Google has been thought to be considering working on ways in which people could store their health records on Google and have them readily available for personal needs. It has been quite careful about letting outsiders in on its plans but has just taken action that could suggest this idea is gaining traction.
Google recently appointed its new Health Advisory Council and it is comprised of some 22 very heavy hitters:
Dean Ornish, Founder and President, Preventive Medicine Research Institute
Douglas Bell, Research Scientist, RAND Health, RAND Corporation
Delos M. Cosgrove, CEO, Cleveland Clinic
Molly Coye, CEO, HealthTech
Dan Crippen, Former Congressional Budget Office Director & Reagan White House Asst.
Linda M. Dillman, EVP, Risk Management, Benefits & Sustainability, Wal-Mart
John Halamka, CIO, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center & Harvard Medical School
Bernadine Healy, Former NIH Head, Health Editor & Columnist, U.S.News & World Report
Bernie Hengesbaugh, COO, American Medical Association
Douglas E. Henley, EVP, American Academy of Family Physicians
David Kessler, Former FDA Commissioner, Vice Chancellor-Medical Affairs & Dean, School of Medicine, UCSF
John Lumpkin, Sr. VP, Director of Health Care Group, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
John Rother, Group Exec. Officer of Policy & Strategy, AARP
Anna-Lisa Silvestre, VP, Online Services, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc.
Greg Simon, President, FasterCures
Mark D. Smith, President & CEO, The California HealthCare Foundation
Paul Tang, Internist & VP, Chief Medical Officer, Palo Alto Medical Foundation & Chairman, Board of Directors, American Medical Informatics Association
Sharon Terry, President & CEO, Genetic Alliance
John Tooker, EVP & CEO, American College of Physicians
Doug Ulman, President, Lance Armstrong Foundation
Robert M. Wachter, Professor of Medicine, UCSF, Assoc. Chairman, UCSF Department of Medicine, Chief – Medical Service, UCSF Medical Center
Matthew Zachary, Founder & Executive Director, The I’m Too Young for This! Cancer Foundation for Young Adults
The private sector is stepping up its game!
Google is among the most innovative organizations in the world and should not be undersold as to the potential for success in this undertaking…if that’s what it is.
Friday, June 29, 2007
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Americans Living in Canada Comment on Health Care...
A recent survey of some 310 Americans who have experienced use of health care services in both the U.S. and Canada produced expected results. The full survey results are available here.
The overall result had 74% rating the overall quality of U.S. health care as excellent or good, while 50% of the same group gave Canadian health care a similar rating.
The nod was given to U.S. health care in the areas of accessibility, timeliness, quality, and available technology. Canada scored higher in the areas of personal cost of both health care and pharmaceuticals. Obviously, the government pays the costs of permissible care in Canada, so it was expected that personal financial exposure would be limited.
Wait times in Canada were comparatively quite long with people citing too few specialists and too little government funding.
As government funding was exhausted in Canada, services were rationed by imposition of longer wait times and cancelled surgeries.
This group had experienced U.S. health care within two to five years of the time of the survey and had been covered by Canadian health care since the time of their arrival in that country. The respondents were scattered across the provinces with higher concentrations where the population was greater.
The overall result had 74% rating the overall quality of U.S. health care as excellent or good, while 50% of the same group gave Canadian health care a similar rating.
The nod was given to U.S. health care in the areas of accessibility, timeliness, quality, and available technology. Canada scored higher in the areas of personal cost of both health care and pharmaceuticals. Obviously, the government pays the costs of permissible care in Canada, so it was expected that personal financial exposure would be limited.
Wait times in Canada were comparatively quite long with people citing too few specialists and too little government funding.
As government funding was exhausted in Canada, services were rationed by imposition of longer wait times and cancelled surgeries.
This group had experienced U.S. health care within two to five years of the time of the survey and had been covered by Canadian health care since the time of their arrival in that country. The respondents were scattered across the provinces with higher concentrations where the population was greater.
Monday, June 25, 2007
Senate Dems Use Interesting Tactic to Mount Health Plan...
Senate Democrats used an embargo of the press as they pushed an 11th hour health plan proposal out front of every other proposal. They scheduled an informational hearing for 11:00AM today (Monday), but refused to release details of their health plan proposal until Monday morning.
That seems a very strange way to encourage true debate on this most critical subject. Why, if your health plan is a genuine proposal and worthy of debate, would you keep the information to yourselves. How can we even think of this plan as worthy given the manner in which it is being exposed to public scrutiny?
It appears to be an extension of the Wisconsin Employee Trust Fund package of health plans with provisions for taxes on both employers and employees to pay for the program. The tax rates proposed appear, at first glance, to be low considering that the coverage is quite extensive with minimal co-payments and small deductibles. The plan would be made mandatory for all citizens of Wisconsin except those who are covered under existing federal plans or BadgerCare.
We encourage debate on all proposals…but we need to know the details of each well before the debate begins. These same Senate Dems plan to vote on the Budget Bill on Tuesday, and this plan is now going to be part of that Budget Bill. It appears to be simply a ploy! They cannot be sincere in this effort using such tactics.
That seems a very strange way to encourage true debate on this most critical subject. Why, if your health plan is a genuine proposal and worthy of debate, would you keep the information to yourselves. How can we even think of this plan as worthy given the manner in which it is being exposed to public scrutiny?
It appears to be an extension of the Wisconsin Employee Trust Fund package of health plans with provisions for taxes on both employers and employees to pay for the program. The tax rates proposed appear, at first glance, to be low considering that the coverage is quite extensive with minimal co-payments and small deductibles. The plan would be made mandatory for all citizens of Wisconsin except those who are covered under existing federal plans or BadgerCare.
We encourage debate on all proposals…but we need to know the details of each well before the debate begins. These same Senate Dems plan to vote on the Budget Bill on Tuesday, and this plan is now going to be part of that Budget Bill. It appears to be simply a ploy! They cannot be sincere in this effort using such tactics.
Friday, June 22, 2007
BadgerCare Publishes List to Embarrass Employers...
Wisconsin offers its version of the SCHIP programs called BadgerCare as we’ve discussed previously. Wisconsin has received approval from the federal Department of Health and Human Services to offer BadgerCare to adults as well as to the children for which the program was originally intended.
As a matter of fact, The DHHS Secretary, Michael Leavitt, points out that 75% of the Wisconsin program’s funds are spent on adults. Another tidbit is that Wisconsin covers nearly twice as many adults as children. Not bad for a children’s health program, huh?
Since the state wants to embarrass employers with employees participating in BadgerCare, we’ll certainly assist by adding the link to the list at http://dhfs.wisconsin.gov/badgercare/pdfs/employers0307.pdf .
Obviously, since “everyone” hates Wal-Mart from what I read in the news, Wal-Mart is at the top of this nasty list with 897 employees. Never mind that Wal-Mart employs more than 27,800 people in Wisconsin, just ridicule them for this 3.2% that managed to obtain BadgerCare.
How could that happen? Well, BadgerCare has established some rules that may explain this “unintended consequence”. First, if an employer offers its employees health insurance coverage but doesn’t pay at least 80% of the premium cost, the employee may be eligible. If the employee is earning less than 185% of the federal poverty level, then that person and his or her dependents are eligible for BadgerCare.
How much is 185% of the federal poverty level? For a single person, it is $1,574 per month. For a husband and wife with two children, it is $3,183 per month. For a family of 8, it is $5,329 per month.
Could it be that BadgerCare is too permissive in its attempts to cover children (when nearly twice as many adults as kids are covered)? Could it be that the 80% level of premium contribution placed on employers is too high? Could it be that BadgerCare is intended to bring as much federal largess into our state as possible (ignoring that we over-taxed Badgers are also paying federal taxes)?
Oh, and another thing! Among the culprit employers are these:
The United States Postal Service
The YMCA
Goodwill Industries
The State of Wisconsin
As a matter of fact, The DHHS Secretary, Michael Leavitt, points out that 75% of the Wisconsin program’s funds are spent on adults. Another tidbit is that Wisconsin covers nearly twice as many adults as children. Not bad for a children’s health program, huh?
Since the state wants to embarrass employers with employees participating in BadgerCare, we’ll certainly assist by adding the link to the list at http://dhfs.wisconsin.gov/badgercare/pdfs/employers0307.pdf .
Obviously, since “everyone” hates Wal-Mart from what I read in the news, Wal-Mart is at the top of this nasty list with 897 employees. Never mind that Wal-Mart employs more than 27,800 people in Wisconsin, just ridicule them for this 3.2% that managed to obtain BadgerCare.
How could that happen? Well, BadgerCare has established some rules that may explain this “unintended consequence”. First, if an employer offers its employees health insurance coverage but doesn’t pay at least 80% of the premium cost, the employee may be eligible. If the employee is earning less than 185% of the federal poverty level, then that person and his or her dependents are eligible for BadgerCare.
How much is 185% of the federal poverty level? For a single person, it is $1,574 per month. For a husband and wife with two children, it is $3,183 per month. For a family of 8, it is $5,329 per month.
Could it be that BadgerCare is too permissive in its attempts to cover children (when nearly twice as many adults as kids are covered)? Could it be that the 80% level of premium contribution placed on employers is too high? Could it be that BadgerCare is intended to bring as much federal largess into our state as possible (ignoring that we over-taxed Badgers are also paying federal taxes)?
Oh, and another thing! Among the culprit employers are these:
The United States Postal Service
The YMCA
Goodwill Industries
The State of Wisconsin
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Uninsured In America...
Stuart Browning has produced at least three pieces depicting issues within the health care debate.
The piece titled Uninsured in America is found here .
I hope you'll agree that this needs to be shared with as many people as you can get it to as quickly as you can.
We'll look at two more over the next few days.
The piece titled Uninsured in America is found here .
I hope you'll agree that this needs to be shared with as many people as you can get it to as quickly as you can.
We'll look at two more over the next few days.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Consumers Demand Transparency...
A recent survey (completed in February 2007) conducted for the PNC Financial Services Group by the Boston-based research firm of Chadwick Martin Bailey found that consumers (especially those with high deductible health plans) want more transparency in health care administration.
The survey was based on telephone calls conducted with 150 executives from U.S. hospitals or health systems, 50 executives from insurance organizations and an online survey of 1,000 U.S. consumers.
Six of ten people who have high deductible health plans strongly agree that their families have become more conscious of health care costs, and some 22% said they compared doctors and hospitals to find the best value for their money.
This finding supports the changing environment that is being brought about by consumer directed health care. As consumers are reintroduced to the process of buying their health care, they are quickly becoming more aware of costs and outcomes. As the consumer directed movement continues to expand, it is becoming clear that the marketplace is responding with pricing transparency, better knowledge of outcomes and generally more informed patients.
Hospitals are working diligently to improve their overall ranking in terms of outcomes. Physician groups are focusing on patient communication. Entrepreneurial companies are developing point-of-sale claims pricing systems to enable patients to learn true costs and to pay for services with debit cards.
Employers are very conscious of wellness programs as a part of the solution to bring health care costs down, thus reducing the cost of insurance benefit plans while gaining a healthier and more productive workforce.
Employers are learning if they don’t already know it, that they must share the premium savings with their employees through funding of Health Savings Accounts and Health Reimbursement Accounts. Those who used the high deductible health plans primarily as vehicles to shift costs are coming to understand that this was a short-sighted approach.
Consumer directed health care is maturing and expanding. That frightens some in government and industry. Some in government don’t relish the idea of empowering the individual since people begin to understand that they don’t need big government to take care of them.
Some in industry and labor circles are similarly wary of these programs. Again, control of members can be threatened when the individuals begin to make their own decisions.
Some in the health care industries are not anxious to see patient independence since they are comfortable with the status quo. However, those same health care providers are being forced to change. They will either adapt to this new era, or risk being relegated to the junk heap as another entity that failed to take the necessary action.
There is a growing tide sweeping over the health care landscape and it is called consumerism.
The survey was based on telephone calls conducted with 150 executives from U.S. hospitals or health systems, 50 executives from insurance organizations and an online survey of 1,000 U.S. consumers.
Six of ten people who have high deductible health plans strongly agree that their families have become more conscious of health care costs, and some 22% said they compared doctors and hospitals to find the best value for their money.
This finding supports the changing environment that is being brought about by consumer directed health care. As consumers are reintroduced to the process of buying their health care, they are quickly becoming more aware of costs and outcomes. As the consumer directed movement continues to expand, it is becoming clear that the marketplace is responding with pricing transparency, better knowledge of outcomes and generally more informed patients.
Hospitals are working diligently to improve their overall ranking in terms of outcomes. Physician groups are focusing on patient communication. Entrepreneurial companies are developing point-of-sale claims pricing systems to enable patients to learn true costs and to pay for services with debit cards.
Employers are very conscious of wellness programs as a part of the solution to bring health care costs down, thus reducing the cost of insurance benefit plans while gaining a healthier and more productive workforce.
Employers are learning if they don’t already know it, that they must share the premium savings with their employees through funding of Health Savings Accounts and Health Reimbursement Accounts. Those who used the high deductible health plans primarily as vehicles to shift costs are coming to understand that this was a short-sighted approach.
Consumer directed health care is maturing and expanding. That frightens some in government and industry. Some in government don’t relish the idea of empowering the individual since people begin to understand that they don’t need big government to take care of them.
Some in industry and labor circles are similarly wary of these programs. Again, control of members can be threatened when the individuals begin to make their own decisions.
Some in the health care industries are not anxious to see patient independence since they are comfortable with the status quo. However, those same health care providers are being forced to change. They will either adapt to this new era, or risk being relegated to the junk heap as another entity that failed to take the necessary action.
There is a growing tide sweeping over the health care landscape and it is called consumerism.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Wisconsin Health Plan Follow-up...Chapter Two
Another interesting tidbit that was included in the Lewin Study but wasn’t highlighted is this:
Of the some 2.958 million persons currently receiving health insurance benefits through an employer in Wisconsin, the cost for the Wisconsin Health Plan (WHP) will be less than the current costs for only 736,000 persons.
That means that the WHP, a lesser plan, will cost more for the other 2.222 million persons.
Is that not significant enough to warrant mention rather than to be buried on page 49?
How many other nasty surprises are yet to be found?
Is this really what Wisconsin citizens desire?
Of the some 2.958 million persons currently receiving health insurance benefits through an employer in Wisconsin, the cost for the Wisconsin Health Plan (WHP) will be less than the current costs for only 736,000 persons.
That means that the WHP, a lesser plan, will cost more for the other 2.222 million persons.
Is that not significant enough to warrant mention rather than to be buried on page 49?
How many other nasty surprises are yet to be found?
Is this really what Wisconsin citizens desire?
Monday, June 11, 2007
Wisconsin Health Plan Follow-up...Chapter One
Further exploration of the issues surrounding the Wisconsin Health Plan has turned up some very interesting items.
It seems that the Lewin Study discusses an Option 1 that was really the original Plan up until March, 2007. This “option” is actually the original legislation introduced as AB 1140 and is the plan that was the subject of the Legislative Fiscal Bureau analysis. This “option” was presented to everyone as the health care solution that would be fully funded by an assessment of from 3% to 12% of payroll to be paid by employers, and an accompanying assessment of 2% on employee wages.
An independent analysis by the Wisconsin Hospital Association at the time concluded that this plan was under funded by anywhere from $3 billion to $5 billion. This was met by strong disagreement from the author of the WHP.
Buried in the Lewin Study is the fact that the original Plan was indeed under funded by $3.6 billion. It seems strange that this has not been published. If one didn’t know better, it could almost appear as if the author of the Plan was being a bit disingenuous simply to assure that his Plan would continue moving forward. Apparently the end does sometimes justify the means. When you know best what is right for the 5 million citizens of the state, it simply would not do to have facts derail the proposal.
In fact, the March 2nd version of the report pointed out the fatal flaws of the original Plan, and yet that information has not seen the light of day other than in wonk circles.
Stay tuned…more to come!
It seems that the Lewin Study discusses an Option 1 that was really the original Plan up until March, 2007. This “option” is actually the original legislation introduced as AB 1140 and is the plan that was the subject of the Legislative Fiscal Bureau analysis. This “option” was presented to everyone as the health care solution that would be fully funded by an assessment of from 3% to 12% of payroll to be paid by employers, and an accompanying assessment of 2% on employee wages.
An independent analysis by the Wisconsin Hospital Association at the time concluded that this plan was under funded by anywhere from $3 billion to $5 billion. This was met by strong disagreement from the author of the WHP.
Buried in the Lewin Study is the fact that the original Plan was indeed under funded by $3.6 billion. It seems strange that this has not been published. If one didn’t know better, it could almost appear as if the author of the Plan was being a bit disingenuous simply to assure that his Plan would continue moving forward. Apparently the end does sometimes justify the means. When you know best what is right for the 5 million citizens of the state, it simply would not do to have facts derail the proposal.
In fact, the March 2nd version of the report pointed out the fatal flaws of the original Plan, and yet that information has not seen the light of day other than in wonk circles.
Stay tuned…more to come!
Friday, June 8, 2007
Wisconsin Health Plan Study Raises Questions...
There are many questions about the Lewin Study and the Wisconsin Health Plan.
So far, we have heard, through the press, that the Study affirms this is a great idea, will save money for everyone and answers the health care needs of all but 17,000 people in Wisconsin.
All this begs details to support these conclusions that appear to have been drawn by the WHP creators. Rep. Jon Richards (D-Milwaukee) is trying to “fast track” his WHP but is trying to do so without sharing all the facts.
What we haven’t seen or heard is what questions were asked of the Lewin Group? Were those questions agreed to by all member organizations referenced in the press releases? Have there been changes made to the original Plan? Have there been critical questions asked but not answered? If so, what were those questions? Posed by whom? Etc., etc. etc.
Stay tuned. We’ll continue to dig for answers.
So far, we have heard, through the press, that the Study affirms this is a great idea, will save money for everyone and answers the health care needs of all but 17,000 people in Wisconsin.
All this begs details to support these conclusions that appear to have been drawn by the WHP creators. Rep. Jon Richards (D-Milwaukee) is trying to “fast track” his WHP but is trying to do so without sharing all the facts.
What we haven’t seen or heard is what questions were asked of the Lewin Group? Were those questions agreed to by all member organizations referenced in the press releases? Have there been changes made to the original Plan? Have there been critical questions asked but not answered? If so, what were those questions? Posed by whom? Etc., etc. etc.
Stay tuned. We’ll continue to dig for answers.
Monday, June 4, 2007
National Association of Health Underwriters Offers SCHIP Position...
Congress is currently in the midst of reauthorizing the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), the state/federal block grant program that funds health insurance coverage for low-income children. It is this program that funds Wisconsin's BadgerCare plan for children. The National Association of Health Underwriters (NAHU) feels that during the reauthorization process, Congress has a great opportunity to make it simpler for states to voluntarily use SCHIP dollars to subsidize private group coverage for eligible children who have access to such private coverage through their parent's employer.
Doing so would have the following benefits:
More families would accept employer-sponsored coverage for their children, lowering the number of uninsured children.
The administrative burden on low-income families would be lessened, as families could be covered together on the same health insurance plan.
It would reduce the “crowd-out” of the private market that occurs when parents decline employer-sponsored coverage in favor of SCHIP coverage for their dependents.
It would lower costs by taking advantage of any premium dollars employers are willing to contribute toward their eligible employee dependent premiums—money that is now often “left on the table.”
It would also reduce SCHIP costs because the risk associated with covering the children with employer-sponsored coverage would be borne by the private market plan rather than the public program.
Licensed health insurance producers, who are already helping millions of business owners purchase health insurance coverage for their employees nationally, could provide outreach and enrollment assistance at virtually no cost to the SCHIP program.
We believe this is a wise approach and urge that our state Senators and Representatives give careful consideration to these points.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
