Employers Planning to Cut Health Benefits

Just what we need right now (and, yes, that is sarcasm). I hard grousing on MSNBC this morning about Obama pushing health care reform while also trying to get the credit unfrozen. As if health insurance/benefits were a key part of the economy. What will the AMA do when medical insurance no longer exists or the payments decline? Welcome to the free market, Doctors.

Take a look at Survey Finds Nearly 20 Percent of Employers Plan to Drop Health Benefits from workforce.com:

Nineteen percent of employers responding to a new Hewitt Associates survey are planning to stop offering health benefits over the next three to five years, nearly five times as many as the 4 percent that said they were planning an exit strategy last year.

***

• When employers were asked to what extent health care reform proposals outlined by the Barack Obama administration would affect their current health care strategies, 51 percent said they would have some impact, while 44 percent said it would have no impact.
• While one-third of executives think the Obama administration and Congress should address health reform in the president’s first year in office,
63 percent believe it will take place in Obama’s first term.
• Moreover, 60 percent of executive said the federal government should take the lead, while 33 percent said the federal government and the states should share responsibility.

Heads up for Single Payer health insurance

I go this from Blue Indiana and it deserves to get attention from all of us:

My State Senator, Vi Simpson (D-Ellettsville), has introduced a bill to create a Study Commission for Single Payer Health Coverage (SB 218). Now, we just need to get a hearing for this bill.

Hoosiers for a Commonsense Health Plan (HCHP) is asking everyone to contact Senator Patricia Miller (R-Indianapolis), the Chair of the Health and Provider Services committee, to schedule a hearing for this bill.

A round up of some health care news

From the Washington Post:

More Health-Care Politicking :

"Unfortunately, House Democratic leaders chose to muscle the program through the chamber last week in such a way as to fail to win over any wavering Republicans and to annoy enough others that the prospects for a compromise may be worse than ever. 'They will have ticked so many people off . . . that I don't know how they can get anyone' to change positions, Rep. Ray LaHood (R-Ill.) said of Democrats -- and he's been trying to help them round up support."

***

If the Democrats' goal is to win approval of a measure that would cover more poor children and not to simply score extra political points by keeping the issue alive, it's hard to see how their tactics made sense. If Mr. Bush and his Republican allies really are committed to getting children the health coverage they need and not just to preventing Democrats from racking up a legislative achievement, it's hard to explain their continuing intransigence.

Geez, do we really need this kind of politicking right now?

There there is this from The New York Times:

Health Sector Puts Its Money on Democrats

"People in the health care industry say the giving reflects a growing sense that the Democrats are in a strong position to win the White House next year. It also underscores the industry’s frantic effort to influence the candidates, as Democrats push their proposals to address what many polls show is a top concern among voters."

“Everybody in the industry knows that health care reform is on its way, and you have only two decisions: sit on the sidelines or get on the field,” said Kenneth E. Raske, president of the Greater New York Hospital Association.

So we can expect some sort of national health care? Or will the politicians use it for fundraising with no intention of getting the job done?

And then we have today's comments from the President, Bush Says Congress Is Wasting Time:

The president again criticized Democrats over the S-CHIP bill, saying the Senate had taken up a second version of the legislation passed by the House “despite knowing it does not have a chance of becoming law.”

While the president vetoed the first version, saying it spent too much money and covered not just the poor children it is intended to help but some middle-class children and adults, he said this version would spend even more.

“After going alone and going nowhere, Congress should instead work with the administration on a bill that puts poor children first,” he said. “We want to sit down in good faith and come up with a bill that is responsible.”

Meanwhile, The Indianapolis Star has Company brings health care to workplace.

The idea to bring a free health-care clinic into the plant sprouted in August 2006, when human resource manager David Milbee attended a Society of Human Resource Management seminar.

"We put the idea on the table and talked about what we could do to reduce health costs and make our employees healthier," said Brian Myers, Biddle president.

In the spring, Myers and Milbee visited a factory that has a free clinic in Knoxville, Tenn. They both thought it was too good to be true, and not long after, Biddle contracted with Novia. Biddle already had space for the clinic, so little construction was needed, and the clinic opened July 31.

Myers said Biddle provides its own health insurance for its nearly 180 employees, not working through another provider. He said their premium rates are low, with coverage for one person costing $12.50 per week and coverage for a family $35 per week. But the real cost to the company comes, Myers said, when an employee sees a doctor, pays a small co-pay for the visit, and Biddle has to pay the difference.

Additionally, the company loses productivity when an employee is out for several hours to see the doctor. Using the clinic, employees are away from the job site about 20 minutes.

Pence's excuse for not supporting SCHIP and Barry Welsh's reply

The Muncie Free Press published Congressman Pence's press release where he tried to excuse himself for voting down health insurance for children. From Pence Supports Responsible Children's Health Insurance Plan :

"U.S. Congressman Mike Pence announced today that he is supporting the “More Children, More Choices Act .” The legislation is a compromise proposal and responsible solution to the Democrat plan which would have expanded the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) into a middle class welfare program."

And Barry Welsh's response:

"Congressman Pence was in lock step with President Bush and the veto denying Health Care to Children in the S-CHIP bill. Congressman Pence had to flip-flop in his voting as he had voted for the bill before voting against it. Congressman Pence thought Health Care for Kids was important and voted for it, until President Bush told him to vote against it. Pleasing President Bush is more important to Congressman Pence than Health Care for Kids, and that is not representative of Hoosier Family Values and is the wrong priority for any Congressman to use in decision-making."

For more information contact Communications Director Joh Padgett at (317) 352-5066 or via email at press@barrywelsh.org. Also visit our website and blog at the addresses listed below.

--

http://barrywelsh.or...

http://blog.barrywel...

More on SCHIP

From Blue Indiana, Reminder: Indiana Republicans protect the President over kids:

"With the announcement yesterday that Rep. Baron Hill will vote to override the President's despicable veto of the SCHIP expansion, we can concentrate our energies within the state to pressuring the four Republicans who all voted against the bill to begin with and show no signs of abandoning their wholesale defense of the President. The indicted are, in no particular order:

Rep. Mark Souder (IN-3)
Rep. Steve Buyer (IN-4)
Rep. Dan Burton (IN-5)
Rep. Mike Pence (IN-6)

These four have made it clear: They would rather protect the President than the hundreds of thousands of children across the country without adequate health care coverage. Shame on them.

Does it make sense for Indiana citizens not to support SCHIP? Then why are the Republicans voting against it?

If it were not for bad luck...

That was how I felt after reading the Indianapolis Business Journal's daily update today. First, Health care premiums rise 6.1 percent, and then Weaker economic growth is predicted. This does not look good.

About the rising insurance premiums, the IBJ had this to say:

The companies reported that premiums for families increased 6.1 percent, on average. That's the lowest growth rate since 1999, when premiums rose 5.3 percent and cost an average of $5,791 for families. Health care premiums rose 7.7 percent last year, when families paid $11,480.

This year's slowdown doesn't mean much because the cost increase still outpaced wages, which rose an average of 3.7 percent, said Drew Altman, the foundation's president and CEO.

The chief economic worry for next year is a recession:

Strained by an ailing housing market and credit woes, the economy in 2007 is expected to log its worst growth in five years and should be somewhat sluggish next year.

The No. 1 risk, though, is that the economy will lose its footing altogether and fall into a recession, forecasters say.

A forecast released today by the National Association for Business Economics puts the growth of gross domestic product at 2 percent for this year. The pace was 2.2 percent in the group's previous survey, in May.

So what happens if the economy tanks and those premiums cannot be paid? Tell me, again, why national health insurance is a bad thing.

Indianapolis Star on federal drug policy

Maybe I am as dim as I seem. I certainly do not understand this editorial:

The notion of allowing the federal government to "negotiate'' prescription drug prices with manufacturers appears appealing, at least on the surface.

But U.S. senators, who are expected to take up legislation on that topic this week, should keep in mind that the Congressional Budget Office found that the measure would have a "negligible effect'' on spending. They also should note that federal researchers in February found that the new Medicare drug benefit is succeeding in lowering drug costs for senior citizens.

Why has that occurred? Because the system already is set up to enhance competition. Private companies that manage the drug benefit must compete among themselves to attract clients. Providers also negotiate with drug makers to hold down prices on medications.

"We have lower drug prices for beneficiaries, lower program costs for the government, and prescription drug choices,'' Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley told Reuters last week. "Competition is working.''

That's a message that needs to be heard more often on Capitol Hill, where for some lawmakers political pandering is a full-time job.

Executives at Indianapolis-based Eli Lilly and Co., as well as other drug makers, worry that there is no such thing as negotiation when it comes to dealing with an entity as powerful as the federal government. When bureaucrats set the terms, haggling over costs can easily cross over into price-fixing.

Granted, it's not senators' primary job to worry about drug companies' bottom line. They should, however, be concerned over Medicare recipients' access to new medications. By attempting to control the market, Congress could end up prompting drug makers to withhold newer or more costly medications from the Medicare plan. That scenario already is playing out with Veterans Affairs benefits.

It's not a case of evil drug companies taking meds away from grandma and grandpa. It has everything to do with free markets and the need for public companies to keep their shareholders' best interests in mind.

The bottom-line question: Is this legislation really necessary? The evidence -- lower drug costs, healthy competition, lower than expected costs for the government -- indicates that it isn't.

I jsut do not buy that there is the competition between companies for Medicaid patients. I just do not buy that it is a good idea that the government is forbidden from negotiating prices for Medicaid. I do buy the idea that Lilly does not like the idea.

Hiding Health Care's Costs

Robert J. Samuelson had this column in yesterday's Washington Post. It seems this may be the start of a series by Samuelson and if it is I am going to try and catch them. He makes some points in this column that we might want to think about as the Governor's proposal on health care winds its way through the General Assembly. Here is the point of the column:

However our health system evolves, Americans need to come to a more realistic understanding of its limits. Underestimating its costs and exaggerating its benefits guarantee disappointment. If the present outpouring of proposals signals a start of our needed debate, it is long overdue.