANSION! In a press release CMS emphasized that “ with this award, CMS continues its progress in reengineering the way in which the government contracts for claims administration for the largest part of the Medicare program. CMS is seeking the best value, from a cost and technical perspective for this critical function.” The “best value” they probably get from FCSO is the waste of Medicare dollars! But they do not stop here! FCSO will be financially awarded too! In the same press release CMS officials emphasized that “ the contract for FCSO includes a base period and four one-year options and will provide FCSO with an opportunity to earn award fees based on its ability to meet or exceed the performance requirements set by CMS.” So they can earn extra dollars on the fraudulent claims amount?
So what can be done:
1)Call, e-mail or write your representative and/or Senator to hold FCSO responsible for every dollar wasted.
2)Petition the Office of Inspector General of the US Department of Health & Human Services at HHSTips@oig.hhs.gov to investigate FCSO business activities.
3)Force FCSO to repay each and every dollar of fraudulent claims paid and hold company executives legally accountable for their actions (or inactions)
In times of financial crisis we all have to act in a cautious manner exercising our duties , obligations and responsibilities as citizens. The blatant abuse of the Medicare system has to stop!
Yours
Bernd
On several occasions I reported on this blog http://floridadocs.blogspot.com/ about the audacious and callous Medicare fraud and abuse activity here in South Florida. During my tenure as DCMA President I met twice with representatives and senior executives of First Coast Service Options (FCSO) , the regional Medicare administrator, to discuss and understand why on one hand doctors in South Florida are being nickeled and dimed for legitimate services rendered but on the other hand billions of dollars are being paid out for obvious fraudulent claims. The most egregious example is the ongoing payment for HIV infusion “treatments” which, according to the court testimony of a leading HIV treatment expert, are obsolete, replaced for years by more effective oral antiretroviral drugs and not being utilized in clinical practice anymore. In most cases unscrupulous clinic owners, aided and abetted by medical doctors, set up such HIV Infusion clinics, recruited Medicare recipients suffering from HIV/AIDS and billed Medicare for services never rendered, In a series of award winning articles published in the Miami Herald Jay Weaver pointed out the continuous payment for those “services “ despite assurance made by First Coast Service Options that the payment were ceased. In a meeting with FCSO I personally received assurances that “ no such checks are being issued anymore.” Obviously, thats not the truth. I a recent article published on Saturday, June 27th 2009 http://www.miamiherald.com/news/front-page/v-print/story/1116390.html Experts estimate Medicare loses at least $60 billion to fraud every year, with Miami-Dade County at the center of the national crisis. I a recent crackdown agents broke up a Miami-based ring that allegedly schemed to defraud Medicare of $100 million by filing false claims for obsolete HIV therapy across five states. Two of the eight suspects have fled to Cuba.The organization, which was paid $30 million by the federal health insurance program, exported a fraudulent local business enterprise to Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina and South Carolina by using empty storefronts and post office boxes, authorities said. What is being done to stop the bleeding of precious Medicare dollars? Well, I personally have written letters to the editors of local newspapers pointing out the obvious mismanagement of funds by FCSO. I have written to each and every member of the congressional delegation from Florida and only ONE responded advising me to contact the Officer of Inspector General to file a complaint! Thats it! Meanwhile, Medicare still considers such treatment "reasonable and necessary" and continues to pay hundreds of millions of dollars for fraudulent claims every year. FCSO refuses to consider the one and ONLY option: stop payment of ALL HIV infusion therapy claims in Florida/South Florida. The response: We can't because patients who actually need the treatment would be denied services -- a policy no-no at Medicare. But experts have testified that no one needs this treatments anymore!! If any patient would require such treatment it would be an exception and Medicare could consider payment on a case by case basis! Lets be clear: Medicare officials know the claims are fraudulent. Medicare says it has adopted technology to block false claims for HIV infusion treatment, yet the government program still misses hundreds of millions of dollars annually. To add insult to injury on September 12th, 2008 the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) announced that First Coast Service Options, Inc. (FCSO) has been awarded a contract of up to five years for the combined administration of Part A and Part B Medicare claims payment in Florida, Puerto Rico, and U.S. Virgin Islands. This represents not only a contract renewal but EXPANSION! In a press release CMS emphasized that “ with this award, CMS continues its progress in reengineering the way in which the government contracts for claims administration for the largest part of the Medicare program. CMS is seeking the best value, from a cost and technical perspective for this critical function.” The “best value” they probably get from FCSO is the waste of Medicare dollars! But they do not stop here! FCSO will be financially awarded too! In the same press release CMS officials emphasized that “ the contract for FCSO includes a base period and four one-year options and will provide FCSO with an opportunity to earn award fees based on its ability to meet or exceed the performance requirements set by CMS.” So they can earn extra dollars on the fraudulent claims amount?
So what can be done:
1)Call, e-mail or write your representative and/or Senator to hold FCSO responsible for every dollar wasted.
2)Petition the Office of Inspector General of the US Department of Health & Human Services at HHSTips@oig.hhs.gov to investigate FCSO business activities.
3)Force FCSO to repay each and every dollar of fraudulent claims paid and hold company executives legally accountable for their actions (or inactions)
In times of financial crisis we all have to act in a cautious manner exercising our duties , obligations and responsibilities as citizens. The blatant abuse of the Medicare system has to stop!
Yours
Bernd
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Does our AMA delegation represent our interests?
Copy of an E-mail to FMA AMA Delegates:
Dear Friends and Colleagues:
I regret that I was unable to stay until the end of the meeting and especially that I missed the opportunity to witness our President's speech.
But I had to return to Miami to attend to my ever increasing patient load at my my family medicine office and my voluntary teaching commitments at the University of Miami.
I shared my frustrations regarding our delegation with our Delegation Chair and Vice-Chair and now with you:
During my almost fifteen year of service for organized medicine I now witness an increasing intolerance towards open discussion, political extremism and radicalization within our delegation.
Fear mongering, political stereotyping and demagoguery is now prevailing in the so-called " discussions", whereas the attempt to introduce opinions based on rational thoughts, tolerance for the diversity of opinions and the ability to reach a consensus is being marginalized. As a consequence hardly anyone dares to introduce his/her ideas or thoughts. I observed that many carefully gauge the political thermometer and based on the prevailing mood introduce their thoughts.Voice volume has replaced the value of rational consideration.
Most of us are more concerned to fall into political lockstep because otherwise they may not get elected into desired position within the AMA or jeopardize their delegate status. As an AMA Top-Outreach -Recruiter I speak to many different people trying to convince them to join our organization. In the last year I have witnessed a steady drop in AMA membership numbers within Florida. This does not surprise me anymore, because our AMA Delegation has lost touch with the members they supposedly should represent. Delegates often articulate the MOST extreme political opinions and even question the legitimacy of BELONGING to the AMA! How shall I recruit members if members of our delegation are openly ridiculing our AMA policies and leadership? Unless our delegation changes its behavior I cannot serve as a delegate in its midst.
This is a painful realization after years of service for an organization I admire and respect. But I have lost hope that our AMA delegation can be the platform for pragmatic political action especially in those exciting and challenging times.
Our leadership alone has the opportunity and responsibility to change that!
Change has to include: 1) Open debate and sanctioning of incendiary language,2) Respect for diverse opinions, 3) Fully transparent resolution development process, 4) Candidate and Leadership development based on personal qualification and not years of service.
These are the minimum requirements needed to avoid the political implosion of or Delegation.
Many will disagree with me but I honestly do not care how many times I am going to be called Fascist, Communist or Socialist. Those using this language are demagogues and wannabe "thinkers."
I remain focused on growing our AMA as a professional organization and NOT as a trade association. I remain focused to motivate a diverse spectrum of practicing physicians to join and rejoin our AMA. If these goals are not OUR goals then I have to part with you.
Yours truly,
Bernd
Dear Friends and Colleagues:
I regret that I was unable to stay until the end of the meeting and especially that I missed the opportunity to witness our President's speech.
But I had to return to Miami to attend to my ever increasing patient load at my my family medicine office and my voluntary teaching commitments at the University of Miami.
I shared my frustrations regarding our delegation with our Delegation Chair and Vice-Chair and now with you:
During my almost fifteen year of service for organized medicine I now witness an increasing intolerance towards open discussion, political extremism and radicalization within our delegation.
Fear mongering, political stereotyping and demagoguery is now prevailing in the so-called " discussions", whereas the attempt to introduce opinions based on rational thoughts, tolerance for the diversity of opinions and the ability to reach a consensus is being marginalized. As a consequence hardly anyone dares to introduce his/her ideas or thoughts. I observed that many carefully gauge the political thermometer and based on the prevailing mood introduce their thoughts.Voice volume has replaced the value of rational consideration.
Most of us are more concerned to fall into political lockstep because otherwise they may not get elected into desired position within the AMA or jeopardize their delegate status. As an AMA Top-Outreach -Recruiter I speak to many different people trying to convince them to join our organization. In the last year I have witnessed a steady drop in AMA membership numbers within Florida. This does not surprise me anymore, because our AMA Delegation has lost touch with the members they supposedly should represent. Delegates often articulate the MOST extreme political opinions and even question the legitimacy of BELONGING to the AMA! How shall I recruit members if members of our delegation are openly ridiculing our AMA policies and leadership? Unless our delegation changes its behavior I cannot serve as a delegate in its midst.
This is a painful realization after years of service for an organization I admire and respect. But I have lost hope that our AMA delegation can be the platform for pragmatic political action especially in those exciting and challenging times.
Our leadership alone has the opportunity and responsibility to change that!
Change has to include: 1) Open debate and sanctioning of incendiary language,2) Respect for diverse opinions, 3) Fully transparent resolution development process, 4) Candidate and Leadership development based on personal qualification and not years of service.
These are the minimum requirements needed to avoid the political implosion of or Delegation.
Many will disagree with me but I honestly do not care how many times I am going to be called Fascist, Communist or Socialist. Those using this language are demagogues and wannabe "thinkers."
I remain focused on growing our AMA as a professional organization and NOT as a trade association. I remain focused to motivate a diverse spectrum of practicing physicians to join and rejoin our AMA. If these goals are not OUR goals then I have to part with you.
Yours truly,
Bernd
Monday, June 15, 2009
President's Speech to AMA House of Delegates
President Obama Speech to AMA. June 15th 2009
From the moment I took office as President, the central challenge we have confronted as a nation has been the need to lift ourselves out of the worst recession since World War II. In recent months, we have taken a series of extraordinary steps, not just to repair the immediate damage to our economy, but to build a new foundation for lasting and sustained growth. We are creating new jobs. We are unfreezing our credit markets. And we are stemming the loss of homes and the decline of home values.
But even as we have made progress, we know that the road to prosperity remains long and difficult. We also know that one essential step on our journey is to control the spiraling cost of health care in America.
Today, we are spending over $2 trillion a year on health care – almost 50 percent more per person than the next most costly nation. And yet, for all this spending, more of our citizens are uninsured; the quality of our care is often lower; and we aren’t any healthier. In fact, citizens in some countries that spend less than we do are actually living longer than we do.
Make no mistake: the cost of our health care is a threat to our economy. It is an escalating burden on our families and businesses. It is a ticking time-bomb for the federal budget. And it is unsustainable for the United States of America.
It is unsustainable for Americans like Laura Klitzka, a young mother I met in Wisconsin last week, who has learned that the breast cancer she thought she’d beaten had spread to her bones; who is now being forced to spend time worrying about how to cover the $50,000 in medical debts she has already accumulated, when all she wants to do is spend time with her two children and focus on getting well. These are not worries a woman like Laura should have to face in a nation as wealthy as ours.
Stories like Laura’s are being told by women and men all across this country – by families who have seen out-of-pocket costs soar, and premiums double over the last decade at a rate three times faster than wages. This is forcing Americans of all ages to go without the checkups or prescriptions they need. It’s creating a situation where a single illness can wipe out a lifetime of savings.
Our costly health care system is unsustainable for doctors like Michael Kahn in New Hampshire, who, as he puts it, spends 20 percent of each day supervising a staff explaining insurance problems to patients, completing authorization forms, and writing appeal letters; a routine that he calls disruptive and distracting, giving him less time to do what he became a doctor to do and actually care for his patients.
Small business owners like Chris and Becky Link in Nashville are also struggling. They’ve always wanted to do right by the workers at their family-run marketing firm, but have recently had to do the unthinkable and lay off a number of employees – layoffs that could have been deferred, they say, if health care costs weren’t so high. Across the country, over one third of small businesses have reduced benefits in recent years and one third have dropped their workers’ coverage altogether since the early 90’s.
Our largest companies are suffering as well. A big part of what led General Motors and Chrysler into trouble in recent decades were the huge costs they racked up providing health care for their workers; costs that made them less profitable, and less competitive with automakers around the world. If we do not fix our health care system, America may go the way of GM; paying more, getting less, and going broke.
When it comes to the cost of our health care, then, the status quo is unsustainable. Reform is not a luxury, but a necessity. I know there has been much discussion about what reform would cost, and rightly so. This is a test of whether we – Democrats and Republicans alike – are serious about holding the line on new spending and restoring fiscal discipline.
But let there be no doubt – the cost of inaction is greater. If we fail to act, premiums will climb higher, benefits will erode further, and the rolls of uninsured will swell to include millions more Americans.
If we fail to act, one out of every five dollars we earn will be spent on health care within a decade. In thirty years, it will be about one out of every three – a trend that will mean lost jobs, lower take-home pay, shuttered businesses, and a lower standard of living for all Americans.
And if we fail to act, federal spending on Medicaid and Medicare will grow over the coming decades by an amount almost equal to the amount our government currently spends on our nation’s defense. In fact, it will eventually grow larger than what our government spends on anything else today. It’s a scenario that will swamp our federal and state budgets, and impose a vicious choice of either unprecedented tax hikes, overwhelming deficits, or drastic cuts in our federal and state budgets.
To say it as plainly as I can, health care reform is the single most important thing we can do for America’s long-term fiscal health. That is a fact.
And yet, as clear as it is that our system badly needs reform, reform is not inevitable. There’s a sense out there among some that, as bad as our current system may be, the devil we know is better than the devil we don’t. There is a fear of change – a worry that we may lose what works about our health care system while trying to fix what doesn’t.
I understand that fear. I understand that cynicism. They are scars left over from past efforts at reform. Presidents have called for health care reform for nearly a century. Teddy Roosevelt called for it. Harry Truman called for it. Richard Nixon called for it. Jimmy Carter called for it. Bill Clinton called for it. But while significant individual reforms have been made – such as Medicare, Medicaid, and the children’s health insurance program – efforts at comprehensive reform that covers everyone and brings down costs have largely failed.
Part of the reason is because the different groups involved – physicians, insurance companies, businesses, workers, and others – simply couldn’t agree on the need for reform or what shape it would take. And another part of the reason has been the fierce opposition fueled by some interest groups and lobbyists – opposition that has used fear tactics to paint any effort to achieve reform as an attempt to socialize medicine.
Despite this long history of failure, I am standing here today because I think we are in a different time. One sign that things are different is that just this past week, the Senate passed a bill that will protect children from the dangers of smoking – a reform the AMA has long championed – and one that went nowhere when it was proposed a decade ago. What makes this moment different is that this time – for the first time – key stakeholders are aligning not against, but in favor of reform. They are coming together out of a recognition that while reform will take everyone in our health care community doing their part, ultimately, everyone will benefit.
And I want to commend the AMA, in particular, for offering to do your part to curb costs and achieve reform. A few weeks ago, you joined together with hospitals, labor unions, insurers, medical device manufacturers and drug companies to do something that would’ve been unthinkable just a few years ago – you promised to work together to cut national health care spending by two trillion dollars over the next decade, relative to what it would otherwise have been. That will bring down costs, that will bring down premiums, and that’s exactly the kind of cooperation we need.
The question now is, how do we finish the job? How do we permanently bring down costs and make quality, affordable health care available to every American?
That’s what I’ve come to talk about today. We know the moment is right for health care reform. We know this is an historic opportunity we’ve never seen before and may not see again. But we also know that there are those who will try and scuttle this opportunity no matter what – who will use the same scare tactics and fear-mongering that’s worked in the past. They’ll give dire warnings about socialized medicine and government takeovers; long lines and rationed care; decisions made by bureaucrats and not doctors. We’ve heard it all before – and because these fear tactics have worked, things have kept getting worse.
So let me begin by saying this: I know that there are millions of Americans who are content with their health care coverage – they like their plan and they value their relationship with their doctor. And that means that no matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what. My view is that health care reform should be guided by a simple principle: fix what’s broken and build on what works.
If we do that, we can build a health care system that allows you to be physicians instead of administrators and accountants; a system that gives Americans the best care at the lowest cost; a system that eases up the pressure on businesses and unleashes the promise of our economy, creating hundreds of thousands of jobs, making take-home wages thousands of dollars higher, and growing our economy by tens of billions more every year. That’s how we will stop spending tax dollars to prop up an unsustainable system, and start investing those dollars in innovations and advances that will make our health care system and our economy stronger.
That’s what we can do with this opportunity. That’s what we must do with this moment.
Now, the good news is that in some instances, there is already widespread agreement on the steps necessary to make our health care system work better.
First, we need to upgrade our medical records by switching from a paper to an electronic system of record keeping. And we have already begun to do this with an investment we made as part of our Recovery Act.
It simply doesn’t make sense that patients in the 21st century are still filling out forms with pens on papers that have to be stored away somewhere. As Newt Gingrich has rightly pointed out, we do a better job tracking a FedEx package in this country than we do tracking a patient’s health records. You shouldn’t have to tell every new doctor you see about your medical history, or what prescriptions you’re taking. You should not have to repeat costly tests. All of that information should be stored securely in a private medical record so that your information can be tracked from one doctor to another – even if you change jobs, even if you move, and even if you have to see a number of different specialists.
That will not only mean less paper pushing and lower administrative costs, saving taxpayers billions of dollars. It will also make it easier for physicians to do their jobs. It will tell you, the doctors, what drugs a patient is taking so you can avoid prescribing a medication that could cause a harmful interaction. It will help prevent the wrong dosages from going to a patient. And it will reduce medical errors that lead to 100,000 lives lost unnecessarily in our hospitals every year.
The second step that we can all agree on is to invest more in preventive care so that we can avoid illness and disease in the first place. That starts with each of us taking more responsibility for our health and the health of our children. It means quitting smoking, going in for that mammogram or colon cancer screening. It means going for a run or hitting the gym, and raising our children to step away from the video games and spend more time playing outside.
It also means cutting down on all the junk food that is fueling an epidemic of obesity, putting far too many Americans, young and old, at greater risk of costly, chronic conditions. That’s a lesson Michelle and I have tried to instill in our daughters with the White House vegetable garden that Michelle planted. And that’s a lesson that we should work with local school districts to incorporate into their school lunch programs.
Building a health care system that promotes prevention rather than just managing diseases will require all of us to do our part. It will take doctors telling us what risk factors we should avoid and what preventive measures we should pursue. And it will take employers following the example of places like Safeway that is rewarding workers for taking better care of their health while reducing health care costs in the process. If you’re one of the three quarters of Safeway workers enrolled in their "Healthy Measures" program, you can get screened for problems like high cholesterol or high blood pressure. And if you score well, you can pay lower premiums. It’s a program that has helped Safeway cut health care spending by 13 percent and workers save over 20 percent on their premiums. And we are open to doing more to help employers adopt and expand programs like this one.
Our federal government also has to step up its efforts to advance the cause of healthy living. Five of the costliest illnesses and conditions – cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, lung disease, and strokes – can be prevented. And yet only a fraction of every health care dollar goes to prevention or public health. That is starting to change with an investment we are making in prevention and wellness programs that can help us avoid diseases that harm our health and the health of our economy.
But as important as they are, investments in electronic records and preventive care are just preliminary steps. They will only make a dent in the epidemic of rising costs in this country.
Despite what some have suggested, the reason we have these costs is not simply because we have an aging population. Demographics do account for part of rising costs because older, sicker societies pay more on health care than younger, healthier ones. But what accounts for the bulk of our costs is the nature of our health care system itself – a system where we spend vast amounts of money on things that aren’t making our people any healthier; a system that automatically equates more expensive care with better care.
A recent article in the New Yorker, for example, showed how McAllen, Texas is spending twice as much as El Paso County – not because people in McAllen are sicker and not because they are getting better care. They are simply using more treatments – treatments they don’t really need; treatments that, in some cases, can actually do people harm by raising the risk of infection or medical error. And the problem is, this pattern is repeating itself across America. One Dartmouth study showed that you’re no less likely to die from a heart attack and other ailments in a higher spending area than in a lower spending one.
There are two main reasons for this. The first is a system of incentives where the more tests and services are provided, the more money we pay. And a lot of people in this room know what I’m talking about. It is a model that rewards the quantity of care rather than the quality of care; that pushes you, the doctor, to see more and more patients even if you can’t spend much time with each; and gives you every incentive to order that extra MRI or EKG, even if it’s not truly necessary. It is a model that has taken the pursuit of medicine from a profession – a calling – to a business.
That is not why you became doctors. That is not why you put in all those hours in the Anatomy Suite or the O.R. That is not what brings you back to a patient’s bedside to check in or makes you call a loved one to say it’ll be fine. You did not enter this profession to be bean-counters and paper-pushers. You entered this profession to be healers – and that’s what our health care system should let you be.
That starts with reforming the way we compensate our doctors and hospitals. We need to bundle payments so you aren’t paid for every single treatment you offer a patient with a chronic condition like diabetes, but instead are paid for how you treat the overall disease. We need to create incentives for physicians to team up – because we know that when that happens, it results in a healthier patient. We need to give doctors bonuses for good health outcomes – so that we are not promoting just more treatment, but better care.
And we need to rethink the cost of a medical education, and do more to reward medical students who choose a career as a primary care physicians and who choose to work in underserved areas instead of a more lucrative path. That’s why we are making a substantial investment in the National Health Service Corps that will make medical training more affordable for primary care doctors and nurse practitioners so they aren’t drowning in debt when they enter the workforce.
The second structural reform we need to make is to improve the quality of medical information making its way to doctors and patients. We have the best medical schools, the most sophisticated labs, and the most advanced training of any nation on the globe. Yet we are not doing a very good job harnessing our collective knowledge and experience on behalf of better medicine. Less than one percent of our health care spending goes to examining what treatments are most effective. And even when that information finds its way into journals, it can take up to 17 years to find its way to an exam room or operating table.
As a result, too many doctors and patients are making decisions without the benefit of the latest research. A recent study, for example, found that only half of all cardiac guidelines are based on scientific evidence. Half. That means doctors may be doing a bypass operation when placing a stent is equally effective, or placing a stent when adjusting a patient’s drugs and medical management is equally effective – driving up costs without improving a patient’s health.
So, one thing we need to do is figure out what works, and encourage rapid implementation of what works into your practices. That’s why we are making a major investment in research to identify the best treatments for a variety of ailments and conditions.
Let me be clear: identifying what works is not about dictating what kind of care should be provided. It’s about providing patients and doctors with the information they need to make the best medical decisions.
Still, even when we do know what works, we are often not making the most of it. That’s why we need to build on the examples of outstanding medicine at places like the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, where the quality of care for cystic fibrosis patients shot up after the hospital began incorporating suggestions from parents. And places like Tallahassee Memorial Health Care, where deaths were dramatically reduced with rapid response teams that monitored patients’ conditions and "multidisciplinary rounds" with everyone from physicians to pharmacists. And places like the Geisinger Health system in rural Pennsylvania and the Intermountain Health in Salt Lake City, where high-quality care is being provided at a cost well below average. These are islands of excellence that we need to make the standard in our health care system.
Replicating best practices. Incentivizing excellence. Closing cost disparities. Any legislation sent to my desk that does not achieve these goals does not earn the title of reform. But my signature on a bill is not enough. I need your help, doctors. To most Americans, you are the health care system. Americans – me included – just do what you recommend. That is why I will listen to you and work with you to pursue reform that works for you. And together, if we take all these steps, we can bring spending down, bring quality up, and save hundreds of billions of dollars on health care costs while making our health care system work better for patients and doctors alike.
Now, I recognize that it will be hard to make some of these changes if doctors feel like they are constantly looking over their shoulder for fear of lawsuits. Some doctors may feel the need to order more tests and treatments to avoid being legally vulnerable. That’s a real issue. And while I’m not advocating caps on malpractice awards which I believe can be unfair to people who’ve been wrongfully harmed, I do think we need to explore a range of ideas about how to put patient safety first, let doctors focus on practicing medicine, and encourage broader use of evidence-based guidelines. That’s how we can scale back the excessive defensive medicine reinforcing our current system of more treatment rather than better care.
These changes need to go hand-in-hand with other reforms. Because our health care system is so complex and medicine is always evolving, we need a way to continually evaluate how we can eliminate waste, reduce costs, and improve quality. That is why I am open to expanding the role of a commission created by a Republican Congress called the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission – which happens to include a number of physicians. In recent years, this commission proposed roughly $200 billion in savings that never made it into law. These recommendations have now been incorporated into our broader reform agenda, but we need to fast-track their proposals in the future so that we don’t miss another opportunity to save billions of dollars, as we gain more information about what works and what doesn’t in our health care system.
As we seek to contain the cost of health care, we must also ensure that every American can get coverage they can afford. We must do so in part because it is in all of our economic interests. Each time an uninsured American steps foot into an emergency room with no way to reimburse the hospital for care, the cost is handed over to every American family as a bill of about $1,000 that is reflected in higher taxes, higher premiums, and higher health care costs; a hidden tax that will be cut as we insure all Americans. And as we insure every young and healthy American, it will spread out risk for insurance companies, further reducing costs for everyone.
But alongside these economic arguments, there is another, more powerful one. It is simply this: We are not a nation that accepts nearly 46 million uninsured men, women, and children. We are not a nation that lets hardworking families go without the coverage they deserve; or turns its back on those in need. We are a nation that cares for its citizens. We are a people who look out for one another. That is what makes this the United States of America.
So, we need to do a few things to provide affordable health insurance to every single American. The first thing we need to do is protect what’s working in our health care system. Let me repeat – if you like your health care, the only thing reform will mean is your health care will cost less. If anyone says otherwise, they are either trying to mislead you or don’t have their facts straight.
If you don’t like your health coverage or don’t have any insurance, you will have a chance to take part in what we’re calling a Health Insurance Exchange. This Exchange will allow you to one-stop shop for a health care plan, compare benefits and prices, and choose a plan that’s best for you and your family – just as federal employees can do, from a postal worker to a Member of Congress. You will have your choice of a number of plans that offer a few different packages, but every plan would offer an affordable, basic package. And one of these options needs to be a public option that will give people a broader range of choices and inject competition into the health care market so that force waste out of the system and keep the insurance companies honest.
Now, I know there’s some concern about a public option. In particular, I understand that you are concerned that today’s Medicare rates will be applied broadly in a way that means our cost savings are coming off your backs. These are legitimate concerns, but ones, I believe, that can be overcome. As I stated earlier, the reforms we propose are to reward best practices, focus on patient care, not the current piece-work reimbursement. What we seek is more stability and a health care system on a sound financial footing. And these reforms need to take place regardless of what happens with a public option. With reform, we will ensure that you are being reimbursed in a thoughtful way tied to patient outcomes instead of relying on yearly negotiations about the Sustainable Growth Rate formula that’s based on politics and the state of the federal budget in any given year. The alternative is a world where health care costs grow at an unsustainable rate, threatening your reimbursements and the stability of our health care system.
What are not legitimate concerns are those being put forward claiming a public option is somehow a Trojan horse for a single-payer system. I’ll be honest. There are countries where a single-payer system may be working. But I believe – and I’ve even taken some flak from members of my own party for this belief – that it is important for us to build on our traditions here in the United States. So, when you hear the naysayers claim that I’m trying to bring about government-run health care, know this – they are not telling the truth.
What I am trying to do – and what a public option will help do – is put affordable health care within reach for millions of Americans. And to help ensure that everyone can afford the cost of a health care option in our Exchange, we need to provide assistance to families who need it. That way, there will be no reason at all for anyone to remain uninsured.
Indeed, it is because I am confident in our ability to give people the ability to get insurance that I am open to a system where every American bears responsibility for owning health insurance, so long as we provide a hardship waiver for those who still can’t afford it. The same is true for employers. While I believe every business has a responsibility to provide health insurance for its workers, small businesses that cannot afford it should receive an exemption. And small business workers and their families will be able to seek coverage in the Exchange if their employer is not able to provide it.
Insurance companies have expressed support for the idea of covering the uninsured – and I welcome their willingness to engage constructively in the reform debate. But what I refuse to do is simply create a system where insurance companies have more customers on Uncle Sam’s dime, but still fail to meet their responsibilities. That is why we need to end the practice of denying coverage on the basis of preexisting conditions. The days of cherry-picking who to cover and who to deny – those days are over.
This is personal for me. I will never forget watching my own mother, as she fought cancer in her final days, worrying about whether her insurer would claim her illness was a preexisting condition so it could get out of providing coverage. Changing the current approach to preexisting conditions is the least we can do – for my mother and every other mother, father, son, and daughter, who has suffered under this practice. And it will put health care within reach for millions of Americans.
Now, even if we accept all of the economic and moral reasons for providing affordable coverage to all Americans, there is no denying that it will come at a cost – at least in the short run. But it is a cost that will not – I repeat, not – add to our deficits. Health care reform must be and will be deficit neutral in the next decade.
There are already voices saying the numbers don’t add up. They are wrong. Here’s why. Making health care affordable for all Americans will cost somewhere on the order of one trillion dollars over the next ten years. That sounds like a lot of money – and it is. But remember: it is less than we are projected to spend on the war in Iraq. And also remember: failing to reform our health care system in a way that genuinely reduces cost growth will cost us trillions of dollars more in lost economic growth and lower wages.
That said, let me explain how we will cover the price tag. First, as part of the budget that was passed a few months ago, we’ve put aside $635 billion over ten years in what we are calling a Health Reserve Fund. Over half of that amount – more than $300 billion – will come from raising revenue by doing things like modestly limiting the tax deductions the wealthiest Americans can take to the same level it was at the end of the Reagan years. Some are concerned this will dramatically reduce charitable giving, but statistics show that’s not true, and the best thing for our charities is the stronger economy that we will build with health care reform.
But we cannot just raise revenues. We also have to make spending cuts in part by examining inefficiencies in the Medicare program. There will be a robust debate about where these cuts should be made, and I welcome that debate. But here’s where I think these cuts should be made. First, we should end overpayments to Medicare Advantage. Today, we are paying Medicare Advantage plans much more than we pay for traditional Medicare services. That’s a good deal for insurance companies, but not the American people. That’s why we need to introduce competitive bidding into the Medicare Advantage program, a program under which private insurance companies offer Medicare coverage. That will save $177 billion over the next decade.
Second, we need to use Medicare reimbursements to reduce preventable hospital readmissions. Right now, almost 20 percent of Medicare patients discharged from hospitals are readmitted within a month, often because they are not getting the comprehensive care they need. This puts people at risk and drives up costs. By changing how Medicare reimburses hospitals, we can discourage them from acting in a way that boosts profits, but drives up costs for everyone else. That will save us $25 billion over the next decade.
Third, we need to introduce generic biologic drugs into the marketplace. These are drugs used to treat illnesses like anemia. But right now, there is no pathway at the FDA for approving generic versions of these drugs. Creating such a pathway will save us billions of dollars. And we can save another roughly $30 billion by getting a better deal for our poorer seniors while asking our well-off seniors to pay a little more for their drugs.
So, that’s the bulk of what’s in the Health Reserve Fund. I have also proposed saving another $313 billion in Medicare and Medicaid spending in several other ways. One way is by adjusting Medicare payments to reflect new advances and productivity gains in our economy. Right now, Medicare payments are rising each year by more than they should. These adjustments will create incentives for providers to deliver care more effectively, and save us roughly $109 billion in the process.
Another way we can achieve savings is by reducing payments to hospitals for treating uninsured people. I know hospitals rely on these payments now because of the large number of uninsured patients they treat. But as the number of uninsured people goes down with our reforms, the amount we pay hospitals to treat uninsured people should go down, as well. Reducing these payments gradually as more and more people have coverage will save us over $106 billion, and we’ll make sure the difference goes to the hospitals that most need it.
We can also save about $75 billion through more efficient purchasing of prescription drugs. And we can save about one billion more by rooting out waste, abuse, and fraud throughout our health care system so that no one is charging more for a service than it’s worth or charging a dime for a service they did not provide.
But let me be clear: I am committed to making these cuts in a way that protects our senior citizens. In fact, these proposals will actually extend the life of the Medicare Trust Fund by 7 years and reduce premiums for Medicare beneficiaries by roughly $43 billion over 10 years. And I’m working with AARP to uphold that commitment.
Altogether, these savings mean that we have put about $950 billion on the table – not counting some of the longer-term savings that will come about from reform – taking us almost all the way to covering the full cost of health care reform. In the weeks and months ahead, I look forward to working with Congress to make up the difference so that health care reform is fully paid for – in a real, accountable way. And let me add that this does not count some of the longer-term savings that will come about from health care reform. By insisting that reform be deficit neutral over the next decade and by making the reforms that will help slow the growth rate of health care costs over coming decades, we can look forward to faster economic growth, higher living standards, and falling, not rising, budget deficits.
I know people are cynical we can do this. I know there will be disagreements about how to proceed in the days ahead. But I also know that we cannot let this moment pass us by.
The other day, my friend, Congressman Earl Blumenauer, handed me a magazine with a special issue titled, "The Crisis in American Medicine." One article notes "soaring charges." Another warns about the "volume of utilization of services." And another asks if we can find a "better way [than fee-for-service] for paying for medical care." It speaks to many of the challenges we face today. The thing is, this special issue was published by Harper’s Magazine in October of 1960.
Members of the American Medical Association – my fellow Americans – I am here today because I do not want our children and their children to still be speaking of a crisis in American medicine fifty years from now. I do not want them to still be suffering from spiraling costs we did not stem, or sicknesses we did not cure. I do not want them to be burdened with massive deficits we did not curb or a worsening economy we did not rebuild.
I want them to benefit from a health care system that works for all of us; where families can open a doctor’s bill without dreading what’s inside; where parents are taking their kids to get regular checkups and testing themselves for preventable ailments; where parents are feeding their kids healthier food and kids are exercising more; where patients are spending more time with doctors and doctors can pull up on a computer all the medical information and latest research they’d ever want to meet that patient’s needs; where orthopedists and nephrologists and oncologists are all working together to treat a single human being; where what’s best about America’s health care system has become the hallmark of America’s health care system.
That is the health care system we can build. That is the future within our reach. And if we are willing to come together and bring about that future, then we will not only make Americans healthier and not only unleash America’s economic potential, but we will reaffirm the ideals that led you into this noble profession, and build a health care system that lets all Americans heal. Thank you.
From the moment I took office as President, the central challenge we have confronted as a nation has been the need to lift ourselves out of the worst recession since World War II. In recent months, we have taken a series of extraordinary steps, not just to repair the immediate damage to our economy, but to build a new foundation for lasting and sustained growth. We are creating new jobs. We are unfreezing our credit markets. And we are stemming the loss of homes and the decline of home values.
But even as we have made progress, we know that the road to prosperity remains long and difficult. We also know that one essential step on our journey is to control the spiraling cost of health care in America.
Today, we are spending over $2 trillion a year on health care – almost 50 percent more per person than the next most costly nation. And yet, for all this spending, more of our citizens are uninsured; the quality of our care is often lower; and we aren’t any healthier. In fact, citizens in some countries that spend less than we do are actually living longer than we do.
Make no mistake: the cost of our health care is a threat to our economy. It is an escalating burden on our families and businesses. It is a ticking time-bomb for the federal budget. And it is unsustainable for the United States of America.
It is unsustainable for Americans like Laura Klitzka, a young mother I met in Wisconsin last week, who has learned that the breast cancer she thought she’d beaten had spread to her bones; who is now being forced to spend time worrying about how to cover the $50,000 in medical debts she has already accumulated, when all she wants to do is spend time with her two children and focus on getting well. These are not worries a woman like Laura should have to face in a nation as wealthy as ours.
Stories like Laura’s are being told by women and men all across this country – by families who have seen out-of-pocket costs soar, and premiums double over the last decade at a rate three times faster than wages. This is forcing Americans of all ages to go without the checkups or prescriptions they need. It’s creating a situation where a single illness can wipe out a lifetime of savings.
Our costly health care system is unsustainable for doctors like Michael Kahn in New Hampshire, who, as he puts it, spends 20 percent of each day supervising a staff explaining insurance problems to patients, completing authorization forms, and writing appeal letters; a routine that he calls disruptive and distracting, giving him less time to do what he became a doctor to do and actually care for his patients.
Small business owners like Chris and Becky Link in Nashville are also struggling. They’ve always wanted to do right by the workers at their family-run marketing firm, but have recently had to do the unthinkable and lay off a number of employees – layoffs that could have been deferred, they say, if health care costs weren’t so high. Across the country, over one third of small businesses have reduced benefits in recent years and one third have dropped their workers’ coverage altogether since the early 90’s.
Our largest companies are suffering as well. A big part of what led General Motors and Chrysler into trouble in recent decades were the huge costs they racked up providing health care for their workers; costs that made them less profitable, and less competitive with automakers around the world. If we do not fix our health care system, America may go the way of GM; paying more, getting less, and going broke.
When it comes to the cost of our health care, then, the status quo is unsustainable. Reform is not a luxury, but a necessity. I know there has been much discussion about what reform would cost, and rightly so. This is a test of whether we – Democrats and Republicans alike – are serious about holding the line on new spending and restoring fiscal discipline.
But let there be no doubt – the cost of inaction is greater. If we fail to act, premiums will climb higher, benefits will erode further, and the rolls of uninsured will swell to include millions more Americans.
If we fail to act, one out of every five dollars we earn will be spent on health care within a decade. In thirty years, it will be about one out of every three – a trend that will mean lost jobs, lower take-home pay, shuttered businesses, and a lower standard of living for all Americans.
And if we fail to act, federal spending on Medicaid and Medicare will grow over the coming decades by an amount almost equal to the amount our government currently spends on our nation’s defense. In fact, it will eventually grow larger than what our government spends on anything else today. It’s a scenario that will swamp our federal and state budgets, and impose a vicious choice of either unprecedented tax hikes, overwhelming deficits, or drastic cuts in our federal and state budgets.
To say it as plainly as I can, health care reform is the single most important thing we can do for America’s long-term fiscal health. That is a fact.
And yet, as clear as it is that our system badly needs reform, reform is not inevitable. There’s a sense out there among some that, as bad as our current system may be, the devil we know is better than the devil we don’t. There is a fear of change – a worry that we may lose what works about our health care system while trying to fix what doesn’t.
I understand that fear. I understand that cynicism. They are scars left over from past efforts at reform. Presidents have called for health care reform for nearly a century. Teddy Roosevelt called for it. Harry Truman called for it. Richard Nixon called for it. Jimmy Carter called for it. Bill Clinton called for it. But while significant individual reforms have been made – such as Medicare, Medicaid, and the children’s health insurance program – efforts at comprehensive reform that covers everyone and brings down costs have largely failed.
Part of the reason is because the different groups involved – physicians, insurance companies, businesses, workers, and others – simply couldn’t agree on the need for reform or what shape it would take. And another part of the reason has been the fierce opposition fueled by some interest groups and lobbyists – opposition that has used fear tactics to paint any effort to achieve reform as an attempt to socialize medicine.
Despite this long history of failure, I am standing here today because I think we are in a different time. One sign that things are different is that just this past week, the Senate passed a bill that will protect children from the dangers of smoking – a reform the AMA has long championed – and one that went nowhere when it was proposed a decade ago. What makes this moment different is that this time – for the first time – key stakeholders are aligning not against, but in favor of reform. They are coming together out of a recognition that while reform will take everyone in our health care community doing their part, ultimately, everyone will benefit.
And I want to commend the AMA, in particular, for offering to do your part to curb costs and achieve reform. A few weeks ago, you joined together with hospitals, labor unions, insurers, medical device manufacturers and drug companies to do something that would’ve been unthinkable just a few years ago – you promised to work together to cut national health care spending by two trillion dollars over the next decade, relative to what it would otherwise have been. That will bring down costs, that will bring down premiums, and that’s exactly the kind of cooperation we need.
The question now is, how do we finish the job? How do we permanently bring down costs and make quality, affordable health care available to every American?
That’s what I’ve come to talk about today. We know the moment is right for health care reform. We know this is an historic opportunity we’ve never seen before and may not see again. But we also know that there are those who will try and scuttle this opportunity no matter what – who will use the same scare tactics and fear-mongering that’s worked in the past. They’ll give dire warnings about socialized medicine and government takeovers; long lines and rationed care; decisions made by bureaucrats and not doctors. We’ve heard it all before – and because these fear tactics have worked, things have kept getting worse.
So let me begin by saying this: I know that there are millions of Americans who are content with their health care coverage – they like their plan and they value their relationship with their doctor. And that means that no matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what. My view is that health care reform should be guided by a simple principle: fix what’s broken and build on what works.
If we do that, we can build a health care system that allows you to be physicians instead of administrators and accountants; a system that gives Americans the best care at the lowest cost; a system that eases up the pressure on businesses and unleashes the promise of our economy, creating hundreds of thousands of jobs, making take-home wages thousands of dollars higher, and growing our economy by tens of billions more every year. That’s how we will stop spending tax dollars to prop up an unsustainable system, and start investing those dollars in innovations and advances that will make our health care system and our economy stronger.
That’s what we can do with this opportunity. That’s what we must do with this moment.
Now, the good news is that in some instances, there is already widespread agreement on the steps necessary to make our health care system work better.
First, we need to upgrade our medical records by switching from a paper to an electronic system of record keeping. And we have already begun to do this with an investment we made as part of our Recovery Act.
It simply doesn’t make sense that patients in the 21st century are still filling out forms with pens on papers that have to be stored away somewhere. As Newt Gingrich has rightly pointed out, we do a better job tracking a FedEx package in this country than we do tracking a patient’s health records. You shouldn’t have to tell every new doctor you see about your medical history, or what prescriptions you’re taking. You should not have to repeat costly tests. All of that information should be stored securely in a private medical record so that your information can be tracked from one doctor to another – even if you change jobs, even if you move, and even if you have to see a number of different specialists.
That will not only mean less paper pushing and lower administrative costs, saving taxpayers billions of dollars. It will also make it easier for physicians to do their jobs. It will tell you, the doctors, what drugs a patient is taking so you can avoid prescribing a medication that could cause a harmful interaction. It will help prevent the wrong dosages from going to a patient. And it will reduce medical errors that lead to 100,000 lives lost unnecessarily in our hospitals every year.
The second step that we can all agree on is to invest more in preventive care so that we can avoid illness and disease in the first place. That starts with each of us taking more responsibility for our health and the health of our children. It means quitting smoking, going in for that mammogram or colon cancer screening. It means going for a run or hitting the gym, and raising our children to step away from the video games and spend more time playing outside.
It also means cutting down on all the junk food that is fueling an epidemic of obesity, putting far too many Americans, young and old, at greater risk of costly, chronic conditions. That’s a lesson Michelle and I have tried to instill in our daughters with the White House vegetable garden that Michelle planted. And that’s a lesson that we should work with local school districts to incorporate into their school lunch programs.
Building a health care system that promotes prevention rather than just managing diseases will require all of us to do our part. It will take doctors telling us what risk factors we should avoid and what preventive measures we should pursue. And it will take employers following the example of places like Safeway that is rewarding workers for taking better care of their health while reducing health care costs in the process. If you’re one of the three quarters of Safeway workers enrolled in their "Healthy Measures" program, you can get screened for problems like high cholesterol or high blood pressure. And if you score well, you can pay lower premiums. It’s a program that has helped Safeway cut health care spending by 13 percent and workers save over 20 percent on their premiums. And we are open to doing more to help employers adopt and expand programs like this one.
Our federal government also has to step up its efforts to advance the cause of healthy living. Five of the costliest illnesses and conditions – cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, lung disease, and strokes – can be prevented. And yet only a fraction of every health care dollar goes to prevention or public health. That is starting to change with an investment we are making in prevention and wellness programs that can help us avoid diseases that harm our health and the health of our economy.
But as important as they are, investments in electronic records and preventive care are just preliminary steps. They will only make a dent in the epidemic of rising costs in this country.
Despite what some have suggested, the reason we have these costs is not simply because we have an aging population. Demographics do account for part of rising costs because older, sicker societies pay more on health care than younger, healthier ones. But what accounts for the bulk of our costs is the nature of our health care system itself – a system where we spend vast amounts of money on things that aren’t making our people any healthier; a system that automatically equates more expensive care with better care.
A recent article in the New Yorker, for example, showed how McAllen, Texas is spending twice as much as El Paso County – not because people in McAllen are sicker and not because they are getting better care. They are simply using more treatments – treatments they don’t really need; treatments that, in some cases, can actually do people harm by raising the risk of infection or medical error. And the problem is, this pattern is repeating itself across America. One Dartmouth study showed that you’re no less likely to die from a heart attack and other ailments in a higher spending area than in a lower spending one.
There are two main reasons for this. The first is a system of incentives where the more tests and services are provided, the more money we pay. And a lot of people in this room know what I’m talking about. It is a model that rewards the quantity of care rather than the quality of care; that pushes you, the doctor, to see more and more patients even if you can’t spend much time with each; and gives you every incentive to order that extra MRI or EKG, even if it’s not truly necessary. It is a model that has taken the pursuit of medicine from a profession – a calling – to a business.
That is not why you became doctors. That is not why you put in all those hours in the Anatomy Suite or the O.R. That is not what brings you back to a patient’s bedside to check in or makes you call a loved one to say it’ll be fine. You did not enter this profession to be bean-counters and paper-pushers. You entered this profession to be healers – and that’s what our health care system should let you be.
That starts with reforming the way we compensate our doctors and hospitals. We need to bundle payments so you aren’t paid for every single treatment you offer a patient with a chronic condition like diabetes, but instead are paid for how you treat the overall disease. We need to create incentives for physicians to team up – because we know that when that happens, it results in a healthier patient. We need to give doctors bonuses for good health outcomes – so that we are not promoting just more treatment, but better care.
And we need to rethink the cost of a medical education, and do more to reward medical students who choose a career as a primary care physicians and who choose to work in underserved areas instead of a more lucrative path. That’s why we are making a substantial investment in the National Health Service Corps that will make medical training more affordable for primary care doctors and nurse practitioners so they aren’t drowning in debt when they enter the workforce.
The second structural reform we need to make is to improve the quality of medical information making its way to doctors and patients. We have the best medical schools, the most sophisticated labs, and the most advanced training of any nation on the globe. Yet we are not doing a very good job harnessing our collective knowledge and experience on behalf of better medicine. Less than one percent of our health care spending goes to examining what treatments are most effective. And even when that information finds its way into journals, it can take up to 17 years to find its way to an exam room or operating table.
As a result, too many doctors and patients are making decisions without the benefit of the latest research. A recent study, for example, found that only half of all cardiac guidelines are based on scientific evidence. Half. That means doctors may be doing a bypass operation when placing a stent is equally effective, or placing a stent when adjusting a patient’s drugs and medical management is equally effective – driving up costs without improving a patient’s health.
So, one thing we need to do is figure out what works, and encourage rapid implementation of what works into your practices. That’s why we are making a major investment in research to identify the best treatments for a variety of ailments and conditions.
Let me be clear: identifying what works is not about dictating what kind of care should be provided. It’s about providing patients and doctors with the information they need to make the best medical decisions.
Still, even when we do know what works, we are often not making the most of it. That’s why we need to build on the examples of outstanding medicine at places like the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, where the quality of care for cystic fibrosis patients shot up after the hospital began incorporating suggestions from parents. And places like Tallahassee Memorial Health Care, where deaths were dramatically reduced with rapid response teams that monitored patients’ conditions and "multidisciplinary rounds" with everyone from physicians to pharmacists. And places like the Geisinger Health system in rural Pennsylvania and the Intermountain Health in Salt Lake City, where high-quality care is being provided at a cost well below average. These are islands of excellence that we need to make the standard in our health care system.
Replicating best practices. Incentivizing excellence. Closing cost disparities. Any legislation sent to my desk that does not achieve these goals does not earn the title of reform. But my signature on a bill is not enough. I need your help, doctors. To most Americans, you are the health care system. Americans – me included – just do what you recommend. That is why I will listen to you and work with you to pursue reform that works for you. And together, if we take all these steps, we can bring spending down, bring quality up, and save hundreds of billions of dollars on health care costs while making our health care system work better for patients and doctors alike.
Now, I recognize that it will be hard to make some of these changes if doctors feel like they are constantly looking over their shoulder for fear of lawsuits. Some doctors may feel the need to order more tests and treatments to avoid being legally vulnerable. That’s a real issue. And while I’m not advocating caps on malpractice awards which I believe can be unfair to people who’ve been wrongfully harmed, I do think we need to explore a range of ideas about how to put patient safety first, let doctors focus on practicing medicine, and encourage broader use of evidence-based guidelines. That’s how we can scale back the excessive defensive medicine reinforcing our current system of more treatment rather than better care.
These changes need to go hand-in-hand with other reforms. Because our health care system is so complex and medicine is always evolving, we need a way to continually evaluate how we can eliminate waste, reduce costs, and improve quality. That is why I am open to expanding the role of a commission created by a Republican Congress called the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission – which happens to include a number of physicians. In recent years, this commission proposed roughly $200 billion in savings that never made it into law. These recommendations have now been incorporated into our broader reform agenda, but we need to fast-track their proposals in the future so that we don’t miss another opportunity to save billions of dollars, as we gain more information about what works and what doesn’t in our health care system.
As we seek to contain the cost of health care, we must also ensure that every American can get coverage they can afford. We must do so in part because it is in all of our economic interests. Each time an uninsured American steps foot into an emergency room with no way to reimburse the hospital for care, the cost is handed over to every American family as a bill of about $1,000 that is reflected in higher taxes, higher premiums, and higher health care costs; a hidden tax that will be cut as we insure all Americans. And as we insure every young and healthy American, it will spread out risk for insurance companies, further reducing costs for everyone.
But alongside these economic arguments, there is another, more powerful one. It is simply this: We are not a nation that accepts nearly 46 million uninsured men, women, and children. We are not a nation that lets hardworking families go without the coverage they deserve; or turns its back on those in need. We are a nation that cares for its citizens. We are a people who look out for one another. That is what makes this the United States of America.
So, we need to do a few things to provide affordable health insurance to every single American. The first thing we need to do is protect what’s working in our health care system. Let me repeat – if you like your health care, the only thing reform will mean is your health care will cost less. If anyone says otherwise, they are either trying to mislead you or don’t have their facts straight.
If you don’t like your health coverage or don’t have any insurance, you will have a chance to take part in what we’re calling a Health Insurance Exchange. This Exchange will allow you to one-stop shop for a health care plan, compare benefits and prices, and choose a plan that’s best for you and your family – just as federal employees can do, from a postal worker to a Member of Congress. You will have your choice of a number of plans that offer a few different packages, but every plan would offer an affordable, basic package. And one of these options needs to be a public option that will give people a broader range of choices and inject competition into the health care market so that force waste out of the system and keep the insurance companies honest.
Now, I know there’s some concern about a public option. In particular, I understand that you are concerned that today’s Medicare rates will be applied broadly in a way that means our cost savings are coming off your backs. These are legitimate concerns, but ones, I believe, that can be overcome. As I stated earlier, the reforms we propose are to reward best practices, focus on patient care, not the current piece-work reimbursement. What we seek is more stability and a health care system on a sound financial footing. And these reforms need to take place regardless of what happens with a public option. With reform, we will ensure that you are being reimbursed in a thoughtful way tied to patient outcomes instead of relying on yearly negotiations about the Sustainable Growth Rate formula that’s based on politics and the state of the federal budget in any given year. The alternative is a world where health care costs grow at an unsustainable rate, threatening your reimbursements and the stability of our health care system.
What are not legitimate concerns are those being put forward claiming a public option is somehow a Trojan horse for a single-payer system. I’ll be honest. There are countries where a single-payer system may be working. But I believe – and I’ve even taken some flak from members of my own party for this belief – that it is important for us to build on our traditions here in the United States. So, when you hear the naysayers claim that I’m trying to bring about government-run health care, know this – they are not telling the truth.
What I am trying to do – and what a public option will help do – is put affordable health care within reach for millions of Americans. And to help ensure that everyone can afford the cost of a health care option in our Exchange, we need to provide assistance to families who need it. That way, there will be no reason at all for anyone to remain uninsured.
Indeed, it is because I am confident in our ability to give people the ability to get insurance that I am open to a system where every American bears responsibility for owning health insurance, so long as we provide a hardship waiver for those who still can’t afford it. The same is true for employers. While I believe every business has a responsibility to provide health insurance for its workers, small businesses that cannot afford it should receive an exemption. And small business workers and their families will be able to seek coverage in the Exchange if their employer is not able to provide it.
Insurance companies have expressed support for the idea of covering the uninsured – and I welcome their willingness to engage constructively in the reform debate. But what I refuse to do is simply create a system where insurance companies have more customers on Uncle Sam’s dime, but still fail to meet their responsibilities. That is why we need to end the practice of denying coverage on the basis of preexisting conditions. The days of cherry-picking who to cover and who to deny – those days are over.
This is personal for me. I will never forget watching my own mother, as she fought cancer in her final days, worrying about whether her insurer would claim her illness was a preexisting condition so it could get out of providing coverage. Changing the current approach to preexisting conditions is the least we can do – for my mother and every other mother, father, son, and daughter, who has suffered under this practice. And it will put health care within reach for millions of Americans.
Now, even if we accept all of the economic and moral reasons for providing affordable coverage to all Americans, there is no denying that it will come at a cost – at least in the short run. But it is a cost that will not – I repeat, not – add to our deficits. Health care reform must be and will be deficit neutral in the next decade.
There are already voices saying the numbers don’t add up. They are wrong. Here’s why. Making health care affordable for all Americans will cost somewhere on the order of one trillion dollars over the next ten years. That sounds like a lot of money – and it is. But remember: it is less than we are projected to spend on the war in Iraq. And also remember: failing to reform our health care system in a way that genuinely reduces cost growth will cost us trillions of dollars more in lost economic growth and lower wages.
That said, let me explain how we will cover the price tag. First, as part of the budget that was passed a few months ago, we’ve put aside $635 billion over ten years in what we are calling a Health Reserve Fund. Over half of that amount – more than $300 billion – will come from raising revenue by doing things like modestly limiting the tax deductions the wealthiest Americans can take to the same level it was at the end of the Reagan years. Some are concerned this will dramatically reduce charitable giving, but statistics show that’s not true, and the best thing for our charities is the stronger economy that we will build with health care reform.
But we cannot just raise revenues. We also have to make spending cuts in part by examining inefficiencies in the Medicare program. There will be a robust debate about where these cuts should be made, and I welcome that debate. But here’s where I think these cuts should be made. First, we should end overpayments to Medicare Advantage. Today, we are paying Medicare Advantage plans much more than we pay for traditional Medicare services. That’s a good deal for insurance companies, but not the American people. That’s why we need to introduce competitive bidding into the Medicare Advantage program, a program under which private insurance companies offer Medicare coverage. That will save $177 billion over the next decade.
Second, we need to use Medicare reimbursements to reduce preventable hospital readmissions. Right now, almost 20 percent of Medicare patients discharged from hospitals are readmitted within a month, often because they are not getting the comprehensive care they need. This puts people at risk and drives up costs. By changing how Medicare reimburses hospitals, we can discourage them from acting in a way that boosts profits, but drives up costs for everyone else. That will save us $25 billion over the next decade.
Third, we need to introduce generic biologic drugs into the marketplace. These are drugs used to treat illnesses like anemia. But right now, there is no pathway at the FDA for approving generic versions of these drugs. Creating such a pathway will save us billions of dollars. And we can save another roughly $30 billion by getting a better deal for our poorer seniors while asking our well-off seniors to pay a little more for their drugs.
So, that’s the bulk of what’s in the Health Reserve Fund. I have also proposed saving another $313 billion in Medicare and Medicaid spending in several other ways. One way is by adjusting Medicare payments to reflect new advances and productivity gains in our economy. Right now, Medicare payments are rising each year by more than they should. These adjustments will create incentives for providers to deliver care more effectively, and save us roughly $109 billion in the process.
Another way we can achieve savings is by reducing payments to hospitals for treating uninsured people. I know hospitals rely on these payments now because of the large number of uninsured patients they treat. But as the number of uninsured people goes down with our reforms, the amount we pay hospitals to treat uninsured people should go down, as well. Reducing these payments gradually as more and more people have coverage will save us over $106 billion, and we’ll make sure the difference goes to the hospitals that most need it.
We can also save about $75 billion through more efficient purchasing of prescription drugs. And we can save about one billion more by rooting out waste, abuse, and fraud throughout our health care system so that no one is charging more for a service than it’s worth or charging a dime for a service they did not provide.
But let me be clear: I am committed to making these cuts in a way that protects our senior citizens. In fact, these proposals will actually extend the life of the Medicare Trust Fund by 7 years and reduce premiums for Medicare beneficiaries by roughly $43 billion over 10 years. And I’m working with AARP to uphold that commitment.
Altogether, these savings mean that we have put about $950 billion on the table – not counting some of the longer-term savings that will come about from reform – taking us almost all the way to covering the full cost of health care reform. In the weeks and months ahead, I look forward to working with Congress to make up the difference so that health care reform is fully paid for – in a real, accountable way. And let me add that this does not count some of the longer-term savings that will come about from health care reform. By insisting that reform be deficit neutral over the next decade and by making the reforms that will help slow the growth rate of health care costs over coming decades, we can look forward to faster economic growth, higher living standards, and falling, not rising, budget deficits.
I know people are cynical we can do this. I know there will be disagreements about how to proceed in the days ahead. But I also know that we cannot let this moment pass us by.
The other day, my friend, Congressman Earl Blumenauer, handed me a magazine with a special issue titled, "The Crisis in American Medicine." One article notes "soaring charges." Another warns about the "volume of utilization of services." And another asks if we can find a "better way [than fee-for-service] for paying for medical care." It speaks to many of the challenges we face today. The thing is, this special issue was published by Harper’s Magazine in October of 1960.
Members of the American Medical Association – my fellow Americans – I am here today because I do not want our children and their children to still be speaking of a crisis in American medicine fifty years from now. I do not want them to still be suffering from spiraling costs we did not stem, or sicknesses we did not cure. I do not want them to be burdened with massive deficits we did not curb or a worsening economy we did not rebuild.
I want them to benefit from a health care system that works for all of us; where families can open a doctor’s bill without dreading what’s inside; where parents are taking their kids to get regular checkups and testing themselves for preventable ailments; where parents are feeding their kids healthier food and kids are exercising more; where patients are spending more time with doctors and doctors can pull up on a computer all the medical information and latest research they’d ever want to meet that patient’s needs; where orthopedists and nephrologists and oncologists are all working together to treat a single human being; where what’s best about America’s health care system has become the hallmark of America’s health care system.
That is the health care system we can build. That is the future within our reach. And if we are willing to come together and bring about that future, then we will not only make Americans healthier and not only unleash America’s economic potential, but we will reaffirm the ideals that led you into this noble profession, and build a health care system that lets all Americans heal. Thank you.
Saturday, June 06, 2009
"Medical Fascism:' Fact or Fiction?
I was initially surprised but then dismayed reading in an e-mail message and later on a web site posting by the same author that the
" the greatest threat to American patients in the history of our country.. is the rise of Medical Fascism. Some may wonder - what happened to socialized medicine, isn't that the great threat? While it is true that there are attempts to socialize medical care, the fact is that the power players in Washington are ready to set the rules and then hand the keys of health care spending over to large health insurance companies. This is the definition of fascism: the state decides what corporations will do and the corporations do their bidding while making a profit. As it turns out the very corporations making the profit also control the government."
In a different e-mail the author also calls upon the Florida Medical Association to support a series of public events to " Join up with your local tea party group for marches across the nation on Medical freedom planned by July 4th. Let Congress know you want medical freedom, not medical fascism."
I am concerned not only because I witnessed the devastating effect of REAL Fascism in Europe but because I feel very strongly that the inappropriate use of such a term applied to current politics is an insult to the sacrifice of American patriots who fought in WWII to liberate Europe from Fascism and an affront to the millions of victims of Fascist genocide and mass murder.
What is Fascism? Well, according to Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary Fascism is " a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition."
According to Robert O. Paxton, a professor emeritus at Columbia University, he defines fascism in his book "The Anatomy of Fascism" as:
"A form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion."
NONE of these descriptions define our current political system, in which we have democratically elected a President, democratically elected our representatives on state and national level and maintain the separation of power to PREVENT the emergence of authoritarian and dictatorial rule.
I therefore URGE the leadership of the Florida Medical Association NOT to endorse or support any activities intended to promote the dissemination of such falsehoods which are intended to incite anger and fear and which will separate but not unite us.
I wholeheartedly support the freedom of expression. Nevertheless, such freedom implies responsibility to abstain from any incitement, too.
Our leadership has to decide if we want to represent all doctors in our State, even if we may have different political, social and religious views, or if we want to amplify the radical view of a minority!!
Thats the choice and so far I have not heard ONE of our leaders distancing him- or herself from the opinion expressed by the author who introduce the term "Medical Fascism."
I definitely do so here in public and I will continue reminding others to do the same.
Yours truly,
Bernd Wollschlaeger,MD,FAAFP, FASAM
" the greatest threat to American patients in the history of our country.. is the rise of Medical Fascism. Some may wonder - what happened to socialized medicine, isn't that the great threat? While it is true that there are attempts to socialize medical care, the fact is that the power players in Washington are ready to set the rules and then hand the keys of health care spending over to large health insurance companies. This is the definition of fascism: the state decides what corporations will do and the corporations do their bidding while making a profit. As it turns out the very corporations making the profit also control the government."
In a different e-mail the author also calls upon the Florida Medical Association to support a series of public events to " Join up with your local tea party group for marches across the nation on Medical freedom planned by July 4th. Let Congress know you want medical freedom, not medical fascism."
I am concerned not only because I witnessed the devastating effect of REAL Fascism in Europe but because I feel very strongly that the inappropriate use of such a term applied to current politics is an insult to the sacrifice of American patriots who fought in WWII to liberate Europe from Fascism and an affront to the millions of victims of Fascist genocide and mass murder.
What is Fascism? Well, according to Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary Fascism is " a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition."
According to Robert O. Paxton, a professor emeritus at Columbia University, he defines fascism in his book "The Anatomy of Fascism" as:
"A form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion."
NONE of these descriptions define our current political system, in which we have democratically elected a President, democratically elected our representatives on state and national level and maintain the separation of power to PREVENT the emergence of authoritarian and dictatorial rule.
I therefore URGE the leadership of the Florida Medical Association NOT to endorse or support any activities intended to promote the dissemination of such falsehoods which are intended to incite anger and fear and which will separate but not unite us.
I wholeheartedly support the freedom of expression. Nevertheless, such freedom implies responsibility to abstain from any incitement, too.
Our leadership has to decide if we want to represent all doctors in our State, even if we may have different political, social and religious views, or if we want to amplify the radical view of a minority!!
Thats the choice and so far I have not heard ONE of our leaders distancing him- or herself from the opinion expressed by the author who introduce the term "Medical Fascism."
I definitely do so here in public and I will continue reminding others to do the same.
Yours truly,
Bernd Wollschlaeger,MD,FAAFP, FASAM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)