Poll: Informed Opinions Opposing Health Care Reform
Poll: Informed Opinions Opposing Health Care Reform
Aug. 14, 2009 – Results of a late-July survey indicates the more Americans claim they know about health care reform proposals the more likely they are to oppose them.
The Harris Poll online survey of 2,029 adults in the United States was conducted from July 20 through July 22 and compared results to a similar poll conducted in January to gauge levels of support and opposition to President Barack Obama’s health care reform efforts. The January survey indicated about half of those polled supported reform efforts versus 20 percent opposed despite nearly all respondents indicating they knew nothing about health care reform proposals.
But support has waned and opposition increased as Americans learned more of reform efforts. The July survey indicated about 42 percent continue supporting reform efforts while 38 oppose health care reform proposals.
And as people claim to know more about health care reform proposals, the more likely they are to oppose them. Opposition to health care reform increases from a low of 22 percent among those who claim to know only a little bit about reform proposals to 54 percent opposed among adult Americans who say they know a lot about health care reform efforts. Support for reform efforts stood at only 42 percent among those claiming to be “well informed.”
And as Democrats in control of Capitol Hill return from their summer breaks and resume business, they likely will have learned the public doesn’t share their sense of urgency in getting a reform measure passed this year.
When asked how important it is to get “a major health care bill to expand health insurance coverage” done this year, 34 percent of those polled said it is not important at all while 21 percent indicated it was somewhat important. Only 23 percent of those surveyed answered if was either extremely important very important.
As opposition to health care reform efforts grow among adult Americans surveyed, fewer believe reform efforts would have a positive impact on their lives. Since the January Harris Poll, those who say reform proposals would be good have fallen, with only 35 percent saying there would be an improvement in the quality of health care provided – down from 47 percent in January.
The amount of people who think reform efforts would lead to greater cost containment has slipped from 49 percent agreeing in January to 39 percent in July, and those saying reform efforts would make health care more cost-effective declined from 54 percent in January to 42 percent in July. Some 52 percent of those polled said reform efforts would provide more people with suitable insurance, down from 61 percent in January.
Poll: Majority Favor Health Care Reform But Wary of Cost
Poll: Majority Favor Health Care Reform But Wary of Cost
Aug. 3, 2009 – While a majority of Americans polled in general favor health care reform efforts, the reportedly high cost dissuades many from embracing efforts by federal lawmakers, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation’s July national health tracking poll.
Some 56 percent of those polled indicated health care reform is “more important than ever.” But as they learn more of legislative proposals, support begins to wane. Some 54 percent of those polled worry Congress and President Barack Obama will enact legislation that is bad for their families while some 39 percent of those polled indicated concern that health care reform won’t be completed this year.
With support apparently eroding, a Kaiser Family Foundation official says the potential impact on U.S. families could be the tipping point in the reform debate.
“Public support for health reform will depend on which arguments get through to the American people and, ultimately, how they answer the question of how will health reform affect their family,” said Mollyann Brodie, Kaiser Family Foundation vice president and director of public opinion and survey research.
While those surveyed showed concern about their families, many also are concerned about the potential impact on job providers. Support for a proposed federal mandate requiring employers to offer health care benefits declined by 5 percentage points from the Kaiser Family Foundation’s June poll, falling from 69 percent supporting to 64 percent. Those “strongly” in favor of mandated, employer-provided insurance declined by 13 percentage points, from 42 percent in June to only 29 percent in July.
Depending on arguments provided, the poll indicated a great deal of movement among survey respondents.
“The public wants help with their health care bills and supports health reform, but the hotter the debate and the longer it lasts, the more anxious the public will become,” said Drew Altman, Kaiser Family Foundation president and chief executive officer.
Some 74 percent indicated they were favorable toward health care reform if it meant they could keep their current private health care plans, but 66 percent of respondents oppose reform if it increases their health insurance premiums or other costs.
About half of those polled – 51 percent – said they were willing to pay more to expand health care coverage to uninsured Americans, but those strongly supporting tax increases on Americans earning more than $250,000 per year dropped from 49 percent in June to 40 percent in the July poll. And only 23 percent of survey respondents said they were “very likely” to consider utilizing a public health care option while an equal percentage said they were “not at all likely” to use a public health insurance option.
The Kaiser Family Foundation is a private, nonprofit organization focused on health care and health care issues in the United States.
Health Insurance Price Controls, 12-Year Drug Monopolies Proposed
Health Insurance Price Controls, 12-Year Drug Monopolies Proposed
July 31, 2009 – Several cost-containment measures could become part of federal lawmakers’ efforts to reform the nation’s health care system and provide health care coverage for the estimated up to 50 million Americans currently with no health insurance.
Among reform measures being considered in the House of Representatives is a provision limiting annual health insurance increases and allowing federal Medicare officials to directly negotiate prescription drug prices with pharmaceutical companies.
Reform measures also would require insurers to provide health insurance coverage to everyone without restrictions for pre-existing conditions. To keep costs down, the federal government would subsidize low-income families to help them pay for health insurance coverage.
While proposed reforms wouldn’t become effective until 2013 if approved by both chambers of Congress, a near-certainty is the creation of regional health insurance exchanges in which private health insurers would offer varying levels of coverage and compete against a proposed public health care option. Some lawmakers have sparred over a proposal allowing abortion services to be covered by health insurance plans marketed through the yet-to-be-created health insurance exchanges. But a compromise measure was agreed upon in which the federal government would not require abortion services to be provided nor would ban them in health plans offered through the proposed insurance exchanges.
Health insurance plans marketed through insurance exchanges wouldn’t be able to increase prices by more than 1.5 times the annual increase in medical costs without federal approval. Medical prices increased by an average 3.6 percent during the prior year, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
While the future costs of insurance policies would have strict federal regulation under the proposed reforms, lawmakers voted to allow greater flexibility for drug companies to continue developing new prescriptions drugs to fight deadly illnesses. Pharmaceutical companies that develop new drugs to fight Parkinson’s disease, cancer and other deadly ailments would have 12-year monopolies before lower-cost generic drugs could be developed and marketed at lower costs.
Some critics oppose a 12-year monopoly, saying it would prevent lower-cost alternatives to be made available. But proponents claim the 12-year window is necessary to maintain the incentive for large pharmaceutical companies to continue developing new, more effective drugs and not limit options available to senior citizens using Medicare.
Although federal lawmakers have reached agreement on several key issues regarding national health care reform, any measure must be approved jointly by the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate. Congress has a month-long vacation slated to begin in August and won’t return before September to finalize national health care reform proposals.
Medicare Strike Force Nabs 32 Accused of Bilking Taxpayers of $16 Million
Medicare Strike Force Nabs 32 Accused of Bilking Taxpayers of $16 Million
July 30, 2009 – A federal crackdown on Medicare fraud resulted in 32 individuals being indicted for allegedly defrauding U.S. taxpayers of some $16 million, federal officials announced yesterday.
A joint federal Medicare Fraud Strike Force this week arrested 32 individuals in Texas, Louisiana, Massachusetts and New York and searched a dozen health care providers and homes in the Houston area. The Medicare Fraud Strike Force is a joint effort by the U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Department of Health and Human services in conjunction with various state and local agencies.
“Our Medicare Strike Force is striking back against health care fraud in all its forms and wherever it occurs. We will stop fraud as it is happening, using real-time data analysis of Medicare billing records,” said U.S. Deputy Attorney General David Ogden. “Those who commit health care fraud will not be allowed to steal money from American taxpayers. Anyone operating or considering operating a health care fraud scheme around the country should take notice that they will be held accountable.”
The 32 individuals include doctors, business owners and executives accused of committing Medicare fraud by submitting claims for health care products and services that weren’t needed and many times never provided. Some allegedly fraudulent bills claimed services were provided to persons known to have been dead at the time the services reportedly were provided. Medicare paid out an estimated $16 million for the allegedly fraudulent service claims.
Since the Medicare Fraud Strike Force began operating in March 2007, more than 293 individuals and their respective organizations have been indicted for allegedly defrauding Medicare and U.S. taxpayers of more than $674 million.
While federal officials have begun cracking down on large-scale Medicare fraud, a television station in Buffalo today reported a local man suffering from sickle cell anemia who has no health insurance and is unemployed routinely takes free ambulance rides to the hospital with Medicaid paying more than $118,000 of the cost in recent years.
The television station, WGRZ Channel 2, reported the man took 603 ambulance trips from his home to a local hospital from January 2006 to May of this year. The individual told news reporters he sometimes gets two ambulance rides in a single day and receives medical attention more quickly traveling by ambulance than if he used a cab.
Because Medicaid only pays a portion of the cost for the ambulance and emergency medical personnel, the news report indicates the actual cost of the 603 free rides on the local health care system amounts to about $360,000. Similar Medicaid abuse and fraud cost U.S. taxpayers about $60 billion each year.
CBO Says Public Health Care Proposal Wouldn’t Endanger Private Plans
CBO Says Public Health Care Proposal Wouldn’t Endanger Private Plans
July 28, 2009 – As federal lawmakers wrangle over proposed changes to how Americans obtain health care, the Congressional Budget Office recently said the creation of public health insurance exchanges would not drastically impact private health insurers in the United States.
In a July 26 letter to U.S. Rep. Dave Camp (R-Midland), the Congressional Budget Office estimated between 11 million and 12 million U.S. citizens would opt for a proposed public health insurance plan and not place private health insurers at risk of going out of business. The nonpartisan federal entity estimated some 6 million people opting for a public health care plan would receive health care benefits through the creation of public health insurance exchanges.
Camp sought clarification from the Congressional Budget Office after a private health research company earlier estimated at least 100 million U.S. citizens would opt for a public health care plan proposed by House Democrats. Discrepancies in the estimates result from the Congressional Budget Office estimating the proposed public health care plan would be about 10 percent less costly than current private health insurers’ plans while the Lewin Group based its estimate on the proposed plan costing about 20 percent less than private plans.
The Congressional Budget Office also bases its estimates on only workers at companies employing fewer than 50 being eligible for public plan participation while the Lewis Group’s estimates are based on all workers eventually being allowed to participate in the less costly health insurance exchanges.
Several federal lawmakers supporting the creation of a public insurance exchange cited the Congressional Budget Office estimates as proof a public insurance plan would not be overwhelmed by tens of millions of Americans signing up for coverage, but an independent public policy organization suggests the Congressional Budget Office’s numbers are optimistically low. If companies employing fewer than 50 people are allowed to opt into the proposed public health insurance exchanges, the nonpartisan Urban Institute estimates about 47 million Americans would choose the public plan.
Currently, more than 160 million workers and their family members obtain health care coverage through their employers. But without health care reform, the Urban Institute estimates more than 60 million Americans will have no health insurance coverage 10 years from now and the number of “non-elderly” persons using Medicaid would increase to more than 50 million. Currently, about 44 million Americans too young to qualify for Medicare instead use Medicaid to cover their health care needs.
While estimates of the potential impact of a public health insurance option are debated, the Senate Finance Committee is considering a plan that does away with a public health insurance component, according to a July 27 Associated Press report. Instead of creating a public health insurance option, the Senate panel is considering mandating private health insurers extend coverage to people with pre-existing medical conditions without increasing health insurance rates.
President Barack Obama initially demanded health care reform legislation be completed by August, but several federal lawmakers said the President’s deadline likely won’t be met to allow for more deliberation and hammer out a plan capable of garnering bipartisan support.
Survey: Job Providers Prefer Current Health Care System with Modifications
Survey: Job Providers Prefer Current Health Care System with Modifications
July 27, 2009 – President Barack Obama recently said his plan for health care reform would be beneficial for small businesses that pay a disproportionate amount to provide health care benefits for their workers, but a recent survey of job providers indicates a large majority of those polled prefer modifying the current system.
Respondents to Aon Consulting’s Health Care Reform Survey indicated strong support for continuing the current system of employers providing group health insurance coverage but with a greater emphasis on preventive medicine and managing chronic health conditions. Some 93 percent of those surveyed indicated support for such modifications to the current health care delivery system in the United States.
Although supportive of continuing employer-provided health care benefits, 63 percent of those surveyed oppose a federal mandate requiring job providers to either provide government-approved group health insurance benefits or be forced to pay into a proposed government plan to provide health insurance coverage for uninsured Americans. Creating a public health insurance plan could prove detrimental to current group health insurance coverage, according to an Aon Consulting executive.
“The survey results reflect an opposition to a competing public plan, especially if the public plan is designed based on a Medicare-level reimbursement to physicians and hospitals, which is significantly lower than private-sector plans,” said John Zern, Aon Consulting’s U.S. Health & Benefits Practice director. “As a result, the public plan, if passed and depending on the details, could over time diminish enrollment in group health insurance programs administered by private health carriers.”
Some 81 percent of those surveyed oppose creating a government-run plan similar to Canada’s that would insure all Americans. And if a public plan were created and tax exemptions for employer-provided health insurance coverages eliminated, as proposed, about 22 percent of those surveyed said their respective businesses likely would cease offering health care benefits – placing a greater burden on Medicaid, Medicare and other public plans.
Instead of mandating coverage or creating a competing public health insurance entity, survey respondents said creating more cost-efficient health care delivery systems and eliminating waste would be more effective toward containing health care costs. Changing the way medical care providers and facilities are reimbursed and subsidizing health care costs through additional taxes on alcohol and tobacco products also could offset the high cost of health care.
Focusing on individual health care maintenance through comprehensive prevention and wellness programs and limiting physician liability in some malpractice lawsuits also were cited among “top approaches” toward curbing rising health care costs in America. Providing online tools so individuals can make informed medical decisions while comparing service providers and prescription drug options also were cited as likely cost-containment measures. Many also favor increasing participation in family-practice medical care facilities and improving pay for family doctors as ways to improve medical care and delivery in the United States.
When queried about a potential government-sponsored health care plan, 58 percent of those polled opposed a Medicare-style plan competing with private insurers, and 56 percent said they are against creating a public health care plan for larger employers. There was no statistically significant difference in opinions regarding creation of a public health insurance plan for uninsured Americans with 51 percent opposing and 49 percent supporting the idea.
The June Aon Consulting survey compiled responses from more than 1,100 experienced human resources professionals, benefits mangers and compensation and benefits leaders representing a wide range of job providers – from small businesses employing fewer than 50 to large companies with more than 10,000 workers. The survey sample represents a wide range of businesses located across a geographically diverse area.
Connecticut Legislature Overrides Veto, Forges Ahead on Health Care Reform
Connecticut Legislature Overrides Veto, Forges Ahead on Health Care Reform
July 23, 2009 – As federal lawmakers wrangle over national health care reform issues, the Connecticut Legislature on Monday voted to override a gubernatorial veto and move forward with plans to revamp the state’s ailing health care system.
The veto override means Connecticut will move ahead with a proposal to implement a universal health care coverage plan to take effect by 2012 through the creation of a public health insurance option for residents and small businesses. Connecticut Gov. Jodi Rell cited a $1 billion annual cost she said state taxpayers can’t afford when vetoing the measure. The cash-strapped Connecticut Legislature has been working without a budget since July 1, and no funding component is in place to pay for the program.
The legislation creates an ad-hoc committee charged with writing more detailed enabling legislation by 2011. Preliminary plans include reducing costs through the use of electronic health care records for individuals and improving health care delivery systems without reducing the quality of care provided.
In vetoing the measure, Rell also cited potential conflicts with possible federal legislation currently being debated.
“While it is possible that the reforms that will be enacted in Washington will be complementary to what this bill seeks to accomplish, it is equally possible that they will negatively impact or even invalidate [the state plan],” she said in a July 8 statement.
But advocates for statewide reform argue a federal solution very well may not materialize. President Barack Obama initially set an August deadline for the federal legislation, but U.S. Senate Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) today put the debate on hold until later this year.
“It’s better to have a product based on quality and thoughtfulness rather than try to jam something through,” Reid said during a news conference today.
U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathy Sebelius, a former Kansas governor, on Sunday was told by a bipartisan coalition of state governors that the federal plan would be too burdensome on their budgets. Sebelius met with the bipartisan group of governors during an hour-long meeting to discuss federal health care reform efforts.
Although other governors share Rell’s budgetary concerns, the Connecticut Legislature is determined to bring about health care reform regardless of national efforts. Connecticut officials are targeting the state’s about 300,000 residents currently lacking health insurance coverage, and advocates say any statewide reforms could be adjusted to coalesce with any federal health care reforms that might be enacted. But others are urging caution and say enacting a statewide plan now could result in lost federal subsidies later.
Massachusetts Officials Weigh ‘Global Payment System’ for Health Care
Massachusetts Officials Weigh ‘Global Payment System’ for Health Care
July 23, 2009 – An ad-hoc advisory panel has endorsed a major overhaul of health care delivery and compensation as Massachusetts officials struggle to make the Commonwealth’s plan for universal health care coverage sustainable and long-lasting after mandating all residents have health care coverage more than two years ago.
Massachusetts’ Special Commission on the Health Care Payment System last week fully supported a proposed “global payment system” in which most health care providers no longer would be paid based on individual services provided but instead would compensate them based on established pricing for health care costs delivered to residents over a specific period of time.
Utilizing realized and projected spending for the first four years of the commonwealth’s health care reform efforts, the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation indicates state program spending on health care will have grown by about 68 percent, increasing from $1.04 billion in 2006 to a projected $1.75 billion in fiscal year 2010. U.S. taxpayers are footing the bill for about half of Massachusetts’ increased spending with commonwealth taxpayers accounting for the remaining $353 million in 2010, according to the foundation.
Efforts to extend health care coverage to an additional 432,000 Massachusetts residents who previously lacked health care coverage will cost the state slightly more than $1,620 in annual program costs per additional insured person in 2010, according to the Massachusetts Taxpayer Foundation. Currently, Massachusetts has the highest participation rate of any state or commonwealth with about 97 percent of its residents having some type of health insurance coverage after commonwealth officials mandated health insurance coverage in 2006.
But recent reductions in state revenues have created budgetary shortfalls Massachusetts officials are attempting to fix – likely through the proposed global payment system similar to that just implemented by the commonwealth’s largest health insurer. The nonprofit insurer Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts this year implemented a global payment system for its 2,300 participating physicians and 210,000 policyholders similar to the plan being advocated by the special commission.
A global payment plan ensures individuals will be treated even if they have maxed out their benefits by utilizing funds made available for other patients who have not reached their annual maximums. But individuals utilizing health care services in other states or who otherwise seek services outside of the commonwealth’s health care system would have funding restrictions placed on those services. And some medical specialists would continue to be paid on the current services-provided basis.
The Massachusetts health care reform proposal would create a single system used by health insurers and health care providers to assess the effectiveness of health care delivery and establish budgets. Although a common assessment model would be used, there still would be differing levels of costs based on health care plans and individual health care needs.
A global payment system requiring health care professionals to use a predetermined fee structure will encourage doctors to use only medically necessary procedures and reduce costs by not encouraging them to perform unnecessary and costly tests and other treatments, according to the ad-hoc commission. Health care professionals also would get financial incentives for reducing costs while continuing to deliver first-rate medical services.
Because health insurers would establish a budget for medical providers, those who deliver services for less than budgeted amounts would receive some of the savings. Doctors providing services for people with costlier health problems would be allocated larger budgets for necessary treatments.
Health insurers also would receive financial incentives for reducing costs while the costs of budget overruns would divided among health care professionals and insurance companies.
Some critics have raised concerns that a structured payment system would inhibit the ability of patients to receive medically necessary treatment and that unexpected cost overruns would financially burden hospitals and medical professionals.
Louisiana Faces $700 Million Annual Medicaid Funding Deficit
Louisiana Faces $700 Million Annual Medicaid Funding Deficit
July 22, 2009 – Because billions of dollars in federal aid and insurance claims settlements have flooded the Bayou State’s economy in recent years, its share of federal Medicaid funding has been reduced, causing a projected annual program deficit of $700 million, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal announced Monday.
Jindal says a flaw in how federal officials calculate state shares of federal Medicaid dollars is creating the funding shortfall by including disaster relief and insurance dollars that temporarily spurred economic activity in the wake of 2005’s hurricanes Katrina and Rita and more recent storms. The net effect is a drop in the state’s share of federal taxpayer dollars to help fund the public health insurance program designed to help the poor.
“It’s critical that we fix the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage rate, or Louisianians will suffer the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars all due to a faulty calculation by the federal government, which has absurdly included recovery dollars as personal income,” Jindal said during a July 20th news conference. “The people of Louisiana have been devastated by four major storms in just over three years, and they’re fighting to get back on their feet and should not be victimized again by their own government.”
Jindal wants federal officials to adjust their calculation method to more accurately reflect actual economic conditions in Louisiana and not force state officials to make significant budget cuts in a variety of programs to make up the difference. Louisiana typically gets federal funding covering between 70 percent and 73 percent of Medicaid program costs to provide health care for the state’s poor. But the Bayou State faces the deepest cuts in federal aid of any state – nearly double the funding decrease of North Dakota, which faces the next-largest reduction in federal Medicaid matching dollars.
“This formula will put severe pressure on health care funding, higher education funding and other key Louisiana priorities,” Jindal said, adding that he is working with U.S. Senator Mary Landrieu to rectify the situation.
Unless changed, the Medicaid program shortfall will kick in when the 2010 fiscal year begins in October and federal matching funds are decreased by 5 percent. The federal matching amount is scheduled to drop by another 4 percent in October 2010 – when the U.S. taxpayer match is slated to fall to only 63 percent of Louisiana’s Medicaid program costs. The total drop to 63 percent creates an estimated $700 million in additional annual costs for Louisiana taxpayers.
Jindal said federal officials are including as personal income recent federal stimulus funds, insurance claims and more than $8 billion in federal “Road Home” program disaster relief for rebuilding efforts in the wake of 2005’s hurricanes Katrina and Rita, which devastated New Orleans and other Gulf Coast communities. Including stimulus and disaster-relief funding, Louisiana residents had their per-capita income increase by 42 percent, according to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.
Jindal contends the 42 percent figure is based on temporary economic activity and other factors that don’t accurately reflect the true state of Louisiana’s economy and actual per-capita income.
Health Care Reform Likely Would Increase Costs for States, Working Families
Health Care Reform Likely Would Increase Costs for States, Working Families
July 20, 2009 – States already running significant budget deficits could see their funding shortfalls grow even larger while working families ultimately absorb much of the cost of expanding federal health care coverage through up to a 48 percent increase in income taxes, according to a bipartisan coalition of U.S. governors and a non-partisan health care advocacy group.
A bipartisan coalition of state governors yesterday told U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius they have serious concerns about proposals to expand Medicaid health insurance coverage without providing additional funding, according to the New York Times. Many are concerned about increased program costs being passed on to states that cannot afford a program expansion without increased federal financial support, a group of Democratic and Republican governors told Sebelius during an hour-long meeting.
“There’s a recognition that states don’t have cash right now,” Sebelius, a former Kansas governor, told the New York Times. “It’s difficult to send states the bill if they don’t have the money.”
House Democrats recently approved a plan expanding public health insurance options that federal officials say would costs about $1.4 trillion over a 10-year period but would come up about $500 billion short of necessary funds, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Democrats are proposing some $544 billion in increased taxes, including taxing employee health care benefits – except for union members.
States already are facing a combined $200 budgetary deficit over the next three years, according to the National Governors Association. And any expansion of the public Medicaid health insurance program for the poor could cripple already ailing state economies if the federal government doesn’t absorb the additional costs, Sebelius was told.
But for the federal government to absorb increased costs, many working families ultimately will pick up the tab through increased taxation, according to a recent proposal analysis by The Commonwealth Fund. The organization’s most recent health care brief indicates limiting the amount of untaxed, employer-provided health care benefits would harm rather than help working Americans already at “high risk” of losing their employer-provided health insurance – particularly older workers, employees of smaller job providers, people living in “high cost” regions and Americans employed in traditionally risky occupations, such as construction workers and farm laborers.
When viewed through the lens of comparative taxation levels, low- and medium-income U.S. workers under the current health care system shoulder a relatively small financial load compared to those who earn significantly more, according to The Commonwealth Fund. But eliminating the income tax exemption on employer-provided benefits would hit working families earning less than $50,000 per year much more so than those with annual incomes exceeding $200,000.
About two-thirds of working adults have employer-provided health care benefits, the cost of which is reduced through group health insurance and pooling of health insurance risks according to The Commonwealth Fund. The Congressional Budget Office estimates working families and their employers saved about $246 billion in federal taxes through the health care benefits exemption in 2007. And federal officials anticipate U.S. workers this year will save up to $175 billion and job providers another $100 billion through the health care benefits exemption.
Under the plan proposed by Democrats, taxing health care ben¬efits exceeding $3,000 annually for working individuals and $9,000 for working families would generate about $344 billion in federal revenue from 2010 to 2019. But reducing the tax exemption for workers with annual incomes of $250,000 to $500,000 and eliminating the tax exemption altogether for those earning more than $500,000 would generate only $24 billion in additional tax revenue over the same period, according to The Commonwealth Fund.
And workers earning between $30,000 and $40,000 annually would have an income tax increase of about 48 percent over current levels while those earning between $40,000 and $50,000 would have a 28 percent increase and those earning between $50,000 and $75,000 about a 20 percent income tax increase, according to the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute. Those earning more than $200,000 would realize a total income tax increase of about 0.1 percent.
Because the income tax increase mostly would fall on lower-income workers and families, The Commonwealth fund categorizes the Democratic taxation proposal as “regressive” rather than “progressive.” To be progressive, the cost of the increased taxation would have to be paid mostly by those earning larger incomes rather than those earning less.
The Commonwealth Fund is a private, non-partisan foundation whose mission is to improve the U.S. health care system and expand available health care services for underprivileged U.S. citizens. The foundation provides grant funding for independent health care research to improve public policy and delivery of health care services for Americans and their families.
Poll: Support Continues to Erode for Obama’s Handling of Health Care Reform
Poll: Support Continues to Erode for Obama’s Handling of Health Care Reform
July 20, 2009 – A recent Washington Post/ABC News poll indicates adult Americans are becoming less enthralled with President Barack Obama’s handling of national health care reform.
Poll results show for the first time less than half of those surveyed support the President’s handling of the national health care reform issue. Some 49 percent of those polled indicated support for how President Obama is handling the matter – down from 57 percent supporting his efforts in an April poll conducted by the Washington Post/ABC News.
While those supporting the President’s handling of the issue have decreased, those opposing his actions have risen steeply. Some 44 percent of those polled indicated they disapprove of how Obama is handling national health care reform – a 15 percent increase from April poll results. The Washington Post/ABC News telephone poll queried 1,001 adult Americans from July 15 through July 18, and its results corroborate recent polling results from the Kaiser Family Foundation’s most recent United States health tracking poll.
The June poll conducted by the non-profit, non-partisan Kaiser Family Foundation indicates more Americans surveyed support mandating individuals purchase private health insurance coverage by a slim margin over those supporting mandating employers provide health insurance benefits. A public health care option ranked least popular, according to a Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation poll conducted in June.
The Kaiser Family Foundation survey indicates 71 percent of those polled support individuals being required to purchase health insurance while 69 percent indicated support for an employer-provided insurance mandate. Depending on wording, between 65 percent and 67 percent of those polled also supported a public health care option as proposed by President Obama and being weighed by the House and Senate.
Although the poll indicates initially strong support for some type of national health care reform, when faced with various arguments, survey participants changed their opinions by as much as 40 points, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.
Eroding support for President Obama’s handling of the health care issue somewhat mirrors his decreasing popularity among Americans polled. The Washington Post/ABC News poll for the first time indicated Obama’s job approval rating has slipped to below 60 percent with about 59 percent of those surveyed continuing to indicate the President is doing a good job.
The Washington Post cited concerns over the worsening economy, rising unemployment and federal deficit spending among reasons for Obama’s eroding job approval rating.
House Dems Propose Insurance Mandates, Exchanges and Public Option
House Dems Propose Insurance Mandates, Exchanges and Public Option
July 16, 2009 – House Democrats this week unveiled their version of comprehensive health care reform in the United States that includes mandating Americans buy health insurance coverage or be penalized, creating private insurance exchanges and establishing a public health insurance option to be made available in 2013.
The proposed insurance exchanges would allow individuals and smaller job providers to choose among several private health insurance options along with a public option yet to be created. An insurance exchange could be contained within a single state or be offered in several participating states, and many businesses would be required to offer health insurance benefits to workers or be penalized. Those Americans who do not obtain federally mandated health insurance coverage would be penalized with a 2.5 percent income tax hike.
The plan also would give the sitting president of the United States a great deal of power over individual health care through the creation of a federal “Health Choices Administration” contained within the White House and tasked with establishing benefit amounts and working with various state officials to implement health care reform. Part of the reform would include preventing health insurance companies from excluding pre-existing conditions from coverage. Pre-existing medical conditions generally are not covered until at least six months after obtaining health insurance coverage unless another health insurance plan already provided coverage.
Congressional Democrats estimate 9 million Americans will choose the public health insurance plan while another 21 million will be covered through private health insurance exchanges. Another 164 million Americans will get health insurance coverage through their jobs by 2013, according to House Democrats.
House Democrats also propose a massive income tax increase on wealthy Americans, including a 1 percent increase over current income tax rates for American couples earning more than $350,000 per year, a 1.5 percent hike for couples earning more than $500,000 annually and a 5.4 percent income tax hike for couples reporting at least $1 million in annual income.
In 2013, the income tax rates would increase to 2 percent for couples earning at least $350,000 and 3 percent for couples reporting at least $500,000 in annual income. House Democrats say the increased taxation would accrue $544 billion over a 10-year period. Unexplained is how the increased taxes would be assessed on unmarried individuals earning less than $350,000 per year but at least $175,000.
House Democrats also propose expanding Medicaid coverage for the poor and providing automatic Medicaid coverage to newborns whose parents have no insurance coverage for at least 60 days while the child’s eligibility for various programs is determined.
As reported by Insurance-Website earlier in the week, the most recent Kaiser Family Foundation health tracking poll indicated the creation of private health insurance exchanges garnered the most support among those surveyed while a public health insurance option proved less favorable. Poll results suggest the public will be more willing to accept the version House Democrats revealed on Tuesday than a wholesale dismantling of the U.S. health care system and elimination of private health insurance plans.
But many Americans polled also expressed concern over potential costs, and the version proposed by House Democrats thus far lacks suitable funding. Although Democrats say some $544 billion will be raised over a 10-year period through increased taxation, the Congressional Budget Office estimates their proposal would cost the federal government $1.04 trillion over the same period – leaving about a $500 billion budgetary deficit.
The Number of Uninsured Americans Fluctuates as Lawmakers Examine National Health Care
The Number of Uninsured Americans Fluctuates as Lawmakers Examine National Health Care
July 6, 2009 – As President Barack Obama and Capitol Hill lawmakers wrangle with remaking the nation’s health care system, about 15 percent – 44 million – of U.S. citizens have no health insurance coverage, according to a recent report by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The federal report entitled “Health Insurance Coverage: Early Release of Estimates from the National Health Interview Survey 2008” was created to assess current health care trends in America. The study suggests the number of uninsured Americans rose by about 10 million from 1998 to 2008 despite recent decreases in the number of Americans reported to be without health insurance coverage of any kind.
The latest federal study indicates it Massachusetts, which recently mandated health insurance coverage for all residents, has the lowest percentage – 3.4 percent – of residents under age 65 lacking health insurance coverage. Florida and Texas reported the highest percentage of residents – about 25 percent – under age 65 have no health insurance coverage. About 20 percent of residents in Arizona, California and Georgia also reported not having health insurance coverage. Nationally, about 16.7 percent of people under 65 don’t have health coverage, according to the Centers for Disease Control.
About 80 percent of the insured population in Massachusetts under age 65 has private health insurance coverage. In Florida, about 56.2 percent of adults under age 65 have health insurance coverage, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control. Nationally, about 65.4 percent for people under 65 have private health insurance coverage.
Although the Centers for Disease Control indicates the long-term trend has been for more Americans to go without health insurance coverage, the number of Americans without health insurance coverage in recent years. Thanks largely to increased participation in state and federal health insurance programs, more Americans had health insurance coverage in 2007 than in 2006. The number of people with health insurance rose from 249.8 million in 2006 to 253.4 million in 2007, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
Baby-boomers switching to Medicare and an increase in the number of children from low-income families utilizing Medicaid and other public health insurance programs generally accounted for the increase in the number of Americans with health insurance in 2007. The number of Medicaid recipients rose from 38.3 million in 2006 to 39.6 million in 2007. Medicare added another 1 million members last year, and the military provided health insurance for 400,000 more soldiers and their families than in 2006.
While public health insurance programs have boosted participation, traditional employer-based health insurance and other private sources declined slightly. The percentage of people with private health insurance declined slightly from 67.9 percent in 2006 to 67.5 percent in 2007. The percentage of people with employer-based health insurance also dipped slightly from 59.7 percent in 2006 to 59.3 percent in 2007.
In one state, mandating health insurance coverage helped boost participation. Massachusetts in 2006 enacted a law requiring individuals to obtain health insurance and had the highest proportion of residents with health insurance coverage of any state. Some 92 percent of Massachusetts residents had health insurance in 2007. Texas ranked last among states with 75.6 percent of residents with health insurance coverage last year.
The Number of Uninsured Americans Fluctuates as Lawmakers Examine National Health Care
The Number of Uninsured Americans Fluctuates as Lawmakers Examine National Health Care
July 6, 2009 – As President Barack Obama and Capitol Hill lawmakers wrangle with remaking the nation’s health care system, about 15 percent – 44 million – of U.S. citizens have no health insurance coverage, according to a recent report by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The federal report entitled “Health Insurance Coverage: Early Release of Estimates from the National Health Interview Survey 2008” was created to assess current health care trends in America. The study suggests the number of uninsured Americans rose by about 10 million from 1998 to 2008 despite recent decreases in the number of Americans reported to be without health insurance coverage of any kind.
The latest federal study indicates it Massachusetts, which recently mandated health insurance coverage for all residents, has the lowest percentage – 3.4 percent – of residents under age 65 lacking health insurance coverage. Florida and Texas reported the highest percentage of residents – about 25 percent – under age 65 have no health insurance coverage. About 20 percent of residents in Arizona, California and Georgia also reported not having health insurance coverage. Nationally, about 16.7 percent of people under 65 don’t have health coverage, according to the Centers for Disease Control.
About 80 percent of the insured population in Massachusetts under age 65 has private health insurance coverage. In Florida, about 56.2 percent of adults under age 65 have health insurance coverage, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control. Nationally, about 65.4 percent for people under 65 have private health insurance coverage.
Although the Centers for Disease Control indicates the long-term trend has been for more Americans to go without health insurance coverage, the number of Americans without health insurance coverage in recent years. Thanks largely to increased participation in state and federal health insurance programs, more Americans had health insurance coverage in 2007 than in 2006. The number of people with health insurance rose from 249.8 million in 2006 to 253.4 million in 2007, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
Baby-boomers switching to Medicare and an increase in the number of children from low-income families utilizing Medicaid and other public health insurance programs generally accounted for the increase in the number of Americans with health insurance in 2007. The number of Medicaid recipients rose from 38.3 million in 2006 to 39.6 million in 2007. Medicare added another 1 million members last year, and the military provided health insurance for 400,000 more soldiers and their families than in 2006.
While public health insurance programs have boosted participation, traditional employer-based health insurance and other private sources declined slightly. The percentage of people with private health insurance declined slightly from 67.9 percent in 2006 to 67.5 percent in 2007. The percentage of people with employer-based health insurance also dipped slightly from 59.7 percent in 2006 to 59.3 percent in 2007.
In one state, mandating health insurance coverage helped boost participation. Massachusetts in 2006 enacted a law requiring individuals to obtain health insurance and had the highest proportion of residents with health insurance coverage of any state. Some 92 percent of Massachusetts residents had health insurance in 2007. Texas ranked last among states with 75.6 percent of residents with health insurance coverage last year.
Health Insurance Mandate Likely a Part of Health Care Reform
Health Insurance Mandate Likely a Part of Health Care Reform
April 6, 2009 – Without providing details, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer last week said a law requiring Americans without health insurance coverage to purchase insurance or have their employers provide it likely will be part of the overhaul of the nation’s healthcare system that Congress hopes to enact by the end of the year.
“I think you are going to find mandates will be part of the plan,” Hoyer told Capitol Hill reporters last week.
Several House committees are working to revise the nation’s $2.5 trillion healthcare system to stifle rising costs and provide health insurance coverage an estimated 46 million Americans without health insurance. Advocates for the health insurance industry have said mandating health insurance coverage would create a large enough pool of funds to lower prices while providing coverage for uninsured Americans with costly pre-existing medical conditions.
But many lawmakers oppose mandating health insurance coverage and instead propose creating a public health insurance entity. Hoyer said many congressional Democrats support creating a government health insurance plan, but the notion is opposed by several lawmakers and the health insurance industry.
In a recent letter addressed to four U.S. senators charged by President Obama with overseeing Capitol Hill’s health care reform efforts, representatives of two health care industry trade groups cautioned against a proposed federal health insurance program.
Representatives of health insurer the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association and health insurance lobbyist group America’s Health Insurance Plans said the President’s plan would prevent meaningful reform while putting the federal government in the ethically challenged position of competing against private health insurers. Allowing the government to compete with private health insurance providers would “exacerbate the cost-shift from public programs to consumers and employers in the private market, and destabilize the employer-based system,” their letter contends.
The letter was addressed to Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Montana), U.S. Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), Senate health committee Chairman Edward Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) and U.S. Senator Michael Enzi (R-Wyoming).
The criticism came as the U.S. Senate this week began its confirmation hearings on Obama’s choice for U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services, former Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius.
Obama said he chose Sebelius due to her experience as a governor who faced the dual pressures of dealing with rising health care costs and while attempting to expand Medicaid program coverage in Kansas. Sebelius also is familiar with the health insurance industry, lobbyists for whom will play a key role in potential health care reform, particularly if Congressional leaders break from recent tradition and allow debate on an important spending measure.