More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Linda Bergthold

GET UPDATES FROM Linda Bergthold

The Debt Ceiling and Health Care

Posted: 08/02/11 02:01 PM ET

Over the weekend, I watched Twitter as drops of information about the debt ceiling leaked out bit by bit. There was a deal. No deal. Well, maybe a deal. The deal would require Congress to wait until a Balanced Budget Amendment passed in the states before it acted. Well, no it actually didn't include that. Medicare was on the chopping block. Well, not cuts to members, only cuts to physicians and other providers. What's an ordinary person to think?

There was plenty of humiliation to go around. Speaker Boehner didn't return the president's phone calls. Speaker Boehner couldn't rally his own party to support his deal. Majority Leader Reid couldn't get Republicans to talk to him. Sen. McConnell would only talk to Biden not Reid, and his unfortunate facial expressions left us with the impression that he had a serious digestive problem. The classic picture was Boehner in the House elevator letting out a long groan as the doors closed. He was not the only one groaning.

Pundits made the worst cliché pronouncements. Everything was a "crisis"; there was lots of "kicking the can down the road." TV time had to be filled and fill it they did. Those smart folks who spent the weekend outside, barbecuing or swimming, were the wise ones. We all knew it would come down to the last moment, but oh, was it painful to watch those last agonizing hours.

Now that the debt ceiling will be raised and we can pay our bills (for a while at least), we are left to wonder -- what will it really mean for some of the programs we care about? The predictions have ranged from death to resurrection for Medicare and Medicaid. But somewhere in this pile of doo-doo there may be a few ponies. The details of the debt ceiling "deal" require that some programs be kept off the table in the negotiations of the "super committee." Those programs include Medicaid (remember almost half of Medicaid goes to nursing home care and the rest to health benefits for the disabled, poor women and children, and the elderly), Social Security, military salaries, and veterans' benefits. Cuts to Medicare cannot affect "benefits" (although the committee can raise eligibility age and potentially copayments), only payments to providers. The military and Homeland Security are not exempt as they have been in the past.

While there is some protection for the programs that serve our most vulnerable citizens, it is hard to claim that these are victories we should cheer about. Some of the key aspects of the health reform law may be affected negatively by the need to make these deep budget cuts. Funding for the subsidies that will allow people of limited income to get health insurance in 2014 may be severely constrained. The new Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), which has been under fire for some time, may be eliminated, leaving decisions about how to contain costs in Medicare to the politicians -- the same politicians that have proven themselves unable to do that very thing up to this point. While many of the health reform law's provisions are already being implemented (e.g. closing of the donut hole in prescription drug coverage for seniors, allowing young adults to stay on their parents' plan until 26, tax credits for small business to help them provide coverage, the establishment of state-based exchanges, demonstration programs to cut costs and maintain quality in Medicare -- to name a few things), the full roll out of the law very much depends on who wins what in 2012. If the Republicans keep the House, win the Senate and the Presidency, the ACA will most definitely be repealed.

Meanwhile? There is no Republican plan to fix health care, other than Rep. Ryan's proposal to give seniors some money and toss them into the health insurance marketplace to find coverage. Oh yes, and more "personal responsibility" for health care, translated as shifting costs to us and requiring us to try to figure out which doctor or hospital is cheaper and better, when that is almost impossible to do with the information we currently have. The trifecta of Republican options remains the same: 1) personal responsibility 2) malpractice reform and 3) selling insurance across state lines. Have these solutions brought down health care costs? Not so much.

I am generally a pretty optimistic person. If you read my blogs, you know that I try to find something positive in almost every aspect of health reform, even though many of you have tried to disavow me of that optimism and have accused me of pollyanism or worse! Still, I have found plenty of ponies in the last several years -- the bookstore owner who was able to give her employees coverage because of the tax credit; the family whose son had cancer but could keep him on their insurance plan while he underwent chemotherapy; the savings for seniors from the closing of the donut hole for prescription drugs; the state programs for people who are uninsurable.

What I tell my family and friends now is the following: 1) This is not the worst deal ever. There are some wins for health care programs and some small potential for meaningful tax reform. 2) If you care about keeping Medicare and Social Security solvent you need to speak out and organize, but also be willing to be flexible about what changes to those programs will keep them solvent and 3) While you may not think that the president negotiated as well as he could have, we don't really know all the details and the background of what went down. I do think it could have been worse and so do many others.

 

Follow Linda Bergthold on Twitter: www.twitter.com/lab08

Over the weekend, I watched Twitter as drops of information about the debt ceiling leaked out bit by bit. There was a deal. No deal. Well, maybe a deal. The deal would require Congress to wait until...
Over the weekend, I watched Twitter as drops of information about the debt ceiling leaked out bit by bit. There was a deal. No deal. Well, maybe a deal. The deal would require Congress to wait until...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 42
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
06:58 PM on 08/03/2011
Oh, you think it's not so bad and could have been worse. Well you will get your wish when the "Super (corrupt) Congress" is done with this. I'm glad you still have hope. I think the words on the Statue of Liberty should be replaced by Dante's words:

Through me you pass into the city of woe:
Through me you pass into eternal pain:
Through me among the people lost for aye.

Justice the founder of my fabric moved:
behind me was the was the power divine,
Supremest wisdom and primeval love.

Before me things create were none, save things
Eternal, and eternal I endure.
All hope abandon ye who enter here.
11:47 AM on 08/03/2011
Our health care system is dominated by too many, non providing, middlemen. Insurance companies and their salesmen, e.g., AARP, add unnecessary costs to actual medical care. One cost saving thing Obamacare will accomplish is the probable reduction of large corporate "self insured" medical plans. Large corporations were also making extra profits insuring their employees. Each U.S. citizens' right for medical care has a long way to go before it becomes a reality.
09:35 AM on 08/03/2011
Under Obamacare where are medicade polics to be handled? Will they be given to states to make the rules and turn them over to the evil health insurance companies? They are not evil if it is part of a liberal plan but if ryan plan wants to use insurance companies they are evil? Revisit ryans plan now that it is not going to be passed and learn what really is in it. Learn of the tax reform in it as well. Democrats should have used ryan plan as a starting point to work out a plan that both could live with. But they did not and have never come up with a plan of thier own.
02:29 PM on 08/03/2011
"But they did not and have never come up with a plan of thier own."

Try googling "the People's Budget" released by the Dems in early April.

Jeffrey Sachs describes the People’s Budget:

Like Ryan’s plan, the People’s Budget would cut the budget deficit to zero by 2021, but would do so in an efficient and fair way. It would close the budget deficit by raising tax rates on the rich and giant corporations, while also curbing military spending and wrestling health care costs under control, partly by introducing a public option. By raising tax revenues to 22.3 percent of GDP by 2021, the People’s Budget closes the budget deficit while protecting the poor and promoting needed investments in education, health care, roads, power, energy, and the environment in order to raise America’s long-term competitiveness. The People’s Budget thereby achieves what Ryan and Obama do not: the combination of fairness, efficiency, and budget balance.""
photo
ausmth
All things merge into one and a river runs through
09:45 PM on 08/02/2011
Now would be a good time to dump the Obamacare/medicare/medicaid model that does not cover everyone and use the money for a Swiss style system of universal coverage. (it does have a mandate but it's a good trade off for the freedom of plan choices) The problem will be that no pol will take the time to remember that sunk costs are sunk costs. Econ 101. No matter how much more money we dump into the triad of disaster(Obamacare/medicare/medicaid) it will never get better. The dems wasted a year on Obamacare instead of working on a better system. Think Swiss!
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Linda Bergthold
Health policy consultant
10:05 PM on 08/02/2011
Gotta love your analogy -- Bergthold is a Swiss name, after all! But can you imagine THIS Congress doing something as rational or radical as restructuring these programs? Dream on.
photo
ausmth
All things merge into one and a river runs through
07:10 PM on 08/03/2011
I can't imagine that ever happening. Giving up power over health care? Doubt if I'll ever see that happen
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Scott Leland
10:44 AM on 08/03/2011
Yes, you are right, as long as Health Care (Insurance) is linked to employment the problem will never be solved. If the Republicans were honest about it they would tell US that the only Americans that will have paid-for insurance when they complete their legislative agenda are going to be elected politicians and corporate executives:

http://www.flixya.com/blog/2519148/Republicans-Refudiate-Health-Care
07:38 PM on 08/02/2011
The Republican Tea Party Birther's strong religious opposition to "Dying With Dignity" end of life requests, is bankrupting the Medicare and Medicaid Systems, along with causing personal suffering and handship. When is the nation going to wake-up that people do not live forever.
photo
ausmth
All things merge into one and a river runs through
09:37 PM on 08/02/2011
I hope you feel that way when it's your time to go.
11:51 PM on 08/02/2011
yeah I doubt that will be the case.
07:34 PM on 08/02/2011
Well get ready for even higher costs if the draft FDA publication on new supplements is adopted. Then
the drug industry will take your favorite supplements off the market, patent them, and sell them back to you—by doctor’s prescription only—for 10 or 100 (or even more) times what you’re paying now?

For example: Lovaza (omega-3-acid ethyl esters), is the only FDA-approved semi-synthetic omega-3 fish oil, though a second drug, Epanova, is in Phase III of its drug trials. To keep the FDA approval cost down, it is supposedly only approved for the treatment of very high triglycerides. But doctors prescribe it for many reasons, and it is the only fish oil that Medicare and Medicaid and the Veterans Administration is allowed to reimburse. This is wonderfully profitable monopoly for the drug company producing it. Lovaza costs $6.75 per day, over $200 per month. A high-potency natural fish oil supplement with the same EPA and DHA amounts may cost less than 50¢ per day, or $15 per month.
06:53 PM on 08/02/2011
It appears that for the present Medicaid reimbursement to physicians is unchanged according to the federal government but Medicare reimbursement will be cut by 4%, with an additional potential cut of 4% to be determined by the end of the year. There is also an anticipated 25+% reduction in reimbursement to providers to take effect on 01 January 2012. There does not appear to be any reduction in services or increases in premiums to be paid by Medicare clients. But don't think that because your services have not been cut or your co-pays/premiums have not risen that you got off scott free. Most of my colleagues that I have spoken to over the past five days are making plans to limit the services they provide to Medicare beneficiaries or to just opt out of Medicare entirely. So while nothing has changed for beneficiaries, everything may change for beneficiaries as the efforts they may need to expend to get the same services may be significantly greater and they will not have the wide range of providers that they have previously enjoyed.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Linda Bergthold
Health policy consultant
07:44 PM on 08/02/2011
My understanding is that there will be cuts of 2% not 4% in Medicare reimbursement. The additional cuts will depend on whether or not the "super committee" can agree on a whole package of cuts, not necessarily just Medicare. The 29% cut in Medicare reimbursement at the beginning of 2013 refers to the need to reform the SGR (Sustainable Growth Rate), a problem that has bedeviled policy makers for years. That's a whole other issue and I firmly believe it will be settled before that cut takes effect. As with the debt ceiling issue, it may require a deadline to get all the parties to come to agreement.

http://www.physicianspractice.com/blog/content/article/1462168/1917846
01:10 AM on 08/04/2011
The article states that the 29% cut in Medicare reimbursement begins on 01 January 2012, which is less than five months away. From what I've seen of Congress over the last six months, I have little confidence that they will be able to organize themselves sufficiently to alter this "reform", even if they wanted to.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
MikeDu
Both salubrious and lugubrious concurrently.
06:39 PM on 08/02/2011
What wiil it mean for the programs we care about? We've just slit our own throats.
11:53 PM on 08/02/2011
Let's not go banana's yet time will tell.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Awake-and-Sing
named after a great play written by Clifford Odets
06:19 PM on 08/02/2011
Progressives are too focused on Congress. Nothing progressive will happen before the 2012 election.

However, there several states with Democratic Governors and legislatures that can put public options on their state's insurance exchange going online in 2014. These don't have to just be for "uninsurables" or have waiting lists. If they are open to everyone, younger, healthier consumers will flee overpriced for-profit insurance, requiring for-profit insurers to lower their premiums and change their business models to stay in business. Everybody wins.

Progressives need to become as affective and dynamic at the state level as conservatives have been.

Vermont is even going for single-payer.
06:15 PM on 08/02/2011
My husband and I combined pay about $550 a month together for Medicare b, supplemental c, and prescription d. Then we pay about $200 a month combined for prescriptions before we hit the hole. It was higher than that last year. The cost of making each prescriptions is probably $2, then labor costs of probably $5 a prescription. The rest is profit.

One thing that will keep prescription costs high is they won't even tell you over the phone what a prescription will cost so you can't shop around by calling different places for prices.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Moonspirit48
Progressive Homeschooler
11:44 PM on 08/02/2011
I've been on Social Security Disability since age 51. I qualified for free prescription care directly from the pharmaceutical companies -- until Medicare D came along and ruined all that. Due to medical and hospital bills as well as prescriptions, I am constantly on the edge of bankruptcy. Now this article mentions possible higher co-pays for medical bills! I worked for 35 years and my frig is almost always nearly empty. Being a woman, I never made a high salary. My husband fled when my daughter was a year old. So as a single mom, I never got to save up for retirement. I wish the rich would understand that they could be in my shoes some day.
11:58 PM on 08/02/2011
Want to know something worse? I was on vacation in Dominican Republic and fell of my cruiser I had an open wound and had to go to the hospital they put stitches and gave me a prescription for some pain killers and antibiotics the medication was from Germany and it was a total of $4 us dollars.

Oh and the hospital visit cost me $45 in total and that was because I was a tourist, otherwise I was told it would have been half.
05:56 PM on 08/02/2011
A view from my window.....

Decreasing Medicaid reimbursements for MDs will clearly impact the ability to create health insurance exchanges, which is key to expanding health care coverage in 2014. At present, there are not enough primary care MDs to provide that care. Reducing Medicaid reimbursement to physicians, which can charitably called paltry at best, will act as a strong incentive to opt out of health insurance exchanges. My initial optimism for health care reform is melting quickly in the face of the hot tea party that we have experienced.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Linda Bergthold
Health policy consultant
06:38 PM on 08/02/2011
I presume you meant decreasing Medicare payments to physicians. Medicaid, the program I describe above, will not be cut via this "deal". If you substitute "Medicare" for "Medicaid" in your comments, it makes more sense, because some physicians have dropped Medicare already because of its low reimbursement compared to private insurance. I imagine that CMS, the entity that administers Medicare, will watch the physician supply issue very closely before they decrease payments. Right now, they are trying a more positive approach -- providing additional reimbursement for physicians who can demonstrate they meet certain quality standards (like checking all their patients with diabetes for blood pressure, foot health, eye health etc.)
photo
LoneTree
Don't shelter me from criticism.
05:14 PM on 08/02/2011
I will at first inclined to forcefully disagree, but by the end of the article, I'm left only to say, "Pretty good post".

We spend twice as much as any other country for worse outcomes, and that includes countries who have systems that deliver healthcare in a manner fairly similar to ours (eg; Germany, where the main difference is not how health care is delivered but rather that there is universal coverage). The problem is not that we aren't spending enough, and the solution isn't a single-payer nationalized system. People need to get involved in and responsible for their own health, they need to be informed of how much money is available, how much the medical care they are receiving costs, and how their lifestyle decisions are affecting that cost. And providers need to come down out of the ivory towers and join the real world of ordinary people. American providers and facilities are wildly overqualified and overpriced ... yes there will always be the anecdotal "miracle cure" ... how about looking at how many people DIDN'T get treated for lack of money thanks to that metaphorical diving catch in the outfield.

America needs to get real about healthcare.
04:58 PM on 08/02/2011
If you are gov't dependent - - - you are the problem ! ! !
photo
yakmeat
My bank account is emptier than my micro-bio.
10:51 PM on 08/02/2011
If you're using the internet, driving on public roads and eating USDA approved food delivered to your preferred store by public infrastructure, you yourself are "gov't dependent".
12:00 AM on 08/03/2011
Thats correct.
01:36 AM on 08/03/2011
If a person has a stroke and can no longer work,and received social security to live and medicare to take care of medical--He would be THE PROBLEM???
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Seymourhiney
04:53 PM on 08/02/2011
A single payer, universal health care plan is unbeatable when compared to our private industry health
04:26 PM on 08/02/2011
Could the CEOs of these nursing home conglomerates devalue their worth and take a pay cut? They currently earn $2 M per year plus perks. Why? They cut nursing staff which only leads to patient deaths and give themselves bonus’. For example: Sun Healthcare Group Inc’s CEOs bought 4 Oceanfront homes in Newport Beach, Calif while slumlording in a Sunridge nursing home my mother died in on Superior Avenue in 2003, killing 5 patients and evading prosecution by the Dept of Justice for violating a state injunction. They also avoided a huge civil trial by conspriing with my former corrupt attorney whom I sued for malpracitce and won in 2008. Sun’s CEOs operate like Mafia (Newspaper reporters in corrpt attorney’s offie within weeks of my mother’s harm, "feel good" article 5 months later written on CEO, that corrupt attorney dies of unknown causes after learning of malpractice lawsuit by me, regional mgmt sent to apologize yet later cheat family out of wrongful death, Director of Nursing states "Well we killed that one"...) -my opinion. http://www.sunhealthcaregroupinc.blogspot.com Deb Calvert, Newport Beach,Calif
.
05:46 PM on 08/02/2011
Why don't you and like minded folk start some nursing homes and run them for minimum wage or whatever salary you think is appropriate?
07:23 PM on 08/02/2011
Paying nursing staff the "going rate" would be appropriate, don't you agree? It's the CEO's, Board Members and regional management who earn enormous salaries that rob the taxpayers of their healthcare benefits, ultimately. If you cannot see this then I'm sorry.
07:40 AM on 08/03/2011
It is not just the CEO's that are profiting off nursing homes. Investment groups, like the Carlye Group, have been investing (purchasing) in nursing home throughout the country. Republicans will never allow Medicaid payments to nursing homes to be cut. No doubt if they get their way Medicaid will pay only for nursing homes.