« | Home | »

Healthcare Reform – A Viable Health Care Solution

By Health Care Info | June 22, 2010



I have written at some length about the problems of U.S. health care system and have tried to cut through some of the rhetoric. You can read the preamble to this article only solutions for health care reform compromise for health reform is now a solution that is understandable and summarized in a few concepts. (Not in 1000 or so pages) the following concepts are specific to the major problems of the U.S. health delivery system. I have reduced the major categories defined as follows: 1) Cost Control 2) minimize loss of suppliers, 3) insurance premiums 4) Enter catastrophic coverage for every American 5) Create an environment of affordable, manageable healthcare 6) Minimal additional costs. What follows is a 21st Century, free market based, world-leading solution. There is a basis for a real solution, a place, I think, many some of us. Reform / solutions: 1) A system that “insured workers crowd out” for up to one year. Most people consider COBRA through the lens of unemployment and conclude that it is priceless. Of course they do, they are unemployed. Employers should be required to achieve a minimum of health insurance for 12 months of unemployment. After 1 Year may choose the displaced workers to the minimum coverage in the employer-group buy for an unlimited period. This individual will always have access to a group plan as long as the premiums are paid. No pre-existing condition discrimination and deals specifically with the problem of temporary uninsured and uninsurable. The minimum reporting standard would also be two parts: First, some preventive and primary health care. ie 2 doctors visits per year plus profit some diagnostic coverage. This minimum employer health insurance coverage would be approximately $ 500 per recipient, or a family member. This will keep the unemployed doctors will be minimized and catastrophic future needs. The second part of the minimum requirement would be disastrous reporting over $ 250,000 to $ 100,000 the threshold. Individuals could have the option of “gap” to fill in coverage between $ 500 and $ 100,000 if they want to buy. Once again, transferred the individual employees would be to the new employer group and responsibilities reassigned. (This would only be for groups over some predetermined level that is 50 members) This would give the unemployed or do the other work access to a group health plan to apply. Anyone who has at least one job in life would cover, as long as the premium paid. 2) Minimize loss of suppliers / Catatrophic coverage for every American: especially the uninsured a major burden for hospitals and other providers by the. This is one of the most important issues driving the costs for the insured. I would impose budget off, separately, “lock box”-type trust fund, which are not borrowed from the ever. A small tax on wages would provide catastrophic coverage of $ 250,000 threshold for every American. Since this would be a separate tax on income (via the Federal poverty level) would provide each worker is in the system including the working people with sufficient income to some reporting, but by skate without health insurance. These people, who are currently more expensive due to additional costs and the growing risk of using ER services for the care. Those who have insurance covering the end of that cost with higher maintenance costs and higher premiums. This concept would be a positive revenue mechanism, by including in those who are currently paying nothing. (Especially those who earn more than 17 million $ 50,000 / year, but do not buy health insurance) are important: the currently insured as a new tax will be rewarded greatly offset by the reduction in their health insurance premiums. This will occur when the artificial inflation of services, in ruling, loses providers are weakened, and the cost is reduced for insurance. could, without risk of 250K insurers can charge lower rates than the liability of the insurance company is about 250K to the trust fund transfer (once the trust fund is to be dismantled in place). Note: Most insurance policies cover up to 2 million, 5 million or even unlimited benefit limits. The overall tax burden would be offset already insured – have the time – by the savings. I am confident this would be near neutral cost for the currently insured and could but 100% because the additional costs are mainly from those who can afford coverage in the first place, choose to ignore the need for cross worn . Because the people who ignore the health insurance system to avoid them but others can cover the high costs which they are placed in the system are mitigated. The newly collected taxes to pay for catastrophic care and hospitals are from the burden of the losses, the burden on the 250k. In addition, catastrophic expenses, divided by all Americans and more important, all foreign workers, illegal workers, and the irresponsible Americans earning sufficient wages not help, integrated into the system. More Results: Relaxed underwriting standards (insurers would be more willing, some riskier applicants is limited since exposure to accept). Would expand the availability of affordable health insurance for people with underlying medical conditions and / or increased risk profile. This further addresses the uninsured, but many would still ultimately tied to a specific group plan. (See above) 3) We need a national health Insurance Regulatory Agency assure us to create the policy of several states to meet a regulatory requirement could be recognized by all states. Big plans could by an insurance regulator instead of fighting with up to 50 controllers supervised in every state they do business. Regional provider can that make it better stay at the local level and would lead to cost reductions at the regional level. This would create an environment which result in more national plans would increase competition, reduce overhead costs, create synergies and to replace the infrastructure and technology. This would ultimately reduce insurance costs. I can foresee consolidation ban would potentially reduce opportunities for individual, so I do not consolidate the number of decisions in a particular area would be below 5 or more decrease. I would be the financial requirements needed in key areas of market capitalization, loss reserve, as well as other standards. It would and should be harder than any state, so there was no “systematic risk” in the event of a national provider failure. In principle, it should hard enough to nearly eliminate the possibility of failure. An insurance “exchange” as it would be a satisfactory alternative under discussion, but I do not think it works. It is irrational to allow New Yorkers to buy insurance in Georgia or Indiana. As an insurance company in NY will be regulated, that may be based in Tennessee? It seems like it fits – not less – bureaucracy, but I am open to suggestions. 4) “Cost Control”: (The ugly and anti-market dilemma) – The government could put in a refund for services over the catastrophic management expenditure amount at the top of disposal. This would be too high cost of treatment and procedures only applied. It has been demonstrated that this is an area where we can realistically apply the responsibility over a group of several providers (doctors, hospitals, pharmaceutical industry and suppliers) for the package treatment and health care. (Although it is not necessary.) The plan could include the premium for the quality of care, outcomes and other health performance criteria that many advocates. I would providers and hospitals to balance bill (probably up to 15%) and / or opt-out of the system as a whole catastrophic coverage (not, as they would be exposed to lose if no insurance presented in its emergency room and they were instructed to offer service) ALL-group plans, would have to include excess fees. However, “Gap” Plans available to only the unemployed do not. Individual plans would continue as well as through fees or HSA accounts are available and would be a minimum ($ 50/month) HSA contribution as a trade-off demand. The advantage, the HSA contribution would belong to the specific individual, but could be used only for the health sector. This is the commitment for the purchase of individual coverage areas without the “excess” coverage available. In theory, the HSA is the owner would be disastrous for future expenses that the “excess” dimension to save entered. The insured would have the opportunity, these HSA plans or purchase plans, contain the additional coverage to purchase. Results: Under the new reform anyone, but might accumulate especially the younger Americans (with HSA’s) 10’s of thousands of dollars in the 20’s, 30’s and 40’s. This account can then be used later in life when health needs become more likely. In addition, the HSA will be for the individual owner or family demands used in health care. Finally, it could be applied in the direction of LTC premiums, at the age of 55. That would solve another problem of the U.S. health care system. Sun individuals are now in control, save for the family health care needs and also have an account that could pay LTC premiums later in life. How many have wisely pointed out, when individuals use it’s own accounts to spend it wisely. After the ownership of a health plan from the age of 18, 21, or even later in life keeps people involved. Ultimately we will have to create an environment pays all something that everyone gets something and everyone has a certain amount of affordable health insurance. No excessive government intervention is necessary. Some other details: would Similar to our current environment, HMO’s, PPO’s and other plan providers negotiate nor restrict reimbursement of charges over the catastrophic 250K. The insurer would manage and payments to institutions and other, but would rely on the proposed prices will be reimbursed from the health sector. This will control excessive inflation for high-end health services, but not completely communize and frustrate our free market system. Further, we must also use the reform of the HSA account and add premium tax deductions for individuals. Employer provided versions require users to spend each year after completion. This is stupid. We should allow employers based MSA’s to accumulate over the years. Although the “excess” billing option creates an environment of complexity, this solution allows it cost some meaningful changes in the pricing and regional variations. At the same time not creating a system that encourage providers “excess Bill” and individuals to avoid the reporting. The result can be some high-end clinics, hospitals and providers, but this is no different than on the open market environment in the current hospital and provider system. Some service providers will always be better than others. have experience and skills will naturally accumulate in “pools” This is nature at work and a work plan to accommodate the laws of nature. In a later phase I Might require all insurers to cover all the candidates to some maximum rate. Say, 2x the base rate. Or create a sort of national pool and have a high risk of the applicant on the basis of plans and other factors. This would be health insurance available to the few remaining individuals at high risk. I would only consider it after several years and the impact of the first phase of health reform is evaluated. Another option is a “high risk” of costs for those who declined coverage from two other insurers. They would pay 2x the base rate with a provider of their choice and the government would in the balance sheet to take the kick for providers who have previously denied applicant. Learn more about this share world must be developed. Ultimately, most every worker would have access to a group of point 1finnally plan, many readers might object that I overlook things such as professional liability and limits on lawsuits. I trust you, I did not. Certainly there are other aspects to addressing, but need to reform the health system should not be confused with other reforms. We need to find a common basis and that sometimes it means shrinking the ground to be covered. (Be sure, Washington) Before such a reform, which we are a few simple principles at the head of a government reform package, including health care: should hold 1) Do no harm2) Minimize government involvement (infrastructure, regulatory platforms further and Technology platforms such as online records, etc. are the role of government – not biased competition, industry or manipulation) may apply to the insurance company Aetna Health Insurance online example, but your doctor can not test results or health history. 3) Improve the system for all. The company should provide a safety net for all to care, including himself. But it should be simple and fair – no undue burden for each class. 4) Find Common Ground – Effective legislation can only succeed if we find areas of agreement and to commit, the legislation directed at specific areas on which you will agree. If you do not understand the hidden costs of government involvement at http://www. cahier. org / cahi_contents / resources / pdf / CAHI_Medicare_Admin_Final_Publication. pdf Medicare’s Hidden Administrative Costs: by the Council for Affordable Health Insurance responsible government means concretely defining problems and solutions outlined and analyzed reasonable results. There must be sufficient time for consideration before the introduction of the reform. 30-60 days seems time for rational discussion and analysis. Anything else is irresponsible. Our Constitution was not fully ratified for nine months and it took three months before the first state to put their signature on the plan. The current rush into new programs is our current governments are trying to cloak what is happening to the public. It is a shame, and the lack of these is the destruction of our great country. We have created the place of our founders to return. want (1 – large – page I)

Related posts:

  1. Health Savings Accounts will Remain Viable Under Health Care Reform One of the most optimistic forecasts of the impact of...
  2. Health care reform would mean more costs for businesses Health conditions, a radical turn when a health care reform...
  3. California Short Term Insurance and Supplemental Plans Offer Viable Alternatives Californians have a lot of alternative health insurance, the California...
  4. Healthcare Reform and the Collapse of Health in America Healthcare in this country has hit a major obstacle, but...
  5. Healthcare Reform With Pre-Existing Conditions: Wait 6 Months For Insurance? The Democrats’ health reform bill was touted as the solution...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Topics: Healthcare Problems | No Comments »

Comments