I think it's important to see what the medical community is saying about health care reform, so I submit this article from the New England Journal of Medicine. Article in first comment...
FREE NEJM E-TOC HOME | SUBSCRIBE | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | COLLECTIONS | Advanced Search
Sign in | Get NEJM's E-Mail Table of Contents — Free | Subscribe
HEALTH CARE 2009
Previous Volume 360:852-855 February 26, 2009 Number 9 Next Investing in Health Care Reform Karen Davis, Ph.D.
PDF PDA Full Text
Add to Personal Archive Add to Citation Manager Notify a Friend E-mail When Cited E-mail When Letters Appear
PubMed Citation
Indicating that health care reform is integral to his policy agenda, President Barack Obama has moved swiftly to incorporate elements of reform into his economic recovery bill and signed reauthorization of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Enactment of comprehensive reform, however, is likely to hinge on the development of a plan that is affordable to families, employers, and taxpayers. It will need to combine expanded health insurance coverage with investments designed to improve care and slow spending growth if it is to be sound and sustainable in the long term.
The Commonwealth Fund Commission on a High Performance Health System, in its new report, The Path to a High Performance U.S. Health System (Path proposal),1 has endorsed a set of health care policies that would produce savings for the system: the creation of a national health insurance exchange with a choice of private plans and a new public-plan option; investment in systemic changes, such as accelerated adoption of health information technology and health insurance benefits that are based on evidence of the comparative effectiveness of treatment options; realignment of incentives for health care providers under Medicare and the public plan to encourage accountability for patient outcomes and prudent use of resources; and public health measures, including increasing taxes on harmful products as a way of combating smoking and obesity. All these policies would require substantial changes in the financing and delivery of health care, and all would be politically difficult to accomplish. Estimates of the effect of this proposal on the trajectory of health care spending and coverage were prepared with the use of a health-benefits-simulation model and assumptions derived from the literature.2
Inclusion in the national insurance exchange of a public-plan option that would be open to businesses and individuals is key to achieving savings. Medicare has lower administrative costs and provider-payment rates than fee-for-service commercial insurers; if private plans did not bring down rates, a new public-plan option could offer premiums that would be 20 to 30% lower than commercial rates for similar benefits.1 To be competitive, private insurers would need to become more efficient and work with providers to integrate, coordinate, and redesign care to treat chronic conditions more effectively and avert preventable hospitalizations, complications, and readmissions.
Up-front investments that are key to long-term savings and improved performance include those designed to accelerate adoption of health information technology and evidence-based care. Under the Path proposal, an assessment on private insurers of 1% of premiums, plus an equal proportion of projected Medicare spending, would provide about $13 billion per year to assist safety-net, rural, and small medical practices in adopting information technology and establish a national electronic network to facilitate the exchange of patient health information. Similarly, an assessment on private insurers of 0.05% of premiums, along with the same proportion of projected Medicare and Medicaid spending, would generate about $14 billion through 2020 for research, undertaken by a newly established center for comparative effectiveness, to evaluate devices, drugs, procedures, and other treatments in order to encourage the use of cost-effective therapies.
Achieving substantial savings in care delivery will require payment reforms in both the public and private sectors. The Path proposal would increase payment for primary care services by 5% through revision of the Medicare fee schedule; encourage adoption of the "medical home" model to promote coordinated care; implement a global case rate for episodes of acute hospital care, including follow-up care; and correct overpayments for prescription drugs and other services to align payments with value.
Substantial savings could be achieved by eliminating excess payments to Medicare Advantage plans relative to the costs of traditional Medicare.3 Prices that are paid for prescription drugs in the United States continue to be well in excess of those paid in other countries.4 In addition, other countries are more advanced in assessing the cost-effectiveness of treatments and basing prices on the lowest-cost treatment with equivalent effectiveness.5
The Path proposal also calls for strategies to improve public health, including increasing the federal excise tax on cigarettes by $2 a pack, instituting a new federal tax on sugar-sweetened soft drinks of 1 cent per 12 oz, and increasing the federal excise tax on beer by 5 cents per 12-oz can and on other alcohol products by proportional amounts. A portion of these tax revenues would be used to fund state and local public health initiatives.
Our analysis of these proposals indicates that reform that simultaneously improves coverage, quality, and efficiency can lead to better health and economic security for American families. The inclusion of an individual mandate to obtain coverage, along with income-related assistance in paying premiums and expanded coverage under Medicaid and SCHIP, would lead to near-universal coverage, with only 4 million people, or 1% of the U.S. population, uninsured in 2020, instead of a projected increase to 61 million under current policies.1
Equally important, the projected growth in annual national health expenditures through 2020 would slow from 6.7% to 5.5% — resulting in cumulative savings of $3 trillion over 11 years. These savings, while representing approximately 7% of the $42 trillion in health care spending that is currently projected through 2020, would reduce expenditures in that year from 21% of the gross domestic product to 18%.
The cumulative cost to the federal budget of expanding coverage alone is $1.9 trillion over the same 11-year period (see Table 1). Though difficult to achieve, the above-mentioned reforms — in the context of a coverage expansion that broadened the potential effect by increasing the number of patients to whom the reforms apply and eliminating the need for cross-subsidies and a patchwork of public policies now used to offset the costs of care for the uninsured — could offset more than two thirds of the incremental costs in the federal budget.
View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]
Table 1. Sources of Savings under the Path Proposal and the Projected Net Effect on the Federal Budget and National Health Expenditures (2010–2020).
At the same time, employers, state and local governments, and households would realize net savings totaling $3.6 trillion. In light of these savings, the balance of $600 billion in federal-budget costs could be offset in a number of ways. For example, design features, such as the level of the public-plan premium or premium assistance, could be calibrated to achieve greater federal-budget savings while leaving substantial savings for employers and households. The return on federal investment in reforms would accrue to all payers (see Table 2), and ongoing financing could then be shared more broadly by all organizations that realize gains. Although payers would benefit from the reduction in spending growth (as well as from greater access and more effective care), providers would continue to benefit from a growing health care system: even under the Path policies, national health care spending in 2020 is projected to be $4.6 trillion — 80% higher than in 2009.
View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]
Table 2. Net Cumulative Effect of the Path Proposal on National Health Expenditures for Major Payer Groups (2010–2020).
The simultaneous achievement of universal coverage, better health outcomes, and slowed spending growth requires changing the way public policy is shaped, as well as rapid experimentation and learning. Currently, the secretary of health and human services does not have sufficient flexibility to test and fine-tune savings strategies on a statewide or regional basis. I believe that the secretary should be given far greater authority, with accountability to the President and Congress — perhaps with the advice of a council of independent experts — to act as a prudent purchaser, test new payment and system reforms, and rapidly spread and implement promising reforms. It is time to change "business as usual" and to invest in the health care reforms that will benefit the public and patients and put our nation on a sounder economic footing.
No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
Source Information
Dr. Davis is the president of the Commonwealth Fund, New York.
This article (10.1056/NEJMp0900309) was published at NEJM.org on February 19, 2009.
References
The Commonwealth Fund Commission on a High Performance Health System. The path to a high performance U.S. health system: a 2020 vision and the policies to pave the way. New York: Commonwealth Fund, February 2009. (Accessed February 4, 2009, at http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=815367.) Path to a high performance health system: technical documentation, Washington, DC: Lewin Group, February 2009. Budget options. Vol. 1. Health care. Washington, DC: Congressional Budget Office, December 2008. Accounting for the cost of U.S. health care: a new look at why Americans spend more. Washington, DC: McKinsey Global Institute, November 2008. (Accessed February 4, 2009, at http://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/publications/US_healthcare/.) Davis K. Slowing the growth of health care costs -- learning from international experience. N Engl J Med 2008;359:1751-1755. [Free Full Text]
PDF PDA Full Text
Add to Personal Archive Add to Citation Manager Notify a Friend E-mail When Cited E-mail When Letters Appear
PubMed Citation
HOME | SUBSCRIBE | SEARCH | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | COLLECTIONS | PRIVACY | TERMS OF USE | HELP | beta.nejm.org
This is the Obama Caucus of Ann Arbor's blog for news. Some of our news junkies follow the news that is relevant to us, and post important stories. It's a great way for OCAA members to be informed with less effort.
Postings should be short, and relevant to our goals: healthcare, the economy, green energy, and climate change. We try to cover local, state and national stories.
If you are a tracker, on your day create at least one posting on the story or stories you think are the most important. Use links to the original story, or put the whole text in a comment. If you know you can't do it on your day, just ask for a sub, or ask someone you know to guest post for you.
On a day that is not yours, you can still post stories from previous days, but not from that day. No stepping on the toes of that day's tracker.
FREE NEJM E-TOC HOME | SUBSCRIBE | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | COLLECTIONS | Advanced Search
ReplyDeleteSign in | Get NEJM's E-Mail Table of Contents — Free | Subscribe
HEALTH CARE 2009
Previous
Volume 360:852-855 February 26, 2009 Number 9
Next
Investing in Health Care Reform
Karen Davis, Ph.D.
PDF
PDA Full Text
Add to Personal Archive
Add to Citation Manager
Notify a Friend
E-mail When Cited
E-mail When Letters Appear
PubMed Citation
Indicating that health care reform is integral to his policy agenda, President Barack Obama has moved swiftly to incorporate elements of reform into his economic recovery bill and signed reauthorization of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Enactment of comprehensive reform, however, is likely to hinge on the development of a plan that is affordable to families, employers, and taxpayers. It will need to combine expanded health insurance coverage with investments designed to improve care and slow spending growth if it is to be sound and sustainable in the long term.
The Commonwealth Fund Commission on a High Performance Health System, in its new report, The Path to a High Performance U.S. Health System (Path proposal),1 has endorsed a set of health care policies that would produce savings for the system: the creation of a national health insurance exchange with a choice of private plans and a new public-plan option; investment in systemic changes, such as accelerated adoption of health information technology and health insurance benefits that are based on evidence of the comparative effectiveness of treatment options; realignment of incentives for health care providers under Medicare and the public plan to encourage accountability for patient outcomes and prudent use of resources; and public health measures, including increasing taxes on harmful products as a way of combating smoking and obesity. All these policies would require substantial changes in the financing and delivery of health care, and all would be politically difficult to accomplish. Estimates of the effect of this proposal on the trajectory of health care spending and coverage were prepared with the use of a health-benefits-simulation model and assumptions derived from the literature.2
Inclusion in the national insurance exchange of a public-plan option that would be open to businesses and individuals is key to achieving savings. Medicare has lower administrative costs and provider-payment rates than fee-for-service commercial insurers; if private plans did not bring down rates, a new public-plan option could offer premiums that would be 20 to 30% lower than commercial rates for similar benefits.1 To be competitive, private insurers would need to become more efficient and work with providers to integrate, coordinate, and redesign care to treat chronic conditions more effectively and avert preventable hospitalizations, complications, and readmissions.
Up-front investments that are key to long-term savings and improved performance include those designed to accelerate adoption of health information technology and evidence-based care. Under the Path proposal, an assessment on private insurers of 1% of premiums, plus an equal proportion of projected Medicare spending, would provide about $13 billion per year to assist safety-net, rural, and small medical practices in adopting information technology and establish a national electronic network to facilitate the exchange of patient health information. Similarly, an assessment on private insurers of 0.05% of premiums, along with the same proportion of projected Medicare and Medicaid spending, would generate about $14 billion through 2020 for research, undertaken by a newly established center for comparative effectiveness, to evaluate devices, drugs, procedures, and other treatments in order to encourage the use of cost-effective therapies.
Achieving substantial savings in care delivery will require payment reforms in both the public and private sectors. The Path proposal would increase payment for primary care services by 5% through revision of the Medicare fee schedule; encourage adoption of the "medical home" model to promote coordinated care; implement a global case rate for episodes of acute hospital care, including follow-up care; and correct overpayments for prescription drugs and other services to align payments with value.
Substantial savings could be achieved by eliminating excess payments to Medicare Advantage plans relative to the costs of traditional Medicare.3 Prices that are paid for prescription drugs in the United States continue to be well in excess of those paid in other countries.4 In addition, other countries are more advanced in assessing the cost-effectiveness of treatments and basing prices on the lowest-cost treatment with equivalent effectiveness.5
The Path proposal also calls for strategies to improve public health, including increasing the federal excise tax on cigarettes by $2 a pack, instituting a new federal tax on sugar-sweetened soft drinks of 1 cent per 12 oz, and increasing the federal excise tax on beer by 5 cents per 12-oz can and on other alcohol products by proportional amounts. A portion of these tax revenues would be used to fund state and local public health initiatives.
Our analysis of these proposals indicates that reform that simultaneously improves coverage, quality, and efficiency can lead to better health and economic security for American families. The inclusion of an individual mandate to obtain coverage, along with income-related assistance in paying premiums and expanded coverage under Medicaid and SCHIP, would lead to near-universal coverage, with only 4 million people, or 1% of the U.S. population, uninsured in 2020, instead of a projected increase to 61 million under current policies.1
Equally important, the projected growth in annual national health expenditures through 2020 would slow from 6.7% to 5.5% — resulting in cumulative savings of $3 trillion over 11 years. These savings, while representing approximately 7% of the $42 trillion in health care spending that is currently projected through 2020, would reduce expenditures in that year from 21% of the gross domestic product to 18%.
The cumulative cost to the federal budget of expanding coverage alone is $1.9 trillion over the same 11-year period (see Table 1). Though difficult to achieve, the above-mentioned reforms — in the context of a coverage expansion that broadened the potential effect by increasing the number of patients to whom the reforms apply and eliminating the need for cross-subsidies and a patchwork of public policies now used to offset the costs of care for the uninsured — could offset more than two thirds of the incremental costs in the federal budget.
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
Table 1. Sources of Savings under the Path Proposal and the Projected Net Effect on the Federal Budget and National Health Expenditures (2010–2020).
At the same time, employers, state and local governments, and households would realize net savings totaling $3.6 trillion. In light of these savings, the balance of $600 billion in federal-budget costs could be offset in a number of ways. For example, design features, such as the level of the public-plan premium or premium assistance, could be calibrated to achieve greater federal-budget savings while leaving substantial savings for employers and households. The return on federal investment in reforms would accrue to all payers (see Table 2), and ongoing financing could then be shared more broadly by all organizations that realize gains. Although payers would benefit from the reduction in spending growth (as well as from greater access and more effective care), providers would continue to benefit from a growing health care system: even under the Path policies, national health care spending in 2020 is projected to be $4.6 trillion — 80% higher than in 2009.
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
Table 2. Net Cumulative Effect of the Path Proposal on National Health Expenditures for Major Payer Groups (2010–2020).
The simultaneous achievement of universal coverage, better health outcomes, and slowed spending growth requires changing the way public policy is shaped, as well as rapid experimentation and learning. Currently, the secretary of health and human services does not have sufficient flexibility to test and fine-tune savings strategies on a statewide or regional basis. I believe that the secretary should be given far greater authority, with accountability to the President and Congress — perhaps with the advice of a council of independent experts — to act as a prudent purchaser, test new payment and system reforms, and rapidly spread and implement promising reforms. It is time to change "business as usual" and to invest in the health care reforms that will benefit the public and patients and put our nation on a sounder economic footing.
No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
Source Information
Dr. Davis is the president of the Commonwealth Fund, New York.
This article (10.1056/NEJMp0900309) was published at NEJM.org on February 19, 2009.
References
The Commonwealth Fund Commission on a High Performance Health System. The path to a high performance U.S. health system: a 2020 vision and the policies to pave the way. New York: Commonwealth Fund, February 2009. (Accessed February 4, 2009, at http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=815367.)
Path to a high performance health system: technical documentation, Washington, DC: Lewin Group, February 2009.
Budget options. Vol. 1. Health care. Washington, DC: Congressional Budget Office, December 2008.
Accounting for the cost of U.S. health care: a new look at why Americans spend more. Washington, DC: McKinsey Global Institute, November 2008. (Accessed February 4, 2009, at http://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/publications/US_healthcare/.)
Davis K. Slowing the growth of health care costs -- learning from international experience. N Engl J Med 2008;359:1751-1755. [Free Full Text]
PDF
PDA Full Text
Add to Personal Archive
Add to Citation Manager
Notify a Friend
E-mail When Cited
E-mail When Letters Appear
PubMed Citation
HOME | SUBSCRIBE | SEARCH | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | COLLECTIONS | PRIVACY | TERMS OF USE | HELP | beta.nejm.org
Comments and questions? Please contact us.
The New England Journal of Medicine is owned, published, and copyrighted © 2009 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.