Posts archived in Health Care

In this thread we learn that the state of Maine has, inexplicably, spent $10 million dollars from it’s $6 b-b-b-billion dollar budget on prescriptions meant to help people get off of heroin.

Whoa, we better stop that right away!

We wouldn’t want people getting off heroin and onto the worst addiction of all: the government gravy train.

Besides just being generally astoundingly stupid, this thread is specific example of that conservative ideological phenomenon known as the Unless-It-Happened-To-Me principle: “Government spending is bad, and government spending recommended by experts who have spent years gaining knowledge about a subject is even more bad, UNLESS I had one personal experience in this area and saw it benefit me or someone I love, in which case that particular thing is GOOD but everything else is still bad.”

User “Woodcanoe” sums this up: his wife had an addiction problem. She used a prescription to help break the addiction. Hey, he says, maybe treating people is better than the inevitable incarceration or death that happens from untreated drug problems.

Well, at least he values his wife’s life more than tax cuts. Sometimes on AMG I question whether this is true for most posters.

Unfortunately other personal experiences come into play, and they are negative, and are equally determinative despite all expert opinion.

For instance, “Ugenetoo” says that someone he knew was “suckered” into joining a methadone program and his doctor seems intent on keeping him on it.  Wow, that’s some damning stuff. You’ve got the story as interpreted by an admitted heroin addict versus some doctor guy who probably, like, went to school and has treated hundreds of patients. I’d definitely go with the heroin addict.

News flash: Sometime drug addicts try to avoid treatment. Sometimes a doctor wants to keep a person on a prescription because the drug works best when the patient is on a gradual reduction plan, and suddenly cutting off the prescription leads a situation where a desperate addict overdoses on heroin in his bedroom a few days later.

But hey, maybe I’m just crazy- here I am taking the expert’s view, versus this anonymous poster’s anonymous heroin addict friend. I’m going to lose that argument on AMG every single time.

“Jeepn” has a similar story about a family member who was told to stay on methadone and “give it time.” Yeah, you think maybe doctors have done studies on this? Nah, they just want to sell more government drugs. They must be evil. There are tax dollars involved!

And because it is impossible to read a thread without Naran saying something stupid, it is impossible for me to comment on the stupidity in a thread without saying something about Naran. Her basic problem seems to me that the doctors are prescribing two different drugs, one of which is more expensive. And they’re both for the same thing: heroin addiction! So, obviously Dr. Naran thinks Mr. Actually-A-Real-Doctor should only prescribe the cheaper drug. She laments:

– isn’t it amazing, that the longer the new administration has a chance to explore the murky state funding cesspool, the more of these sordid albatrosses float to the surface?

So there you have it. Naran is against government getting between a patient and their doctor, unless that doctor thinks the more expensive drug does the job better. Than Naran is ready to jump out from behind the nurse’s station, spoon in hand, to yell “No suboxone! As the angry old lady of Kennebunk, I demand you prescribe something else for this patient I’ve never met! I am the good and the holy! Obey me!”

I am only slightly exaggerating about Naran on this one. She probably wouldn’t yell the “angry old lady” part.

0 comments

Rep. McKane’s Fuzzy Math

Last night on AMG, Republican Representative Jon McKane (R-Newcastle) published a lengthy, straight-forward defense of the new insurance regime enacted by the legislature.

It is well written and persuasive, as long as you don’t think too hard about the math.

Ready to enter Republican math land? Grab a handrail and hold on.

I’ll let Rep. McKane explain the quasi-high risk pool created by the new law. It is called the “Guaranteed Access Plan.”

Part B creates the Guaranteed Access Plan (GAP). This is similar to a “high-risk pool” but differs in some significant ways. First, those who need chronic care and are in the GAP will be offered the same policies as anyone else. Also, they will not be charged a higher premium. The difference for the cost of their care will be made up by the insurers and by a maximum $4 per month fee on enrollees. The addition of this new fee will be more than offset by the elimination of the 2.14% tax on claims that supports the Dirigo program.

The idea is this: people who are sick and have very high health care costs will be in the same plans as everyone else and pay the same premiums, as if by magic. How, you ask? There will be a tax (oh, excuse me Rep. McKane, a fee) of $4 per month per person to pay for the higher costs of these sick people.

But how much money does it actually cost to take care of the sickest people? Rep. McKane gives us some facts:

It is important to remember that 1% of those who have health insurance account for 40% of the claims paid. By moving this 1% out of the general insurance pool and continuing to cover their health care expenses, there will be less pressure to raise rates for healthier individuals.

As Rep. McKane says, one percent of insured persons require 40% of total claims paid because they have cancer, a chronic condition, high prescription costs, or some other serious malady.

Those people are the one percent that will be covered under the Guaranteed Access Plan, which will be funded by the $4 fee paid by everyone else.

But think about this: will $4 be enough? How do you pay 40% of claims with a $4 fee, all while not reducing coverage or increasing premiums?

Answer: You don’t. It doesn’t add up. I doubt you could even pay half a percent of claims with a $4 fee. If an extra $4 was all insurance companies needed, why didn’t they raise their rates by $4?

Answer: Because they were too busy raising them by hundreds of dollars just to keep up with health care costs.

Let me break it down: there is no free lunch. There is no clever scheme that can reduce health insurance cost without dealing with health care costs. Health care costs in Maine are higher than average because we, as a state, are one of the oldest in the nation. Older people need a lot of health care and it isn’t cheap.

No. Free. Lunch.

$4 is not going to change anything. It will not cover the costs, and Republicans will need to raise the fee dramatically or reduce coverage to balance the sheets. Which do you think they will choose?

Rep. McKane ends his essay with some reassuring talking points:

The concepts are not experimental or bold but have been used successfully around the country to create stable yet competitive health insurance markets. Over the next few years, Maine will be put back on the road to health insurance normalcy.

No, Rep. McKane. Other states have kept insurance costs a bit lower than in Maine by having a younger population and covering fewer peple. The sickest people drop out first. They just happen to be the most expensive to cover.

Maine covers much more of it’s population but it costs money, because there is no free lunch.

I can’t wait to see how Rep. McKane votes when the first bill comes forward to reduce coverage, raise deductibles, and reduce prescription reimbursements for the “Guaranteed Access Plan.”

Remember hearing how nearly half of potential Republican primary voters thought Obama wasn’t born in the United States? Talk about misinformed.

Well, if you needed it, here is further evidence that Republican primary voters might not have all their gears turning. According to PPP, 61% percent of New Hampshire GOP primary voters say they would not vote for someone who ever supported a health insurance mandate, even if that mandate was at the state level.

So who is the leading candidate?

Among just those 61% who would never, ever vote for a guy who supported an insurance mandate, Mitt Romney is the heavily preferred candidate. He gets almost twice a many nods as the next closest guy.

I guess a winning smile really does go a long way!

0 comments

Health Care in Idaho

Maine Republicans are remodeling Maine’s health care system after the one in Idaho.

They are adopting the Idaho model of paying health insurance companies reimbursements for any costs on a policy above a certain amount. Taxpayers foot that bill.

But there is one thing Maine Republicans are not adopting: The Idaho catastrophic care fund.

This fund pays for the emergency health care of people who can’t afford insurance. As others have noted, the percentage of uninsured persons in Idaho is higher than that of Maine.

But there is a problem: the fund is running out of money. And not by a small amount.

So we Mainers are going to adopt health reforms that, in Idaho, pushed people to use that state’s catastrophic care program in ever increasing amounts.

Except that Maine doesn’t have a catastrophic care program. So what will Mainers do?

I’m no health policy expert. But I can read a bill and here is what I see about the taxes that will fund the high risk pool:

There is a $4 per person/month tax to fund the high risk pool.

That section is here:

Section 3597(2). Maximum assessment.  The board shall assess each insurer an amount not to exceed $4 per month per covered person enrolled in medical insurance insured, reinsured or administered by the insurer. An insurer may not be assessed on policies or contracts insuring federal or state employees.

But the $4 maximum appears meaningless. In fact, the tax rate may be higher if the high-risk pool loses money.

Section 3597(5). Assessments to cover net losses.  In addition to the assessment described in subsections 1 to 3, the board shall assess insurers at such a time and for such amounts as the board finds necessary to cover any net loss in accordance with this subsection.
A.  Before April 1st of each year, the association shall determine and report to the superintendent the association’s net losses for the previous calendar year, including administrative expenses and incurred losses for the year, taking into account investment income and other appropriate gains and losses and an estimate of the assessments needed to cover the losses incurred by the association in the previous calendar year.
B.  Individual assessments of each insurer are determined by multiplying the absolute value of net losses, if net earnings are negative, by a fraction, the numerator of which is the insurer’s total premiums earned in the preceding calendar year from all health benefit plans, including excess or stop loss coverage, and the denominator of which is the total premiums earned in the preceding calendar year from all health benefit plans.
C.  The association shall impose a penalty of interest on insurers for late payment of assessments.

Republican voted for an open-ended, unlimited tax increase on anyone with insurance.

To me, this is absolute proof that they did not read the bill.

 

Here are some thoughts about LD1333, the Republican bill to overwrite Maine’s insurance law with an insurance lobby grab-bag of bad ideas.

I’m a young guy in Portland.

Let me assume that the average Maine Republican is older, more rural, and based in a more northern location than myself in the state.

They just voted to lower my health insurance costs and raise their own.

I tried to tell them no. I tried to say, hey, I’m okay paying a little bit more. I think older people need affordable health insurance. I’d like to have it myself when I’m that age. Right now, I don’t worry so much about health costs.

They didn’t listen. Here is what the Bureau of Insurance says about the Republican bill:

•14.9% of the Individual Market will see an average rate increase of 29.9%
•42% will receive premium increases of some amount; the average age of the policyholders who will see rate hikes is age 48
•Maine people living in the North will experience on average a 19% rate increase
•Maine people living in Down East will experience a 22% rate increase
•Maine people who want to keep the insurance policy they currently have will see price increases rise as high as 170 percent over the next 3 years

Are they being selfless? Are they saying, “Listen you young whippersnapper. We understand we older people have higher costs. We understand we are shifting money from the younger to the older to help us afford what we need. We’re done with that. We are going to pay our own way. You keep your money, son.”

Probably not. They’re just dumb. They really think letting health insurance companies charge more for older people is actually going to help Maine’s older population. Why? I have no clue.

Read what the Bureau of Insurance says. Increases will be centered on people who are 48 years old, or thereabouts. Those living in northern Maine will average a 19% increase.

A 19% increase!

Hey, it’s no skin off my back.

But why would you do this to yourself, Mr. Older Rural Northern Republican?

 

 

Republicans in the state legislature have proposed LD 1333, which would completely rewrite the state’s health care laws. Despite the complexity of the bill only a few hours were allowed for debate in the committee. They felt debate just wasn’t necessary.

Some are questioning whether this new law would allow insurance companies to deny coverage due to pre-existing conditions.

Representative Jon McKane says:

LD 1333 bill does nothing to Maine’s pre-existing exclusion clause and Maine will continue to have guaranteed renewability.

Here is what the amended bill does. It takes the Maine law that currently says:

“Coverage must be guaranteed to all residents of this state other than those eligible without paying a premium for Medicare Part A.”

And changes it to read:

“Coverage issued through the Maine Guaranteed Access Plan Association established pursuant to Chapter 54-A must be guaranteed to all residents of this state other than those eligible without paying a premium for Medicare Part A.”

See the change? Under current law coverage is guaranteed. Period. But under the new law, the only thing guaranteed is something called the “Maine Guaranteed Access Plan.”

This means that you are not guaranteed to qualify for a health care plan other than a special new plan being set up by Republicans known as the “Maine Guaranteed Access Plan.” Under the proposed new law you CAN be denied coverage to any other plan in the state!

There will be a new board set up by this law to create and manage the “Maine Guaranteed Access Plan.” Republicans would usually call such a board a “death panel,” but for some reason that name didn’t make it into a bill. Do you think the “Maine Guaranteed Access Plan” will cover as much as the private insurance plan you were denied? Somehow, I doubt it.

So everyone in Maine will be guaranteed access to some sort of health care plan, but it won’t be the same one the healthy people get. There will first-class health citizens and second-class health citizens. People will go from first class to second class if, for some reason, a health insurance company doesn’t want to offer you new coverage.

Oh, and the government-run plan for all those sick people who are no longer guaranteed eligibility will be financed by a maximum 4% tax on everyone else’s private premiums. So Republicans are raising taxes. But probably not enough, because if an extra 4% was all that was required to take care of the high-risk folks I doubt our premiums would be going up 15-20% each year. So the government-run plan Republicans are inventing could run out of money pretty quickly.

Sounds like a mess.

But that is what happens when you only get a few hours to debate a 29-page bill completely rewriting the state’s insurance law. Way to go!

There is a group called the Tenth Amendment Center, who specialize in rewriting constitutional history and appearing on crank radio shows, that has recently thrown down the gauntlet against it’s sworn enemies. It called out several commentators known for their skill at communication, knowledge of policy, and, of course, liberal views.

Who got named? Try Ezra Klein at the Washington Post. Christopher Weaver at NPR.

And me!

Okay, I’ve never heard of the Christopher Weaver guy either. But Ezra Klein! I’m as much a threat to ultra-conservative orthodoxy as the really smart guy at the Washington Post! Sweet. And I don’t even have to get out of my pajamas!

The basic premise is this: all the parties named by the Tenth Amendment Center are actively subverting the Constitution by espousing a view of the tenth amendment not in line with the crackpot views of the Tenth Amendment Center.

To be clear, I’ve heard the Tenth Amendment Center on a certain radio program and they really pack some intellectual firepower. Check out this audio from a recent interview with Chris at the 10th Amendment Center who, frankly, sounds like he just got a wedgie:

HOST: Chris, what do you see the difference between the nullification process and the tenth amendment push?

(silence)

CHRIS: What do you mean?

(more silence)

HOST: The Tenth Amendment Center is trying to show people how to get the states to reenact, reutilize, reinvigorate the idea of the tenth amendment, the sovereignty of the states. The other process is that people, individual citizens, and legislators, and states, nullify by ignoring bad law. What do you see, how do you see that working together?

CHRIS: They pretty much go hand in hand. I mean….

(dead air)

HOST: What does the Tenth Amendment Center want Maine to do?

(awkward, long silence on live radio)

CHRIS: I mean, uh…. Heh….I guess I’m not getting the question there. Heh heh.

Wow. The guy from the Tenth Amendment Center, a group formed to push for a certain policy, hadn’t prepared for a question that was basically, “Um, so, what do you guys want people to do?” Gee, he seems to say, I hadn’t thought about that. Let me think for a second. What subject am I here to talk about? The ninth amendment? Oh golly, I always forget.

It is easier to put your thoughts together in writing rather than be expected to avoid awkward silence and chuckles on live radio, so the Tenth Amendment Center went on its website and criticized me for criticizing Representative Cebra’s bill to criminalize enforcement of the Affordable Care Act:

AsMaineGoesLolz.com, a site that portrays itself as being the opposite of popular Maine website As Maine Goes, which it accuses of being conservative, has also gone after LD 58. The staunchly-partisan website takes a couple shots in this article[.]

Did you notice how I “accuse” As Maine Goes of being conservative? What the hell! What does the Tenth Amendment Center think AMG is? Let me tell you, it ain’t no accusation, Mister person-who-accuses-himself-of-being-named-Chris.

So weird.

I also must admit I enjoy seeing the asmainegoeslolz.com name in print, not because I want the attention, but because it is so awkward to write out. It is a really stupid name. It is purposely a stupid name that rhymes, sort of. So it gives me a laugh when I see someone say “according to asmainegoeslolz.com” or something like that. Sometimes it even gets capital letters (AsMaineGoesLOLZ), I think to try and make it look slightly less dumb. And yet, somehow, I find the name more accurate than “The Tenth Amendment Center,” which implies some sort of academic endeavor beyond Chris having a few Heritage Foundation brochures stashed behind his xbox.

Anyways, the Tenth Amendment Center closes the piece with what they probably thought was a profound and thoughtful piece of oratory:

But the title of the article, “These Maine Legislators Don’t Understand How America Works,” is all wrong. For as shown in the previous paragraph, the Maine Legislators, just as Jefferson and Madison did, have it all right. It’s Kapur, Klein, Weaver, and AsMaineGoesLolz, who don’t understand how America was designed to work.

So the critics of Mr. Cebra and the co-sponsors of LD 58 and of other States: on behalf of every educated Tenther, please open up a Constitution and read it.

Unbeknownst to Chris, I have in fact read the constitution. I have it available in several written formats and even as an app right here on my phone. The problem is that I don’t just read it, but I learn about it, and the fact is that your interpretation of the tenth amendment simply isn’t correct. Besides being wrong, it would lead to chaos and breakdown of the country as we know it.

What Chris needs to do is try learning about the Constitution from a source other than a right-wing website and the heavily selective sources and quotes therein. If he did, he would know that courts rejected nullification as early as 1809. And while a couple states did pass nullification resolutions in this early days of the Republic, ten states rejected them. Which seems strange, unless maybe nullification wasn’t the predominant understanding at the time? Just maybe?

Tenthers basically want to go back to the Articles of Confederation, when each state was “sovereign” and everything was a real mess. The constitution created a stronger Federal government with supremacy over the states. There were limits, but a Constitution granting states the right to pick and choose which Federal laws to follow is no Constitution at all.

If there is a solution to Mr. Cebra’s perceived problem it must be found in the court system like any other civilized person. And hey, the Supreme Court said just that in 1809. And then said it again each and every time it has come up. Weird how it all fits together!

This isn’t rocket science. It is the way America has actually been running for centuries. Either 10 generations of Americans were wrong and the Tenth Amendment Center is right, or everyone else is right and the Tenth Amendment Center is a bunch of crackpots.

I know which option Ezra Klein would pick.