August 10, 2010
11:02 am
The predominant headlines emerging from the release last week of the Medicare trustees report was that the longevity of the Medicare program has been ostensibly increased as a result of the new health reform law.
There’s a story of consequence, though, in the trustees report that was overlooked. In looking at the Medicare Part D prescription drug program, the trustees lowered their estimates of future spending from where they had it in last year’s report. This reduction is particularly striking when you consider that there will be additional dollars spent on the program in order to close the so-called “donut hole.” Even with the donut hole closure, Part D expenditure estimates still declined.
This further underscores what many of us have said from the beginning about the efficacy of the Part D structure. Making consumer choice the centerpiece of the program, and having multiple prescription drug plans compete for the loyalties of beneficiaries, generates greater value. This competition-and-choice approach, combined with increased use of generic pharmaceuticals, is placing downward pressure on spending estimates for future years.
The costs of the Part D program felt by senior citizens also continue to fall below original estimates. The average monthly premium for 2010 is $30. Original government estimates projected they would reach $50 by this point.
It’s no wonder the program enjoys nearly 90 percent approval ratings – almost unheard of for a federal initiative.
The Medicare Today coalition issued a press release on the Part D findings.
August 05, 2010
12:51 pm
This summer, the Council for American Medical Innovation, a group headed by former Democratic Congressman Dick Gephardt, issued a report that raised concerns. The report said that, while the United States remains the global leader in biomedical development, there was no guarantee that would continue to be the case in the future.
One expert was quoted in the report as saying, “General climate for innovation is a problem. As a nation, we have gone from seeing medical innovation as a good thing to being fearful of it and very anti-science. Medical innovation is largely absent from our national discussions on healthcare reform, yet without dramatic improvements from medical innovation for neurodegenerative diseases and chronic diseases the cost of healthcare will not improve.”
That’s why the Healthcare Leadership Council has formed the National Dialogue for Healthcare Innovation (NDHI), co-chaired by Lahey Clinic CEO Dr. David Barrett and Medtronic Chairman and CEO Bill Hawkins. Through NDHI, we want to bring together everyone who has a stake in the future of medical innovation in the United States — patients, physicians, consumers, academia, government and the healthcare industry — to have transparent, candid discussions on the key issues affecting innovation. It is our hope that this kind of initiative can generate the kind of consensus building that supports sound policymaking.
There’s no question that innovation is the key to achieving higher-quality, more affordable healthcare. When 75 cents of every healthcare dollar is devoted to the treatment of chronic disease, it’s apparent that there is a direct connection between reducing healthcare costs and finding new treatments, technologies and medicines to keep people well.
Our first NDHI event is going to be a Summit on Physician-Industry Collaboration, taking place October 4 at the Newseum in Washington, DC. Future summits will explore a wide range of innovation-focused issues.
The press release announcing the creation of NDHI is here.
August 03, 2010
2:30 pm
Over the last 48 hours, there have been some interesting developments in the ongoing struggle to affect the implementation of the new health reform law.
• In Virginia, a federal district court judge rejected the Obama administration’s motion to dismiss state Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s suit against the health reform law. The suit claims that the law’s individual mandate requirements are unconstitutional. Judge Henry Hudson said the Virginia case raises “the single question of whether or not Congress has the power to regulate — and tax — a citizen’s decision not to participate in interstate commerce.” There seems little question that this dispute is destined for the U.S. Supreme Court.
• Today, Missouri voters are going to the polls for party primary elections, but also to vote on Proposition C, a yes-or-no ballot initiative that, if passed, would ostensibly ban the enforcement of the health insurance individual mandate within the state. The proposition is expected to pass. Of course, most legal experts hold that federal law supersedes state law and that an action like Missouri’s wouldn’t stand up to a legal challenge. But that would seem to be beside the point. If Missouri is the beginning of a wave of several states declaring formal objection to the mandate, implementation of the coverage aspects of health reform is going to be extremely problematic. Congress’s and the administration’s job, as it turns out, wasn’t finished with the passage of health reform. It’s still essential to convince the American public that, in order to offer health coverage even to Americans with pre-existing conditions, it’s necessary to have everyone in the system.
• There’s a new television public service announcement running that features television icon Andy Griffith touting the benefits for senior citizens in the new health reform law. Today, a group of Republican Senators asked HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to take the ads off the air, saying in a letter that the ad “is a clear violation of the spirit of federal laws that prohibit the use of taxpayer dollars for campaign purposes.”
Who would have guessed that the continuing health reform wars would extend even into peaceful Mayberry?
CATEGORIES: