The Health Care Authority (HCA) of the State of Washington has launched a new newsletter to keep industry stakeholders up to date with the latest in Washington State health information technology (HIT) news. The eHealth Collaborative Enterprise Newsletter is produced out of the office of Richard Onizuka, the HCA Director of Health Policy, and also Washington State’s Coordinator for HIT.
The mission and vision of the Collaborative is listed on the website.
In November, the eHealth Collaborative Enterprise project team will work with designated lead organizations and stakeholders to create vision and mission statements for this project.
Our collaboration will ensure alignment with the state and federal HIE vision and mission, as well as our lead organization’s HIE vision and mission.
You can learn more about the eHealth Collaborative Enterprise Newsletter here.
Liz Wolgemuth of U.S. News & World Reports says yes:
In the debate over healthcare reform, references to outcomes mostly have to do with patients. But the impending overhaul of the health insurance system may lead to very different outcomes in employment. That’s because health insurance coverage seems to guide the career choices of many older workers—and healthcare costs can guide the decisions of many employers.
Listed here are the priority groups that will be vaccinated due to their high risk.
-Pregnant women
-All people ages 6 months to 24 years
-Caregivers of infants younger than 6 months old
-School teachers & professional childcare providers
-Health care workers & emergency workers
-People ages 25 to 64 with medical conditions, such as diabetes, asthma, or
heart disease
Click below to see the locations in Snohomish County where the H1N1 vaccine will be available between 9 AM and 3 PM:
One of the significant criticisms of the Senate Finance healthcare reform bill is the tab. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the bill will cost $829 billion, increase federal spending on healthcare by $85 billion over the next decade, and reduce the federal deficit by $81 billion over the next decade.
There is a balancing act that takes place when dealing with 1/7 of the federal budget, which is what the United States spends on healthcare. By spending money in ways that will reduce costs in the long-term, the budget deficit can be reduced. This is especially true when considering the costs of healthcare are increasing faster than inflation based on the Consumer Price Index, and many of the reforms reign that in.
The CBO projects the new House bill, which will cost $1.055 trillion, will increase federal spending on healthcare by almost $600 billion while reducing the deficit by $104 billion over the next decade.
Breaking down some of these numbers can get more complicated. The Senate Finance bill will cost $829 billion, but reducing spending on Medicare and Medicaid and creating a 40% tax on expensive, employer-based health insurance plans combine to reduce the total cost by over $600 billion.
According to the Washington Post, “Other tax changes that serve to reduce tax breaks for health care would produce another $138 billion.” And that is how the CBO reaches the $85 billion projection.
The House bill does not include taxes on high-cost, employer-based plans, which means it increases federal spending on healthcare by seven times as much as the Senate Finance bill at $598 billion versus $85 billion.
Rest assured your wait in line to receive an H1N1 flu shot won’t be as long as going to the DMV… it could be even longer! The Snohomish Health District has reported waits of up to 2 hours to receive a flu shot at a few particular locations including Edmonds, Everett and Mill Creek, while Marysville and Arlington are flying under the radar and reporting minimal or no waiting times.
Thankfully, unlike the DMV, there is a loophole. The district’s flu shot web site shows waiting times at different clinics around the county, so you can plan your visit to get a flu shot strategically.
Flu shots are free for children six months to four years old and for women who are pregnant.
James C. Capretta, of the conservative magazine National Review, wrote a piece last night responding to the House healthcare bill, saying that the bill is “a total fiscal and health policy disaster.”
Capretta claims that the bill attempts to mislead the public into thinking that the bill is worth less than $1 trillion by ignoring the repeal of the sustainable growth rate (SGR) formula. Capretta also objects to the increase in Medicaid eligibility from 133% of the federal poverty line to 150%, due to the increase in taxes that will be incurred from this. In effect, Capretta says that the bill plays into the continuing liberal attempt to increase the size and scope of the federal government:
To sum it up, the House bill is nothing but a massive, uncontrolled federal entitlement expansion — at a time when the central, looming threat to the nation’s long-term prosperity is the unaffordable health-care entitlements already on the federal books.
Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN)
Capretta’s article comes after the House Republican Conference Chair, Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN), said in an interview with CNN that the House healthcare bill “really is a government takeover of health care in America.” House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) and House Minority WHIP Roy Blunt (R-MO) expressedsimilar concerns toward an expansion of government involvement in healthcare.
There seems to be a consensus among conservatives in opposition to the House healthcare bill, citing their fundamental opposition to increasing the reach of the federal government. And, it is true that this bill will increase the scope of federal oversight in healthcare – but, as Evan McMorris-Santoro at Talking Points Memo points out, Republicans (and specifically conservative Republicans) have yet to offer any alternative. Rep. Pence did say that he would like to see bipartisan efforts to cover those with preexisting conditions – beyond that we have heard almost no alternative ideas from the right, just opposition.
We will have to wait and see if liberals, moderates, and conservatives in Congress will work out a compromise bill as negotiations unfold.
It’s a slow day in Congress on Friday, and with little happening in Washington State today around healthcare, I thought this would be a good time to spend some energy looking at some polling data.There is lots of talk about the increase in support nationwide for a public option, and reform in general. However, there are a couple of other very important numbers out there worth watching.
Rasmussen Reports posts their daily presidential tracking poll numbers, as seen above. The graphic tells the story of the “hard” level of support vs. opposition for the president. There is a lot of wiggle room here insofar as this only depicts his “strongly” support/oppose numbers – and there’s a great deal of pro-Obama voters still “somewhat” supportive (47%).
That the strongly oppose numbers are rising is not uncommon – I think everyone expects it, actually, regardless of healthcare as an issue, during a new president’s first year. The drop, however, in the strongly supportive numbers is more concerning. One would expect that to soften over time, and as such doesn’t mean the sky is falling over the administration. (more…)
Today, Representative Rick Larsen of Washington’s 2nd Congressional district made this statement about the new House health reform bill:
After an initial review of the Affordable Health Care for America Act, I am pleased to see that many of the principles I support have been included in the bill.
I have been fighting to make sure the health care reform bill includes a fair deal for Washington state. Specifically, I have been pushing to protect access to health care for Washington state patients by ensuring that Washington state is rewarded, not penalized, for providing high-quality, low-cost patient care.
This bill includes language to fix the long-standing Medicare reimbursement problems that have hurt access to health care in Washington state.
I am also pleased that this bill bans discrimination for pre-existing conditions, age and gender. It is just plain unacceptable to deny an individual coverage, or charge them through the roof, because of their age or gender, or because they have a pre-existing condition such as diabetes or cancer.
The bill will protect people’s choice of doctors and health plans, and will expand access to quality, affordable health insurance options. And the bill includes a public option that works for Washington state.
This bill also appears to be a good deal for our seniors. It will improve Medicare benefits, strengthen the solvency of the Medicare program, and close the “doughnut hole” in the Medicare Prescription Drug Program.
I plan to read and examine every page of this bill over the next week prior to taking this vote. I encourage my constituents to read this bill and contact my office to voice their opinions before the House takes this vote next week.
The House healthcare bill unveiled this morning does not force a public option plan to use Medicare rates to compensate providers, in what is seen as a big win for moderates, and in my view a big win for Washington state. This from a Yahoo! story:
Liberals generally wanted the government to dictate the rates to be paid to doctors, hospitals and other health care providers, with the fee levels linked to Medicare.
Moderates, fearing the impact on their local hospitals, held out for negotiated rates between the government and private insurers — and won.
As I said in an anticipatory post last night, I think this is a big win for Washington state as it means a public option might actually exist and work in this market. While this would not mean as fundamental a shift in the insurance marketplace here as it would in places like Alabama (where 92% of the insurance market is dominated by one plan), it would still mean a significant shift in the economics of insurance here.
Again, in my view, I think this is a big win for Washington state. Let’s see what happens when it comes to the floor.
I watched this interesting interview on Countdown tonight with Markos Moulitsas. What I almost said aloud as I watched this was “a ‘robust’ public option means no public option for Washington state.” That is just a fact of the market in Washington state that doesn’t exist in the same way in other parts of the United States.
Progressives are all over the idea of not just a public option, but a “robust” public option. That term, “robust,” is actually code – not for a strong or resilient public option – but rather a plan that has rates pegged to Medicare.
I’ve explained this before, but the CEO of the Everett Clinic, a national leader in getting positive outcomes for Medicare patients at a low cost, makes the point just as well. We posted his letter to the Washington delegation earlier. Here’s the crux.
As you know, Medicare pays less in Washington than it pays in other states. Providers in our state are penalized because we deliver care more efficiently…
Under the original Medicare fee-for-service model, we lose $464 per patient each year. This year we are projecting a loss of approximately $11.7 million treating Medicare patients.
Under the current system, the commercial insurers in our state subsidize Medicare payments by up to 40 percent. This subsidy is essential for us continue to care for our Medicare patients. If in addition payments for private pay patients are lowered to the level currently paid for Medicare patients in Washington, the entire healthcare financing system in our state will be permanently damaged.
In Washington state, our Medicare reimbursement rates are so low compared to the rest of the country, providers are cutting Medicare patients off of their patient panels. They are refusing to take Medicare as insurance.
At the same time, commercial rates from plans like Premera and Regence, which pay doctors rates negotiated in the marketplace, are much higher than Medicare. What occurs, therefore, is one of the many cost shifts in health care: the payments to doctors from commercial plans are high enough that they subsidize the care provided to Medicare patients.
Take away commercial plans and their reimbursements, and you take away the subsidy to doctors which allows them to keep their doors open to Medicare patients.
So, if a new public option is created in Washington state, it is very unlikely physicians will contract with it to see patients covered by the plan – that is if the public option rates are pegged to Medicare rates in what is called the “robust” option.
It is altogether even possible that the Washington State Hospital Association and Washington State Medical Association would push to “opt out” of such a plan (assuming that is an option for states in the bills released this week). I doubt the Legislature would go for that, but that potential activism would demonstrate the antipathy of providers to a “robust” option.
All that said, a public option that is allowed to negotiate rates with doctors based upon the market, and which sets patient premiums based upon the costs of providing the plan (without a subsidy from the general fund to the plan, like Medicare gets), would be a huge benefit to Washington state citizens and a fundamental asset to market reforms here. But, they better get the details right or it will be all for not. Updated: Typo fixed.
