Impeding changes to our Health Care system

[classicman]

Hey Dux . . .

Whats the deal with this interpretation...

This is essentially health-insurance reform as little applies to the health-care delivery system and its costs. Here is the status of major provisions of the bills, mostly as they apply to employer plans provided to employees and retirees:

An issue that I think plays a major role in the end user/payor costs.

* The Senate’s Christmas bill dropped Medicare buy-in for pre-age-65 retirees; dropped the public-option plan and approved multistate “health exchange” private plans to ensure everyone has coverage available to them, to be overseen by the Office of Personnel Management.

* Due date for implementation: House bill 2013, Senate bill 2014.

* Overall cost for both bills is estimated at $900 billion over 10 years, but estimates are unreliable due to back loading of benefits in the early years while still collecting taxes.

* National (House bill) and state (Senate bill) “health exchanges” are created as insurance pools for individuals and small groups.

* Medicare Advantage plan phases out over three years (House).

* Medicare “doughnut hole” phases out by 2019 (House).

*

Hospitals are held accountable for preventable readmissions.

Does it say how? Won't they just pass this cost on somehow?
*

Employers will be required to “pay or play,” i.e., keep their current health plans or pay 8 percent of payroll (House) or $750 times every employee of 30 hours per week or more (Senate). Companies where $750 is a bargain will likely drop their private plans and take the state-managed “private” plan, setting the stage for a single-payer program later.

This seems really confusing. Isn't $750 a bargain for every company? They quote the average cost of a family plan to be something like $12,000. I must be missing something here, but what?

* A grandfather clause for five years under the House bill and unlimited by the Senate for employer health plans in effect on the day of enactment.

* Litigation against state health exchange plans would be subject to state laws (House bill) while historic Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) would continue national standards under the Senate bill.

* Work-place “wellness” is encouraged under the Senate plan which permits giving employee discounts up to 30 percent tax free for meeting plan goals.
* A long-term care program is included, but the details have not yet been thought through.

* Under the Senate plan, a 40 percent tax would apply to the excess of health-insurance premiums above $8,500 single and $23,000 married.

* High earners, under the House bill, would be subject to a 5.4 percent surtax above $500,000 single and $1 million married.

* Both bills have new taxes on medical devices, insurers, drugs, etc., all of which are likely to be passed to the public.

Well that sucks. . .

* Taxes under the House bill treat domestic partners as married. The Senate bill does not.

* Flexible spending accounts would be limited to $2,500 and indexed to the consumer price index rather than the medical cost index.

Again, all these points apply essentially to employer-sponsored plans for employees and do not address other issues such as access to and delivery of services. The Senate bill is almost certain to be the basis for a final bill as the Senate has already shown it cannot muster the votes for many of the House bill’s provisions.

Link

I don't know if this is spun or not, so I'm just throwing it out there for discussion.

Oh an after attempting to read some of this bill, I strongly suggest anyone with any problems relating to insomnia to try reading it.