Health Care Industry Leaders Pledge to Cut Costs
President Obama called today’s meeting with healthcare industry heavyweights "historic" and "a watershed event in the long and elusive quest for healthcare reform," despite the muted reaction outside the White House as proponents and critics wait to see how the plan actually develops.
Health care industry leaders pledge to dramatically reduce health care costs. The president, echoing his past remarks, emphasized today that healthcare reform is a central component of fixing the economy and the lives of the American people.
He told healthcare players at the meeting, "You’ve made a commitment. We expect you to keep it," according to White House press secretary Robert Gibbs.
"It is a recognition that the fictional television couple, Harry and Louise, who became the iconic faces of those who opposed health care reform in the ’90s, desperately need health care reform in 2009. And so does America," the president said after the meeting. "That is why these groups are voluntarily coming together to make an unprecedented commitment," he added.
The groups committed to a number of steps to defray costs, including reducing the number of forms and bills, and changing the incentive structure so as to reward results not the sheer number of tests.
At the meeting, an official from the American Medical Association told the president that one of the reasons doctors order so many unnecessary tests is because they fear malpractice lawsuits and are practicing "defensive medicine." The doctor asked the president if medical malpractice reform would be part of the solution; the president said he’d keep an open mind, though on Capitol Hill Democrats have historically opposed such efforts.
There are no guarantees that the $2 trillion the players pledged in cost reductions over the next decade will happen. And it bears pointing out that while they pledged to cut the rate of increase by 1.5% every year for the next 10 years, health inflation is anticipated to increase rates by 6.5% this year.
Read more HERE.
- jpt
Email
Can Mitt Romney Win Conservatives Back?
Possible Contraception Compromise in D.C.
Genuinely meaningless. Meanwhile, for those wondering what to expect in the long run, something to consider:
“In 1965, Congressional actuaries expected Medicare to cost $3.1 billion by 1970. In 1969, that estimate was revised to $5 billion, and it actually came in at $6.8 billion. That same year, the Senate Finance Committee declared a Medicare cost emergency. In 1979, Jimmy Carter proposed limiting benefits, only to have the bill killed by fellow Democrats. Things have gotten worse since, and Medicare today costs $455 billion and rising.”
The president’s “cap-and-trade” nonsense–if he can get it passed–has very little to do with “global warming” and everything to do with what he calls a “down payment” on the costs of reform
Ultimately, the yokels will think they’re getting something for “free,” even though every single thing they consume that involves the use of conventional energy will cost more–significantly more. And that’s just for starters. A very nice little regressive tax to get things rolling…
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | May 11, 2009, 8:36 pm 8:36 pm
off topic, but…..hey, i have a great idea!!! since obuma (yes, he is a bum) is sooooo wonderful and gifted (plus he has that messiah thing going for him), why doesn’t he appoint HIMSELF to the supreme court? the sad part is…he has probably already thought of this.
Posted by: busterhoot | May 11, 2009, 8:50 pm 8:50 pm
Funny how long it took for the “Health Care Industry” to admit they can so easily cut costs to everyone, after decades of annual increases in the 7% to 13% range! What prompted this “news”?
Looks like Obummer has finagled another headline to use for a week or two, until he comes up with another scam. This guy makes the previous scam artists, Bubba and Hillary, look like honest people; I didn’t think it could hhappen.
Posted by: corruptfedgovt | May 11, 2009, 9:09 pm 9:09 pm
Did any of those heath care executives walk out pale and limping from having their knees whacked?
Posted by: david | May 11, 2009, 9:23 pm 9:23 pm
Fascinating to see insurers, physicians, hospitals, and pharma joining President Obama in a common promise to annually reduce the healthcare cost trend by 1.5%. It’s a good, though ambitious, start. How ambitious? Milliman, Inc. releases an annual assessment of healthcare costs and trends, with the 2009 version due out next Monday; last year, the cost trend rose by 7.6%. We’ve got a long ways to go to neutralize the upward cost trend, let alone get it moving in a downward direction.
Posted by: Jeremy Engdahl-Johnson | May 11, 2009, 10:12 pm 10:12 pm
Economist Robert Samuelson at the Washington Post all but calls Mr. Obama a liar on the taxation of multinationals. It’s a good, factual assessment of the issue.
“Myth: Aided by those overpaid lobbyists, American multinationals are taxed lightly — less so than their foreign counterparts.
“Reality: Just the opposite. Most countries don’t tax the foreign profits of their multinational firms at all. Take a Swiss multinational with operations in South Korea. It pays a 27.5 percent Korean corporate tax on its profits and can bring home the rest tax-free. By contrast, a U.S. firm in Korea pays the Korean tax and, if it returns the profits to the United States, faces the 35 percent U.S. corporate tax rate. American companies can defer the U.S. tax by keeping the profits abroad (naturally, many do), and when repatriated, companies get a credit for foreign taxes paid. In this case, they’d pay the difference between the Korean rate (27.5 percent) and the U.S. rate (35 percent).”
(Google Samuelson tax dodge for the rest.)
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | May 11, 2009, 10:19 pm 10:19 pm
There’s more:
“Myth: Plugging overseas corporate tax loopholes will dramatically improve the budget outlook as multinationals pay their ‘fair’ share.
“Reality: Dream on. The estimated $210 billion revenue gain over 10 years — money already included in Obama’s budget — represents only six-tenths of 1 percent of the decade’s tax revenue of $32 trillion, as projected by the Congressional Budget Office. Worse, the CBO reckons that Obama’s endless deficits over the decade will total a gut-wrenching $9.3 trillion.”
When will Mr. Obama explain how this debt will be repaid? When will anyone ask him?
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | May 11, 2009, 10:22 pm 10:22 pm
I thought on the campaign trail we were promised Health Care as Good as Congress gets!!! FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP – AGAIN!!!!!
Posted by: railroadjob? | May 11, 2009, 10:26 pm 10:26 pm
From the WSJ:
“[I]t is now possible to see where this issue is headed: A new legislated entitlement for the middle class will ensure that the next great health-care argument to engulf the political system is going to be over how and when to ration care.”
And for those who insist that it’s rationed today–by the insurers–remember that you can always change insurers, and you can bargain for the policy you want. If you want to self-insure up to some level, get catastrophic insurance and pay a lower premium.
If you don’t want a policy that includes podiatry care, get one that doesn’t.
And good luck shopping and bargaining with the US government.
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | May 11, 2009, 10:34 pm 10:34 pm
“And for those who insist that it’s rationed today–by the insurers–remember that you can always change insurers…”
Only if you’re perfectly healthy. If you have anything that can be called a pre-existing condition, forget it.
Posted by: Skip | May 11, 2009, 10:43 pm 10:43 pm
The real problem is those three little words in the headline: Health Care Industry.
Because America’s health care is industry centered instead of patient centered, the average costs per person are twice as much as in France, even though France has the world’s best health care according to the WHO (and the US has one of the absolute worst among developed nations). And France, like most other civilized nations, doesn’t have millions of people dying without health care. Still, France’s system is among the most expensive. There are cheaper alternatives among the long list of countries that do health care better than the US.
If there is one thing that government administer better than the private sector does it is health care.
Posted by: El_Pajaro | May 11, 2009, 11:58 pm 11:58 pm
I wish Obama would put his money where is mouth is and cut government spending at the same rate, rather than quadrupling the problem.
Posted by: Esme | May 12, 2009, 12:53 am 12:53 am
I haven’t been this impressed since the “line by line” review of the budget produced 17 billion in proposed cuts (most of which will never happen).
Watershed? Try woodshed.
Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn | May 12, 2009, 1:17 am 1:17 am
Real Healthcare Reform:
Changing Priorities, Incentives and the Rules of the Game; Creating an Electronic Health Record for Every Citizen Who Wants One
If you have the financial resources of Bill Gates or Warren Buffett you needn’t pay money to a health plan each month, since if you get sick or injured – even very seriously – you have more than enough money to pay all your medical bills yourself.
But those of us who have significantly less financial resources must find some other means of dealing with the thousands or even hundreds of thousands of dollars or more of medical expenses that we might incur should a serious illness or injury be our fate.
Enter the concept of “health insurance”.
Large numbers of individuals and/or their employers pay some money each month into one or another big pot called a “health plan”. Those individuals who remain essentially very healthy for many years and then suddenly die or perhaps leave a particular health plan for some other reason – if they have put more money into the pot than was taken out to pay all their medical expenses – wind up helping to pay the medical bills of those members of the health plan who become seriously ill or injured and incur a lot of medical expenses.
Many Americans covered by some form of health insurance don’t seem to fully understand or perhaps choose to ignore the fact that if they become seriously ill or injured, for the most part their medical bills will be paid by the members of their health plan who have remained healthy. Keeping members of a health plan healthy by preventing illness and injury is critically important, but is something not currently given the high priority and attention it deserves.
Some Americans believe that healthcare should become a “right” of every American citizen. If a nationalized single payer health plan were enacted, every American citizen who became ill or injured – for any reason whatsoever – and incurred significant medical expenses would for the most part have his or her medical bills paid by U.S. taxpayers. Many Americans oppose such a system for America recognizing that significant difficulties such as long waiting periods and rationing of care exist in such types of government healthcare systems that currently operate in other countries such as Canada and the United Kingdom.
For any health plan to work which has a large number of people pooling their money to essentially pay the medical bills of whichever members of the plan become seriously ill or injured, rules must be established as to when and how much money may be taken out of the pot e.g. “legitimate” doctor bills and hospital bills. Equally important is keeping track of the amount of money that is being put into the pot each month in premiums paid by health plan members or their employers. If too much is being paid out in expenses as compared with the amount being received in premiums, the pot will soon become empty and the health plan will go broke.
As previously mentioned, the monthly premiums paid by individuals or their employers go into a health plan’s big pot from which “covered” healthcare expenses are paid. But also from this pot are paid all the health plan’s administrative expenses including what may be big salaries and golden parachutes for CEO’s and other “healthcare executives” – individuals who may be paid to find technicalities of one sort or another in the health plan’s agreements so the health plan can deny or reduce payments, raise premiums, cancel insurance, or in one way or another minimize or exclude “bad risks” from the health plan. All such questionable business practices are done to enable the health plan to make a profit and remain in business.
Currently we are experiencing continual increases in healthcare costs that are unsustainable and which, if unchecked, will soon seriously threaten the future of the entire American economy. Healthcare costs must be controlled, but how? If a healthcare system made up of health plans is going to have a chance of both meeting the needs of health plan members and simultaneously develop the ability to keep costs under control, priorities, incentives, and the rules by which the game is played all must be changed.
The good news is that a lot of illnesses and many injuries are actually preventable. But how will prevention ever become a top medical priority when doctors, hospitals, and other providers get paid largely for diagnosing and treating illness and injury, not for preventing it?
Although health promotion and disease and injury prevention receive fashionable and socially acceptable lip service, the fact is that most of the participants in what should be more appropriately called our “sickness and injury care system” actually have no significant financial incentive whatsoever to spend any significant time and energy in genuinely promoting health and helping to prevent disease and injury.
Much to the contrary. Other than the actual members of a health plan – patients and potential patients – and their employers and perhaps the employees of some health plans, most participants in our sickness and injury care system – because of the way they are paid – have an enormous (if unspoken) financial incentive for massive amounts of disease and injury – much of which is preventable – to continue to occur in America. Strictly from a financial point of view, for those whose incomes come solely from the treatment – not the prevention – of illness and injury, the more illness and injury that occurs, the better. And if the illness or injury is serious and requires perhaps many expensive tests, multiple surgical procedures, and other very complicated prolonged treatment in an intensive care unit, so much the better; just as long as those unfortunate individuals who happen to be ill or injured are “covered” by “good insurance”, i.e. health plans that are reliable bill payers.
This is not to say that there are not some excellent very dedicated and hardworking doctors and other health professionals – although they are paid on a fee for service basis to care for illness and injury – who nevertheless attempt to essentially work themselves out of a job by making health promotion and disease and injury prevention a top priority with their patients.
It should also be recognized that some existing health plans – e.g. Kaiser and Group Health – combine insurance, doctors, and hospitals into a single entity in such a way that provides everyone – including all the health plan’s doctors – a real incentive to spend time and effort with patients on health promotion and disease and injury prevention as well as on early diagnosis and treatment.
But unfortunately the above examples represent only a small part of the sickness and injury care system that currently exists throughout America.
For the most part – because of the way they are compensated – the majority of doctors and other professional providers, acute care hospitals and long term care facilities, pharmaceutical manufactures and pharmacists, medical and surgical equipment manufacturers and personal injury and malpractice attorneys – among others – depend mightily on massive amounts of disease and injury occurring in America; and these participants in our sickness and injury care system would be significantly negatively impacted if a lot of the preventable illnesses and injuries were actually prevented. This must be changed.
Unless the incentives and rules are changed to give as many participants as possible a real financial stake in health promotion and disease and injury prevention, in early diagnosis and treatment, and in maximizing health and minimizing disease and injury, healthcare costs in America will never be brought under control. Making appropriate changes in the incentives and the rules of the game is the real task and challenge of “healthcare reform”.
What about financial incentives for individual health plan members? Should individuals receive a financial incentive to be healthy? It is well recognized that engaging in regular exercise, abstaining from tobacco, and eating moderately so as to maintain a reasonably normal body weight are all significant factors in helping to promote an individual’s health and wellness. These healthy behaviors can all be confirmed by simple tests performed or ordered in a doctor’s office. Why shouldn’t those individuals who practice these health promoting behaviors and comply with recommended immunization schedules and appropriate preventive screening examinations such as for colon cancer and breast cancer pay significantly less in premiums to their health plan each month than those who don’t?
To really reform healthcare we must find ways – through changes in incentives and the rules of the game – to actually prevent what is preventable, to maximize early diagnosis and treatment, and minimize disease and injury with all its associated cost. We must find ways for participants to be part of our “healthcare system” and not just a part of our “sickness and injury care system”.
Significant changes in the rules of the game for our legal system – tort reform – is also critically important so that the gaming of the system now being done by personal injury and malpractice attorneys and their clients can be ended and so that the exorbitant costs to physicians and other professionals for malpractice insurance can be dramatically reduced.
Truly transforming our “sickness and injury care system” into a “healthcare system” by making significant changes in the incentives and the rules of the game may seem to be a formidable task and one that probably has never really been done before on a large scale anywhere in the world. But it is a worthy task and a critically important task for the future of America and its people.
One significant part of this process is developing the capability of creating an electronic health record for every American citizen who wants one. We need a standardized framework that will allow every American citizen to have an individual electronic health record – a computerized medical record – that can be accessed by all the doctors who care for a particular individual, regardless of wherever on the planet the doctors or the patients happen to be. It would be like having your own personal online banking account that only you have the password to, but which you can share with the doctors who are caring for you, wherever you or they may be.
I applaud those who are using their energy and expertise to upgrade our deplorable current paper medical records system and bring medical records in America into the 21st century. Developing a standardized framework for an electronic health record – for every citizen who wants one – created by your doctor with your assistance, with proper security and safeguards – is something that our national government can and should do as a part of healthcare reform.
If done well, electronic health records will be transformational in helping doctors efficiently and effectively care for patients and will save an enormous amount of time, effort, and money which is currently wasted on needless and frequently inaccurate duplication. And having an accurate electronic health record for an individual will also facilitate appropriate health promotion and disease and injury prevention for that individual. Like the telephone and the computer, someday we will all wonder how we ever got along without individual electronic health records.
All this requires action, not just words. Now is the time for Americans and their leaders and doctors and other health professionals to step up to the plate and begin the process of transforming our “American Sickness and Injury Care System” into an “American Healthcare System” that is worthy of our great country.
Robert Westafer M.D.
Posted by: Robert Westafer | May 12, 2009, 3:18 am 3:18 am
Electronic records will mean that patients have the secrecy and privacy that the CIA offered to George Bush.
Barack Obama will have access to all your personal data.
Posted by: drjohn | May 12, 2009, 6:42 am 6:42 am
Love Universal Health Care?
It’s failed in Oregon and Hawaii.
Universal care was instituted in Massachusetts in 2006 and costs have risen 42% since then.
Posted by: drjohn | May 12, 2009, 6:44 am 6:44 am
“To really reform healthcare we must find ways – through changes in incentives and the rules of the game – to actually prevent what is preventable, to maximize early diagnosis and treatment, and minimize disease and injury with all its associated cost. We must find ways for participants to be part of our “healthcare system” and not just a part of our “sickness and injury care system”.”
You’re talking rationing, Bob, just as Obama is, especially the ends of life.
And without a concomitant effort in tort reform, conversations about health care costs are pretty meaningless.
Posted by: drjohn | May 12, 2009, 6:47 am 6:47 am
“The doctor asked the president if medical malpractice reform would be part of the solution; the president said he’d keep an open mind, though on Capitol Hill Democrats have historically opposed such efforts.”
That means no. And this is what makes this topic so ridiculous. Obama is NOT going to ask his minions to make the “shared sacrifice” he will demand of those who actually provide your heath care. So providers can expect lower fees with the same exposure.
This is why Obama is so despicable.
Posted by: drjohn | May 12, 2009, 6:54 am 6:54 am
We are all going to live happily (and healthily) for ever after.
Posted by: DontGet818OnMeNow | May 12, 2009, 8:19 am 8:19 am
If the healthcare industry is promising to lower prices then why did I just get a notice from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Maryland that my premiums will climb by 39 percent in July of this year? By then, I’ll have been part of this plan for six months. The healthcare industry is not going to lower anything – they are playing a game which they’ve played before and won. Consumers need to learn about healthcare pricing and start watching what they pay and who they pay it too. Check out healthcarebluebook, a new free pricing guide that tells you what you should pay for a service in your zip code because it’s what health plans pay their doctors. At least when they tell you it will be three times that, you can shop around.
Posted by: Aimee | May 12, 2009, 8:46 am 8:46 am
“Obama is NOT going to ask his minions to make the “shared sacrifice” he will demand of those who actually provide your heath care.”
I agree that malpractice reform is not an unreasonable demand, but don’t blame his minions. A majority of people do not sue for malpractice.
Posted by: Skip | May 12, 2009, 8:49 am 8:49 am
Does anyone think that the the insurance industry will ask for tons of gov’t moeny.. I do.. they will put most of it in their pocket..
Posted by: DontGet818OnMeNow | May 12, 2009, 8:57 am 8:57 am
Posted by: Skip | May 12, 2009 8:49:45 AM
That’s not the point. The burden visited upon the system is brutal. The amount of money spent doing tests just to certain you’re not exposed is towering.
You’d probably be astonished to learn how much money is spent on settling nuisance cases. Canada has a “loser pays” system.
Posted by: drjohn | May 12, 2009, 10:12 am 10:12 am
Skip wrote: “A majority of people do not sue for malpractice.”
When the Liberals finally get their single payer universal healthcare entirely run by the federal government you better hope you never experience malpractice. Have you ever tried suing the federal government?
Posted by: James Danley | May 12, 2009, 10:33 am 10:33 am
DontGet818OnMeNow wrote: “Does anyone think that the the insurance industry will ask for tons of gov’t money (corrected)?”
They may ask for it but they certainly won’t get it. That’s because the Liberals want to eliminate private healthcare insurance and replace it with a single payer (the federal govenment) system.
Posted by: James Danley | May 12, 2009, 10:39 am 10:39 am
“…you better hope you never experience malpractice”
drjohn was just saying that there will be no more protection from malpractice and you’re saying that suing for malpractice will become more difficult, so which is it?
Posted by: Skip | May 12, 2009, 12:13 pm 12:13 pm
Skip, where in my comment do you read that “suing for malpractice will become more difficult?” I just asked the question as to whether you have ever tried to sue the federal government.
The fact is that you CANNOT sue the federal government unless the federal government allows you to.
Posted by: James Danley | May 12, 2009, 2:00 pm 2:00 pm
James Danley…
I don’t disagree with your assessment.
Posted by: DontGet818OnMeNow | May 12, 2009, 3:13 pm 3:13 pm
.. and one that same thread ..
Currently the US Gov’t. is the largest single payer – for health care and pharmacy .. (I heard this on a CNBC interview with some sort of health or insurance guru/exec.)
Posted by: DontGet818OnMeNow | May 12, 2009, 3:15 pm 3:15 pm