Medicare and Medicaid. You can't pick up a newspaper, look at the news or listen to the radio without hearing about these programs.
The problem is that everything you hear is different depending upon who is saying it. Some of the pundits and politicians have been talking about doing away with the programs and starting over. Others have been trying day and night to bolster and save these essential services and have said that if Medicare, Medicaid and healthcare are balanced right, the programs would save enough money to grow and thrive in the future.
For those of you who depend on Medicare or Medicaid the first thing to remember is that after eons of wrangling about all the programs, lawmakers are getting closer to determining the issues and figuring out answers. According to the lawmakers, Medicare and Medicaid will be saved, and though some things may change, overall, things will be changed - most likely for the better.
Many individuals who are recipients of Medicare or Medicaid are rightly worried. When you hear so much confusing and contradictory information about a program that is your lifeline, it is certainly scary.
To relieve some of the fear and misunderstandings involved here is some positive information regarding Medicare and Medicaid. Lawmakers on both sides of the question have said that they will save Medicare and Medicaid, and the President has said that he will not pass a bill unless this happens. Also, even though there has to be some tough accounting involved, everything that needs to be done to make sure that Medicare and Medicaid are solid and workable and continue covering the millions of seniors and other individuals that depend on the services that these programs provide.
Lawmakers are getting closer to passing the bill and when that happens, everyone will be able to breathe easier and hopefully, put the confusion behind them.
September will be the most difficult month regarding healthcare reform for the Obama administration and the advocates of comprehensive health reform. They knew that it would be a tough month but knowing it and going through it is two different things. This administration and advocates are going through it.
Lawmakers are returning from a break and the President is returning from his vacation. Healthcare reform is not an easy task and has been a tough fight.
On top of everything else, Ted Kennedy – the Lion of the Senate – has now passed away.
Senator Kennedy had served for over 45 years and was a guiding light for lawmakers that were on both sides of the aisle. He was able to explain his point of view tactfully and respectfully so that even those who didn’t agree would still at least listen – and some of them actually heard him and adjusted their thinking on whatever subject was at hand. Of course, there were those times when he could be quite forceful and absolutely nobody missed the point.
.
Now that lawmakers and the President are getting back to action, we will see what happens with these bills. One of the important issues when it comes to health insurance reform is the changes to Medicare.
We have been told that seniors and individuals with disabilities will not lose their benefits; however, there is a lot of spirited debate debating regarding their Medicare coverage.
One approach would be decrease the cost of reform as well as lessening its scope and spend around $600 billion to around $800 billion during the next ten years instead of over $1 trillion which has been proposed as a possibility. Doing this would make it easier on the finances of the federal government, but would be more difficult to actually put into place than doing a comprehensive overhaul of the whole system. Using the lesser figures would actually create a kind of hodge podge of a fix and would not fix two essential issues with the system we have now. There are two many people without health insurance and too many others are getting to the point where, not only can they not afford it, but it is not taking care of their needs at the prices they are paying now.
If there becomes a situation where reform cuts out subsidizing employers regarding health insurance, many people could not afford it anymore. They would be obligated to purchase insurance on their own. If they did not, there is a possibility that they would be fined.
Coverage could be offered to various groups depending on the situation, and hopefully, in time, other groups could be added. The hard part would be who would get this coverage. It is obvious that Medicaid is essential to individuals at or close to the poverty level. Having that program stay solid and be offered to all at that level would be an expensive proposition – around $40 billion in the next ten years. Yet going without it would cause extra problems – people at the poverty level who could not receive Medicaid could end up at the ER for things that could have cost the government hundred or thousands of dollars less had they been covered by Medicaid and allowed to simply see a doctor or a clinic. Essentially, if people in this position are not covered by Medicaid, they still get sick and the bills for those ER visits and other medical services for those who are not covered by Medicaid are partially absorbed by the hospitals as a loss and, you guessed it, paid by the government, thus affecting our taxes.
Medicare is another program that is essential to save. As Boomers are becoming retirement age they will be ready to enroll in hordes, so they will need to be able to have this coverage. Most Boomers are a little more prepared for retirement than the last generation, so there may be a little breathing room as they transition, however, Medicare must be fixed and saved, and the President has promised not to cut this program, rather to save it and make it work.
The challenge now is for congress to find a way to make sure the uninsured are insured, find the money to pay for comprehensive healthcare reform and save these two programs – Medicare and Medicaid – while working to make all this affordable while moving into the future.
For now, we are all waiting to see what congress comes up with.
Seniors throughout he country are extremely concerned and worried about their Medicare benefits. Everytime they hear the words "healthcare reform" they cringe, worried that as money continues to get tighter and cuts are made to many programs, they will lose critical and essential benefits that in many cases keep them alive and out of the hospital.
At a telephone town meeting Tuesday, President Obama answered questions from mostly seniors. One of the things that he said to reassure these older Americans regarding their Medicare benefits was, “Nobody’s trying to change what does work in the system,” Obama told the estimated 180,000 listeners. “We are trying to change what doesn’t work in the system.” There have been many delays when it comes to the healthcare issues, people are getting quite nervous and confused. “Nobody is talking about cutting Medicare benefits. I just want to make that absolutely clear,” the President said emphatically. When he introduced President Obama, AARP CEO A. Barry Rand said: “There’s a lot of misinformation about health care reform—even on what AARP stands for, and what AARP supports. This town hall is part of our ongoing effort to debunk myths and provide accurate information.” He added: “I want to make it clear that AARP has not endorsed any particular bill or any of the bills being debated in Congress today. We continue to work with members of Congress on both sides of the aisle and with the administration to achieve what is right for health care reform.” AARP president Jennie Chin Hansen also cited confusion expressed in questions that have come from thousands of members who have participated in previous AARP town halls. “Like, will the government tell my doctor how to practice medicine?” The idea behind this unique town hall meeting was to calm the fears of individuals - particularly seniors - who are nervous, or downright frightened, about what will happen to their Medicare and Medicaid benefits and ultimately to their health. The president said that overhauling the healthcare system is a high priority, however it is not an easy task and he wants to make certain that it is done right. “I know there are folks who will oppose any kind of reform because they profit from the way the system is right now. They’ll run all sorts of ads that will make people scared.” He pointed to the past and reminded people that this has all happened before, it is not just unique to our time or the current situation. “Back when President Kennedy and then President Johnson were trying to pass Medicare, opponents claimed it was socialized medicine,” he said. “When you look at the Medicare debate, it is almost exactly the same as the debate we’re having right now. Everybody who was in favor of the status quo was trying to scare the American people saying that government is going to take over your health care, you won’t be able to choose your own doctor, they’re going to ration care.” He also added this thought: “You know what? Medicare has been extraordinarily popular. It has worked. It has made people a lot healthier, given them security. And we can do the same this time.”
This is a question that keeps going back and forth between all of the individuals who are working hard to come to a solution to the healthcare and Medicare woes. Each side of the issue feels strongly about their position.
One side says that Medicare needs to be done away with or completely changed. They feel it has too many flaws and issues, as well as financial deficits, so that we might as wel start from the beginning and build something new.
The other side feels that the foundation of Medicare is perfectly fine and started out differently than it is being used now. Still, the foundation could still be used now with a few changes to make it work better.
From a lot of articles I have read, though there are flaws in Medicare and the need to be adjusted, as most or at least half of the the individuals involved in the debate agree, the foundation is solid, and after all, it has worked for several decades.
Part of the issue, of course, is that the beginning, there were a lot fewer Medicare recipients at that time. In addition, the costs of medical care were far lower than they are today. So lawmakers have been working on both ends of the issues - trying to get healthcare costs under control while at the same time, trying to make sure that Medicare recipients get their needs met to the extent possible.
This can be a model for healthcare reform from the standpoint because if the foundation for Medicare is used to build upon to reform healthcare, it could eliminate some or most of the flaws as well as making medical care available for all.
Time will tell how all the situation works out for both Medicare and Helthcare reform. Hopefully the reforms will result in at least basic medical care for all, which is something that is sorely needed in this country.
It's no secret that Medicare has problems to be fixed. However, the issue regarding oxygen support for patients on Medicar who need that type of treatment to basically stay alive is confusing Medicare recipients. The gist of the proposal by President Obama and his team working on Medicare and Healthcare reform is that first of all, patients will continue receiving their oxygen.
This is an important point, since the way it sounds as lawmakers are hashing ths out is that patients coule lose their oxygen care. This should not happen. It is an issue to be hashed out with oxygen providers and not patients. What is actually proposed is that from the time that individuals on Medicare begin oxygen, suppliers and providers will provide it at their regular prices for the first three yeas that it is being provided.
Once the three years are up, the providers will continue providing oxygen services at a lower price for two years and then they will go back up to their regular price, or if there is enough money by then, they may receive a slightly higer price because they hung in there and kept providing services at the lower price for those two years. This is the part where it gets sticky because, as you can imagine, suppliers and providers aren't too happy about getting a dock in pay.
As part of the Medicare reform, the President and lawmakers are trying to figure out this part of the deal for oxygen suppliers. They are trying to make it affordable for suppiers and providers to be able to continue suppling oxygen to their customers.
After those two years at a decreased amount in pay to the providers and suppliers, the price, as we mentioned above, will go back up to the prevailing price or possibly a little higher, as a sort of bonus for the sacrifice made during those two years. The important thing about all of this is that Medicar recipients who rely on oxygen services will continue receiving them.
Most oxygen service companies do not just serve Medicare recipients meaning that they have income from other sources, plus they get to know their Medicare clients over the years, so most of them will continue to help them because we are all human trying to help one another. The President and lawmakers are trying to take the money they have for Medicare services and, instead of making huge cuts in one area, they are trying to make smaller cuts in several areas so that providers including oxygen suppliers, home health care, doctors, nurses, technicians, hospitals and more, can continue to provide services.
They are trying to find a way to make it affordable to the healthcare providers without taking those services away from Medicare recipients that depend on them. As for oxygen services, if you are on Medicare and receive oxygen services, they will remain uninterrupted. Three years down the road, you may have to switch providers if your provider is not willing to take a cut in pay, however, you will still have services - just from another company.
Also, since the President and lawmakers are still working on this, it may actually turn out better than some people think. After all, if I provide you services at a good price for three years, then take a cut in pay for two years knowing that after that, I will be providing for you at a higher price after those two years and there will be no more cuts, I am not going anyplace because I have a loyal, long term client that I may be serving for 10 or 20 years. When I look at it that way, what's two years at a lower pay? So, those of you on Medicare using oxygen services, don't start worrying.
The government is trying to figure out a fair way to keep your services going. You will not have to give up your oxygen. Your provider may have to be willing to be more flexible during those two years if possible, or you will get a new provider. So try not to worry and just breathe a little easier.
The current administration is trying to create big changes in Medicare as they try to overhaul and reform the healthcare system. This could mean something quite new for seniors and may be a template for reforming healthcare in this country in general.
The idea is to create less waste in the entire healthcare system and strengthen Medicare, as well as covering the uninsured.
Medicare covers about 45 million Americans who are elderly or disabled, and its policies are followed by many private insurance companies when they set up their internal systems. The new approach and ideas for seniors would helMedicare p medical professionals stress and help patients with follow-up care by their family doctors and nurses so that more chronically ill patients could avoid being hospitalized and re-hospitalized when chronic problems such as high blood pressure get out of control.
There would be changes for doctors and hospitals, too. Primary care doctors who care for patients on a more constant basis would be paid more, while specialists would be watched more closely, especially as they order more tests and procedures. Hospitals could have to pay penalties if they did not provide adequate follow-up care, therefore having the same patients continually being readmitted for the same problem.
Medicaid would also see similar changes, which would affect most of the 50 million low income people that they cover.
“Medicare is going to be the driver to achieve quality reforms, in large part because the other players tend to follow Medicare,” said Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., the Finance Committee chairman. Baucus aims to have a bill on the Senate floor this summer that would restrain costs and cover the estimated 50 million uninsured.
The committee meetings that are slated will iron the details out, and some of the meetings have already started. This effort is aimed at helping even out who pays for these benefits and how. The sickest 10% of the patients account for nearly 2/3 the cost that Medicare spends per year. These are frail individuals who usually have more than one serious chronic condition such as high blood pressure, diabetes and heart disease. The cost is so high because they are seeing several specialists for each issue. If the changes that are being examined can be put into place, they could be seeing one doctor who could control and coordinate the other treatment they receive, eliminating duplicate procedures and eliminating waste.
If and when lawmakers are able to straighten the health care fragmentation out, it is very possible that everyone could get good care and save money at the same time.
Washington is trying to fix heath care and Medicare. Mark McClellan, a well respected think tank guru, said recently "It's a lot harder to come up with ways to implement reforms than it is to come up with ideas for reform," he said.
McClellan, 45, is an Austin native from a strongly political family. Brother Scott was President George W. Bush's press secretary. Their mother, former Texas Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn, ran for governor in 2006.
Mark McClellan was a major policy figure in health care during the Bush administration. While most of his former colleagues are now in the political wilderness, McClellan is using his post at Washington's Brookings Institution to keep moving in the circle of implementers who want to "bend the curve" of rising health care costs.
Along with several other health care experts, McClellan is trying to persuade President Barack Obama's reform team and Congress to pay hospitals and doctors more if they can show they're improving treatment for Medicare patients while lowering costs.
McClellan argues that sharing savings could keep Medicare viable without bankrupting the federal government. "Right now, we are getting what we pay for – high-volume, high-intensity health care," he said. "Often, there's no support for preventive care."
White House Budget Director Peter Orszag says McClellan's approach is extremely closely aligned with the Obama administration's views on the need to change payment incentives.
"We have the same basic philosophy," Orszag said. "There are huge variations in health care costs across different regions of the country that can't be explained other than because of the intensity of care. ... We need to change the incentives so we get better care, not more care."
Medicare accounts for 20 percent of health care spending, pays providers on a fee-for-service model. Each visit, each test, each procedure a doctor performs pays a certain amount. The system creates an incentive to see lots of patients, lots of times.
For many years, reformers have argued in favor of payment systems based on performance rather than volume. Pay-for-performance advocates argue their approach gets patients the most effective type of care rather than an uncoordinated cascade of diagnostic tests, prescriptions and treatments.
Dr. Elliott Fisher of Dartmouth's Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice developed a pay-for-performance approach called Accountable Care Organizations that McClellan is now backing in Washington.
Fisher came to his model after sifting data that shows Medicare pays twice or even three times as much per patient in different parts of the country. The average enrollee in Medicare in Dallas, for example, consumes $10,103 a year in medical treatments, while Medicare enrollees in Salem, Ore., get by on half as much.
Fisher argues the regional cost disparities can be bent toward lower costs if physicians group together around hospital networks where each Medicare patient's care is coordinated and each treatment is evaluated for quality and effectiveness.
If the network can demonstrate its care regimen reduces average spending by 2 percent or more a year, the doctors and hospital would get bonuses amounting to 80 percent of the savings. If the network fails to meet either its quality or savings targets, its compensation would be penalized. "We need some big changes to address quality and regional disparities," McClellan said.
Len Nichols, a health care economist who worked on the Clinton administration's failed reform effort, said the reform emphasis now was less about ideas like pay-for-performance than ways to implement them. "None of these are new ideas," he said. "What we have is a sense of economic urgency driven both by the fiscal realities of our Medicare program and, obviously, the economic situation we're in right now. "We really shouldn't dither any longer about doing serious reconstructive surgery on our health system...We should start this afternoon. The longer we wait, the greater the costs."
This need to implement change is where Nichols and others see McClellan playing a role in the current debate. John Goodman, president of the Dallas-based, conservative National Center for Policy Analysis, said McClellan is "the single-most respected person in health care policy. He's both a medical doctor [Harvard Medical School] and a Ph.D. in economics [Massachusetts Institute of Technology]," Goodman said. "Most people in this debate are neither."
The health care debate is just getting started, and how much success McClellan will have is uncertain. For now, though, he's a busy man, shuttling between the White House, Congress and federal health care agencies. His phone directory includes the heads of major health centers across the nation, including Parkland and Baylor.
