LyrArc Article Gist
The basic outlines of new health care legislation takes shape as Senators Dodd and Kenedy come up with a plan that scales down subsidies to low-income people to buy insurance. Attached to their revised outline is a budget office analysis thatprojects the plan costing $611 billion over 10 years and with expected changes from the Senate Finance Committee would cover 97 percent of all Americans. And earlier plan received much criticism because the Congressional Budget Office estimated its cost at $1 trillion over 10 years and left 37 million Americans uninsured. In addition there is the revised Medicaid expansions for aid to the poor that would add a couple of humndred billion dollars to the total tab. The administration's goal is to keep the cost down to $1 trillion over 10 years. The legislation as it stands includes the public option which is designed to control insurance costs. Mr. Obama said this week that "the public option would keep insurance companies honest." Employer mandated insurance is part of the Kennedy-Dodd legislation proposal. Employers with 25 or more workerswould have to provide coverage or pay the government an annual fee of $750 for each full-time worker and $375 for each part-time worker. The government pays the startup costs for the public insurance option as a loan to be repaid, and premiums would make the option self-sufficient....

LyrArc Article Gist
The influence of lobbyist on members of Congress just as the Obama administration, having studied the failure of the Clinton submitted healthcare plan try a different strategy of letting Congress come up with a healtcare plan. $133 million was spent in the second quarter alone by healthcare industry lobby interests creating headaches for reform efforts and the Obama administration.

LyrArc Article Gist
Alan Blinder, Princeton University professor and former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve, says the biggest reason for the growing deficit in the years out to 2040 is because of increases in health care spending. Its not that there is runaway spending in other areas. He cites CBO projections that show other costs stable relative to GDP from 2015 to 2035 and declining. This is why healthcare spending is at the heart of the problem. And why tackling the deficit has a lot to do with reducing healthcare cost increases.

LyrArc Article Gist
Are there costs or are there savings from the Obama health care bill? Does it affect jobs and how? The Congressional Budget Office says the health care law will save $230 billion in ten years based on a whole set of calculations and assumptions. Commonsense and basic math leads others to question how spending $930 billion on insuring 32 million Americans could end up with significant savings. The different view argues that the Budget Office erred in making some calculations, by counting $70 billion in premiums from long term care because they would be used to pay benefits later, omitted $115 billion in spending to adminster the law, and omitted $208 billion needed to prevent scheduled reductions in Medicare payments to doctors. The money needed on the Stimulus, on two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the uncertain prospects of the US economy in the longer term till debt and other issues are resolved, injects the critical element of difficult choices and priorities. If state and local budgets are severely strained in 2011-2012 would that require federal help and will there be other needs that will have to be met by the federal government that are critical such as another unexpected downturn, or a resolution of unresolved bad debt at the large US banks There is also a sense that the health care law does not do enough to reduce the cost of health care that will be needed over the next decade so that other priorities are not neglected. Both parties are not up to the task in this respect for running the country's finances withot using the numbers to tell different stories....

LyrArc Article Gist
Laffer says there is a big gap between the cost of health care and what people actually pay, which keeps cost escalating as there are no pressures from users of services to economize or bring reductions in the prices. But Laffer offers no effective solutions either his patient centred approach to health care reform does not address the problem that employers are paying for health care for the large part and these are not taxed as benefits leaving the employee free to load up on services and ignore the cost, which works just fine for the health care providers who increase revenues and profits- also called cost escalation upto the point now reached where the nation can no longer afford it.

LyrArc Article Gist
The startling truth about health "reforms," - they won't control spending, and without that the whole system of health care will rapidly become unaffordable and unsustainable. Obama's Council of Economic Advisors points out in new report that since 1975 annual health spending per person, adjusted for inflation has grown 2.1 percentage points faster than overall economic growth per person. At this rate health spending which was 5% of the GDP in 1960, and is 18% of GDP today, would grow to 40% of GDP in 2040. Medicare and Medicaid would increase from 6% of GDP now to 15% in 2040, or equal to three fourths of federal spending. Employer paid insurance premiums for families which grew 85% in inflation adjusted terms from 1996 to $11,941 in 2006, would increase to $25,200 by 2025 and $45,000 in 2040. This would force employers to reduce take home pay. Samuelson says the uncontrolled health spending is singlehandedly determining national priorities, reducing discretionary income, raising taxes, widening budget deficits and squeezing other government programs, while it is producing large amount of waste in medical spending. See the link to Prof. Tyler Cowen of George Mason University in NYT, 6/14/ 2009, who cites the habit of doctors to write many expensive tests as one of the prime culprits in the wasteful spending. And in the process it delivers higher cost for lower overall quality of health for the American people. This at a time when many European countries provide live examples of doing it in a better way- lower cost, better health. The serious problem with the Obama health reforms says Samuelson is that it talks about restraining spending but may end up increasing spending. Its talk about controlling spending he says is good intentions, but based more on hopeful thinking, public realtions and risks becoming cosmetic reform. Because to really control spending will require coming to grips with its fundamental cause- hospitals and doctors are paid mostly on a fee-for-service basis and reimbursed by insurance, private or governmental. Such a system encourages doctors and hospitals to provide more services, expensive tests, favors heavy use of expensive medical technologies to increase profits, and for patients to expect them. Samuelson puts his finger on the root of the problem - there is no incentive and every disincentive for all the players in this game , doctors, hospitals and patients to seek reform of this system. For doctors and hospitals the hope would be that this cosmetic "reform" would leave the system basically unchanged, and patients to continue with a lifestyle and expectations that do not not acknowledge the fact that a lot of healthcare does not come from spending but from preventative care, education, good eating and exercize habits, and healthy lifestyles. And the uninsured are no exception, they would simply start consuming the expensive care for lower quality of overall health like everyone else. With this kind of situation confronting us, the views of Samuelson, and Professor Tyler Cowen of George Mason University, as welll as a growing chorus of informed public opinion on this subject, is that insuring the uninsured is a good idea, but doing it within the bounds of the present system, can only increase the costs. And too much is at risk, to rely on what Samuelson calls a scattershot of measures to control costs made up by Congress such as "evidence -based guidelines," "electronic record-keeping," "bundled payments to hospitals, to give the illusion of progress that won't make a serious difference. A sweeping restructuring of health care is needed, that would overhaul "fee-for-service" payment and reduce the fragmentation of care. It will also need what has not even be touched on adequately in the debate. This is the massive need for education in the schools about nutrition, eating, exercize, healthy lifestyles. It would also require opinion leaders in each field from sports and other fields to lead by example and with constant public presence, the media, and companies to form a partnership with private institutions to change existing eating habits and lifestyles that encourage obesity, smoking, fast food eating habits, large portions in restaurants....

LyrArc Article Gist
Comparative effectiveness research will be conducted to evaluate what is the best treatment for any ailment or disease or health problem under the $1.1 billion allocated for this in the Stimulus Plan. What are the alternative methods of treatment, what is the effectiveness of each treatment, what are the comparative costs and so on. Is it better to treat neck pain with surgery or acombination ofphysical therapy, exercize and medications? If there is ablockage of arteries in the lower leg and leg pain, how does drugs and watchful waiting compare with surgery? For chronic heart failure how does home monitoring of blood pressure and weight and exercise in addition to medications provide an alternative route as opposed to just medications. Dr Fisher of Dartmouth Medical School cites these as examples of questions that can be asked in comparitive effectiveness research. The money will be available to the Health and Human Services Department and will be used over several years. About 15 federal employees will form a council to coordinate the research and advise President Obama and Congress on how to use the money. In 2007 the US spent $2.2 trillion, or 16% of GDP, on health care, and the Congressional Budget Office says it will grow to 25% of GDP at the rate its growing by 2025 if left to its own devices. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Of the people asked the question "what issue do you see as the most important for health care" 44% in a NBC/WSJ poll said they considered Cost as the biggest issue, and 37% said that they considered the Uninsured as the biggest issue, 11% said quality of care was the biggest issue. The President is focussing on cost as he develops the health care plan. He is also saying that to provide health care for all and cover the uninsured without controlling costs would break the bank. Another thing that the White House shows it has learned from previous failed attempts, is that it is doing this with an open Health Care Forum with participation of different sides in the health care discussion. Clinton's effort in 1993 ran into problems because it was developed secretively, and without much discussion, and little effort to get different people's views. The previous attempt also waited too long after the election, and this time the President is moving quickly when he enjoys large popular support. Its also true now that there is serious concern especially in this downturn of what a threat spiralling costs of health care are becoming to the future prosperity of the American people. This time the leaders in Congress are setting an aggressive schedule to get health care palns legislation on the floor by June and get a floor vote in August 2009....

LyrArc Article Gist
Th cost of cancer drugs Avastin and Erbitux and the need for putting life savings at risk for a few months of treatment create tension among families, doctors and treatment providers. A course of Avastin could run $56,000 and take 90 days for reimbursement by meicare or pricate insurance, and a 20% co-pay comes to $11,200.

LyrArc Article Gist
In a new WSJ/NBC New poll, conducted July 24-27, 2009, 42% called the Obama health plan a bad idea, and 36% called it a good idea. In mid June the poll showed Americans evenly divided on this question. It reflects rising anxiety over the costs of the health plan and what it will do to the deficit, and also shows public anxiety about the ways in which Obama and Congress are reaching compromises to pay for it and to control costs. Added to this are the anxieties raised about government involvement in healthcare and medical decisions about care. Noteworthy are two differing pieces of evidence. In the WSJ/NBC News poll, only two in ten people thought the quality of their own care would improve, only 15% of those with private insurance thought that it would improve the quality of their care. And 4 in ten people thought quality of care would get worse, and 45% of those with private insurance thought quality of care would get worse. By focussing on the cost of health care, the administration seems to have ignored or missed the concerns of people about the quality of care if government focussed on cutting costs. These concerns are real as a vast majority of the public, or about 85% of the people, as Martin Feldstein points out in a recent Washington Post column, are insured. The question is what cost would they be willing to pay for the admittedly worthy cause of insuring the uninsured? And even with the unisured, it seems likely with the current Obama reform plan that immigrants and other people may still remain uninsured, at least for some time. Would a huge burden of $1 trillion make this worthwhile, and is there some better way to do this without the prospect of higher taxes further down the road to pay for this. These are points Feldstein makes. The other piece of evidence is that at the same time that there are reservations about what is coming out of Congress today, there is general support for making constructive changes to healthcare. The WSJ poll showed 56% of respondents favoring the basic ideas in the reforms being considered in Congress, with 38% opposing it....

LyrArc Article Gist
Dan Maffei won his Congressional seat from an incumbent Republican from Syracuse. Others of the 35 first term Congressmen represent a rural, small town and suburban areas like Maffei. And they are not about to lose their seats after tough congressional campaigns, they say, by voting the wrong way on health care reform. As one from Maryland put it he is not willing to foloow the lead just to follow the lead. These are the Congressmen that Steny Hoyer, Rep. from Maryland, who leads the Democrats in the House, wants to give more time as this is what they wanted. And these Congressmen are making themselves heard and making changes in the health care legislation where they disagreed.

LyrArc Article Gist
The US House of Representatives voted 245-189 in favor of repealing the health care law. Only 3 Democrats joined the entire Republican caucus in voting for repeal, compared to 34 Democrats who voted in March 2010 against the health care law. This is a largely symbolic move as the Democrat controlled Senate will not consider the repeal, and even if it did the President would veto it. Republicans favor some aspects of the health care law which allow children to be on the parent's insurance till age 26, and a ban on insurers denying coverage due to pre-existing conditions. Opinion polls show 46% of respondents opposed repealing and eliminating the law, and 45% favored repealing it. The health care issue ranks third among the economic issues important to respondents, behind unemployment and reducing the federal budget deficit.

LyrArc Article Gist
Blue Dog or corporate shills, who are they, asks Thomas Frank. He reminds readers that Illinois Senator Paul Douglas advised people in 1932 not to expect much from the Democratic party. Douglas said the Democratic party was more like alifeboat for business interests, when the going got tough with the Republicans, business interests simmply used this lifeboat to get away. So he says call these Blue Dogs caucus the Lifeboat caucus, and you get closer to the mark. He points out that the Blue Dogs are some of the leading fundraisers in Congress. See the link to Max Baucus in the Senate, who the NYT describes as a leading fundraiser from Montana.

LyrArc Article Gist
Achieving a right balance between the needs for public health in developing countries- and the need for cost reduction in developed countries- with the need to keep innovation, is the challenge facing the Indian Supreme Court as it hears the Novartis case on its leukemia drug Gleevec. The efforts by Novartis and other western pharmaceutical companies to restrict the flow of low cost generic drugs from India. India stopped granting patents on drugs in 1970. It only resumed giving patents under a WTO agreement on patents. The Indian government denied the patent on Gleevec and the case is now coming up before the Supreme Court.