Results tagged “health care” from EdLabor Journal

Rep. George Miller, Chairman of the Education and Labor Committee, delivers his comments during the floor debate on H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care For America Act on November 7, 2009.



Rep. George Miller, Chairman of the Education and Labor Committee, delivers a rebuttal to the proposed Republican amendment during the floor debate on H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care For America Act, on November 7, 2009.

Big news yesterday as the nation's largest senior citizen group AND the nation's largest organization of doctors both offered support for the Affordable Health Care for America Act.

The Los Angeles Times reports:

The [AARP], which has been pushing for a health overhaul for more than a year, had withheld a formal endorsement of any of the healthcare bills being developed by congressional Democrats.

That endorsement was followed by an announcement at about 10 a.m. Pacific time from the American Medical Assn. in which the nation's largest doctors group voiced its support for the measure.

AARP Executive Vice President Nancy LeaMond said today that the group saw the House Democratic bill as the most promising proposal.

...

The AMA's support for the House bill comes ahead of a critical policymaking meeting of its House of Delegates in Houston that begins Saturday. The organization is being asked by some constituencies, at the eleventh hour, to back away from supporting healthcare reform.

"These bills go far beyond what is necessary to fix what is broken with our healthcare system, and they grant the federal government considerable new powers and authority, which could ultimately amount to a complete government takeover of healthcare, and which is anathema to doctors and patients," reads a resolution introduced by the American Assn. of Neurological Surgeons, the American Society of General Surgeons and the American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. The resolution was also supported by AMA delegations from Georgia and Washington, D.C.

Learn why these groups and many, many others support the Affordable Health Care for America Act at our clearinghouse page.

Ezra Klein at the Washington Post passes along a new academic paper by MIT health economist Jon Gruber. Mr. Gruber has looked at the health care proposals being considered by Congress and has found that the reforms will lower insurance premiums.

One of those states is Massachusetts, which passed health-care reform similar to the one contemplated at the federal level in mid-2006. The major aspects of this reform took place in 2007, notably the introduction of large subsidies for low-income populations, a merged nongroup and small group insurance market, and a mandate on individuals to purchase health insurance. And the results have been an enormous reduction in the cost of nongroup insurance in the state: The average individual premium in the state fell from $8,537 at the end of 2006 to $5,143 in mid-2009, a 40 percent reduction, while the rest of the nation was seeing a 14 percent increase.

You can read the rest of Mr. Gruber's paper here.(MS Word document)

The New York Times ran an editorial on Saturday discussing individual mandates and affordability. It covers the key areas of:

• Why is a mandate necessary? [Those without coverage drive up costs for those with coverage]
  
• Will premiums go up or down? [They would go down]
  
• Will there be help? [Yes]
  
• What's affordable? [The House bill provides affordability tax credits for families of 4 up to $88,000]
• Has it been tried? [Yes, successfully]
  
• Which version is more affordable? [The House bill]
  

See the editorial for a complete explanation of how this would work and how it would improve access to quality, stable, affordable health care.

In another column today, E.J. Dionne correctly points out that, while the mandates and subsidies don't start until 2013, there are 14 benefits that start immediately.

That's why the most important document House Democrats released when they unveiled their bill last week was a list of 14 benefits that would be created immediately.

These include insurance reforms to ban lifetime limits on coverage and an end to "rescissions," under which insurers abruptly nullify patients' policies after they file claims. One of the most popular reforms in the bill -- barring insurers from denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions -- wouldn't take effect until later. So the House bill creates an interim high-risk pool to help those who need coverage in the meantime.

There are also particular benefits for Medicare recipients, including an immediate reduction in drug costs, and a very popular provision that would allow parents to keep their children on the family health plan through age 26.

Especially important are new investments in community health centers and in efforts to increase the number of primary care doctors. As millions more people get access to decent care, the system will have to provide more doctors, nurses and facilities to treat them.

"People will be excited about 2013," said Rep. George Miller, chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, which shares jurisdiction on the health-care bill. "But there are enough benefits between now and then to keep them engaged and to keep them favorably disposed."

Learn more about the Affordable Health Care for America Act [H.R. 3962] and how reform will slow the growth in out-of-control costs, introduce competition into the health care marketplace to keep coverage affordable and insurers honest, protect people’s choices of doctors and health plans, and assure all Americans access to quality, stable, affordable health care.

Today's New York Times editorial, The House Health Reform Bill, is strongly in favor of the Affordable Health Care for America Act because, among other things, it would:

require insurers to allow young people through age 26 to remain on their parents’ policies. It would provide immediate help to people who have been uninsured for several months or denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions. It would speed elimination of a gap in drug coverage for Medicare beneficiaries (the so-called doughnut hole) and would give the government power to negotiate drug prices on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries, a promising way to reduce costs.

The bill would take a long stride toward universal coverage while remaining fiscally responsible.

We strongly encourage you to read the entire editorial and to learn more about the Affordable Health Care for America Act.

For the first time in U.S. history, all Americans would have access to quality, affordable health care under updated health insurance reform legislation passed by the House on November 7, 2009, by a vote of 220-215.

The Affordable Health Care for America Act [H.R. 3962], which blends and updates the three versions of previous bills passed by the House committees of jurisdiction in July, embodies President Obama’s key goals for health reform. It will slow the growth in out-of-control costs, introduce competition into the health care marketplace to keep coverage affordable and insurers honest, protect people’s choices of doctors and health plans, and assure all Americans access to quality, stable, affordable health care.

The key components of the Affordable health Care for America Act include:

Increasing choice and competition. The bill will protect and improve consumers’ choices.

• If people like their current plans, they will be able to keep them.
• For individuals who aren’t currently covered by their employer, and some small businesses, the proposal will establish a new Health Insurance Exchange where consumers can comparison shop from a menu of affordable, quality health care options that will include private plans, health co-ops, and a new public health insurance option. The public health insurance option will play on a level playing field with private insurers, spurring additional competition.
• This Exchange will create competition based on quality and price that leads to better coverage and care. Patients and doctors will have control over decisions about their health care, instead of insurance companies.

Giving Americans peace of mind. The legislation will ensure that Americans have portable, secure health care coverage – so that they won’t lose care if their employer drops their plan or they lose their job.

• Every American who receives coverage through the Exchange will have a plan that includes standardized, comprehensive and quality health care benefits.
• It will end increases in premiums or denials of care based on pre-existing conditions, race, or gender, and strictly limit age rating.
• The proposal will also eliminate co-pays for preventive care, and cap out-of-pocket expensesto protects every American from bankruptcy.

Improving quality of care for every American. The legislation will ensure that Americans of all ages, from young children to retirees have access to greater quality of care by focusing on prevention, wellness, and strengthening programs that work.

• Guarantees that every child in America will have health care coverage that includes dental, hearing and vision benefits.
• Provides better preventive and wellness care. Every health care plan offered through the exchange and by employers after a grace period will cover preventive care at no cost to the patient.
• Increases the health care workforce to ensure that more doctors and nurses are available to provide quality care as more Americans get coverage.
• Strengthens Medicare and Medicaid and closes the Medicare Part D ‘donut hole’ so that seniors and low-income Americans receive better quality of care and see lower prescription drug costs and out-of-pocket expenses.

Ensuring shared responsibility. The bill will ensure that individuals, employers, and the federal government share responsibility for a quality and affordable health care system.

• Employers can continue offering coverage to workers, and those who choose not to offer coverage contribute a fee of eight percent of payroll.
• All individuals will generally be required to get coverage, either through their employer or the exchange, or pay a penalty of 2.5 percent of income, subject to a hardship exemption.
• The federal government will provide affordability credits, available on a sliding scale for low- and middle-income individuals and families to make premiums affordable and reduce cost-sharing.

Protecting consumers and reducing waste, fraud, and abuse. The legislation will put the interests of consumers first, protect them from problems in getting and keeping health care coverage, and reduce waste, fraud, and abuse.

• Provides transparency in plans in the Health Exchange so that consumers have the clear, complete information, in plain English, needed to select the plan that best meets their needs.
• Establishes consumer advocacy offices as part of the Exchange in order to protect consumers, answer questions, and assist with any problems related to their plans.
• Simplifies paperwork and other administrative burdens. Patients, doctors, nurses, insurance companies, providers, and employers will all encounter a streamlined, less confusing, more consumer friendly system.
• Increases funding of efforts to reduce waste, fraud and abuse; creates enhanced oversight of Medicare and Medicaid programs.

Reducing the deficit and ensuring the solvency of Medicare and Medicaid. The legislation will be entirely paid for – it will not add a dime to the deficit. It will also put Medicare and Medicaid on the path to a more fiscally sound future, so seniors and low-income Americans can continue to receive the quality health care benefits for years to come.

• Pays for the entire cost of the legislation though a combination of savings achieved by making Medicare and Medicaid more efficient – without cutting seniors’ benefits in any way – and  revenue generated from placing a surcharge the top 0.3 percent of all households in the U.S.(married couples with adjusted gross income of over $1,000,000) and other tax measures.
• The Congressional Budget estimates the bill will reduce the deficit by at least $100 billion over ten years.
• Estimates also show the bill will slow the rate of growth of the Medicare program from 6.6 percent annually to 5.3 percent annually.

The House Committee on Education and Labor hosted CNBC's Squawk Box in the hearing room this morning. Here is the interview with Rep. George Miller about health care reform and the economy.

Take the Health Reform Quiz

E.J. Dionne's commentary in the Washington Post today, A Political Idea Warp, makes the point that sometimes political labels are less than helpful in evaluating various proposals before Congress. He uses the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act as an example.

The bill, which passed 253 to 171, would allocate about $80 billion over the next decade for new loans, community colleges, school construction and early childhood programs without increasing taxes or adding to the deficit. How? Instead of paying bankers to provide loans for which they bear no real risk, the government would make the loans directly.

Liberals are always accused of spending money without worrying where it comes from, but in this case, costs are covered by making a government program more efficient -- yes, at the expense of bankers.

"We were paying these exorbitant subsidies to bankers who were taking government money, loaning it to somebody else, getting government guarantees that the loans would be paid back, and then taking all these profits," said Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), the bill's champion. This, he told me, led Congress to ask itself: "Hey, chump, what is it you don't get about what's going on here?" The only knock on the proposal is ideological: that government is "taking over" the student loan program. But it's already a government program. The bill simply eliminates corporate welfare.

This is a classic case of how the Great Ideological Distortion Machine does its mischief: Instead of focusing on how the bill advances values typically regarded as "centrist" -- government efficiency, pay-as-you-go budgeting -- the banks' defenders bury the specifics behind abstract discussions of "big government." Yet I'd venture that middle-of-the-road Americans prefer that their tax money go toward education rather than to padding the profits of financial firms.

Mr. Dionne also remarks about how this talk over labels and "prefabricated boxes" is coloring the health care debate. We encourage you to read the entire article.

E.J. Dionne has a column in the Washington Post today that tries to tell the real town hall story. Despite polls showing again and again that the majority of Americans are in favor of reforming our health care system, the media played up a few loud and disruptive town halls.

Mr. Dionne says:

Over the past week, I've spoken with Democratic House members, most from highly contested districts, about what happened in their town halls. None would deny polls showing that the health-reform cause lost ground last month, but little of the probing civility that characterized so many of their forums was ever seen on television.

"I think the media coverage has done a disservice by falling for a trick that you'd think experienced media hands wouldn't fall for: of allowing loud voices to distort the debate," said Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy, whose district includes Columbus, Ohio.

At her town halls, she said, "I got serious questions, I got hostile questions, I got questions about how this would work, I got questions about how much it will cost. I also got a lot of comments from people who said it's important for their families and businesses to get health-care reform."

Rep. Frank Kratovil hails from a very conservative district that includes Maryland's Eastern Shore and says it didn't bother him that he was hung in effigy in July by a right-wing group. "As a former prosecutor, I consider that to be mild," he said with a chuckle. The episode, he added, was not at all typical of his town-hall meetings, where "most of the people were there to express legitimate concerns about the bill, wondering about how it was going to impact them" and wanting "to know the truth about some of the things that were being said about the bill."

The most disturbing account came from Rep. David Price of North Carolina, who spoke with a stringer for one of the television networks at a large town-hall meeting he held in Durham.

The stringer said he was one of 10 people around the country assigned to watch such encounters. Price said he was told flatly: "Your meeting doesn't get covered unless it blows up." As it happens, the Durham audience was broadly sympathetic to reform efforts. No "news" there.

Instead of listening to the loudest voices, we encourage you to learn for yourself how health care reform will affect you with this nifty interactive webpage and by visiting our clearinghouse of information. We, also, encourage you to read Mr. Dionne's entire article.

Today's News of the Day is from the Congressional Budget Office. The New York Times covers the letter from the CBO to House Republicans regarding cost savings on drug spending under Medicare under the proposed America's Affordable Health Choices Act:

Medicare beneficiaries would often have to pay higher premiums for prescription drug coverage, but many would see their total drug spending decline, so they would save money as a result of health legislation moving through the House, the Congressional Budget Office said in a recent report.

Premiums for drug coverage would rise an average of 5 percent in 2011, beyond the level expected under current law, and the increase would grow to 20 percent in 2019, the budget office said.

“However,” it said, “beneficiaries’ spending on prescription drugs apart from those premiums would fall, on average, as would their overall prescription drug spending (including both premiums and cost-sharing).”

How would the America's Affordable Health Choices Act bring the total drug spending for seniors down? Again, the article explains:

The House bill would require drug companies to provide larger discounts, or rebates, on medications dispensed to low-income people enrolled in both Medicare and Medicaid. It would also require drug makers to provide 50 percent discounts on brand-name drugs in the doughnut hole, until the coverage gap was eliminated.

The budget office said premiums would increase, in part, because Medicare drug plans would have to provide additional coverage, paying some costs that beneficiaries now pay themselves.

“In return for those higher premiums,” Mr. Elmendorf said, “enrollees would receive greater protection against incurring high drug costs. As a result, beneficiaries’ spending on prescription drugs apart from the premiums would decrease, on average. That reduction in cost-sharing would outweigh the increase in premiums, again on average.”

We encourage you to read the entire article and learn more about the America's Affordable Health Choices Act.

The Hidden Health Care Tax

This year, every insured American family will pay $1,017 -- and insured singles will pay $368 per year -- in insurance premiums just to cover the medical expenses of the uninsured. That's $42.7 billion this year - or $1,354 per second. This "Hidden Health Care Tax" is the undisclosed insurance premium surcharge, paid by America's businesses and insured Americans, that subsidizes the uncompensated health care costs of the uninsured.

So if you think reform will cost you more to cover the uninsured, you need to know you're paying more now.

America's Affordable Health Choices Act (HR 3200) will end the Hidden Health Care Tax and will reduce health care costs, protect and increase consumers' choices, and guarantee access to quality, affordable health care for all Americans.

Source: Families USA

Congressional opponents of health care reform are claiming that a provision in the America’s Affordable Health Choice Act will start "us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia.” This is completely false.

The provision that opponents are alluding to is Section 1233. This bi-partisan provision would allow seniors, if they choose, to have an advanced care consultation with their doctor be paid for by Medicare once every five years, or more frequently if the patient has a life threatening disease. That is all. These consultations include "an explanation by the practitioner of the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice, and benefits for such services and supports that are available under this title."

There is no reasonable basis for believing that a senior’s conversations with their doctor on the range of end-of-life care would do anything to promote euthanasia -- which is illegal in 48 states. Discussions between sick or elderly people and their doctors about end-of-life treatment have long been an accepted part of modern patient care. In 2003, a Bush administration agency issued a 20-page report outlining a five-part process for physicians to discuss end-of-life care with their patients and since 1990, Congress has required health-care agencies to inform patients about state laws regarding advance directives such as a living will.

Which leads to another myth: Patients will be forced to sign a living will. There is no mandate to sign a living will. If a patient chooses to complete a living will, those documents will help articulate a full range of treatment preferences, from full and aggressive treatment to limited, comfort care only.

The Committee wishes these were just the occasional rumor, but, unfortunately, even President Obama was asked these questions yesterday at a town hall. The President responded with, “I think that the only thing that may have been proposed in some of the bills -- and I actually think this is a good thing -- is that it makes it easier for people to fill out a living will.”

The Committee is working hard to ensure that America’s Affordable Health Choices Act works for Seniors, and to ensure that the American people have the facts about how health care reform will help them. The AARP endorses this bill because it includes several key provisions that improve Medicare benefits and health care for seniors, including:

• Protects your access to the doctor of your choice—incenting more family doctors to enter the profession and more doctors to practice in rural areas—and allowing all Americans to keep their current doctor.
• Phases in completely filling in the “donut hole” in the Medicare prescription drug benefit (where drug costs are not reimbursed at certain levels), potentially savings seniors thousands of dollars a year.
• Eliminates co-payments and deductibles for preventive services under Medicare.
• Limits cost-sharing requirements in Medicare Advantage plans to the amount charged for the same services in traditional Medicare coverage.
• Improves the low-income subsidy programs in Medicare, such as by increasing asset limits for programs that help Medicare beneficiaries pay premiums and cost-sharing.
• Computerizes medical records so seniors won’t have to take the same test over and over or relay their entire medical history every time they see a new provider.
• Starts rewarding doctors for the quality, not just the quantity, of care they provide.
• Extends solvency of Medicare by 5 years or more.

Today on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, Congressional Republicans continued to mislead the public about the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act, and even continued to portray the insurance-funded Lewin Group as a “non-partisan foundation” – an allegation the Washington Post debunked earlier this week.

Here’s a look at some of their biggest whoppers:

CLAIM: Republicans want to strengthen the Inspector General, which is not in the Democratic bill.

Reality Check: The America’s Affordable Health Choices Act establishes vigorous oversight, accountability and consumer protections to ensure that all health care plans operate in the best interest of the American people. It actually does create a new Inspector General to oversee all health care plans, both public and private, that operate in the new health insurance exchange.

CLAIM: The Lewin Group says 100 million Americans move from private insurance to government-run program.

Reality Check: The Lewin Group is hardly a credible or “non-partisan” source (more on that below) on this. According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, only about 9-10 million people will choose the public health insurance option under the House Democratic bill. In fact, CBO estimates that 30 million will enter the new health exchange; two-thirds of those people will choose private plans, and one-third of those people will choose the public health insurance option. In addition, CBO estimates that employer-provided care will actually increase by 2 million people under the House bill.

CLAIM: The Lewin Group is a “non-partisan…foundation.”

Reality Check: The Washington Post and other independent media outlets have already exposed the truth about the Lewin Group -- and it’s hardly non-partisan. The group is funded by United Healthcare, one of the nation’s largest insurers. According to the Washington Post: “More specifically, the Lewin Group is part of Ingenix, a UnitedHealth subsidiary that was accused by the New York attorney general and the American Medical Association, a physician's group, of helping insurers shift medical expenses to consumers by distributing skewed data.”

CLAIM: Under the House bill, every health plan in America must look the same after 5 years.

Reality check: Again, this is misleading. By 2019, all employer-provided plans will have to meet the minimum standard benefit offered as part of the Exchange. Almost 90 percent of all employer health insurance plans already meet or exceed these standards. Employers that do not meet these minimum standards will have until 2019 to meet the minimum standards.

The American people are sick and tired of the same old political spin machine. They deserve honesty about real solutions that will fix our broken health care system and provide them with the affordable, quality health care they deserve. For more on what the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act will really do, and how it will deliver on the change the American people want, click here.

The Wall Street Journal ran an editorial yesterday that advanced false and misleading information regarding the House’s health reform bill, America’s Affordable Health Choices Act, (H.R. 3200).

While most Americans are satisfied with their health insurance coverage now, most Americans are concerned that they will either lose their insurance or face staggering increases in premiums, co-pays or other costs. The America’s Affordable Health Choices Act is about giving all American families more choices of quality, affordable health care and the peace of mind that they will be covered with quality, affordable care no matter of their job or economic situation.  

Claim: Workers won’t be able to keep health coverage they like because Washington bureaucrats will change what employers can offer.

• In 2018, all employer-provided plans will have to meet the minimum standard benefit offered as part of the Exchange. These minimum benefits will be based on 70 percent of the typical health insurance plan offered by employers today.
• More than 90 percent of all employer health insurance plans already meet or exceed these standards. Employers that do not meet these minimum standards will have until 2018 to meet the minimum standards.

Claim: Analysis by the Lewin Group analysis shows that 88 million of Americans will be thrown off of their employer plans.

• The Lewin Group (a wholly-owned subsidiary of UnitedHealthcare) analysis was requested by the right-wing Heritage Foundation has been widely discredited for its flawed review of the House legislation.
• The House bill actually protects and increases employer-sponsored insurance. According to official CBO numbers, 2 million more people would be covered under employer-sponsored insurance than is projected to be the case today – 164 million compared to 162 under current law.

Claim: The House bill removes current law that prevents employee lawsuits over employer provided benefits.

• The legislation does not change current law regarding lawsuits.

Claim: High deductible plans and health savings accounts will be illegal under the House bill

• Nothing in the legislation prevents employers from offering health savings accounts. In fact, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, the average HSA today will meet or exceed the minimum benefits standards.

The Contra Costa Times has an article about how health care reform is taking center stage in Congress. Building upon the draft health reform outline released last week by the Ways and Means, Energy and Commerce, and the Education and Labor Committees, Chairman Miller has continued to work toward health care reform that increases access and brings down costs.

Proponents say the reforms will bring down costs through increased competition and provide every American access to health care regardless of employment status or income.

"I think it's going to happen," Miller said of the restructuring legislation. "People recognize the shortcomings of the system they now have. The economy has shown the vulnerability of families at all levels when people lose their jobs and their health care. It's very hard to see how you fix the American economy if you don't fix health care."

To learn more about how the Committee and Congress is working to create a more effective and efficient health care system that will guarantee quality, affordable health coverage for all American families and workers visit our webpage and the Office the Majority Leader's Health Care Reform Clearinghouse.

E.J. Dionne had a column in yesterday's Washington Post outlining why "this is the year Congress will finally give every American access to health insurance." He highlights the efforts of legislators who "have quietly been preparing the ground for reform since the Democrats took over two years ago. And the competing interest groups seem more inclined to get what they can out of reform than to stop the enterprise altogether."

Mr. Dionne notes the importance of the House in passing comprehensive health care reform and how "Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), one of the House's resident health-care mavens, has been working closely with two other committee chairs, Reps. George Miller (D-Calif.) and Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.)."

To show how committed they are to working together toward a common solution, Reps. Miller, Rangel and Waxman wrote a letter to President Obama in early March saying, "In order to achieve our shared goal of enacting health reform this year, we will coordinate our committee consideration so that action on the House floor can occur before the August recess."

We recommend you read Mr. Dionne's entire article.