Thursday, October 31, 2013

MEDICAID, MEDICAL INSURANCE, HEALTH CARE and the CORBETT PLAN Op Ed by President Dave Steil

Outgoing Healthcare for All PA president Dave Steil has written an Op/Ed for several paper which has been published in the Bucks County Times.  


Recently, Governor Corbett unveiled a Medicaid expansion plan called Healthy Pennsylvania.  Few would disagree with the Governor’s objectives of increasing access, improving quality and making healthcare affordable for all Pennsylvanians.  Medicaid is a healthcare program funded by both the state and the federal government that provides direct care to individuals with limited income.  The fastest growing population group in this category are seniors whose income falls within the threshold of income limits for Medicaid. In effect Medicaid supplements Medicare which is for all people over the age of 65. Medicaid has income limits, while Medicare does not.  Most of the Medicaid supplements used for long term care facilities.Under the Affordable HealthCare Act, often called Obamacare, states may expand the eligibility for Medicaid, with the Federal Government picking up much of the cost. This expansion is optional for the states, although many states have already agreed to sign on. Note, it is important to distinguish between health insurance and healthcare. They are not the same. Healthcare programs such as Medicaid and Medicare pay directly the doctors and hospitals that provide healthcare services to people. With health insurance, people pay premiums to private insurance companies, who then pay the doctors and hospitals for healthcare services provided to those paying the premiums. Under Governor Corbett’s plan federal Medicaid funds would be used to buy health insurance for eligible participants, rather than providing direct healthcare. HealthCare 4 All PA (HC4APA) believes this is a poor use of money that only increases the cost and limits the funding pool available to pay for actual healthcare.  The reasoning is simple-health insurance has administrative costs in excess of 15%, meaning that 15 cents of every dollar does not go to pay for healthcare. Contrast this with Medicare and Medicaid where administrative costs are about 3%. Therefore, under the Governor’s plan to turn Medicaid healthcare into an insurance program, more money will be spent and fewer people will be treated due to this disparity in administrative costs. HC4APA also believes that decisions about your healthcare should be made by you and your doctor.

**Related Post**

Dave Steil on Kate Loving Shenk's Radio Show

Tuesday, October 29, 2013

UPMC Gives Pittsburgh the One-Finger Salute--Twice

UPMC, the largest member of Pittsburgh's health care oligopolywhose fees are well above the national average, was in the news twice last week. The City of Pittsburgh is suing UPMC, which claims to be a non-profit, to strip it of its tax-exempt status. In a court hearing last week, UPMC claimed it does not owe any payroll taxes because it does not have any employees! (Although their website claims they have 55,000 employees, UPMC says these people are employed by subsidiaries.) So far, Judge R. Stanton Wettick, Jr., has not ruled on the credibility of this claim.

The Bombardier BD-700-1A10 Global Express
On Friday, it was learned that UPMC is spending $51 million on a new corporate jet plane, a Bombardier Global Express, described as “a luxury, ultra-long range business jet with twin Rolls Royce engines.” For security reasons, the flight plans of this airplane are to remain hidden from the public.

I'm sure Pittsburghers who are struggling to pay their medical bills will be thrilled to hear that UPMC is able to afford $51 million for a new stealth jetliner. But who is going to ride around on this luxury aircraft, since, as we now know, UPMC has no employees?

You may also be interested in reading:


Saturday, October 26, 2013

The Affordable Care Act Having an Impact in Some States but not Pennsylvania

In my post on Pennsylvania's uninsured, I wrote that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was having little effect in Pennsylvania's rate of uninsured.  I wrote in another post that I received skeptical comments on my first post. I said in that post that I would look at changes in the rates in other states.  I couldn't then because the government shutdown also shutdown the US Census Bureau site.  The Advisory Board has come out with an image that can be updated on how many sign up for the state based exchanges which are not federal.

Now that the shutdown is over I can look at the Census Data for the Small Area Health Insurance Estimates (SAHIE) for states from 2008 thru 2011.  To determine which states had a significant decline in the uninsured rate from 2010 to 2011 (the period where portions of the ACA have taken effect such as allowing parents to keep their kids on their insurance until age 26), I marked a state as declined if it had a rate that declined outside its margin of error (MOE).  There were 14 states with a significant change in their rates and 37 (including DC) that either stayed the same or increased.   States with larger populations have smaller margins of error.  

Five of the states are summarized in the graph above, California, Massachusetts (which has it's version of the ACA), Pennsylvania, Texas (with the largest rate in the US), and Vermont (which is the first in the US to pass a single payer plan).  California, Texas, and Vermont had significant decreases in the rates while Pennsylvania and Massachusetts remained within the margin of error (MOE) of 0.2% for both years.  Missouri is the only state that showed a significant increase in it's rate from 15.3% to 16.0%.

ACA Decrease in uninsured * Medicaid Expansion Crosstabulation

Medicaid Expansion
Total
not participating or considering not participating
participating or leaning
expanding through alternate means or considering
ACA Change in uninsured
No
16
15
6
37
yes
6
8
0
14
Total
22
23
6
51

I tried to see if there was any association between decreases in the rates and other state level variables but there was none.  The table above shows that there is no relationship between a significant decrease in the rate and whether or not the state is participating in Medicaid Expansion (p=0.254).  PA Gov. Corbett has proposed a draconian version of Medicaid expansion which Lloyd Stires has written extensively about.   Below is a table showing where each state stands on the ACA decrease and Medicaid expansion.



State
ACA Change in uninsured
Medicaid Expansion
1
Alabama
No
not participating or considering not participating
2
Alaska
No
not participating or considering not participating
3
Arizona
No
expanding through alternate means or considering
4
Arkansas
No
expanding through alternate means or considering
5
California
yes
participating or leaning
6
Colorado
No
participating or leaning
7
Connecticut
No
participating or leaning
8
Delaware
No
participating or leaning
9
District of Columbia
No
participating or leaning
10
Florida
No
not participating or considering not participating
11
Georgia
No
not participating or considering not participating
12
Hawaii
No
participating or leaning
13
Idaho
yes
not participating or considering not participating
14
Illinois
yes
participating or leaning
15
Indiana
No
expanding through alternate means or considering
16
Iowa
No
expanding through alternate means or considering
17
Kansas
yes
not participating or considering not participating
18
Kentucky
No
participating or leaning
19
Louisiana
No
not participating or considering not participating
20
Maine
No
not participating or considering not participating
21
Maryland
yes
participating or leaning
22
Massachusetts
No
participating or leaning
23
Michigan
yes
participating or leaning
24
Minnesota
No
participating or leaning
25
Mississippi
No
not participating or considering not participating
26
Missouri
yes (only one that increased)
not participating or considering not participating
27
Montana
No
not participating or considering not participating
28
Nebraska
No
not participating or considering not participating
29
Nevada
yes
participating or leaning
30
New Hampshire
No
not participating or considering not participating
31
New Jersey
No
participating or leaning
32
New Mexico
No
participating or leaning
33
New York
yes
participating or leaning
34
North Carolina
No
not participating or considering not participating
35
North Dakota
No
participating or leaning
36
Ohio
No
participating or leaning
37
Oklahoma
No
expanding through alternate means or considering
38
Oregon
yes
participating or leaning
39
Pennsylvania
No
expanding through alternate means or considering
40
Rhode Island
No
participating or leaning
41
South Carolina
yes
not participating or considering not participating
42
South Dakota
No
not participating or considering not participating
43
Tennessee
No
not participating or considering not participating
44
Texas
yes
not participating or considering not participating
45
Utah
No
not participating or considering not participating
46
Vermont
yes
participating or leaning
47
Virginia
No
not participating or considering not participating
48
Washington
No
participating or leaning
49
West Virginia
No
participating or leaning
50
Wisconsin
yes
not participating or considering not participating
51
Wyoming
No
not participating or considering not participating

**Related Posts**


National, State, & County Uninsured Estimates