Charlotte Tea Party Headquarters

From "A Scarlet Stethoscope", http://rnadvocate.blogspot.com/2009/12/lets-unwrap-bow.html

With 1am closing in on me, I am cramming to get as much information as I can about this healthcare bill out there, and unwrap the bow on this abominable Christmas gift that the Senate is trying to put under the trees of the American people. This post is for everyone - in other words, it includes data from non-partisan government offices that have been given the task of analyzing HR 3590.

I’ve said it before – this bill pretty much speaks for itself. The mandates for employers and private citizens are still there – but the public option is gone. Common sense tells me that this bill ends up being an enormous moneymaker for the insurance companies, since there was no removal of the mandates that keep people from buying health insurance across state lines. In other words, everyone has to buy health insurance, but there is nothing in the bill that makes the cost of insurance more competitive for Americans.

What I find interesting is that Congress – on BOTH sides – have assumed that the American people are just going to swallow what they are going to say. They assume that they need to interpret the information for us – I guess they think we’re too dumb to read things for ourselves. I beg to differ. I don’t have a degree in politics. My degree is in nursing and in, of all things, theology. But I’m smart enough to figure things out. And I’m willing to give the American people that credit as well.

So, in this post, I want to put up some posts that have just “cold hard data”. There may be a “hmmm” here and there from me, just because these are things that make me go hmmm…and I have added italics/boldface type for emphasis on things that need your attention - period.

It’s been easy to find opinions on these things from the news media on both sides of the aisle, but to be honest, this particular information (from the Congressional Budget Office and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services) was not as easy to find… not nearly as easy as it was to find various opinions about it. But I did find it – the links are included if you would like to go directly to the website and read these analyses in their entirety.

Simply put, I want people to have an opportunity to read it for themselves. So here we go:

The first report is from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, in their report of estimated costs for the Senate Healthcare Bill (which is often being abbreviated as PPACA. This abbreviation stands for “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”, or HR 3590).

You can find the report from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services online at: http://enzi.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=85899a92-a646-4bca-87b6-81ae629e7533  

“…we estimate that the total national health expenditures under this bill would increase by an estimated total of $234 billion (0.7) during calendar years 2010-2019, principally reflecting the net impact of (i) greater utilization of health care services by individuals becoming newly covered (or having more complete coverage), (ii) lower prices paid to health providers for the subset of those individuals who become covered by Medicaid, and (iii) lower payments and payment updates for Medicare services…”

The CMS’ take on comparative effectiveness research:

“We reviewed literature and consulted experts to determine the potential cost savings that could be derived from comparative effectiveness research (CER). We found that the magnitude of potential savings varies widely depending upon the scope and influence of comparative effectiveness efforts. Small savings could be achieved through the wide availability of non-binding research, while substantial savings could be generated by a comparative effective board with authority over payment and coverage policies…

“…Our interpretation of CER provisions in the PPACA, which allow the Secretary of HHS to use evidence and findings from CER within defined limits in making coverage determinations under Medicare, is consistent with a low level of influence, translating into an estimated total reduction in national health expenditures of $8 billion for calendar years 2010 through 2019…”

Hmmm…

Here’s another doozy from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid report:

“The proposed Community Living Assistance Services and Supports (CLASS) insurance program would produce an estimated total net savings of $38 billion through fiscal year 2019. This result, however, is due to the initial 5-year period during which no benefits would be paid. Over the longer term, expenditures would exceed premium receipts, and there is a very serious risk that the program could become unsustainable as a result of adverse selection by participants…

“Total national health expenditures in the U.S. during 2010-2019 would increase by about 0.7 percent. The additional demand for health services could be difficult to meet initially with existing health provider resources and could lead to price increases, cost-shifting, and/or changes in providers’ willingness to treat patients with low-reimbursement health coverage.”

HMMMM…

These next entries are from the Congressional Budget Office, in an analysis on how this healthcare bill will affect insurance premiums: http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10781/11-30-Premiums.pdf

“[A]n estimated 19 percent of workers with employment-based coverage would be affected by the excise tax in that year [2016]. Those individuals who kept their high-premium policies would pay a higher premium than under current law, with the difference in premiums roughly equal to the amount of the tax. However, CBO and JCT estimate that most people would avoid the cost of excise tax by enrolling in plans that had lower premiums; those reductions would result from choosing plans that either pay a smaller share of covered health care costs (which would reduce premiums directly as well as indirectly by leading to less use of covered medical services), manage benefits more tightly, or cover fewer services…

“In reaction to the tax, many employers would reduce the scope of their health benefits. The resulting reduction in covered services and/or increases in employee cost-sharing requirements would induce workers to use fewer services. Because plan benefit values would generally increase faster than the threshold amounts for defining high-cost plans (which are indexed by CPI plus 1 percent), over time additional plans would become subject to the excise tax, prompting those employers to scale back coverage.”

Go to the links; read it for yourself. Right now, most phone lines at Capitol Hill are gridlocked and voice mails are full. I encourage you to communicate over email, fax, and (I can’t believe I’m actually saying this), but over Twitter. If you are in North Carolina, you can reach your Senators over Twitter at the following “callnames”:

Senator Kay Hagan: @SenatorHagan

Senator Richard Burr: @burrforsenate

You can also follow me on Twitter at @RNAdvocate, and see the messages that I am sending to the Senate as this bill is debated.

More to come.