Every lobbyist swarming Capitol Hill these days knows that, when it comes to legislation, the devil is always lurking in the details, not lounging in the concepts. Yet concepts, not details, are drifting down to the public—who will be in for a surprise when they realize that reform is not what they think it is. How these details are hashed out, or slipped into a bill at the eleventh hour is crucial to the success or failure of reform. This is the fifth of a series of occasional posts that will look at where the devil lies in key provisions of the health care bill. The entire series is archived here.
Friday, The New York Times listed a bunch of provisions a scaled-back health reform bill might address: tax credits to help small businesses buy health insurance for workers; coverage for kids under age nineteen who have pre-existing conditions; financial incentives to states for expanding Medicaid to cover childless adults and parents. Medicare changes might include rewarding doctors who provide high-quality health care, and reducing the ever-rising payments to doctors and hospitals. Then there’s the much-loved goal of closing the donut hole in Medicare’s prescription drug benefit. That would help people who take very expensive medicines.
There was no mention of the two-year waiting period that some must endure before becoming eligible for Medicare benefits. This waiting period disproportionately affects the 1.8 million people under age 65 who are too sick to work and have qualified for Social Security disability payments, not an easy thing to do. They have been waiting for more than three decades for Washington to hear their pleas. For awhile this time around, the disabled community thought Congress would phase out or eliminate the waiting period, giving them the health care they need but can’t afford. Most have lost coverage from their employers, don’t qualify for a policy because they are sick, and couldn’t afford one anyway.
Closing the donut hole, though, has more cache. But the real reason it’s high on the list is that it may be cheaper than helping the disabled. Covering all the people in Medicare’s waiting period would cost $113 billion over ten years; Congress would rather spend that amount on other groups of people. Remember—the drug companies agreed to pay half the cost of brand name drugs for seniors whose pharmaceutical expenses had hit the donut hole limits, a gesture that also lets them expand the market for their most lucrative products. By any measure that’s a win-win for Pharma.
No large special interest group is offering to help the disabled. What’s the payoff for helping these people who are already used to waiting? Their loose alliance of supporters, the Coalition to End the Two-Year Wait for Medicare, gets almost no attention and lacks Big Pharma’s loud bark.
The press had pretty much ignored the Medicare disability problem until last week, when Ricardo Alonso- Zaldivar of the Associated Press wrote a piece called “Health bill has coverage problems—Disabled workers face Medicare wait.” We were pleased to see Zaldivar address the matter, and the AP is a good outlet in which to do so. Presumably thousands, maybe millions, of readers across the country saw his story. He reported the medical worries of sixty-one-year-old Lea Walker, a disabled former home health nurse in North Carolina, who has trouble walking to her front door. Zaldivar talked to New Mexico Sen. Jeff Bingaman, who tried to push for a phase-out of the waiting period. Bingaman tried to put a positive spin on a festering problem:
I think everyone needs to realize this is going to be a first, very major step toward health care reform and then there will be a need to come back in the next several years and make midcourse adjustments.
Mid-course adjustments in the next several years? What are the disabled supposed to do in the meantime? Tough it out? Bingaman said the bill would fix “an awful lot of the problem.” Zaldivar challenged that assertion, noting “it’s not clear how well that [the proposed bill] would work.” The great big bill, which may be in jeopardy anyway, would let sick people buy policies immediately, through high risk pools.
- 1
- 2
During the campaign, Obama's economic advisor Austan Goolsbee conceded to the Wall Street Journal that Obama wasn't going to be able to help the sickest one fifth of Americans (the uninsurables) much, because they were "too expensive". You can read this at:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119681696156513818.html
That was the only time they ever admitted this but their legislation consistently has these very nasty catch 22s that especially hurt those with serious illness. These catch 22's are aimed at sick people and their effect will be to dump the ill by setting traps for them financially.
I suspect that a statistician could prove this mathematically by examining the finer points of each bill to show how they have preserved these hidden traps through successive changes in legislation.
If you could pick out one reason why many progressives increasingly dislike the Obama administration, its stuff like this.
Constrast this with the Canadian government's policy of avoiding all premiums and user fees because "Research has long proven that user fees won’t eliminate inappropriate care nor do much to reduce costs, and even the claim that patients waste healthcare resources is faulty."
http://www.chsrf.ca/mythbusters/html/myth4_e.php
"Myth: User fees would stop waste and ensure better use of the healthcare system"
"There’s an old idea that frequently sparks debate: that patients rampantly abuse the healthcare system. They indulge in unnecessary, expensive medical procedures all because they can get them for free. So why not teach Canadians to be more responsible by making them pay a charge for every health service used?"
"Because the idea just doesn’t hold water. Research has long proven that user fees won’t eliminate inappropriate care nor do much to reduce costs, and even the claim that patients waste healthcare resources is faulty."
.. Quite a difference
I think many of us realize that the Democrats made a huge mistake in allowing this to happen. The right seems to have taken over both parties and the government.
#1 Posted by Carl M, CJR on Tue 26 Jan 2010 at 02:32 PM
Carl, your "Mythbusters" study shows health care usage reductions varying from 10% to 40% with user fees. Looks pretty darn significant to me.
Let's hope the Democrats' decision to put Obamacare on hold means this monstrosity is dead. Then maybe we'll get a chance for some real reform, not a pile of bribes to special interests.
#2 Posted by JLD, CJR on Wed 27 Jan 2010 at 12:10 AM
The conclusions of all the studies out there pretty much agree with what I posted,
"the idea just doesn’t hold water. Research has long proven that user fees won’t eliminate inappropriate care nor do much to reduce costs, and even the claim that patients waste healthcare resources is faulty."
Only the poor cut back on care, and unfortunately, they tend to be the sickest, and so the net cost "savings" turns out to be a loss, because they end up far sicker in the long run. Isn't that obvious? A stitch in time saves none.
Even the World Bank has renounced their previous endorsements of user fees (premiums, co-pays) in accessing medical services and developing nations like Nigeria and Kenya are trying to eliminate them. The reason is that its often the poor who find them a barrier. And again, they are the people who need care the most, because they have neer received good care.
#3 Posted by Carl M, CJR on Wed 27 Jan 2010 at 01:31 AM
That's known that cash makes us autonomous. But what to do if one does not have cash? The only one way is to try to get the loan and short term loan.
#4 Posted by FloresMelba, CJR on Thu 4 Mar 2010 at 03:07 PM