WHEN PATIENTS GET TOO EXPENSIVE TO TREAT

What do insurance companies do when medical expenses get too high for comfort?  How may insurance companies deal with expanding medical costs that lower shareholder return and that may cause reduced executive compensation?

Currently, rituxin is one of the newer agents recommended for the active phase of acute demyelinating disease, multiple sclerosis in particular, but also extending to a complicated condition known as "lupoid sclerosis." Robyn G. Young, MD, Alameda, formely, president of the California Neurology Society,  states that this treatment is a preferred regimen for active system disease. e.g., MS/demyelination accompanying systemic SLE.

However, reluctance on the part of payers to cover this regimen has been noticed by frustrated clinicians whose treatment decisions may be delayed or denied by insurers who may assert that a specific treatment regimen is "experimental" and therefore not eligible for coverage under the plan. If that happens, the patient is then denied insurance coverage and may have to pay for treatment out-of-pocket while the insurance company continues to bill for its alleged coverage, whatever of that remains once what the patient currently needs is denied. 

Insurance companies have other ways of controlling costs. One of these other ways is to limit access to physicians to cover the number of enrolled subscribers. That increases the length of time it'll take to see a physician, especially a specialist, which in turn reduces expenses for the insurance company, which in turn allows more favorable financial quarterly reports to be issued. Another technique is to drop physicians from the MPN (medical provider network) based purely on business reasons -- no allegation of poor medical practice need be made. This latter technique reduces short-term expenses, allows for more favorable financial reports on a quarterly basis, and runs little risk of collectively increased long-term expense because of delays of care. Keep in mind that in workers comp, for instance, Temporary Disability (TD) runs out in two years. 

Doctor Young stated that "our patients should not be the victims of either insurance or pharma greed ... the physician has been devalued while all the other entities with financial interests in rationing patient care have been elevated in control and influence."

That is why some medical organizations seem poised to fight simultaneously for their patients' rights as well as for the rights of member physicians lest the latter become indentured servants dependent either on the corporate mentality that rules Big Biz or the other corporate mentality that rules government. In this regard watch for a likely take-down on an aspect of Obamacare (Affordable Care Act). The case is King versus Burwell, Docket # 14-114, set for SCOTUS argument beginning on 4 March 2015. The case deals with an IRS ruling re availability of federal tax subsidies to persons who bought health insurance on exchanges run by the federal government -- we'll cover more on that in future columns.

In the meantime, Doctor Young's conclusion  that "it is time that we (physicians) took back our role as patient care advocates" should be shouted from physician rooftops everywhere.

References

"Regaining Control of Medical Practice," CLINICAL EEG,  c. 1995, V. 26, #1 (reprints available SSAE upon request to Dr. Weinmann, 2040 Forest Avenue, #4, San Jose, CA. 95128)

"Union head urges reform in health care," THE OAKLAND TRIBUNE,  4 November 1998 (White House press conference with then President Bill Clinton)

Barack Obama, 2015, SOTU: "If a bill comes to my desk that tries to do any of these things, I will veto it"

Part One

"Any of these things," that's what president Obama said during his SOTU speech. His meaning was clear: he referred to  four areas where he said that any Congressional amendments would be considered as "tinkering" and would be vetoed. He included immigration and the Affordable Care Act in this category. The promised vetoes revealed that our president was prepared to shift from a government characterized by the consent of the governed to one that would be more autocratic and unilateral. No previous president ever threatened Congress with four, count 'em, four vetoes. 

Our concern in this post is the Affordable Care Act (ACA), popularly known as Obamacare. It has long since been forgotten that the first important "tinkering" with the ACA was by Obama himself when he dropped the public option from the bill -- the public option was an awkward inconvenience at the time so the president "tinkered" with it. He used a hatchet.

Now efforts to improve the bill are either opposed by its far right opposition which would repeal the entire bill or get opposed by supposed supporters in favor of as much giveaway politics as is humanly possible. 

Here's the deal: the ACA contains two parts that are highly controversial, Sections 10320 and 3403. These sections in the ACA create the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) which has the power to decide what Medicare will actually cover. The IPAB will consist of 15 members; in fact, in 2012 $15,000,000 was appropriated for the IPAB whose members, while ruling on Medicare benefits, would not be obliged to report to Congress. Each member is to be paid about $165,000 annually -- without, one emphasizes again, without the pesky necessity of reporting to Congress which would still retain theoretical control although much abbreviated. 

Here's how it'll work: the IPAB gets the authority to make changes in the Medicare program but Congress retains power to overrule the IPAB's decisions if, and only if, it can muster a supermajority vote.  Otherwise, a gaggle of 15 appointees would make decisions on matters that are life and death to the elderly and to the especially vulnerable, e.g., age limits for surgery, or for insulin, or for renal dialysis. 

The far reaching effects of the IPAB were actually realized as early as 2010. In the second presidential debate, Gov. Romney had the temerity to ask President Obama who would be appointed to the IPAB. Obama's answer was "doctors et cetera."

Wrong. Obama's answer,  stated with finality, was wrong, but Romney didn't know it and let the issue slide by. Meanwhile the president got away with debate mayhem. He answered incorrectly and wasn't called on it by his opponent or the moderator.  The fact is that there is nothing in the language of Sections 3403 or 13020 that requires even a single physician to be appointed to the IPAB. The entire panel of 15 is to be political appointees with some modicum of interest in healthcare, e.g., the now ill famed coterie of "healthcare providers," anybody but knowledgeable physicians and scholars.THAT is what Obama would protect by threatening legislation that he considers "tinkering." 

The intent of the IPAB in its role as supporter of the ACA is to assess if cost projections exceed targeted growth rates. If that happens, then the IPAB without reporting to Congress is supposed to find ways to reduce Medicare spending -- in short, what will amount to deprivation of care from especially vulnerable patients with advanced or incurable disease. This category will include the elderly. It will be the modern day equivalent of the ancient Eskimo custom of turning frail and elderly citizens loose on ice floes. The trouble is that one can easily see that there may come a time when building a highway competes financially with elder care or with younger patients who need expensive care or advanced surgery. 

What could the president have told us about Obamacare that might have given us a little warning of potentially dire consequences that might just be around the corner, say, at tax time which is just around the corner?

That will be our Part 2, so tune in tomorrow.

OBAMACARE, COVERED CALIFORNIA, PROPOSITION 45, A CONVENIENT ALLIANCE

It  is not commonly realized by participants in health care plans sponsored by health insurance exchanges derived from the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that these plans are subject to changes allowed under the law.  The meaning is that a plan purchased this year may have been compliant with the ACA (Obamacare) at the time of purchase but may not remain compliant with changes that the ACA allows these plans to make (including the annual premium which may be raised annually if that's what the executives of these plans want). 

We understand that the ACA and the exchanges have dealt death blows to many longterm relationships between patients and their doctors.  It is not uncommon to see posters in clinics that state that the clinic and its doctors do not accept Covered California subscribers. 

Take a look at what it means to buy into a Bronze, Silver, Gold, or Platinum Plan. These plans reflect "actuarial values" which means the percentage of the covered benefits that each of the plans is expected to pay, e.g., Bronze Plan subscribers pay the least in annual premiums while paying the highest co-pays. Conversely, Platinum Plan subscribers pay the most for their annual premiums and in return pay the lowest co-pays. 

Currently, the Bronze Plan covers about 60% of health care costs. The Silver Plan covers about 70%. The Gold Plan covers about 80%. The Platinum Plan covers about 90%. The unpaid gap is the subscriber's co-pay, highest for patients who are strapped for cash and are obliged to purchase the lowest price plan, lowest for patients who can afford the Platinum Plan. That means that doctors, clinics, and hospitals who have a high percentage of Bronze Plan participants are most likely the ones who'll be stiffed on required co-pays. 

Here's the rub: each of the plans has a range that it's supposed to cover, e.g., at the time of this writing the Bronze Plan is reported to cover from 58 to 62 percent. It is expected that as time marches on there will be changes, even favorable changes in these plans. Because of how the ACA is written and because of how the exchanges function, a Bronze Plan that now covers 60 percent may at some time in the future cover 65%. The rub is that the next step up in the ACA division is the Silver Plan which starts coverage at 68 percent which means that your Bronze Plan no longer qualifies as a Bronze Plan but also doesn't qualify as a Silver Plan. So your plan is no longer valid under the ACA. 

What may be even harder to understand is that the Platinum Plan also has limits. It cannot cover more than 92 percent. So doing is not legal under the ACA.

So where does Proposition 45 which is on the November ballot in California fit in? Proponents of the ACA or Obamacare fear that passage of Proposition 45 could prove harmful to the ACA since the Covered California exchange recently negotiated a rate increase for its over one million plus enrollees. 

The ACA makes purchase of healthcare insurance mandatory but does not regulate premium prices. Covered California, like other insurers, does not want to have rate increases it can currently negotiate subject to being rescinded by an insurance commissioner. Proposition 45 would  empower the insurance commissioner to do just that. The Insurance Department in California is reported to have found that rate increases from 2013 to 2014 are from 22 to 88 percent (the Covered California board has not voted a position one way or the other on Propostion 45 as of the date of this article).  

References for this piece: 

1) THE HILL Newspaper,  Washington, D.C., "What Obama should've said about healthcare reform," 9/16/09, by Robert L. Weinmann, MD;
2) POLITICO, "GOP govs could gum up Obamacare," 2/10/10 ("I will ensure that no government bureaucrat gets between you and the care you need"), by Robert Weinmann, MD; 
3) John C. Goodman (www.Forbes.com/sites/John Goodman, 9/23/14 ("if you like your insurance you can keep it");
4) SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS, "Measure creates odd alliances," Tracy Seipel, 9/26/14;
5) Editorial, Robyn G. Young, MD, President, CALIFORNIA NEUROLOGY SOCIETY, 9/17/2014 (www.ca-neuro-society.org): these three points are emphasized:
  a) Prop 45 will require public disclosure of hearings re health inssurance rates;
  b) Prop 45 will require approval of changes in health insurance rates by the California Insurance Commissioner;
  c)  Prop 45 will require sworn statements about the accuracy of information submitted to the insurance commissioner to justify proposed rate changes.

  Comment: Prop 45 proposes transparency that the ACA (Obamacare) has consistently denied, e.g., Pelosi's laughable comment that the ACA had to be passed so we could see what's in it and then an Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) that by law need not include even a single physician. The Covered California board likes the murky mists of non-transparent legislation. THAT is what Prop 45 seeks to change. THAT scares insider deal-moguls to the very core of their existence.  

YOUR DOCTOR ISN'T IN THE PLAN ANYMORE. NEITHER IS YOUR PLAN.

"I'm sorry," tolls the receptionist in a bored voice, "but your doctor isn't in our plan anymore."

Senator Reid opts out: click on comments at end of this editorial re Reid's Obamacare snub

Item A concerns a doctor whose healthcare policy was abruptly canceled when her own physician announced he was quitting the health care plan, would no longer accept insurance, and would henceforth require monthly "concierge" style payment, plus a cash fee for office visits, and that she'd have to have separate insurance for hospitalization whether needed or not.  As for the healthcare plan he was leaving -- the plan would either be disbanded or taken over by doctors who could speak English.

Note: for the uninitiated, "concierge" style practices require advance payment arrangements such as monthly, quarterly, or annual payments plus fees applicable to the services patients use. Medications are not included. Insurance plans are not accepted.

Item B is about several doctors in various settings who have in common that they've sold their practices to corporate entities, foundations, exchanges, or other business groups. It works like this: the corporate entity buys the practice, then employs the doctor or somebody else to run it on a day-to-day basis. The corporate entity pays the staff, the rent, and the expenses. To recoup its money, and to make more money, the practice is required to double or triple its volume. To accomplish this task, the time spent with  each patient must be reduced, say, to a few minutes. That'll be the job of the staff who now no longer works directly for the doctor or the patient but who instead is responsible to the employer. In this plan, insurance is still accepted, in fact, is welcome. If the on-site managing doctor and his staff can't meet these goals, they'll be replaced.

Healthcare Plans that cover patients, doctors, and insurers vary widely. They may assign doctors to multiple plans and keep track of so-called "production," how many patients each doctor sees and how long the average visit takes. Doctors whose "production" numbers are profitable to  the company will have a higher rate of retention providing they don't rock the corporate boat in other ways (then they're called "disruptive" and get fired anyway).  What procedures and surgeries are allowed will be a corporate decision dependent on cost-benefit ratios, not patient need.

Healthcare Plans may be narrow and include a minimal number of specialists and no highly sub-specialized surgeons. It's your  personal out-of-pocket lookout if services not included in your medical provider network are sought.

Utilization Review (UR) is already used in California for injured workers who may be denied access to specialized care by a UR doctor who is not licensed in California and who has never seen the patient. The UR doctor's judgment may nonetheless overrule the California-licensed primary treating physician's judgment even though the primary physician has spent hours with the patient.

In this way, UR in California and the ACA throughout the USA are joined -- see our previous editorials on the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) which was originally rejected for Medicare under its previous name, the Independent Medicare Advisory Board (IMAB). Some pundits assert that the ACA under the guise of Obamacare is actually a nationwide watered down HMO and that to keep it that way it's necessary to eliminate as many hospitals and specialized centers as possible, and as many doctors as possible, while making the remaining doctors act like cattle herders trying to avert a stampede.

Stay tuned. These issues have long legs.

References

"How to practice medicine without a license," San Francisco Chronicle, 8/29/08

OBAMACARE: FURIOUS BACKPEDALLING DETRACTS FROM ALREADY DIMINISHED CREDIBILITY

When is the last time that an American president asked to have the law set aside so that presidential credibility might be restored? How about right now?

Even though California Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones has indicated that California should go along with the president's request to allow older insurance policies that don't meet the required criteria of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to be extended, Covered California Executive Director Peter Lee says no dice because the state of California cannot force the insurance companies to grant extensions. Covered California voted 5 to 0 that allowing these older policies to continue would undermine the ACA even though President Obama himself, in a spectacularly furious backpedalling gesture, asked for just that. In so doing the president hoped to restore his diminished credibility when he promised so loudly and so often that if you liked your current doctor or your current policy you could retain either or both.

All the same, as of this writing, the ACA is doing well in California. About 80,000 persons have signed up for policies. Nevertheless,  about 220,000 non-compliant policies in California may be extended despite Peter Lee's exhortations otherwise. The reason, however, isn't as much the presidential plea for mercy as it is the insurance companies' assertions that they didn't have enough time to notify clients and don't have enough time anymore to make necessary adjustments.

By now it has become evident that ACA-compliant policies are likely to cost more than the non-compliant policies they replace -- we've already seen the example of the woman who congratulated the president on Obamacare and then found out that she couldn't afford it and would now be worse off than before when she had a non-compliant policy. Now she has none. Evidently, Peter Lee thinks that "none" is a suitable alternative for her. Lee may turn out to be even more of an ideologue than the president himself. It took a while for the president to acknowledge his mistake, but, in due course, he did just that. Meanwhile the ideologues stomp ahead, trampling opposition, no matter how small and desperate they are.

In general, the idea of insurance for all should take hold, but not in an atmosphere of partisan bickering, party affiliation, and ultimate hypocrisy where Congressional representatives, as one of their perks, may seek medical care at any American military hospital on a "prn" basis.

Yessirree,"prn" is the abbreviation for "pro re nata," which means according to need, their needs, not ours. Once again Congress looks out for itself first. Citizens like us get promises, then dregs, then raised premiums that push the ACA into offering policies that often turn out to cost more than the policies they replace. The risk now is that the ACA will protect us out of more health care than it'll provide in return. We hope not lest the ACA become known as the Unaffordable Care Act (UCA).  

"Keep Your Health Plan Act of 2013" clears the House of Representatives

HEALTH COVERAGE BILL PASSES WITH 39 DEMOCRATS CROSSING OVER. HR 3350 sponsored by Representative Fred Upton from Michigan passed 261 to 157 with 39 Democrats voting with the Republican majority and 4 Republicans crossing over to vote with the Democrat minority. The Senate is not in session today -- the pot is boiling but doth not yet runneth over. The simmering pot revolves about the three dozen plus three Democrats who have signaled by their crossover that they don't support President Obama who has promised a veto if the bill makes it through Congress.

The four Republicans who also crossed over to the Democrat side could eventually play a larger role. The Republican vote for this bill envisions not only allowing the rescinded health care plans to be returned to their buyers but also extends to the insurance companies the right to sell the  policies to new customers. This latter provision could wreak havoc with the Affordable Care Act (ACA) whereas the lesser proposal by the President to allow the already purchased policies to stay in effect for another year is seen as a healing measure to buy time even though this proposal also has its own troubles since it flies in the face of legislation already signed into law.

In California Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones has stated that he'll go along with the President's attempt at ACA repair. Proponents of the ACA feel that HR 3350 (Upton) is a not-so-subtle attempt to undermine Obamacare altogether. Stay tuned, stay informed!

OBAMACARE: "NOT ENOUGH IS BEING DONE IN WASHINGTON THAT HELPS ME WITH MY LIFE!"

No doubt about it, President Obama heard the criticism and has responded in kind.  His announcement today that the individual mandate would be postponed by one year is designed to assuage the millions of subscribers who were satisfied with their health plans because they'll now be enabled to keep them for another year even if they're not compliant with the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

When queried by press about his constant reaffirmations of the original plan to promote the ACA in the face of a failed internet sign-up program, the president spoke to the people's hearts when he said "I'm not stupid enough" to have promoted an internet program had he known in advance that it was about to be an abject failure. He admitted the "fumble." Now that's language we can understand although we'd still like to know who in our capitol was stupid enough to have left the president holding the bag. In private business, such persons get reassigned to life-at-home although we've become inured to their walking away with golden parachutes.

Issues that weren't faced up to entirely include why increased cost may be an inevitable outcome. One argument we've used in this blog is that the ACA requires 60 year old grandmothers to purchase policies that include maternity care. Ridiculous? Maybe not. The same ACA requires 27 year olds to pay a rate that'll include prostate disease coverage for older men. That's just how all inclusive insurance works.

There's no denying that  private insurers used to dump patients once sickness and injury claims were filed and that previous administrations tolerated this rueful practice. There's no denying that some insurers used to resurrect claimants' healthcare histories and retroactively cancel a claimant's policy because the applicant had acne that came under medical treatment at age 17 and wasn't reported at the time the applicant bought insurance coverage -- but that, too, was tolerated. 

There's no denying that annual limits and lifetime limits would often ensnare the very sick into bankruptcy -- but this egregious insult and harm was also allowed by previous administrations. Obama's credit is that he sought to resolve these inequities but in his eagerness failed to keep  his eye on the ball and misled the public. He is now gradually trying to dig himself out of the hole he dug -- today's step is a shovelful in the right direction.

But will a one-year postponement do enough or will it just give everybody breathing room until the inevitable cancelation catastrophe one year from now?

One problem is that pro-private-insurance interests opposed to the ACA are rooting for failure and will inevitably point out that President Obama is unilaterally suspending the law to recoup his own popularity with midterm elections pending. Proponents will support the president or seek further enabling legislation.  

California will be a statewide workshop since we're being told on the one hand that  in California one million cancelations have been sent out and will now need to be rescinded -- what will be the cost of that and who will pay for it? On the other hand, we're also told that California leads the nation in ACA sign ups.

Political pundits will notice that today's discussions have so far not mentioned the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) -- that is Sections 3403 and 10320 of the ACA that'll allow cancelation of benefits once the ACA  gets too expensive. The IPAB is to be staffed by appointed bureaucrats at $165,000 per year. They will not need to report to Congress. Now there's something to worry about! Ask your Congressional representatives about it -- if they're making a beeline for legislation, tell them to take this item under advisement to strip the IPAB of its power to take away our increasingly hard-won benefits.

PRESIDENT OBAMA APOLOGIZES AND PROMISES TO INTERFERE WITH CARE YOU DON'T NEED!

"I am sorry that they are finding themselves in this situation based on assurances they got from me" is as much of an apology from President Obama as we're likely to get. This apology isn't abject but it's a remarkable turn around from the president's previous wholehearted support of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). It's a far cry not only from his June 2009 promises but also from his September 25th statement in Maryland where he ringingly declared, once again, that "if you already have health care, you don't have to do anything."

By now we know that millions of  policy holders have been skunked because private plans purchased directly from insurance companies have been arbitrarily and unilaterally cancelled by the insurance companies that so eagerly sold them in the first place. These plans have conveniently been declared non-compliant with the ACA. The convenience is that the same companies can now turn around, create ACA-compliant health care plans, and sell them to their own customers at a hefty mark-up. It may not quite be double-billing, but it sure as Hades qualifies as "double-selling."

Here's what another one of our knowledgeable sources says:
"It's not the ACA doing this, it's the insurance industry using the ACA as an excuse to institute more advantageous plans for themselves." Right on! Too bad the president and his devoted inner clique didn't tumble to that in time  or didn't speak out. In fact, that millions of people would lose their health-care plans was actually reported in the Federal Register in June of 2010. Therefore, the obligation of public disclosure was technically met. Too bad, isn't it, that President Obama and Secretary Sibelius didn't read it or decided to ignore it while they steamrolled the public instead.

Our source whom we'll call Josefina points out that "the insurance companies were allowed to set up and offer whatever they wanted as long as they include no cap, no discrimination for pre-existing conditions, and some basic care inclusions such as maternity care and mammograms."

In fact, given these required inclusions, it can be argued with reasonable medical assurance that the ACA-compliant policies are probably superior to the plans that are now being pulled off the market. On the other hand, the buyer lost his choice of product.

Here's what happened to Josefina: first, Blue Cross cancelled her  health care plan. Blue Cross blamed the ACA. Then Blue Cross told Josefina they would send her a replacement policy that needed to be accepted by December, 2013 "in order to delay implementation of the ACA provisions at the same rate of $1427/month. They made it sound like that would be a good thing for me when the advantage is all theirs, including being able to max me out of my plan." A reasonable argument can be made that Blue Cross is complying with the ACA by offering a superior replacement policy even though such plans in the future are expected to cost more.

Josefina, who understands insurance, pointed out how the new plan could be ACA-compliant while also decreasing other coverage included in her previous plan but which isn't mandated by the ACA. By now our reading public knows that the ACA compliant plans include mandatory coverage of mental illness and maternity care even for 60 year old grandmothers. So the public finds it has to buy superior plans that cost more in order to cover the previously uninsured population estimated to be around 22 million persons.

Here's Josefina's summary: "They (the insurance companies) blame it on the ACA (Obamacare) but it actually (is) the insurance company industry manipulation while pretending that it's the ACA." 

Our conclusion: we agree with this assessment but feel obliged to point out that the Federal Government knew about the scam as early as June of 2010 -- that's when the president and Secretary Sebelius should have told the rest of us what was cooking in a pot that was shortly to boil over and burn millions of people who believed the presidential assurances from as early as 2009 and as recently as September of 2011.

One can only be dismayed at such deception unless we buy the argument  that the president and his staff were simply incompetent. Remember, this president is the same one who also promised in a speech on health reform in 2009 that he would make sure that "no government bureaucrat gets between you and the care you need." 

Although President Obama admitted that "we weren't as clear as we needed to be in terms of the changes that were taking place," he did not acknowledge that he knew at the time, or should have known at the time, that millions of persons would lose their private healthcare plans. Now we see a welcome reversal of field: "we've got to work hard to make sure that we're going to do everything we can to deal with folks who find themselves in a tough position as a consequence of this." Our information is that the president has instructed his staff to "close some of the holes and gaps in the law" and to find out to what extent he can help as many persons as possible who lost their insurance.

Is that a promise to interfere with policies that foist insurance plans on us that we don't need? Sometimes there's no winning strategy. Instead, there's  a chance for restorative damage control. That could be the ultimate winning strategy in this otherwise fiasco of healthcare reform.

References

"User's Guide to the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) and the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB)," 6/28/2012, http://totalcapitol.com/?blog

"What Obama should've said about health reform," The Hill, Washington, D.C., 9/16/09

OBAMACARE: "IF IT HASN'T CHANGED SINCE THE LAW WAS PASSED..."

By now we all know the story: "water, water everywhere, but not a drop to drink," or, in its latest revision, "words, words everywhere, but not a syllable of truth anywhere."

"If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your healthcare plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period."

Ooops, not 'zackly "period," more like a comma from a president who must have been in a coma when he misspoke so badly and so carelessly on 15 June 2009 when he recklessly promised so much only to deliver so little four years later.

The new version of "period" is "if it (your health care plan) hasn't changed since the law was passed." The president's awkward attempts to shred and parse his previous language are downright embarrassing particularly to those among us who trusted him at the time.

Here's the latest horror story we have, relayed by a subscriber who has asked us not to publish his name but whose revulsion at the deception he's been offered is palpable.

Joe B, we'll call him, had an individual policy with Blue Shield in which he enrolled in 2012 and which he intended to keep especially since his president told him that if he liked his health-care plan he could keep it, "period!"

Joe B's plan was HSA compliant with high deductibles, $4,000 individual, $8,000 family-embedded. There was no so-called "lifetime maximum." Joe B recently was advised by Blue Shield that the health-care plan he liked and expected to keep would not be available after 12 December 2013. He was told that the plan he liked and had intended to keep was not compliant with the Affordable Care Act, that his new premium for a plan he didn't want would be increased by 40%,  that his deductibles would go up by 12.5%, and that his co-pays after the deductible was met would, in Joe's own words, "skyrocket."

Next Joe B  checked out CoveredCA. Too bad for Joe B, because CoveredCA did not offer him any HSA compliant plans. Joe B's conclusion, sadly on target, is that "the lies which were told that both got the law passed and got many elected or re-elected (Obama) are insidious and cause for great concern for our country."

Next, Joe B learned about the IPAB (Independent Payment Advisory Board) from our blog and finds that  provision of the ACA "cause for great additional concern."

Joe B's conclusion: "Stealthily setting up a plan to redistribute income through the healthcare system is what is resulting, and it's just not right."

Our conclusion: if the president wants to ease into a more socialized system, or a single-payer model, he should have the intestinal fortitude to tell that to the voting public.  What he is doing now is an attempt to deceive the public and re-write history. It is likely that the computer glitches in the sign-up process will eventually be fixed, but Joe B has just found out that the HSA compliant health care plan that he liked and was told he could keep is out the window -- that, my friends, is not a computer glitch. It was false when the promise that Joe B could keep his health care plan was initially floated and remains so today -- a sad commentary and severe blow to our ability to trust our president's promises on healthcare or anything else.




 

CONGRESS KEEPS ITS SUBSIDIES

Dateline, Washington, DC, 2 AM, 1 October 2013 -- In our earlier blog on 9/30/13, we mentioned Rep. Langford's last ditch effort to scuttle subsidies and create an even playing field for Obamacare. The idea, to impose a one year delay in the requirement of the Affordable Care Act that individuals buy health insurance, was also supposed to deny federal subsidies to MOCs (Members of Congress), to staff employees of Congressional offices, to members of the Executive Branch, to White House staff, and to both the president and vice president for the same length of time. It turns out that that was a "No Fly Zone." When asked about it, Speaker Boehner said the Constitution mandates that Congress be paid. Yes, maybe so, but there's nothing in the Constitution that says MOCs and their Capitol Hill staffers must have subsidies in addition to salaries. In a masterpiece of hypocrisy, both sides of the aisle have managed to cause a shutdown. Military is excluded and will be funded but not necessarily all of their civilian counterparts at the Pentagon. We will want to stay tuned: today's fight isn't over and the debt ceiling conflict is just around the corner.

Dateline, Washington, D.C. 3:50 PM, 9/30/2013 MOC James Langford now wants to pull all individual exemptions in Obamacare while leaving intact current business exemptions. He points out how at first Congressional exemptions were proposed and then replaced by mandatory participation and then in turn how subsidies snuck into the game with the result that individual exemptions blossomed for the favored few on both sides of the political aisle leaving the befuddled middle class out in the proverbial cold. At this writing there's still 8 hours to go to shutdown.

OBAMACARE: separating fact from fiction in the Affordable Care Act (ACA)

On 20 September 2013, President Obama stated that Obamacare would enable millions of Americans who were locked out of the system to get quality health care. He did not mention Section 10320 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that can be implemented when the government feels that costs are getting too high -- at this point the Indpendent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) is enabled by law to bypass Congress and simply eliminate or disqualify specific services from coverage. While we understand the fiscal imperatives of this Section of the ACA we also feel that the public should be properly advised how such a provision might work, for instance, insulin injections for patients over 80 years of age could be denied payment, so could dialysis coverage for patients over 75 years old, or surgery for brainstem tumors in children. When push comes to shove, it will be of interest to notice if there's equity in denials of care, for instance, will Congressional representatives and staff be subject to the same denials of coverage that will be imposed on rank and file citizens? These questions have come to the surface since our original posting. The ACA under the IPAB Section is empowered to delete coverage under the act, not to tell citizens they can't pay independently for care denied coverage under the ACA. For many patients denial of coverage is tantamount to denial of care. Previously, we've touched upon whether or not Obamacare (ACA) exempts Congress and staff from the full effect of the law as Representative Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, claimed in his August 8th statement which asserted that Congress was getting "special treatment." Jordan stated that Obamacare "exempted Congress and their staff from the full effect of the law." True or not? The Office of Personnel Management says that the federal government usually pays around 75% of employees' health insurance premiums. Newly issued rules regarding payment of employees' health plans bought on the exchange won't be more than the government's contribution for other federally insured workers. Congressional representatives will decide who is employed by the "official office" as opposed to Congressional committees -- the former will be obliged to buy insurance from the exchanges whereas staffers retained by committees will not be obligated to buy from the exchanges. The group hired directly by a Congressional office will be eligible for up to 75% reimbursement or contribution to premium costs. The fact is that "all full-time and part-time employees employed by the official office of a Member of Congress" will be obliged to buy insurance through the exchanges. These employees are eligible for the Congressional co-pay which the Office of Personnel Management says is between 72 and 75% of its employees' health insurance premiums. So what's the uproar about? It is clear that there is a difference in how Congressional employees get treated under the ACA. A large part of the credit or blame for this difference goes to Senator Grassley's amendment to the ACA: it was Senator Grassley whose amendment specified that Congressional staffers "fully participate in the exchange by picking a plan, paying for it on their own, and perhaps qualifying for subsidies (italics added)." This reference to "subsidies" bothers Jordan and others who believe that the ACA is not equitable. The fact is that others besides Congressional employees will also be entitled to subsidies. Hence, the ACA is equitable although it may be more expensive than had been originally envisioned. It is also doubtful that Congressional persons will ever suffer from arbitrary decisions by the IPAB. In a nutshell, Congress and staff are not exempt from the ACA. Co-pays and subsidies are allowed but are not limited to Congress and staff.

My opinion: Grassley intended his amendment to be a poison pill that Democrats wouldn't swallow. He was wrong. The Democrats gulped it down and then shoved it down Republican throats. The real problems will be access to coverage for care. The ACA creates employment worries about full-time versus part-time employment, secretive denials of care by the IPAB under the guise of fiscal restraint whereby specific services are denied or made subject to increasingly onerous rules and regulations. Rising private insurance coverage costs with increasingly higher required deductibles are expected, e.g., middle America will find itself trapped between policies that cover too little and adequate private coverage that costs too much and requires high deductibles. In this scenario, the only winners are the insurance companies.

Credits: Paige Robbins was Chief Research Associate for this piece.

References: The Plain Dealer, PolitiFact.com; News release, Jim Jordan, 8/08/13; Lima News, "Jordan said challenging Obamacare is his top priority," 8/14/13; Office of Personnel Management press release, 8/07/13; News release, Sen. Charles Grassley, "Grassley amendment makes Congress obtain coverage from health care plan established in reform bill," 9/30/09.

Obamacare, AB 76, SB 71 -- government deception

Governor Brown's veto message for AB 76 is a  sublime essence of deception. Here is the actual  text: "I am returning Assembly Bill 76 without my signature. This bill is unnecessary as I am signing a similar measure, Senate Bill 71. A Constitutional Amendment has also been introduced that will preserve the existing Constitutional and statuatory requirements of the California Public Records Act. -- Sincerely, Edmund G. Brown, Jr.

Readers of this column already know that Brown signed SB 71 while vetoing AB 76. Our readers also know that SB 71 is a mirror image of AB 76. So Brown didn't veto anything. Instead, he has contrived to project an appearance of preserving access to public records with a huge cutback in the only significant benefit injured workers managed to wrangle out of last year's SB 863.

Both bills were run through the legislature at the same time, one in the Assembly, the other, in the Senate. When I spoke to one of the Senators who seemed well disposed to calling the Assembly bill, AB 76, into question no mention was made of the parallel bill on the Senate side, SB 71, lurking around the corner although both bills had the same anti-injured worker provision about return-to-work.

SB 71 pays lip service to the provision in SB 863 that appropriated $120,000,000 per year to pay for a return-to-work program for injured workers. The slap in the face to injured workers is the provision of SB 71 that was also included in AB 76: "the program applies only to injuries that occur on or after January 1, 2013."

When SB 863 was passed this $120,000,000 benefit was applied to all injured workers, not just  injured workers whose injuries occurred on or after January 1, 2013.  It was a key reason why this otherwise hostile bill to injured workers got support from the California Labor Federation which collaborared  with big business (Grimmway Farms) to get it passed. 

Although it is unlikely that this sophisticated a plan was entirely worked out in advance, it has turned out to be stunningly successful for Big Business.

As for Obamacare, we'll next discuss how the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) will be empowered to work first to limit the franchise to the elderly and then to restrict access to care to all participants while Congress and possibly even IRS fight to remain exempt from its alleged protections.

OBAMA VERSUS OBAMACARE

"Modest reforms," that's what he said.

The president's state of the union address included this vapid and vague comment:  "Those of us who care deeply about programs like Medicare must embrace the need for modest reforms." Best we can tell, President Obama intends to skewer the wealthier beneficiaries of Medicare. The idea is to apply these "modest reforms" to hit wealthier Medicare beneficiaries by raising their premiums, delaying onset of Medicare eligibility by two years until age 67, and using the IPAB (Independent Payment Advisory Board) to ration or limit access to available services. In other words, kindly move over and die sooner.

While raising the age for full Medicare benefits may make sense, and while charging more to those whose incomes is above a certain level may also make sense, it smacks of hypocrisy for Congress and the President to allow an appointed IPAB bureaucracy to deny services to the public while specifically exempting themselves. In case it's not widely known, know this: the president and Congress exempted themselves from the Affordable Care Act (ACA, known as Obamacare). The president and Congress have their own (better) health care plan (no IPAB).

The ACA as currently written allows insurance companies to increase premiums as a way to defray the cost of covering the millions of added recipients who currently don't have insurance. The already-insured will pay more in premiums than they're currently paying to cover the millions of currently uninsured persons who will be covered by the ACA. At the same time the IPAB will be enabled to disqualify diagnostic and treatment protocols of their own choosing.

Here's what else Obama said: "The biggest driver of our long-term debt is the rising cost of health care for an aging population." I herewith forgive any elderly person for not volunteering immediately for ID (instant demise).  It's not a mystery as to why Congress exempted itself and why Nancy Pelosi asked to have the bill passed just to find out what was in it.

So let's repeat Obama's entire statement: "And those of us who care deeply about programs like Medicare must embrace the need for modest reforms -- otherwise, our retirement funds will crowd out the investments we need for our children, and jeopardize the promise of a secure retirement for future generations."

What wasn't said is that one way to start would be to include the president, the executive branch of government, and Congress in Obamacare as opposed to awarding them a better and more extensive program than the rest of us. Readers may like to know that Congress allows itself to use military hospitals on a "prn" or "pro re nata" basis (translation: "as needed"). Ordinary citizens don't have this privilege.

President Obama even had the temerity to say that "already, the Affordable Care Act is helping to slow the growth of health care costs." In fact, what we're seeing in the real world is increasing costs to cover enhanced executive compensation, not a penny, not a farthing, for increased access to specialty care for the elderly or for anyone else.  What doctors are seeing in the real world is increasing numbers of people ostensibly covered by the ACA, while, simultaneously, the IPAB mechanism is prepared to strip away currently available benefits and to put on hold future advances in available medical care. This two-pronged program takes away with one hand what it makes available with the other hand -- it's a fiscal device to make a flawed program appear more successful than it is.  We already know that businesses are switching as much of their work forces as possible to temporary hires so they'll not be obliged to provide health care.

Basically, as to health care and the ACA, president Obama's State-of-the-Union address was  non-responsive and disappointing. 

OBAMACARE IN THE STATE OF THE UNION ; WRONGFUL DENIALS OF CARE IN CALIFORNIA

WILL PRESIDENT OBAMA'S STATE OF THE UNION MESSAGE CONTAIN MEANINGFUL COMMENT RE THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT?

"I will ensure that no government bureaucrat gets between you and the care you need." These words tumbled effortlessly from a confident President Obama in the autumn of 2009 but were immediately set aside in favor of more bureaucracy than healthcare has ever known. Healthcare pundits know that Obamacare as currently written allows for regulation of healthcare by non-physicians through a mechanism known as the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) whose concern is fiscal health as opposed to the health of patients. The Affordable Care Act (ACA)  also has a built-in mechanism starting in 2014 that will require $1.5 trillion in costs for families and businesses according to Stephen Frank, publisher & editor, California Political News and Views, 9/21/11. This dire prediction for the ACA worries fiscal conservatives. If the estimate is accurate it should worry everyone. We'll wait for President Obama to set our concerns aside before we comment further on Obamacare's managerial accounting.

Remember: the IPAB was once known as the IMAB or Independent Medicare Advisory Board. When the nation's Medicare patients realized they were being targeted for denial of care and supervision of allowable care as a form of  rationing, they raised a hue and cry. The IMAB was brought down. When the storm subsided, it was resurrected as the IPAB.

In the second debate with Governor Romney the president was asked about the make-up of the IPAB. He said it would be "doctors et cetera." There is nothing in the language creating the ACA that requires even one physician to be appointed to the IPAB. That's because, although expanded medical care was the ostensible reason for the ACA,  fiscal control has always trumped medical excellence in its design. The provision of the latest and best in medical care is spoken about but the IPAB is there to restrict what's actually offered. Congress itself wants none of it and opted out of the ACA.  Nonetheless, it's likely that at least one physician who is cooperative enough with the administration will be appointed to the IPAB. During the debate when the president said "doctors et cetera" he gave a false assurance that Governor Romney didn't recognize as such and let pass. We hope the the president will do better in the state of the union speech.

HOW ABOUT CALIFORNIA?

WILL CALIFORNIA  STOP DENIALS OF CARE BY IMR DOCTORS WHOSE NAMES ARE KEPT SECRET OR WHO ARE NOT  LICENSED TO PRACTICE IN CALIFORNIA?  

WILL INSURANCE COMPANIES IN CALIFORNIA BE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE TO RETAIN UR PHYSICIANS WITHOUT CALIFORNIA LICENSES?

We await legislation to abolish secret review of utilization review (UR) denials by so-called Independent Medical Review (IMR) physicians whose names will be concealed by law as mandated by SB 863. We await restoration of the WCAB's ability  to overrule wrong and harmful decisions that deny medical care to injured workers. We also still await law that requires physicians who do Utilization Review and Independent Medical Review to be licensed in California. As matters stand now, doctors not licensed in California can do UR and IMR reviews and deny care to injured workers in California. As the law stands now, the non-California-licensed physician cannot be disciplined in California even for the stupidest and most harmful denials of care since these doctors aren't subject to the medical board of this state. The doctor may be licensed in other states but those other states don't have jurisdiction in California. The time to correct this travesty is overdue. Labor unions and legislators should  revisit SB 863.

As matters stand now, a company named Maximus from Maryland is seeking doctors to do Medical Necessity Reviews for $150 to $200 per review. We do not have reliable information at this time as to what percentage of cases reviewed by Maximus end up in denial of care for injured workers. We don't know how much Maximus will actually pay for each review or how the money will be divided up -- we do know that the doctors are being offered a small enough percentage so that the deal remains attractive in terms of corporate compensation. We presume that the labor unions around the state would be interested in the details. Do we guess wrong? Tell us where we may've gone astray, please!

We will be adding to these comments on Obamacare, SB 863 in California, and wrongful denials of care  over the next few days. Stay tuned. These issues are hot potatoes.

Accountable Care Organizations: Gag clauses, firing doctors, liability, and profits

Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs), encouraged by the Affordable Care Act (ACA), aka Obamacare, brace for trouble while preparing for profits.

One of the questions we're being asked is whether or not ACOs may impose gag clauses, e.g., if a treating physician wants to prescribe a diagnostic test or treatment, and said diagnostic test or treatment is not authorized or is denied by the ACO, may the treating physician tell that to the patient who has been denied a diagnostic test or treatment? May the cost of the procedure to the ACO be discussed with the employee or patient?

Our initial reaction to reply affirmatively is tempered by our understanding that a recommended study or treatment would have been discussed first with the patient who would presumably already have agreed to it and would know about any non-authorization or denial. But we also observe contract language that physicians are precluded from discussing disagreements about compensation "and other matters" with patients. The treating physician is told in contractual language that where "disagreement cannot be resolved ... under no circumstances shall such disagreement be expressed to the Enrollee."

Contractual language tells the doctors that they may not discuss what the ACO has determined is protected information "to any person ... until such person agrees in writing to be bound by the provisions of this Agreement ..." We take this preclusion to mean that doctors cannot discuss ACO disagreements even with their own lawyers unless the lawyers agree to be gagged!

What lawyer would agree to being gagged before having heard the case?

These gag clauses are reminiscent of the 1990s when HMOs sought to muzzle doctors (see references below).  Both the HMOs at that time and the ACOs as currently construed have contract language that allows them to fire doctors at will. Such power is essential to keeping the doctors in their place, compliant, subservient, and dependent.

The ACO agreements we've seen so far carry both "termination without cause" as well as "termination with cause" clauses.  The latter are often subsequent to what the ACO may have called a "material breach" which is defined by the ACO itself and generally refers to what the ACO calls information that "that compromises the security or privacy" of information considered proprietary or confidential.  Disclosure of this information to patients could be considered a "material breach." That the patient has "right to know" might be a legal defense but it would not preclude ACO management from firing the doctor.

Potential participants, physicians and patients alike, need to understand that ACOs are business organizations selling and dispensing health care services. They are entitled to make profits which they can then distribute to their own business associates as a second source of income in addition to whatever fees have already been paid. One selling point is that ACOs will cut down on unneeded tests and treatment but a countervailing point is that along the way the ACO may deny access to diagnostic tests and treatments with harm coming to patients while participating physicians are not allowed to speak out under penalty of being fired from the ACO.

Questions of medical-legal liability are already being asked: who gets blamed for what if an indicated study or treatment is denied and the patient suffers or dies as a result? Is there liability to physicians who've kept this    information under wraps in compliance with ACO non-disclosure policy?

How will profits and payment to providers, including physicians, be determined? One contract we've  examined says straight out that the ACO will make that determination, e.g., "Physician agrees that decisions (by the ACO, actual name deleted) ... management and other administrative policies and procedures may be used by (ACO) to deny or reduce payment ..."

In essence this language means that whatever fee schedule the physicians signed may be abrogated, changed, or set aside at the will of the ACO. No bargaining or negotiating is  required or encouraged.

All the same "bonus payments" or the prospect thereof will remain in effect. This section of the ACO agreement means that ACOs that actually achieve what they call "savings" will be allowed to allocate a portion of the "savings" to providers as "bonus payments" or additional income, essentially a second source of income, to participating providers. That helps to explain why ACOs will favor primary care physicians as opposed to specialists since it is the latter that usually prescribe expensive tests and the most up-to-date and often most expensive treatment protocols. The "gag clause" will stop timorous physicians from explaining too much to patients about how ACOs work their magic.

ACOs need primary treating physicians to ensure "savings." While specialists with their expensive procedures may be necessary to ensure quality of care, they'll be carefully scrutinized -- call it "economic credentials" (see references below) -- to make sure that they don't have too much impact on profits which the ACOs refer to as "savings." Finally, expect that bonus payments to treating doctors will be limited with the bulk of savings going to the ACO itself and to additional executive compensation.

While the ACO mechanism is more sophisticated than the old HMO methods,  they have in common that the goal is financial gain with as much devotion to patient care as can be accommodated.

HMO References

"Why HMOs want to muzzle doctors," San Francisco Examiner, 4 April 96, by Robert L. Weinmann

"Medical Red-Lining, Economic Credentials for Physicians, 12 January 96, by Robert L. Weinmann

The Congressional Record, Vol. 144, # 118, commentary by Hon. Tom Campbell, R-California, 9 September 98

ACO References

 "A Hospital War Reflects a Bind for Doctors in the U.S.," New York Times, 11/30/12, by Julie Creswell and Reed Abelson

"Covered California's Plans to Become Self-Sufficient," California Healthline, 11/19/12, by David Gorn

"California's Role In Ensuring That the Potential of Health Reform Becomes Reality," Health Affairs, 30, no. 1 (2011): 71-75

                                  

  

The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) with emphasis on the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB):  Memo to Subscribers & Followers of www.politicsofhealthcare.com   The hot-button issue in healthcare this week is the Affordable Care Act (ACA), known as Obamacare to some.  Within the text of the ACA is an item known as the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB). The IPAB is the section of the law that will allow unelected appointees to overrule treatment decisions made by our personal physicians. The IPAB is empowered by Sections 3403 and 10320 of the ACA. This writer has found large enough fault with the IPAB to have called for its repeal regardless of whatever fate befalls the rest of the ACA. The fate of the ACA is likely to be decided on November 6th -- President Obama wants to keep the ACA as is, Governor Romney wants to repeal the whole thing. Check out our posts on this topic, e.g., January 18, 2011; June 29, 2012; October 4, 2012; and October 20, 2012 (this last one updated on October 29, 2012). When you check out the posts of 1/18/11, 6/29/12, and 10/20/12 you'll see reprints of my comments in POLITICO. Click on the box to enlarge the print to read the comments. Let me know what you think by commenting directly on-line at www.politicsofhealthcare.com (we do not sell, rent, or share your e-mail addresses with others.  Your comment will be considered for publication unless you ask us not to publish). -- RLW, Ed.

OBAMACARE: "DOCTORS ET CETERA" IN THE ACA AND IPAB

DO IT OUR WAY OR DIE

October 29th Update to Politico comment of October 22nd. The above comment is in reference to "Presidential debate: 5 things to watch Monday" by MAGGIE HABERMAN and GLENN THRUSH | 10/22/12 4:23 AM EDT.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82696.html#ixzz2AhZSGXJx

The highwater mark of Obamacare is carried in the bowels of the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), a level that hasn't yet been reached because the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is still in its infancy. It is the IPAB that will have the authority to declare entire diagnostic and treatment protocols too extravagant not only for Medicare but also for the general public and therefore not covered or payable by the ACA -- that's when Obamacare will become known for its bite.

But that bite won't chomp on President Obama or Congress because both of them are exempt from the ACA. Did you know that? Congress has its own health care plan. The Congressional plan does not include an IPAB to water  down care by restricting access to diagnostic testing and treatment. The current ACA does just that. The IPAB portion of the ACA should be repealed even if we continue to debate the rest of it.

Keep in mind that Congress keeps special healthcare benefits handy for itself including access to treatment at military hospitals.

In the autumn of 2009 President Obama stated "I will ensure that no government bureaucrat gets between you and the care you need." It's probably safe to say he wasn't thinking of the IPAB at the time. President Obama has now promised a minimum of 15 brand new bureaucrats.

In the first debate, President Obama said the IPAB would consist of "doctors et cetera." The fact is that there'll be plenty of "et cetera" but there's no obligation under the ACA that any of the 15 appointees to the IPAB must be a physician.

Governor Romney did no better than the president because he didn't seem to realize that President Obama was winging it when he said "doctors et cetera." What else does Governor Romney not know about the ACA except that he prefers his pals in the insurance industry, the blokes who rescind health care contracts once the subscriber has the temerity to get sick?

For a guy known for his financial expertise, we're surprised that the Governor failed to mention that each one of the 15 appointees to the IPAB will be paid $165,000 annually for a total annual budget of $2,475,000 just for the 15 appointees -- staff and resource time will get counted later, right?

The IPAB can be repealed without repealing the entire bill. The mechanism would be to rescind Sections 3403 and 10320. The current stand-off means that one side won't improve what's wrong with the ACA and the other side would repeal all of it to bring back the greed-soaked insurance companies.

See also our October 4th blog; use the glossary to find more articles about the IPAB, the ACA, and related topics.

AFFORDABLE CARE ACT LOSES DEBATE

OBAMA and ROMNEY Debate each other but the loser is The Affordable Care Act.

It appears as though President Obama likes the name, Obamacare, for the Affordable Care Act (ACA). It wouldn't hurt if he understood his own legislation better. On other hand, why should he? He and Congress are exempt from it. Romney simply doesn't need it.

Romney said during the debate of 3 October 2012 that Obamacare "puts in place an unelected board that's going to tell people ultimately what kind of treatments they can have." Romney doesn't like that idea. Except he has incorrectly, some would say on purpose, misconstrued the unelected board,  named  the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB). It will consist of political appointees none of whom need be a physician. Its purpose will be to oversee Medicare costs. The IPAB will have the power to shut down certain costs incurred by Medicare if costs soar out of control and Congress fails to intervene. The IPAB will not be enabled to tell individual physicians what tests to order or what treatment should be used. It will not be allowed to ration care on a patient-by-patient basis. It will not be empowered to raise the Medicare eligibility age or shift costs to retireds. What the IPAB will have will be the power to determine which diagnostic and treatment protocols aren't worth  funding anymore and will in that way ration care for the entire Medicare population, the same as when private insurance companies tell hapless patients that they're seeking what they determined in cloaked boardrooms were actually "non-covered benefits," i.e., you pay for it yourself because this or that benefit is not included in your private health care plan. The IPAB method constitutes a form of sophisticated rationing, but it's not on an individual patient-by-patient basis.

Obama said that the IPAB would be composed of "doctors et cetera." Not necessarily. There's no provision in the ACA that requires doctors to be appointed to the IPAB. Obama himself evidently didn't know that when he made his comment, either that or he sought to hoodwink the audience. The 15 or so appointees to the IPAB will be political appointees who will not need to report directly  to Congress. They will not be elected so they won't represent the public or an electorate. Their job will be to make economic judgments when they decide which diagnostic and treatment protocols will be covered by Medicare and which won't be covered. In short, your doctor can prescribe whatever he wants. But your doctor can't make Medicare pay for it. And neither can you.

The IPAB is empowered by Sections 3403 and 10320 of the ACA.  These sections of the ACA should be repealed. We'll have more to say in due course. So should Obama and Romney. The October 3rd debate showed that both candidates have lots more to learn about the ACA. For instance, they can tell us if it's correct that the members of this board are to be paid $165,000 per year at a total public cost of $2,475,000. Repealing these two sections of the ACA will save taxpayers nearly $2.5 million.

PRELIMINARY WARNING RE THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT

AFFORDABLE HEALTHCARE OR OBAMACARE, officially known as the Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010, is about to be ruled on by SCOTUS.
One item that physicians with difficult, challenging, and unusual patients need to worry about is how the ruling will challenge their ability to take care of complicated patients who have proved refractory to standard therapies, or who have failed conventional treatment protocols. These physicians and their patients could well have their hands tied unless Section 10320 is modified or eliminated. Section 10320 allows for the appointment of an Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), a tribunal of persons who need not necessarily be physicians. This panel will determine what the ACA will cover. The IPAB will not report to the people or to Congress. Ensconced in legislative fiat, it is poised to ration care by finding various procedures and protocols outside the mandate of coverage. In California where we watch the misuse of Utilization Review in Workers Compensation, we see how it works: treatments with lower success rates or that aren't buttressed by what authorities consider sufficient Evidence Based Medicine are disallowed no matter how carefully a specific treatment or study may be indicated on an indivdual basis and even though the patient may have failed everything else. Injured workers in California are deprived of indicated care by this method on a daily basis. So may it be with other patients covered by the ACA unless Section 10320 is altered or repealed. Watch for our follow-up on this issue.