Blawg Review (new for us)

Fellow wonk David Harlow is hosting this week's edition of the Blawg (law blog) Review, featuring a roundup of posts about the President's first 100 days in office. Lots to read, and lots of food for thought (although some may give you indigestion).

Recommended.

Read More

Everything You Wanted to Know

about COBRA/ARRA . . . but were afraid to ask . . .

Over 1800 FAQ (for registered members). THE #1 source for all things COBRA including updates for ARRA.

Download a FREE Cobra Guide.

Can't find your answer? Pose your question by email for personal response within 72 hours.

Information for employers and employees alike.

This is an amazing find!

Read More

The Lady with the Lamp (and Grand Rounds)

The folks at Health Blogs Observatory host this week's Grand Rounds, celebrating the birthday of Florence Nightingale. It's a big 'un, too, so head on over!

Read More

Act Your Age

OK, so you know how old you are, but how old is your body?

The docs at Real Age give you a way to find out if you are living a healthy lifestyle or if maybe you need to cut back on the burrito's and cerveza.

Maybe you need to lose weight, or find ways to lower your blood pressure or cholesterol without pills.

Have you lost your sex appeal? Real Age may be able to help.

Check it out.

Read More

Oh, Sure: NOW They Get It!

[Welcome Industry Radar readers!]

For some 4 and a half years, IB's most significant and oft-repeated message has been that health care costs drive health insurance costs. Finally, it appears that someone has listened, but whether or not it's too little or too late remains to be seen:

"Leaders of the health care industry have offered $2 trillion in spending reductions over 10 years. The goal is to make insurance more affordable so the government does not create a system to enroll middle-class workers and their families that directly competes with the health care industry."

That translates to an average of $200 billion per year, which is a non-trivial amount. Is it enough? Good question. A better one would be: and from where would these cuts come? Providers are already screaming about reduced reimbursements from both Medicare and insurers. The reality is that this seems both irresponsible and unlikely.

How's that, you ask?

Well, let's deal with the latter:

"The groups concede that their prices are not going down, they are merely slowing the rate of growth. But economists say the move would create breathing room to help provide health insurance to an estimated 50 million Americans who now go without it. "

Kudos to the economists who seem to "get" that health insurance costs are driven, to a large extent, by health care costs. Raspberries, however, to the folks who think that merely slowing the rate of growth (by how much is left unspecified) will significantly impact the problem. Yes, it's a step in the right direction, but until there's a push for more personal responsibility (and accountability) in both the delivery and financing of health care, we're merely slowing down, not changing direction.

The irresponsible part is neatly summed up about halfway through the Fox piece:

"There's no detail on how the savings pledge would be enforced. And, critically, the promised savings in private health care costs would accrue to society as a whole, not just the federal government. That's a crucial distinction because specific federal savings are needed to help pay for the cost of expanding coverage."

This is a policy statement, not a plan of action (which seems to be the MO of our current political class). Just how does one go about implementing these lofty goals? An email I (perhaps not coincidentally) received this morning reported that "UnitedHealth Group Executive Vice President Simon Stevens spoke about how health care coverage for all Americans is attainable and can be funded by slowing the growth in health care spending in the United States." He made this statement late last month while addressing the Illinois Chamber of Commerce Employer Health Care Conference in Chicago.

If we posit that health care spending will slow, generating enough funds to attain "universal coverage," who's responsible for the "universal" part? It certainly implies that there will be some kind of mandate requiring everyone to buy insurance, whether they want to or not. Does this mean that carriers will be forced to issue coverage on everyone? We've seen how well that works: in every instance, the cost of health insurance skyrocketed. Where are the (alleged) savings then?

Why is it that we see no concrete insurance policy criteria? How about we delete some (maybe even most) of the expensive mandated benefits, and increase deductibles? And if we must require certain benefits, how about some that benefit everyone, not just a politically-connected few? Preventive care benefits, for example, can help to cut costs over time.

As we've seen time and again, there seems to be no move to address the underlying premise: when someone else is paying for our care, money and responsibility are no object. How about we take a look in the mirror, instead of at Washington?

Read More

Health Care Reform

With much fanfare, Washington teleprompter's will be lauding the virtue's of health care reform and how it will save trillions; but what does that mean for those wanting to buy health insurance in Georgia (or any other place)?

Let's look at what is promised and how it will impact you, if at all. According to the Washington Post, here is how it shakes out.

leading groups in the health-care industry have offered to squeeze $2 trillion in savings from projected increases over the next decade

The groups aim to achieve the proposed savings by using new efficiencies to trim the rise in health-care costs by 1.5 percent a year

If you could trim your health care costs by 1.5% per year, how much would you save?

If you spend $5,000 per year on health insurance premiums + unreimbursed health care you would save $75 per year. If you spend $10,000 per year on health insurance premiums + unreimbursed health care you save $150.

So why does this sound like the campaign promises of tax cuts for 95% of Americans? How is that extra $33 per month in take home pay working for you?

For sure, saving anything is better than nothing at all but what do these trillion dollar savings really mean?

The White House projects that the savings after five years under the proposal would mean about $2,500 a year in lower health-care bills for a family of four. Within 10 years, the savings would "virtually eliminate" the nation's budget deficit.

Sure sounds good. Color me skeptical but this is coming from the same guy who promised to get a "shelter" dog for his kids.

And what about that stimulus package? The one that was supposed to create or save 4,000,000 jobs? Last time I checked there are still 500,000+ new jobs lost every month.

The trade groups making the pledge represent a broad spectrum of health-care interests, including the American Medical Association, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the American Hospital Association, America's Health Insurance Plans, and the Service Employees International Union.

"We are developing consensus proposals to reduce the rate of increase in future health and insurance costs through changes made in all sectors of the health system," the groups wrote to the president. "We are committed to taking action in private-public partnership to create a more stable and sustainable health care system."

The groups declined to elaborate on their proposal yesterday, saying they wanted to meet with Obama before doing so.

We have a plan, but we can't tell you what it is. At least not until we meet with the president.

"As restructuring takes hold and the population's health improves over the coming decade, we will do our part to achieve your administration's goal of decreasing by 1.5 percentage points the annual health care spending growth rate," the groups wrote.

As the nation's health improves . . .

According to the CDC, 60% of Americans are overweight or obese.

Research has shown that as weight increases to reach the levels referred to as "overweight" and "obesity,"* the risks for the following conditions also increases:1

Coronary heart disease
Type 2 diabetes
Cancers (endometrial, breast, and colon)
Hypertension (high blood pressure)
Dyslipidemia (for example, high total cholesterol or high levels of triglycerides)
Stroke
Liver and Gallbladder disease
Sleep apnea and respiratory problems
Osteoarthritis (a degeneration of cartilage and its underlying bone within a joint)
Gynecological problems (abnormal menses, infertility)
*Overweight is defined as a body mass index (BMI) of 25 or higher; obesity is defined as a BMI of 30 or higher.

Is Washington going to put us on a diet? Sure the prez is a skinny guy, but he is also a smoker and tobacco use does nothing to promote a healthy lifestyle. This sounds like just another stupid government trick.

Sorry, but to me this just seems like more political rhetoric.

Read More