Author Topic: What comes after the ACA?  (Read 471300 times)

jim555

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1483
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #4000 on: December 21, 2017, 02:40:29 PM »
Some potentially good news. The Administration has indicated they do not intend to go after Obamacare beyond the elimination of the individual mandate. So the ACA will most likely be around at least a few more years in its current condition, which is fine for anyone receiving a subsidy as long as an insurer is available.

https://amp.thedailybeast.com/trump-white-house-signals-it-will-abandon-obamacare-repeal
Would be good news, but one minute to another and everything can change with this Administration.  I don't trust anything they say.

Monkey Uncle

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1142
  • Location: West-by-god-Virginia
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #4001 on: December 21, 2017, 04:56:40 PM »
Some potentially good news. The Administration has indicated they do not intend to go after Obamacare beyond the elimination of the individual mandate. So the ACA will most likely be around at least a few more years in its current condition, which is fine for anyone receiving a subsidy as long as an insurer is available.

https://amp.thedailybeast.com/trump-white-house-signals-it-will-abandon-obamacare-repeal

I hope they really do back off.  But I'm not letting my guard down.  This administration has shown time and again that it has no qualms about abandoning promises and telling outright lies.

And Susan Collins got rolled big time when she fell for Mitch McConnell's promise to take up the ACA stabilization measures in the budget bill.  Once the tax bill passed, it was, "oh, nevermind."  I saw that coming a mile away; I can't imagine why she didn't.
"Take this job and shove it" - David Allan Coe

thenextguy

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 186
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #4002 on: December 21, 2017, 05:39:21 PM »
Some potentially good news. The Administration has indicated they do not intend to go after Obamacare beyond the elimination of the individual mandate. So the ACA will most likely be around at least a few more years in its current condition, which is fine for anyone receiving a subsidy as long as an insurer is available.

https://amp.thedailybeast.com/trump-white-house-signals-it-will-abandon-obamacare-repeal

 I can't imagine why she didn't.

She didn't care.

JustGettingStarted1980

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 367
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #4003 on: December 21, 2017, 07:12:35 PM »
Some potentially good news. The Administration has indicated they do not intend to go after Obamacare beyond the elimination of the individual mandate. So the ACA will most likely be around at least a few more years in its current condition, which is fine for anyone receiving a subsidy as long as an insurer is available.

https://amp.thedailybeast.com/trump-white-house-signals-it-will-abandon-obamacare-repeal

 I can't imagine why she didn't.

She didn't care.

Maybe she should change parties? It seems the more reasonable folks in her party have bowed out a long time ago...

"If you can keep your head when all about you
 Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
 But make allowance for their doubting too.....

If you can dream—and not make dreams your master;
 If you can think—and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster,
 And treat those two impostors just the same"

Paul der Krake

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3777
  • Age: 10
  • Board Member
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #4004 on: December 22, 2017, 08:30:04 PM »
"I tried but this other boogeyman is to blame".

talltexan

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1281
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #4005 on: December 28, 2017, 06:52:18 AM »
All the hype over Susan Collins was by liberal media who cannot comprehend why this tax bill is such a prize for conservatives. Yes, Flake, McCain, Corker, and a bunch of others say things that sound anti-Trump. But this tax bill wasn't Trump. It was the reason the GOP stood with Trump. They accepted Trump because--all along--there was the hope of this tax bill. It is a Republican tax bill, NOT a Trump tax bill.

If Trump were standing on the sidelines and we had a President Jeb Bush, the exact same tax bill would have still been passed.

DarkandStormy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 853
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #4006 on: December 28, 2017, 12:57:15 PM »
All the hype over Susan Collins was by liberal media who cannot comprehend why this tax bill is such a prize for conservatives. Yes, Flake, McCain, Corker, and a bunch of others say things that sound anti-Trump. But this tax bill wasn't Trump. It was the reason the GOP stood with Trump. They accepted Trump because--all along--there was the hope of this tax bill. It is a Republican tax bill, NOT a Trump tax bill.

If Trump were standing on the sidelines and we had a President Jeb Bush, the exact same tax bill would have still been passed.

Collins said she wouldn't vote for the tax bill if it cut millionaires taxes.  It did.

Corker said he wouldn't vote for it if "added a dime to the deficit."  It adds, by most estimates, more than $1 trillion to the deficit (that's a lot of dimes, Bob).

Flake said he wouldn't vote on it until a vote was brought up on DACA.  It wasn't.

McCain...well, he didn't vote on it, so who knows.

But those first three made very clear promises that they broke for no reason.
The Chase Trifecta:
Earn 50,000 Ultimate Rewards points with Chase Sapphire Preferred - $4k spend in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/6/2MOVOLZCEJ
Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom Unlimited - only $500 spend needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/18/ENYF0FTS66
Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom - only $500 spend needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/2/DBOP9XI9XT

Southwest Cards - Earn 50k miles for $2k spend in 3 months.
Premier -
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/224/JY2BMSDZJ2
Plus -
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/223/F3ZW8H140N

Recommended Cell Service - Google's Project Fi: https://g.co/fi/r/THK0WX

EnjoyIt

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 803
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #4007 on: December 28, 2017, 01:38:19 PM »
I hope getting rid of the individual mandate will open up lower cost health insurance options to those who do not need everything the ACA offers.  I equally hope that the pre-existing condition clause stays in place as well as subsidies for the poor.  Considering our healthcare expenses cost less than $1k a year I would be thrilled to find a real catastrophic plan instead of the junk we have been forced into thus far. 

Maybe the republicans can now lay off the ACA and maybe work with democrats on ways to decrease the cost of healthcare which will benefit everyone. 

GettingClose

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 74
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #4008 on: December 29, 2017, 10:46:44 AM »
The current bronze plans are really nothing more than good catastrophic plans with the protections of:
1) pre-existing conditions covered
2) out-of-pocket max (prior to the ACA you could still be on the hook for 20% of $1.4M, or whatever)
3) no lifetime cap (prior to the ACA this could be as low as $1M)

The only ways to decrease the cost of health insurance are
1) make sure everyone pays in (individual mandate)
2) cut out the necessity for insurance companies - allow everyone to buy into Medicare at age-graded premiums
3) lower the actual cost of health care - I see the problems here, but don't know how it can be done

stoaX

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 400
  • Location: SoCal
  • 'tis nothing good nor bad but thinking makes it so
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #4009 on: December 29, 2017, 01:56:15 PM »
The current bronze plans are really nothing more than good catastrophic plans with the protections of:
1) pre-existing conditions covered
2) out-of-pocket max (prior to the ACA you could still be on the hook for 20% of $1.4M, or whatever)
3) no lifetime cap (prior to the ACA this could be as low as $1M)

The only ways to decrease the cost of health insurance are
1) make sure everyone pays in (individual mandate)
2) cut out the necessity for insurance companies - allow everyone to buy into Medicare at age-graded premiums
3) lower the actual cost of health care - I see the problems here, but don't know how it can be done

Quite succinct - thanks! 

maizeman

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1829
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #4010 on: December 29, 2017, 02:57:04 PM »
The only ways to decrease the cost of health insurance are
1) make sure everyone pays in (individual mandate)
2) cut out the necessity for insurance companies - allow everyone to buy into Medicare at age-graded premiums
3) lower the actual cost of health care - I see the problems here, but don't know how it can be done

I'd split 3 into 3a/3b.

3a) reduce the cost of specific healthcare procedures/services
     control prescription drug costs (no more Martin Shkrelis)
     shift more work MDs currently do to NPs and PAs, more work NPs/PAs do to RNs, and so on.
     shift more ER visits for non-immediately life threatening conditions to urgent care centers
     require hospitals to publicize pricing so people can comparison shop for non-emergency care

3b) reduce the amount of healthcare procedures/services consumed
     HSA style insurance (particularly with large employer contributions to the HSA accounts) tend to produce more optimized using of healthcare (people don't overconsume, but also see doctors when they need to).
     Preventative medicine interventions to reduce the incidence of chronic long term illnesses, like diabetes, which is a lot cheaper to prevent than to treat.
     End of life planning. Perhaps 1/10th of total healthcare spending in the united states occurs in the last six months of life and often is for interventions that prolong suffering or prolong life without consciousness. Many people would decline such interventions when they are healthy and lucid, but don't have a good advance directive in place for when they are no longer lucid.

Classical_Liberal

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 862
  • Age: 41
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #4011 on: December 30, 2017, 09:03:11 AM »
The current bronze plans are really nothing more than good catastrophic plans with the protections of:
1) pre-existing conditions covered
2) out-of-pocket max (prior to the ACA you could still be on the hook for 20% of $1.4M, or whatever)
3) no lifetime cap (prior to the ACA this could be as low as $1M)
4) The bronze plans cost 400% more (for me, a healthy person) without subsidies. 
5) Catastrophic plans allow me to pick my risk for OOP costs; then I only pay for what I absolutely need. 

The only ways to decrease the cost of health insurance are
1) make sure everyone pays in (individual mandate)

This doesn't reduce cost.  It makes those who choose their own non-compliant plan (ie healthy people) cover the costs for those who can't afford the cost of their own plans (ie sick people).  I'm not arguing this is wrong, just that your statement is patently false and does nothing to decrease overall costs.  It's a wealth transfer from healthy to sick; pure and simple.

NaturallyHappier

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 128
  • Age: 52
  • Location: Near Philadelphia, PA
  • FIRED 3/10/2017
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #4012 on: December 30, 2017, 01:44:03 PM »
I hope getting rid of the individual mandate will open up lower cost health insurance options to those who do not need everything the ACA offers. 

No disrespect meant, but I feel this is a little short sighted. 

Let's say you are on your catastrophic plan and are diagnosed with a disease and your medicine cost just under 6 figures (my family has this situation).  Your 50 something and you have 10 or 15 years to go until you are eligible for medicare.  Now you will be part of the high risk group and because everyone else is on one of those catastrophic plans your premiums are $3000.00 a month (twice the cost of this plan now) for a plan with a $7000.00 annual deductible.  You now get to pay $43,000.00 a year for coverage or pay nearly 6 figures for medicine and pay for the catastrophic plan. 

Unfortunately, you will soon be low income and qualify for subsidies or medicare once you run out of money.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6246
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #4013 on: December 30, 2017, 02:06:37 PM »
You have described the desired situation, under the GOP version of healthcare.  The whole point is to charge people less, for less coverage, and then charge them more when they get sick our injured.  They're deconstructing the entire theory of insurance risk pools.

Exflyboy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4941
  • Age: 56
  • Location: Corvallis, Oregon
  • Expat Brit living in the New World..:)
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #4014 on: December 30, 2017, 02:29:54 PM »
Thankfully in that scenario the FIRED folk have the option of emigrating to.. well, just about anywhere to find affordable healthcare.

Its hard to imagine how much worse this fucked system can get before the revolution happens.

At least its not Socialism though eh?

Classical_Liberal

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 862
  • Age: 41
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #4015 on: December 30, 2017, 03:28:51 PM »
Let's say you are on your catastrophic plan and are diagnosed with a disease and your medicine cost just under 6 figures (my family has this situation).  Your 50 something and you have 10 or 15 years to go until you are eligible for medicare.  Now you will be part of the high risk group and because everyone else is on one of those catastrophic plans your premiums are $3000.00 a month (twice the cost of this plan now) for a plan with a $7000.00 annual deductible.  You now get to pay $43,000.00 a year for coverage or pay nearly 6 figures for medicine and pay for the catastrophic plan. 

Unfortunately, you will soon be low income and qualify for subsidies or medicare once you run out of money.

This single statement encapsulates all that is wrong with our healthcare system. 

A)You can pay premiums through various employers or independently for decades, then the moment you file a claim you're screwed.  Why would any sane person want to pay the premiums to begin with in this system?

B)Healthcare is too expensive in the US (this is a topic in itself)

C)When an uninsured person gets sick it becomes a problem for all of us.  In the US it's not morally OK to let sick people suffer simply because they don't have money.

It's identical to the retirement problem.  We don't want seniors living in the streets or starving... enter in SS.  A basic level backstop.  Everyone has to pay in because too many people are too stupid to do it for themselves. Stupid people's decisions cost the whole society.  The only way for it to remain solvent is for some wealth distribution.  This wealth distribution is worth it to the "well off" because it keeps the society in which they thrive functional.

If we really believe healthcare is a right in this country, we need to pony up and create a backstop.  You don't get the Cadillac care (just like SS recipients don't get million dollar pensions), but you do get preventative care to promote wellness and basic cares required to treat illness.  Private insurance and HSA's can fill the gap for people who want private-room birthing centers with massage treatments and catered meals.  Just like annuities and IRA's do for retirement.

Will the system be inefficient and wrought with crony capitalism? Absolutely!  It's big government!

But whats the alternative at this point?  At least once the gov't is directly paying the bills for all basic medical care our legislatures will be more motivated to figure out ways (with regulated capitalism) to reduce costs.



Exflyboy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4941
  • Age: 56
  • Location: Corvallis, Oregon
  • Expat Brit living in the New World..:)
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #4016 on: December 30, 2017, 03:49:25 PM »
The problem is that to those that matter (billionaires who use $$ to influence the government through lobbying groups) there is almost zero motivation to reduce the cost of HC.

Why?.. Well HC is 15% of the US economy. So 15% of their rather large dividend payments from their enormous portfolios comes from the HC industry.

So tell me what possible incentive is there to do anything other than let the HC industry gouge money from their captive market.. What does it matter if a few die along the way, thats just chump change. Heck we even have the FDA to act like the drug company lapdog that will one day soon start cracking down on Grandma buying her meds from Canada.

Fantastic system.. Nothing wrong with it as far as I can see!

Radagast

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 770
  • Location: West of the Mountains, East of the Sea
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #4017 on: December 30, 2017, 08:44:04 PM »
But whats the alternative at this point?  At least once the gov't is directly paying the bills for all basic medical care our legislatures will be more motivated to figure out ways (with regulated capitalism) to reduce costs.
I'd like to see an 80%-90% flat subsidy of all healthcare costs. Not free or universal. Also a requirement that prices must be displayed up front not less clearly than an average McDonald's or Apple website, and the provider cannot tack things on later except in emergency situations. Nobody gets free health care, but it is very, very cheap. That way there is still price competition. It still leaves room for charities, HSA's, and catastrophic insurance, but they are not generally necessary.

I thought of a graded scale by means and income, but decided that is too complicated and redundant with income tax.


TheMCP

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 23
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #4018 on: December 31, 2017, 09:12:24 AM »
I hope getting rid of the individual mandate will open up lower cost health insurance options to those who do not need everything the ACA offers. 

No disrespect meant, but I feel this is a little short sighted. 

Let's say you are on your catastrophic plan and are diagnosed with a disease and your medicine cost just under 6 figures (my family has this situation).  Your 50 something and you have 10 or 15 years to go until you are eligible for medicare.  Now you will be part of the high risk group and because everyone else is on one of those catastrophic plans your premiums are $3000.00 a month (twice the cost of this plan now) for a plan with a $7000.00 annual deductible.  You now get to pay $43,000.00 a year for coverage or pay nearly 6 figures for medicine and pay for the catastrophic plan. 

Unfortunately, you will soon be low income and qualify for subsidies or medicare once you run out of money.

The way things stand right now, wouldn't one just be able to sign up for a normal ACA marketplace plan at that point, since the preexisting condition protections still apply there?

maizeman

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1829
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #4019 on: December 31, 2017, 12:41:46 PM »
To touch on the question of how you reduce healthcare costs again, it was fascinating to read this recent article, which appears to have been inspired by a recent study which demonstrated that inserting stents into arteries to treat chest pain works no better than a placebo surgery.

Essentially, it sounds like there is a major problem with many medical procedures which have been shown to provide no actual benefit to patients continue to be widely performed for years or decades after the science is in.

Quote
“Millions of people are receiving drugs that aren’t helping them, operations that aren’t going to make them better, and scans and tests that do nothing beneficial for them, and often cause harm.”... Estimates vary about what fraction of the treatments provided to patients is supported by adequate evidence, but some reviews place the figure at under half. ...One study of [a campaign to encourage MDs to adopt evidence based medicine] examined seven procedures that have widely been shown to be ineffective, including imaging tests for “uncomplicated” headaches, cardiac imaging for patients without a history of heart problems, and routine imaging for patients with low-back pain. In the two-to-three-year period leading up to 2013, only two of the seven practices targeted for reduction showed any decrease at all in the US. (And the declines were tiny: The use of scans for those uncomplicated headaches decreased from 14.9 percent to 13.4 percent, for instance.)

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/12/28/16823266/medical-treatments-evidence-based-expensive-cost-stents

Exflyboy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4941
  • Age: 56
  • Location: Corvallis, Oregon
  • Expat Brit living in the New World..:)
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #4020 on: December 31, 2017, 01:51:09 PM »
Yup as long as we keep paying they will keep providing!

NaturallyHappier

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 128
  • Age: 52
  • Location: Near Philadelphia, PA
  • FIRED 3/10/2017
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #4021 on: December 31, 2017, 02:10:00 PM »
I hope getting rid of the individual mandate will open up lower cost health insurance options to those who do not need everything the ACA offers. 

No disrespect meant, but I feel this is a little short sighted. 

Let's say you are on your catastrophic plan and are diagnosed with a disease and your medicine cost just under 6 figures (my family has this situation).  Your 50 something and you have 10 or 15 years to go until you are eligible for medicare.  Now you will be part of the high risk group and because everyone else is on one of those catastrophic plans your premiums are $3000.00 a month (twice the cost of this plan now) for a plan with a $7000.00 annual deductible.  You now get to pay $43,000.00 a year for coverage or pay nearly 6 figures for medicine and pay for the catastrophic plan. 

Unfortunately, you will soon be low income and qualify for subsidies or medicare once you run out of money.

The way things stand right now, wouldn't one just be able to sign up for a normal ACA marketplace plan at that point, since the preexisting condition protections still apply there?

This is using an ACA Plan.

Exflyboy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4941
  • Age: 56
  • Location: Corvallis, Oregon
  • Expat Brit living in the New World..:)
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #4022 on: December 31, 2017, 02:32:28 PM »
Yes but that is not true as of today.. i.e you cannot be charged more for an ACA plan based on medical history (smoking not withstanding).

freya

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 110
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #4023 on: December 31, 2017, 02:51:47 PM »
Spreading risk among healthy and sick people is exactly the point of insurance.  How I wish universal coverage could become a reality, e.g. Medicare for all.

How about this for an idea:  Have Medicare kick in not just for age 65+ and people needing dialysis, but automatically for anyone who incurs more than $50,000 of medical expenses in a year.  In other words, government would backstop private insurers above this threshold.  This effectively increases the "very sick" risk pool to a nationwide one, which spreads risk around optimally.  Private insurers would have less excuse to increase rates, because now they don't have to plan for the relatively rare but catastrophic payouts that make it difficult to predict expenses.

This might be a form of universal coverage that even Republicans could stomach.  I'd be willing to see an increase in the Medicare tax to make this happen.

protostache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 801
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #4024 on: December 31, 2017, 05:34:41 PM »
Spreading risk among healthy and sick people is exactly the point of insurance.  How I wish universal coverage could become a reality, e.g. Medicare for all.

How about this for an idea:  Have Medicare kick in not just for age 65+ and people needing dialysis, but automatically for anyone who incurs more than $50,000 of medical expenses in a year.  In other words, government would backstop private insurers above this threshold.  This effectively increases the "very sick" risk pool to a nationwide one, which spreads risk around optimally.  Private insurers would have less excuse to increase rates, because now they don't have to plan for the relatively rare but catastrophic payouts that make it difficult to predict expenses.

This might be a form of universal coverage that even Republicans could stomach.  I'd be willing to see an increase in the Medicare tax to make this happen.

This is called reinsurance. Alaska and Minnesota have state-based reinsurance programs, where the state backstops policies at $50k of claims. They have proven to reduce premiums by multiple tens of percents. The Federal government could easily implement this nationwide, and in fact there was a temporary nationwide reinsurance program that ended at the beginning of the 2017 plan year.

rockeTree

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 160
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #4025 on: January 01, 2018, 07:08:02 AM »
Would this run into the government-can’t-negotiate-drug-prices problem? If it’s the backstop for essentially everyone with a condition that’s very expensive to treat, any drug used only for that condition would become a blank check from the government for the developer (who will not, I can assure you, fill it out for “costs plus a reasonable margin”). But I’m not expert in this rule so may be wildly misunderstanding it...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1471
  • Age: 52
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #4026 on: January 01, 2018, 07:21:25 AM »
Spreading risk among healthy and sick people is exactly the point of insurance.  How I wish universal coverage could become a reality, e.g. Medicare for all.

How about this for an idea:  Have Medicare kick in not just for age 65+ and people needing dialysis, but automatically for anyone who incurs more than $50,000 of medical expenses in a year.  In other words, government would backstop private insurers above this threshold.  This effectively increases the "very sick" risk pool to a nationwide one, which spreads risk around optimally.  Private insurers would have less excuse to increase rates, because now they don't have to plan for the relatively rare but catastrophic payouts that make it difficult to predict expenses.

This might be a form of universal coverage that even Republicans could stomach.  I'd be willing to see an increase in the Medicare tax to make this happen.

This is called reinsurance. Alaska and Minnesota have state-based reinsurance programs, where the state backstops policies at $50k of claims. They have proven to reduce premiums by multiple tens of percents. The Federal government could easily implement this nationwide, and in fact there was a temporary nationwide reinsurance program that ended at the beginning of the 2017 plan year.

The advantage of reinsurance is that not only does the government cover the very sickest with very high health care costs, but the insurance companies then lower the cost of health insurance premiums, which means the federal government has lower subsidies to shell out. Those that don't qualify for subsidies at least can benefit from the lowered cost of health insurance.

freya

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 110
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #4027 on: January 01, 2018, 08:12:02 AM »
I didn't know about the Alaska plan, protostache.  It's by designated medical condition not a dollar amount, but same idea.  The immediate impact is impressive:  a 7% insurance rate increase instead of 42%, with insurers paying for the reinsurance.  So it works - why isn't everyone getting on that bandwagon???

Doing it through Medicare taxes instead of billing it to private insurance would be even better, as that means everyone paying FICA contributes to the reinsurance cost, and premiums would be still lower.  It would also provide a way for hospitals to recoup losses from caring for uninsured people who end up on their doorstep with a catastrophic condition - perhaps reducing hospital costs.  That and prescription drugs are far and away the biggest ticket items in health care costs, outside of billing & regulatory-related overhead.  Trying to reduce healthcare spending by cutting physician reimbursements for office visits is like trying to fund your grocery spending by fishing coins out of a soda machine.

I hope fixing the prescription drug issue is on the GOP's todo list, but with the amount of big pharma money flowing into campaign chests on both sides of the aisle, I'm not holding my breath.

EnjoyIt

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 803
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #4028 on: January 04, 2018, 01:40:44 AM »
To touch on the question of how you reduce healthcare costs again, it was fascinating to read this recent article, which appears to have been inspired by a recent study which demonstrated that inserting stents into arteries to treat chest pain works no better than a placebo surgery.

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/12/28/16823266/medical-treatments-evidence-based-expensive-cost-stents

The bolded is some obnoxious drivel.  This article does not point to a single study that allows one to verify those claims.  In fact appropriate cardiac stenting has been shown to decrease the incidence of heart attacks and prolong life.  It has also decreased the need for open heart surgery for bypass grafts.  It is articles like this that dumb down our population to make idiotic decisions like not vaccinating their kids.

As for over ordering tests.  I will agree we order too many studies in this country.  The reason is because physicians can't be wrong.  They can't miss anything. It is not just about being sued but also the risk of loosing your privileges at a hospital or losing your license. No one faults a physician for ordering too many tests.  But have a few misses by not ordering a CT and you will be forced out of your hospital.

NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1832
  • Location: Cleveland
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #4029 on: January 04, 2018, 06:14:03 AM »
To touch on the question of how you reduce healthcare costs again, it was fascinating to read this recent article, which appears to have been inspired by a recent study which demonstrated that inserting stents into arteries to treat chest pain works no better than a placebo surgery.

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/12/28/16823266/medical-treatments-evidence-based-expensive-cost-stents

The bolded is some obnoxious drivel.  This article does not point to a single study that allows one to verify those claims.  In fact appropriate cardiac stenting has been shown to decrease the incidence of heart attacks and prolong life.  It has also decreased the need for open heart surgery for bypass grafts.  It is articles like this that dumb down our population to make idiotic decisions like not vaccinating their kids.

Maizeman just misinterpreted the article. Appropriate cardiac stenting doesn't include stenting when you're not having a cardiac event. Hopefully you know this, given that you have letters after your name.
The first step is acknowledging you have a problem, right?

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/journals/digging-out-of-a-hole/

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4513
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #4030 on: January 04, 2018, 06:47:32 AM »
To touch on the question of how you reduce healthcare costs again, it was fascinating to read this recent article, which appears to have been inspired by a recent study which demonstrated that inserting stents into arteries to treat chest pain works no better than a placebo surgery.

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/12/28/16823266/medical-treatments-evidence-based-expensive-cost-stents

The bolded is some obnoxious drivel.  This article does not point to a single study that allows one to verify those claims.  In fact appropriate cardiac stenting has been shown to decrease the incidence of heart attacks and prolong life.  It has also decreased the need for open heart surgery for bypass grafts.  It is articles like this that dumb down our population to make idiotic decisions like not vaccinating their kids.

Maizeman just misinterpreted the article. Appropriate cardiac stenting doesn't include stenting when you're not having a cardiac event. Hopefully you know this, given that you have letters after your name.
Actually the research article does not say that.  The research article said that stents do not increase exercise even though they increase blood flow.  Therefore given the risk of surgery, if you can stabilize with drugs, it may be a better choice to do so.  That is not always possible and there are other risk factors that may make waiting and trying with drugs contracindicated.  I hate to agree with EnjoyIt on anything but I have to agree with him here.  Rarely do popular news get research articles correctly (I've only seen it happen five times in my short career).
« Last Edit: January 04, 2018, 06:54:10 AM by Gin1984 »

NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1832
  • Location: Cleveland
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #4031 on: January 04, 2018, 06:51:33 AM »
To touch on the question of how you reduce healthcare costs again, it was fascinating to read this recent article, which appears to have been inspired by a recent study which demonstrated that inserting stents into arteries to treat chest pain works no better than a placebo surgery.

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/12/28/16823266/medical-treatments-evidence-based-expensive-cost-stents

The bolded is some obnoxious drivel.  This article does not point to a single study that allows one to verify those claims.  In fact appropriate cardiac stenting has been shown to decrease the incidence of heart attacks and prolong life.  It has also decreased the need for open heart surgery for bypass grafts.  It is articles like this that dumb down our population to make idiotic decisions like not vaccinating their kids.

Maizeman just misinterpreted the article. Appropriate cardiac stenting doesn't include stenting when you're not having a cardiac event. Hopefully you know this, given that you have letters after your name.
Actually the research article does not say that.  The research article said that stents do not decrease pain even though they increase blood flow.  Therefore given the risk of surgery, if you can stabilize with drugs, it may be a better choice to do so.  That is not always possible and there are other risk factors that may make waiting and trying with drugs contracindicated.  I hate to agree with EnjoyIt on anything but I have to agree with him here.  Rarely do popular news get research articles correctly (I've only seen it happen five times in my short career).

"Stable chest pain" isn't a cardiac event, and stents aren't indicated. We're talking about unstable chest pain.
The first step is acknowledging you have a problem, right?

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/journals/digging-out-of-a-hole/

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4513
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #4032 on: January 04, 2018, 06:55:10 AM »
To touch on the question of how you reduce healthcare costs again, it was fascinating to read this recent article, which appears to have been inspired by a recent study which demonstrated that inserting stents into arteries to treat chest pain works no better than a placebo surgery.

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/12/28/16823266/medical-treatments-evidence-based-expensive-cost-stents

The bolded is some obnoxious drivel.  This article does not point to a single study that allows one to verify those claims.  In fact appropriate cardiac stenting has been shown to decrease the incidence of heart attacks and prolong life.  It has also decreased the need for open heart surgery for bypass grafts.  It is articles like this that dumb down our population to make idiotic decisions like not vaccinating their kids.

Maizeman just misinterpreted the article. Appropriate cardiac stenting doesn't include stenting when you're not having a cardiac event. Hopefully you know this, given that you have letters after your name.
Actually the research article does not say that.  The research article said that stents do not decrease pain even though they increase blood flow.  Therefore given the risk of surgery, if you can stabilize with drugs, it may be a better choice to do so.  That is not always possible and there are other risk factors that may make waiting and trying with drugs contracindicated.  I hate to agree with EnjoyIt on anything but I have to agree with him here.  Rarely do popular news get research articles correctly (I've only seen it happen five times in my short career).

"Stable chest pain" isn't a cardiac event, and stents aren't indicated. We're talking about unstable chest pain.
There were two articles it referenced, I was editing.  The first article it referred then referred to pain.

NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1832
  • Location: Cleveland
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #4033 on: January 04, 2018, 07:12:33 AM »
There were two articles it referenced, I was editing.  The first article it referred then referred to pain.

OK. Nobody really cares about pain. "Death" is really the primary focus for cardiac treatments. Stents are really good at preventing death related to unstable chest pain (aka heart attack).

If your doctor wants to schedule you a stent, run.
The first step is acknowledging you have a problem, right?

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/journals/digging-out-of-a-hole/

golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1442
  • Location: MA
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #4034 on: January 04, 2018, 07:20:50 AM »
Quote
How about this for an idea:  Have Medicare kick in not just for age 65+ and people needing dialysis, but automatically for anyone who incurs more than $50,000 of medical expenses in a year.  In other words, government would backstop private insurers above this threshold.  This effectively increases the "very sick" risk pool to a nationwide one, which spreads risk around optimally.  Private insurers would have less excuse to increase rates, because now they don't have to plan for the relatively rare but catastrophic payouts that make it difficult to predict expenses.

I like this a lot, and I could see this appealing to both liberals and conservatives. 

maizeman

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1829
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #4035 on: January 04, 2018, 07:22:20 AM »
To touch on the question of how you reduce healthcare costs again, it was fascinating to read this recent article, which appears to have been inspired by a recent study which demonstrated that inserting stents into arteries to treat chest pain works no better than a placebo surgery.

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/12/28/16823266/medical-treatments-evidence-based-expensive-cost-stents

The bolded is some obnoxious drivel.  This article does not point to a single study that allows one to verify those claims. In fact appropriate cardiac stenting has been shown to decrease the incidence of heart attacks and prolong life.  It has also decreased the need for open heart surgery for bypass grafts.  It is articles like this that dumb down our population to make idiotic decisions like not vaccinating their kids.

You're correct that you have to click through a couple of layers of links to get to the actual primary literature, but when you do, you do find real studies in reputable scientific journals. One example is this paper* which was published in the New England Journal of Medicine (with is a rather reputable journal in the field), and describes a randomized study that looked at a population of about 2,300 people who had stable coronary artery disease (which produces chest pain) but not acute coronary artery disease (essentially heart attacks) who either received a stent + medical intervention, or medical intervention alone. Both looking at only the results of their study, or a meta-analysis including this study and several others which increased the total number of patents to ~5,000, the authors find no evidence that treating patents with stable chest pain with stents decreases their risk of later progressing to having heart attacks.

To be clear, no one is saying that stenting is never appropriate or never saves lives. They are using large scale studies to identify when stenting is or isn't an appropriate treatment. In this case they found that using stenting to treat a specific condition (stable coronary artery disease, which produces stable chest pain) doesn't appear to provide significant health benefits, yet, at least at the time this study was conducted they estimate 85% of stents were being inserted to treat this condition rather than for patents acute coronary systems (where the statistical evidence is clear that stents save lives).

* http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa070829


radram

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 616
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #4036 on: January 04, 2018, 07:22:39 AM »
There were two articles it referenced, I was editing.  The first article it referred then referred to pain.

OK. Nobody really cares about pain. "Death" is really the primary focus for cardiac treatments. Stents are really good at preventing death related to unstable chest pain (aka heart attack).

If your doctor wants to schedule you a stent, run.

Don't they schedule an angioplasty based on test results, and then insert stints only based on the results of angioplasty? In effect there is never a "planned stint" surgery. Is this correct?

 Base on this conversation it seems to be an important distinction.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7181
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #4037 on: January 04, 2018, 07:53:27 AM »
Quote
How about this for an idea:  Have Medicare kick in not just for age 65+ and people needing dialysis, but automatically for anyone who incurs more than $50,000 of medical expenses in a year.  In other words, government would backstop private insurers above this threshold.  This effectively increases the "very sick" risk pool to a nationwide one, which spreads risk around optimally.  Private insurers would have less excuse to increase rates, because now they don't have to plan for the relatively rare but catastrophic payouts that make it difficult to predict expenses.

I like this a lot, and I could see this appealing to both liberals and conservatives.

Hmm.... trying to think this one through.  Currently the most expensive portion of health insurance is paying for very rare but very expensive acute traumatic or severe chronic conditions.  There are really two ways that an individual can run up a 5 or 6 figure medical bill; very rapidly with an acute (e.g. 'emergency', e.g. 'trauma') condition, or over many years with a severe chronic condition. For an acute condition (e.g. car accident, major-organ surgery etc) the above proposal would be effective in 'backstopping' private insurance at the expense of the federal government.  However, what it would do little to change insurance markets for chronic conditions which require annual medical care of $10k-$50k for the duration of the patient's life. These would be the people who need to see their doctor every few weeks, who require expensive medications and who must undergo monthly treatments such as dialysis or blood transfusions. They are still in this "high-risk" pool; their annual medical bills may never rise to the $50k cap, but they can easily require $1-3k of care per month for many decades.

I think a hybrid system is our best hope in the US, where the population currently won't tolerate a completely government run health-care system. 'Backstops' may be part of the solution but they're just a brick int he wall. As discussed here, oh, 50+ pages ago I still believe that basic services should be available to all for a small regulated fee, including annual exams and vaccinations. Where and when private insurance comes in is tough part.
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

EnjoyIt

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 803
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #4038 on: January 04, 2018, 10:18:56 AM »
I hate to agree with EnjoyIt on anything but I have to agree with him here. 

I almost fell over reading this.


A patient gets coronary stents in one of two ways.
1) They show up in an emergency department with a heart attack
2) They have angina, get a stress test or coronary angiogram, or sometimes both which shows significant vessel disease and then they get scheduled for a stent with the goal of preventing a heart attack. 

radram

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 616
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #4039 on: January 04, 2018, 04:16:17 PM »
I hate to agree with EnjoyIt on anything but I have to agree with him here. 

I almost fell over reading this.


A patient gets coronary stents in one of two ways.
1) They show up in an emergency department with a heart attack
2) They have angina, get a stress test or coronary angiogram, or sometimes both which shows significant vessel disease and then they get scheduled for a stent with the goal of preventing a heart attack.

So the angiogram is the test that confirms the need for the angioplasty, which may lead to a stent on the spot or a schedule to add one? Just trying to get as close to a medical degree as I can without paying for one :)




soccerluvof4

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3245
  • Location: Artic Midwest
  • Retired at 50
    • My Journal
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #4040 on: January 04, 2018, 04:21:02 PM »
Washington needs to be on whatever plan they put in place. Then maybe, just maybe they will figure something out that works . But I am not going to hold my breath and pass out and go to the hospital because my deductible is to high.
" In life you don't get what you deserve you get what you negotiate"

NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1832
  • Location: Cleveland
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #4041 on: January 04, 2018, 07:12:56 PM »
I hate to agree with EnjoyIt on anything but I have to agree with him here. 

I almost fell over reading this.


A patient gets coronary stents in one of two ways.
1) They show up in an emergency department with a heart attack
2) They have angina, get a stress test or coronary angiogram, or sometimes both which shows significant vessel disease and then they get scheduled for a stent with the goal of preventing a heart attack.

So the angiogram is the test that confirms the need for the angioplasty, which may lead to a stent on the spot or a schedule to add one? Just trying to get as close to a medical degree as I can without paying for one :)

#2 is what the studies are pointing away from at this point, but lots of places still do it
The first step is acknowledging you have a problem, right?

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/journals/digging-out-of-a-hole/

Paul der Krake

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3777
  • Age: 10
  • Board Member
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #4042 on: January 04, 2018, 07:36:25 PM »
Washington needs to be on whatever plan they put in place. Then maybe, just maybe they will figure something out that works . But I am not going to hold my breath and pass out and go to the hospital because my deductible is to high.
By and large, they already are:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps/g/page/politics/which-senators-and-representatives-have-signed-up-for-obamacare/646/

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4513
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #4043 on: January 04, 2018, 08:59:39 PM »
I hate to agree with EnjoyIt on anything but I have to agree with him here. 

I almost fell over reading this.


A patient gets coronary stents in one of two ways.
1) They show up in an emergency department with a heart attack
2) They have angina, get a stress test or coronary angiogram, or sometimes both which shows significant vessel disease and then they get scheduled for a stent with the goal of preventing a heart attack.

So the angiogram is the test that confirms the need for the angioplasty, which may lead to a stent on the spot or a schedule to add one? Just trying to get as close to a medical degree as I can without paying for one :)

#2 is what the studies are pointing away from at this point, but lots of places still do it
Do you have any links to those studies, because you can be able to exercise (which is what the linked study was testing) and still get a heart attack.    Now I am not saying that we don't need more evidence based medicine, we do and part of the issue is how we train our MDs, but the data does not always support changing standard practice.

maizeman

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1829
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #4044 on: January 04, 2018, 09:10:15 PM »
The study I linked to was looking at both rates of death and rates of non-fatal heart attacks in patents in that second category who received stents plus non-surgical treatment and patients who just received non-surgical treatment.

freya

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 110
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #4045 on: January 04, 2018, 10:08:55 PM »
As discussed here, oh, 50+ pages ago I still believe that basic services should be available to all for a small regulated fee, including annual exams and vaccinations. Where and when private insurance comes in is tough part.

Agree!

Back in the 1960s, insurance didn't cover routine medical costs, only big ticket items like hospitalizations.  This changed when employers were incentivized to provide benefits instead of direct wages.  From there, prices of everything - especially pharmaceuticals - went up because the normal market forces were no longer there to keep them in check.  It was made worse when CMS started mandating a pile of expensive billing and documentation requirements for office visits in order to get control over reimbursements.  That's how we got into this mess. 

Having people pay out of pocket for office visits, thus dispensing with the need to get reimbursements paid through insurance, would instantly cut the costs by half or more.  Plus reduce insurance premiums.  And you'd get more face to face time with your doctor.

GettingClose

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 74
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #4046 on: January 05, 2018, 10:53:29 AM »
There were state-to-state variations, but I can corroborate that everything bacchi says was true.

boarder42

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6565
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #4047 on: January 06, 2018, 05:58:43 AM »
Anyone else see the report in the book Trump was in favor of Medicare expansion for all. Then was shut down by the Republican machine. Is it possible he is mildly less dumb the most of us think and is destroying it and putting it in a bad place so if dems take control he can help push Medicare expansion or a better plan thru ? 
My Miles Journal -Learn to Manufacture spend(MS)

Best bonuses on Credit cards right now

SW Plus Card 50k Bonus - use it with the Companion pass hack!

Personal Capital - Track your spending and Investing

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4513
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #4048 on: January 06, 2018, 08:34:21 AM »
Anyone else see the report in the book Trump was in favor of Medicare expansion for all. Then was shut down by the Republican machine. Is it possible he is mildly less dumb the most of us think and is destroying it and putting it in a bad place so if dems take control he can help push Medicare expansion or a better plan thru ?
No, I don't think he is less dumb.

wenchsenior

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1438
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #4049 on: January 06, 2018, 09:30:17 AM »
Anyone else see the report in the book Trump was in favor of Medicare expansion for all. Then was shut down by the Republican machine. Is it possible he is mildly less dumb the most of us think and is destroying it and putting it in a bad place so if dems take control he can help push Medicare expansion or a better plan thru ?
No, I don't think he is less dumb.

I don't either.  Trump was/voted Dem at times and was also pro choice.  He's held all sorts of positions on all sorts of issues.  He supported the wars, then he withdrew that support.  Who knows what he actually believes, if anything?  He might actually be in favor of Medicare expansion, but he obviously doesn't care enough one way or the other to act on it if he is.  He has the attention span of a gnat.