Category Archives: Health Plans

Disaster Averted

Yesterday’s crushing defeat of the so-called “American Health Care Act” or AHCA, signals the end of the seven-year long attempt by the Republican Party to legislatively kill the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

Yet, as was pointed out on one cable news network last night, it won’t stop the health insurance industry from getting the Republicans in Congress to kill parts of the law slowly by eliminating the taxes that go to pay for the coverage.

Call it “genocide by stealth”, since millions of Americans will die, as per the Congressional Budget Office (CBO’s) scoring of AHCA. If they can’t kill the law outright, the so-called “Freedom Caucus”, actually the Congressional version of the Tea Party, will kill it slowly.

Why do you think they keep saying it is a disaster and it is crumbling? It’s because they are dead set against anyone getting health care unless someone else can make a profit from selling a policy.

Then there is the other question, the one usually raised by liberals and progressives, especially those who supported Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders last year in the primaries, as to why we are the only Western country without universal coverage.

The answer is complex, but not complicated (“who knew health care was so complicated?). First, everything the government of the US has ever implemented for the benefit of people has had to pass muster with the Constitution. It either has to be covered by the Constitution directly, or implied through the taxing mechanism.

Second, the Founding Fathers never mentioned or promoted the right to health care, as the prevailing political and social philosophy of the day was concerned with freedom, liberty, and private property. It has been unclear what, if anything, was meant by the phrase, “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”, let alone, the phrase, “promote the general welfare.”

Why they never mentioned health care and why other nations have it, is due to the fact that the US was founded during the first half of the period historians call, “the Enlightenment”, when the right to private property, liberty, and freedom were the topics of discussion on both sides of the Atlantic. Basically, the difference between Classical Liberalism (Conservatism) and Modern Liberalism (Liberalism) is between negative rights (the right not to be killed) versus positive rights (the right to a job, education, housing, health care, etc.)

Canada gained its limited independence from Britain nearly a hundred years after we did, and therefore was influenced by the philosophy of the second half of the Enlightenment, which stressed involvement by government in the economy.

The only time the Founders cared about providing some kind of health care plan was directed towards a particular group of citizens in the late eighteenth century, as I wrote about in this post.

What is now called the Public Health Service began as a government-sponsored, health plan for merchant sailors on ships entering and leaving US ports and on inland waterways. It was never challenged in the Supreme Court as unconstitutional, nor was it ever attacked by members of the opposition party. In fact, it was supported by both Federalists and Anti-Federalist politicians of the day.

The third reason why we don’t have universal, single-payer is because the government allowed employers to provide coverage during WWII to attract women into the workplace when the men went overseas. The UK is often cited as an example for single-payer, but what most supporters of this type of plan do not realize is that because of the devastation the UK suffered at the hands of German bombs, their health care system needed to be re-built from scratch, so the government stepped in with the NHS. Even Churchill supported it.

Fourth, we have always provided health care to certain at risk groups like the poor (Medicaid), the elderly (Medicare), and to children (CHIP), as well as to former service persons and their families (Tricare), etc. Perhaps the way to begin to get universal coverage is to merge all of these programs into one, then expand it to cover everyone else.

But for the time being, a major disaster was averted, but we should not think this is the end of the debate, nor is there victory. The battle lines are drawn, and the enemy is not surrendering. This is not a time for congratulation, but for vigilance and resolve.

 

Damned If You Do, Damned If You Don’t

“You can always count on Americans to do the right thing – after they’ve tried everything else.”

Winston Churchill

“Our policy is to create a national health service in order to ensure that everybody in the country irrespective of means, age, sex or occupation shall have equal opportunities to benefit from the best and most up-to-date medical and allied services available.

Winston Churchill

 

Veering away from the usual topics covered in this blog, I thought about some recent articles I saw about the attempt to repeal and replace, or to simply repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which the current political regime wants to do.

The first article, in yesterday’s [failing] New York Times, warned that repealing the ACA would make it harder for people to retire early. Those who retire early, before reaching 65, can get retiree coverage from their former employers, but not many companies offer that coverage.

Those early retirees poor enough could turn to Medicaid, and everyone else would have to go to the individual market. Without the ACA, health care coverage would be more difficult to get, cost consumers more where available, and provide fewer benefits.

According to the article, if the ACA is repealed, retiring early would become less feasible for many Americans. This is called job-lock, or the need to maintain a job to get health insurance.

This is one of the concerns the ACA was supposed to address, in that it would reduce or eliminate job lock. Repealing the law could, according to the article, affect employment and retirement decisions.

The second article, from Joe Paduda, also from yesterday, reported that improving healthcare will hurt the economy, and Joe lays out the arguments for doing something or doing nothing to improve health care and what effect they would have on economic growth.

For example, Joe states that healthcare employs 15.5 million full time workers, or 1 out of every 9 job. In two years, this will surpass retail employment. As Joe rightly points out, those jobs are funded by employers and taxpayers. He suggests that some experts argue that healthcare is “crowding out” economic expansion in other sectors, thereby hurting growth overall.

But Joe also points out that by controlling health care costs, employment will be cut, and stock prices for pharmaceutical companies, margins for medical device firms, and bonuses at health plans will also be affected.

So, if cost control and increasing efficiency works, these lost jobs, reduced profits, and lower margins, Joe says, will hurt the economy. The economy will suffer if the health care sector is more efficient, and since healthcare is also a huge employment generator and an inefficient industry, fixing that inefficiency will reduce employment and growth.

Thus, the title of this article, “Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.”

But wait, there’s more.

Yesterday, a certain quote has been making the rounds through the media. It was uttered by Number 45. “Nobody knew health care could be so complicated.”

Yes, it is complicated and complex, but does it have to be so? If we consider the second Churchill quote above, and realize that the UK, France, Germany, Canada, and many other Western countries have some form of single payer, then one must conclude that it is only the US that has complicated and made too complex, the providing of health care to all of its citizens.

There are many reasons for this, which is beyond the scope of this article or blog, but there is one overriding reason for this complexity…GREED. Not the greed of wanting more of one thing, but the greed of profit, as one executive from an insurance company stated recently.

This brings me to the last of the articles I ran across yesterday. It was posted on LinkedIn by Dave Chase, founder of the Health Rosetta Institute. He cited a segment on the Fox News Channel’s Tucker Carlson program, in which Carlson interviewed a former hospital president who said that pricing was the main problem with the US healthcare system.

Mr. Chase does not solely rely on Carlson’s guest in his article, but cites other experts in the field as evidence that pricing failure is to blame.

If we are to except this as true, then it buttresses my point that the overriding problem is greed, for what else is the failure to control prices but a symptom of greed inherent in the American health care system, and something that does not exist elsewhere in the Western world.

Which brings me to Churchill’s first quote above. Since we Americans have tried the free market system of health care wanting, and have tried a reformed free market system, perhaps it is time to go all the way to a government-sponsored, Medicare for All, single payer system.

The bottom line is: we’re damned if we do, damned if we don’t. The question is, which is the lesser of two evils.

UPDATE: Here is Joe’s take on what will happen to the ACA in the next two years. I agree with his assessment.

Fam Tours for Self-Insured Employers

The subject of medical travel for self-insured employers is one that this blog has rarely discussed from the point of view of the medical travel facility.

Previous posts here have discussed a possible scenario for medical travel by self-insured employers under workers’ comp, the experience of one company that did so for its employees under their group health plan, and why self-insured employers are failing to adopt medical travel, as well as other posts that briefly mentioned self-insured employers.

Yet, at no time has this reviewer, in the position of content writer, ever discussed how the medical travel facilities can market their services to potential self-insured customers.

A new book by Maria Todd, her sixteenth in fact, does exactly that. Organizing Medical Tourism Site Inspections for Self-Insured Employers is a well-written manual for medical travel facilities seeking to highlight the services they offer by hosting site inspections, or more colloquially known as “fam tours,” or familiarizing tours.

Note: This writer had participated in only one fam tour to medical facilities when I spoke at a medical tourism conference in Mexico in 2014.

Knowing the Customer

Dr. Todd’s book focuses on the ways medical travel facilities can know their customers by knowing which self-insured employers are more likely to develop a medical travel program for their plan beneficiaries, and the criteria the Plan Administrators will look for to engage their services and the conditions under which such travel is possible.

One example given is if flying time to a medical tourism destination is less than three hours by plane. For American workers, who have US passports, longer distances would eliminate travel to parts of Asia, the Middle East, parts of South America, and Russia. Such locations would be possible if the employees were working there or nearby, and they were the closest facilities available.

She also discusses what will attract multinational employers who have workers around the world to select facilities that can handle industrial accidents, as well as general health and rehabilitative services. Some employers may be self-insured for their domestic employees, but purchase an insurance cover called an International Private Medical Insurance, or “IPMI.”

Selling Solutions

To educate hospital executives and managers on how to sell solutions to Plan Administrators, Dr. Todd includes a chapter on a topic she says executives and managers often do not consider important.

The chapter focuses on what not to say or do when conducting a site inspection. You, as the seller might consider certain areas of your facility important to highlight, or is one that you take pride in, but may not be something your guests are particularly interested in.

One such area is Accreditation. Not knowing abbreviations for accrediting organizations such as the Joint Commission International (JCI), or what the big deal is about accreditation, is something the executives and managers need to be aware of beforehand and to be prepared to explain why it is important.

Proper accreditation will go a long way to ease their minds over deciding to use that facility, and being presented with an unfamiliar or disreputable accreditor, or one whose certificates are not worth the paper they are printed on, is something to be aware of also.

Another area of concern when hosting a site inspection is scientific presentations. It is quite possible that some of your guests may be physicians and nurses who will benefit from seeing such presentations, but for those Plan Administrators who are not medical personnel, such tours maybe considerably boring, if not completely too technical for them to comprehend.

Technology Tours

A similar mistake made is taking business-focused guests to see the technology the facility has installed and uses. Dr. Todd recommends they create a spreadsheet of the expensive equipment they have and write a short blurb about each.

Her main point is this: Plan Administrators are seeking three things: transparency, good value, and superb, culturally-sensitive customer service.

Other areas to avoid on Fam tours

The Emergency Department, laboratory, radiology and imaging department, cardiac catheterization lab, and the PET/CT, and PACU’s are a waste of time, per Dr. Todd, and may even disturb the patient’s privacy and recovery.

Final five chapters

The final five chapters deal with developing relationships, the contracting and provider network criteria (where to get preliminary data, contract terms and payment agreements, and avoiding payment hassles with the right language), the basics of ERISA (ERISA fiduciary responsibilities, self-insurance plan sponsorship not limited to the US, and government employers pay for healthcare services outside of their countries), how to prepare for site inspections, and lastly, rate proposals.

Closing

Dr. Todd’s book is a must for any self-insured employer considering a medical travel program for their beneficiaries. For those employers who self-insure for general health care, this book provides them with the knowledge they need to have to explore doing so. For those self-insured employers who self-insure for workers’ comp, this too is an important book.

The likelihood that the Affordable Care Act will be repealed or replaced, with something worse, or with nothing at all, grows stronger every day now. Once that happens, premiums will rise, and alternatives such as medical travel will seem much more plausible and cost-effective.

While this book was written from the perspective of the seller of healthcare services, purchasers of such services, either domestically or internationally, can benefit from reading it. Not knowing what to look for will only cost you time and money and be harmful to the health of your plan and your employees. I highly recommend this book to you.

Interesting Article on PPO’s

Forbes.com has published an extensive article claiming that PPO’s have perpetrated a great heist [author’s words] on the American middle class.

According to the article,  trillions has been redistributed from the American workforce to the healthcare industry, creating an economic depression for the middle class.

The article consists of an interview conducted by author Dave Chase and Mike Dendy, Vice Chairman and CEO of Advanced Medical Pricing Solutions, Inc., a healthcare cost management company.

Here is the link to the full article:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/davechase/2016/09/05/have-ppo-networks-perpetrated-the-greatest-heist-in-american-history/#25489cd66d00

Is it any wonder why work comp is also so screwed up? Too many cooks (or is that crooks?) taking their “cut” out of the middle class.

But we keep insisting that we have the best health care system in the world, that our workers get the best care when they are injured and don’t need to have any alternatives explored to improve the care and treatment they get, and that the free market is the best way to provide health care. It’s free alright. Free for the greedy to become more greedy. But not for you and me.

ERISA, Stop Loss and Unintended Consequences

“The problems of the world cannot possibly be solved by skeptics or cynics whose horizons are limited by the obvious realities. We need men who can dream of things that never were.”

John F. Kennedy

“Some men see things as they are and say why. I dream things that never were and say why not.”

Robert F. Kennedy

“It is not because things are difficult that we do not dare, it is because we do not dare that things are difficult.”

Seneca

Those quotes were included at the top of my June 19, 2013 post, “Clearing the Air: My Defense of Implementing Medical Tourism into Workers’ Compensation” where I defended myself against the charge that I was offering “simplistic solutions” to medical travel and workers’ comp. In that post, and in “The Faith of My Conviction: Integrating Medical Tourism into Workers’ Compensation is Possible and is not a Pipe Dream” I acknowledge that is won’t be easy, but there are ways to do it.

In my last post, “Self-Insured Employers Fail To Adopt Medical Travel“, I discussed the reasons given by Irving Stackpole for why US employers have failed to adopt medical travel into their corporate health plans.

In conversations with a noted ERISA and medical travel expert, I have been making the case that laws and regulations such as ERISA, Stop Loss, and other “barriers” erected decades ago, in order to address specific problems such as tort claims, aggregate claim losses, etc., have the unintended consequence of holding back the globalization of health care, which includes workers’ comp.

I have addressed the legal barriers in comp in my White Paper, and found that there were outdated federal and state laws and regulations, intended to protect consumers, actually increase costs and reduce convenience, restrict public providers from outsourcing certain expensive medical procedures, and that federal laws inhibit collaboration, while state licensing laws prevent certain medical tasks being performed by providers in other countries.

Let me state here that I, in no way, am advocating the removal of these laws and regulations. My chief argument is this: our best minds have split atoms, launched satellites and men into space, discovered cures for diseases plaguing humans for centuries, but to send patients to other countries for medical care is impossible, and not worth pursuing, smacks of cowardice or fear that it actually might save money and provide better care. Do we not have the best minds to figure out how to deal with these “barriers”, or are we too fearful and litiginous a society that we have given up accepting new ideas?

Every industry is being affected by two powerful forces today: globalization and automation. With globalization, jobs, plants and other forms of capital are moving across borders. With automation, jobs that were once held by humans and considered very dangerous, are being done by robots, and soon other jobs will be done by artificial intelligence.

Neither force can be stopped, and how we address the consequences of these forces is what many minds are working on right now. But to say that one industry is going to draw a line in the sand and say, “NO” and stop globalization from happening is either insanity or a deliberate attempt to profit from the maintenance of the status quo that many along the supply chain of medical care services, both within the general health care space and workers’ comp have carved out for themselves.

When I was in college, I studied International Relations, and back then, globalization was a word very few outside of academia ever heard. There was an organization created in 1973 by David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski called the Trilateral Commission. Its purpose was to foster better cooperation between the countries in North America, Western Europe and Japan (the Trilateral countries) and their multinational corporations. In the ensuing decades, the Commission expanded the membership to the rest of the world, and globalization became a household word.

Coincidence? I think not, since the heads of major US, Western European, and Japanese companies were members, and so were many politicians, including a former peanut farmer from Georgia and most of his top administration personnel. Other politicians after him also have been members, from both sides of the political spectrum.

Their chief goal is to allow capital, goods and jobs to cross national borders, or to eliminate them altogether, and I doubt they expected the health care industry to stand in their way. These are men who generally get what they want, and damn the consequences. We see this in the breakup of the European Union, which many of them advocated for years, just like they advocated for NAFTA, CAFTA, the TPP, and other trade deals, and don’t give a fig about the impact they have.

So, it is important to realize that the only real thing preventing medical travel is what unintended consequences have on the growth and development of the industry. This is where the industry needs to focus its attention, not on slick advertising, but on hard work and cooperation to overcome these “barriers”.


I am willing to work with any broker, carrier, or employer interested in saving money on expensive surgeries, and to provide the best care for their injured workers or their client’s employees.

Ask me any questions you may have on how to save money on expensive surgeries under workers’ comp.

I am also looking for a partner who shares my vision of global health care for injured workers.

I am also willing to work with any health care provider, medical tourism facilitator or facility to help you take advantage of a market segment treating workers injured on the job. Workers’ compensation is going through dramatic changes, and may one day be folded into general health care. Injured workers needing surgery for compensable injuries will need to seek alternatives that provide quality medical care at lower cost to their employers. Caribbean and Latin America region preferred.

Call me for more information, next steps, or connection strategies at (561) 738-0458 or (561) 603-1685, cell. Email me at: richard_krasner@hotmail.com.

Will accept invitations to speak or attend conferences.

Connect with me on LinkedIn, check out my website, FutureComp Consulting, and follow my blog at: richardkrasner.wordpress.com.

Transforming Workers’ Comp Blog is now viewed all over the world in over 250 countries and political entities. I have published nearly 300 articles, many of them re-published in newsletters and other blogs.

Share this article, or leave a comment below.

Self-Insured Employers Fail To Adopt Medical Travel

When I began my writing, one of the ways I saw medical travel could be implemented into workers’ comp was through employers who self-insure.

There are not that many companies who do self-insure for several reasons, one of which is the administrative costs and extra hoops they would have to go through just to get approval from state regulators to be self-insured. This is something most small employers will not do. More on what I think about this later.

Today, Irving Stackpole, President of Stackpole & Associates (a LinkedIn connection of mine), wrote an article in the International Medical Tourism Journal (IMTJ) about why US employers have failed to adopt medical travel benefits.

For the sake of transparency and honesty, I have never met Irving, but have had discussions with him a few times on LinkedIn in some of the groups we have in common. I have met his co-host of his radio show, Elizabeth Ziemba, when we both attended the 5th Medical Tourism and Wellness Business Summit in Reynosa, Mexico in November 2014.

In his article, Irving mentions that while some small employers such as HSM (who I have written about in earlier posts), Hannaford Supermarkets, the Casino and Hotel of the Blue Lake Rancheria Tribe in Northern California, and IDMI Systems have added medical travel to their health plans, he does not know of any large employers who have.

When I attended the 5th World Medical Tourism & Global Healthcare Congress in 2012, large employers such as Disney Institute, American Express, and Google sent representatives to speak at the Congress. If they attended, then surely their companies must be involved in some degree with medical travel? What did they discuss? Certainly not the weather (Hurricane Sandy was right outside the hotel).

But I digress, yet again.

According to Irving, six percent of firms offering fully-insured plans reported that they intend to self-insure because of the ACA. So, he is correct in that not many companies are self-insured.

However, Irving also states that it is estimated that the average self-funded plan covers between 300-400 employees, and that 59% of them in the US self-fund as part of their health plan.

And he goes on to say that many small companies are looking to self-fund to reduce their share of the cost burden, but that because small employers are not able to assume the same risk levels, stop loss rates are rising. This pressure, he adds will serve as a limitation on the expansion of self-funded health insurance into the smaller market.

Irving concludes that there are four reason why large self-insured companies would add an additional medical travel benefit to their insurance plans:

  • Current implementation of the ACA has distracted or absorbed attention of insurance markets, including self-insured companies. Many companies are wrestling with far issues of how many employees will be included/excluded, potential penalties, and avoiding fines under the ACA;
  • Self-insured plans are exempt from many of the more costly and burdensome requirements of the ACA as long as they don’t make significant changes, therefore they are careful about keeping their plans unchanged;
  • Reinsurance, or stop loss coverage may be limited for plans offering a medical travel benefit, and;
  • There is no history of outcomes , evidence or actuarial models to support the case among employers for a disruptive change such as international medical travel. Reports suggesting cost savings and quality outcomes are not yet supported by evidence.

One other factor Irving suggests as to why many employers have avoided medical travel is because many find it necessary to contract with a third party administrator (TPA) to collect premiums, manage membership enrollment, claims adjudication and payment. These TPA’s are sometimes referred to as providing “Administrative Services Only” contracts or “ASO” contracts, where they provide typical third party administration services, but assume no risk for claims payment.

Because of these contracts, Irving says that while economic logic suggests that self-funded employers should be interested in high quality, lower cost destinations, it is necessary to convince both the benefits manager and the TPA/ASO  of the value of being a destination provider, and the low risk associated with accessing international medical travel.

Okay, now it’s my turn.

“Impossible is just a big word thrown around by small men who find it easier to live in the world they’ve been given than to explore the power they have to change it. Impossible is not a fact. It’s an opinion. Impossible is not a declaration. It’s a dare. Impossible is potential. Impossible is temporary. Impossible is nothing.”

Muhammad Ali

While everything Irving wrote about appears to be factually true at the moment, and I cannot dispute what he says, the fact that employers have been unwilling to pursue medical travel is more complicated than the reasons he gives above.

True, the ACA has many things in it that may or may not seriously impact health care and the health insurance industry, but what he does not mention is that many of the things holding employers back pre-date the enactment of the ACA, and are more concerned with keeping health care the purview of those along the supply chain who profit the most from the system we have created, and not concerned with providing people either under health insurance or workers’ comp, with the best medical care possible, at the lowest cost, no matter where it comes from.

TPA’s and ASO’s and ERISA, and many other mechanisms such as stop loss insurance, and risk avoidance, etc., are mere barriers to the implementation of medical travel into both health care and workers’ comp.

Using my oft-time quoted analogy of going to the Moon, imagine if the baby steps we took to get there such as the Mercury, Gemini and early Apollo programs were not baby steps to the Moon, but actually barriers set up so that we are thwarted every step of the way to getting there or to go even further, such as landing humans on Mars. Don’t you think there would be people just like Irving who would say that it cannot happen?

That is why I quoted the late Muhammad Ali. For a poor black kid from Louisville, he sure had a better understanding of what can be than most folks who did not grow up like he did.

But this does not let the medical travel industry off the hook. I said so in my post, “Ensuring Patient Safety: Making Sure Medical Tourism Puts Its Money Where Its Mouth Is“.

But it is not just the industry itself that needs to come clean. Foreign governments and their travel ministries, the medical travel facilities, the providers, and the facilitators must present hard evidence that better quality and lower cost is possible, and so that when some of the dire predictions of the impact of the ACA are fully realized, or the US health care system collapses of its own weight (see my post, “Colorado “Single Payer” in Health Care Industry’s Sights“), medical travel as an alternative will become more acceptable to US employers, large and small, and not just for health care, but for workers’ comp as well.


I am willing to work with any broker, carrier, or employer interested in saving money on expensive surgeries, and to provide the best care for their injured workers or their client’s employees.

Ask me any questions you may have on how to save money on expensive surgeries under workers’ comp.

I am also looking for a partner who shares my vision of global health care for injured workers.

I am also willing to work with any health care provider, medical tourism facilitator or facility to help you take advantage of a market segment treating workers injured on the job. Workers’ compensation is going through dramatic changes, and may one day be folded into general health care. Injured workers needing surgery for compensable injuries will need to seek alternatives that provide quality medical care at lower cost to their employers. Caribbean and Latin America region preferred.

Call me for more information, next steps, or connection strategies at (561) 738-0458 or (561) 603-1685, cell. Email me at: richard_krasner@hotmail.com.

Will accept invitations to speak or attend conferences.

Connect with me on LinkedIn, check out my website, FutureComp Consulting, and follow my blog at: richardkrasner.wordpress.com.

Transforming Workers’ Comp Blog is now viewed all over the world in over 250 countries and political entities. I have published nearly 300 articles, many of them re-published in newsletters and other blogs.

Share this article, or leave a comment below.

Healthcare CEO’s Reject Single-Payer

There are many reasons why the US is the only industrialized nation that does not have a single payer health care system.

One deep seated reason has to do with the foundational value system of the US, from the time of the early settlers whose religious convictions lined up with the rising middle class of 17th century England’s economic values (i.e., the Protestant Ethic).

But another reason — at least for the foreseeable future — as my fellow blogger, Joe Paduda wrote a while back when talking about Bernie Sanders’ plan, is that the health insurance industry will not blow up their businesses and start all over from scratch.

To prove Joe’s point, Modern Healthcare.com published an article last week that explored the opinions of healthcare CEO’s on the ACA and the subject of single-payer health care.

Here are the key takeaways from the article:

  • the nation’s top healthcare leaders overwhelmingly back the ACA
  • support its goal of pushing providers away from fee-for-service medicine and toward delivering value-based care
  • while the Republican Party and its presumptive nominee continue to stand by their “repeal and replace” slogan, the sector’s CEOs overwhelmingly reject that idea, in large part because they are unimpressed with the GOP’s attempts to articulate what it would replace it with.
  • only a small group supports moving to a single-payer system, which has been a central theme of Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders
  • The overwhelming message from the survey, was that the next president and Congress should stay the course set by President Barack Obama and the ACA.
  • But healthcare leaders are also looking for the nation’s political leadership to reject complacency and look for ways to improve what they see as a far-from-perfect piece of legislation.

Here are the survey results, as published today by Don McCanne of PNHP:

The CEO Power Panel includes 110 top leaders of hospitals, insurance companies, physician groups, trade associations and other not-for-profit advocacy groups. The second-quarter survey on policy options that the next president and Congress might address attracted 86 respondents, a 78% response rate.

Future of ACA

Do you support Congress and the next president in:

Repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act?

2.3% – Yes

67.4% – No

29.1% – It depends on the details

1.2% – No opinion

Expanding the ACA’s subsidized private insurance plan system to achieve universal coverage?

34.9% – Yes

15.1% – No

48.8% – It depends on the details

1.2% – No opinion

Scrapping private insurance in favor of expanding an enhanced Medicare to cover the entire population (single payer)?

9.3% – Yes

61.6% – No

29.1% – It depends on the details

Other insurance issues

Allowing private insurers to sell individual and family policies across state lines under national rules that preempt state rules?

52.3% – Yes

20.9% – No

24.4% – It depends on the details

2.3% – No opinion

Expanding the use of health savings accounts to pay premiums and meet costs under high-deductible plans?

74.4% – Yes

11.6% – No

12.8% – It depends on the details

1.2% – No opinion

Creating subsidized high-risk pools to cover people with preexisting conditions?

43.0% – Yes

16.3% – No

36.1% – It depends on the details

4.7% – No opinion

Medicare

Raising Medicare eligibility to age 67?

54.7% – Yes

23.3% – No

22.1% – It depends on the details

Expanding means testing within Medicare, such as higher co-pays or reduced benefits for high-income seniors?

50.0% – Yes

18.6% – No

30.2% – It depends on the details

1.2% – No opinion

Moving to a universal Medicare Advantage system with a means-tested defined contribution (premium support) for seniors?

28.2% – Yes

20.0% – No

48.2% – It depends on the details

3.5% – No opinion

Gradually expanding Medicare to cover everyone over age 55 who doesn’t have private insurance?

21.4% – Yes

48.8% – No

28.6% – It depends on the details

1.2% – No opinion

Delivery system reform

Taking aggressive measures to curb rising prescription drug prices such as allowing imports and authorizing the CMS to negotiate prices?

70.6& – Yes

9.4% – No

20.0% – It depends on the details

Repealing delivery system reforms such as value-based payment, accountable care organizations and the use of quality measures included in the Affordable Care Act?

03.5% – Yes

83.5% – No

11.8% – It depends on the details

01.2% – No opinion

So, it is apparent that as long as the health care industry continues to profit from the status quo, and supports the ACA, the likelihood of single payer will be remote at best, despite what the Sanders’ campaign seeks.

Things will only change when the entire system collapses of its own weight from complexity, waste, fraud, abuse, and excessive cost so that no CEO’s opinion will matter. People will demand a single payer system because no one will be able to afford having insurance.

The ancient Greeks, among other people, discovered the science of dialectics, or the study of change. Dialectics says that the seeds of change come from within, and that change does not happen until certain conditions are met, and change becomes inevitable. We are not yet at that point, but it is slowly moving in that direction.


 

I am willing to work with any broker, carrier, or employer interested in saving money on expensive surgeries, and to provide the best care for their injured workers or their client’s employees.

Ask me any questions you may have on how to save money on expensive surgeries under workers’ comp.

I am also looking for a partner who shares my vision of global health care for injured workers.

I am also willing to work with any health care provider, medical tourism facilitator or facility to help you take advantage of a market segment treating workers injured on the job. Workers’ compensation is going through dramatic changes, and may one day be folded into general health care. Injured workers needing surgery for compensable injuries will need to seek alternatives that provide quality medical care at lower cost to their employers. Caribbean and Latin America region preferred.

Call me for more information, next steps, or connection strategies at (561) 738-0458 or (561) 603-1685, cell. Email me at: richard_krasner@hotmail.com.

Will accept invitations to speak or attend conferences.

Connect with me on LinkedIn, check out my website, FutureComp Consulting, and follow my blog at: richardkrasner.wordpress.com.

Transforming Workers’ Comp Blog is now viewed all over the world in over 250 countries and political entities. I have published nearly 300 articles, many of them re-published in newsletters and other blogs.

Share this article, or leave a comment below.