On health care reform, the American people are too often offered two extremes -- government-run health care with higher taxes or letting the insurance companies operate without rules. President Obama and Vice President Biden believe both of these extremes are wrong, and that’s why they’ve proposed a plan that strengthens employer coverage, makes insurance companies accountable and ensures patient choice of doctor and care without government interference.
The Obama-Biden plan provides affordable, accessible health care for all Americans, builds on the existing health care system, and uses existing providers, doctors, and plans. Under the Obama-Biden plan, patients will be able to make health care decisions with their doctors, instead of being blocked by insurance company bureaucrats.
Under the plan, if you like your current health insurance, nothing changes, except your costs will go down by as much as $2,500 per year. If you don’t have health insurance, you will have a choice of new, affordable health insurance options.
Make Health Insurance Work for People and Businesses -- Not Just Insurance and Drug Companies.
Require insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions so all Americans regardless of their health status or history can get comprehensive benefits at fair and stable premiums.
Create a new Small Business Health Tax Credit to help small businesses provide affordable health insurance to their employees.
Lower costs for businesses by covering a portion of the catastrophic health costs they pay in return for lower premiums for employees.
Prevent insurers from overcharging doctors for their malpractice insurance and invest in proven strategies to reduce preventable medical errors.
Make employer contributions more fair by requiring large employers that do not offer coverage or make a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees to contribute a percentage of payroll toward the costs of their employees' health care.
Establish a National Health Insurance Exchange with a range of private insurance options as well as a new public plan based on benefits available to members of Congress that will allow individuals and small businesses to buy affordable health coverage.
Ensure everyone who needs it will receive a tax credit for their premiums.
Reduce Costs and Save a Typical American Family up to $2,500 as reforms phase in:
Lower drug costs by allowing the importation of safe medicines from other developed countries, increasing the use of generic drugs in public programs, and taking on drug companies that block cheaper generic medicines from the market.
Require hospitals to collect and report health care cost and quality data.
Reduce the costs of catastrophic illnesses for employers and their employees.
Reform the insurance market to increase competition by taking on anticompetitive activity that drives up prices without improving quality of care.
The Obama-Biden plan will promote public health. It will require coverage of preventive services, including cancer screenings, and increase state and local preparedness for terrorist attacks and natural disasters.
A Commitment to Fiscal Responsibility: Barack Obama will pay for his $50 - $65 billion health care reform effort by rolling back the Bush tax cuts for Americans earning more than $250,000 per year and retaining the estate tax at its 2009 level.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Sunday, April 5, 2009
SICKO BILLING - no budget??
Whenever I walk into a new client situation the first thing I look for is a business scorecard. Sometimes if I am lucky I find that the client has an accountant who has put together a Profit and Loss statement. Of course, in most small businesses P&L statements are usually done by an outside accounting firm and usually do not get to the client until a month or so after the fact. Rarely do I find that a business has put together a budget (a financial plan). To me this is incredible and a little bit insane.
It is incredible because if you go into any business without a financial plan (budget) you do not have a clue about how much it is going to cost you to operate the business. Without a budget you do not have any control over your cost and expenses which may leave you without a profit. Without a budget you do not have a standard to compare your Profit and Loss statement to see if you are on a track for success, failure, or just survival. Without a budget to compare to you do not have a clue where in your Profit and Loss statement you should be making adjustments to ensure a profit and your business future.
Operating a business without a budget is pretty much like flying in the dark. Ask yourself where would a pilot end up without a flight plan? This picture pretty much lends itself to a business owner operating a business without a budget. Pretty crazy, don't you think? Absolutely insane! Yet I see it everyday as I visit small business owners who are in trouble. And what is more incredible to me is that most accountants and CPA's who prepare these Profit and Loss statements for the business owner
It is incredible because if you go into any business without a financial plan (budget) you do not have a clue about how much it is going to cost you to operate the business. Without a budget you do not have any control over your cost and expenses which may leave you without a profit. Without a budget you do not have a standard to compare your Profit and Loss statement to see if you are on a track for success, failure, or just survival. Without a budget to compare to you do not have a clue where in your Profit and Loss statement you should be making adjustments to ensure a profit and your business future.
Operating a business without a budget is pretty much like flying in the dark. Ask yourself where would a pilot end up without a flight plan? This picture pretty much lends itself to a business owner operating a business without a budget. Pretty crazy, don't you think? Absolutely insane! Yet I see it everyday as I visit small business owners who are in trouble. And what is more incredible to me is that most accountants and CPA's who prepare these Profit and Loss statements for the business owner
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Insurance through employers - and medical billing
Most Americans have health insurance through their employers. But, employment is no longer a guarantee of health insurance coverage.
As America continues to move from a manufacturing-based economy to a service economy, and employee working patterns continue to evolve, health insurance coverage has become less stable. The service sector offers less access to health insurance than its manufacturing counterparts. Further, an increasing reliance on part-time and contract workers who are not eligible for coverage means fewer workers have access to employer-sponsored health insurance.
Due to rising health insurance premiums, many small employers cannot afford to offer health benefits. Companies that do offer health insurance, often require employees to contribute a larger share toward their coverage. As a result, an increasing number of Americans have opted not to take advantage of job-based health insurance because they cannot afford it.
Who are Who are the uninsured?
Nearly 46 million Americans, or 18 percent of the population under the age of 65, were without health insurance in 2007, the latest government data available.1
The number of uninsured rose 2.2 million between 2005 and 2006 and has increased by almost 8 million people since 2000.1
The large majority of the uninsured (80 percent) are native or naturalized citizens.2
The increase in the number of uninsured in 2006 was focused among working age adults. The percentage of working adults (18 to 64) who had no health coverage climbed from 19.7 percent in 2005 to 20.2 percent in 2006.1 Nearly 1.3 million full-time workers lost their health insurance in 2006.
Nearly 90 million people – about one-third of the population below the age of 65 spent a portion of either 2006 or 2007 without health coverage.3
Over 8 in 10 uninsured people come from working families – almost 70 percent from families with one or more full-time workers and 11 percent from families with part-time workers.2
The percentage of people (workers and dependents) with employment-based health insurance has dropped from 70 percent in 1987 to 62 percent in 2007. This is the lowest level of employment-based insurance coverage in more than a decade.4, 5
In 2005, nearly 15 percent of employees had no employer-sponsored health coverage available to them, either through their own job or through a family member.6
In 2007, 37 million workers were uninsured because not all businesses offer health benefits, not all workers qualify for coverage and many employees cannot afford their share of the health insurance premium even when coverage is at their fingertips.1
The number of uninsured children in 2007 was 8.1 million – or 10.7 percent of all children in the U.S.1
Young adults (18-to-24 years old) remained the least likely of any age group to have health insurance in 2007 – 28.1 percent of this group did not have health insurance.1
The percentage and the number of uninsured Hispanics increased to 32.1 percent and 15 million in 2007.1
Nearly 40 percent of the uninsured population reside in households that earn $50,000 or more.1 A growing number of middle-income families cannot afford health insurance payments even when coverage is offered by their employers.
As America continues to move from a manufacturing-based economy to a service economy, and employee working patterns continue to evolve, health insurance coverage has become less stable. The service sector offers less access to health insurance than its manufacturing counterparts. Further, an increasing reliance on part-time and contract workers who are not eligible for coverage means fewer workers have access to employer-sponsored health insurance.
Due to rising health insurance premiums, many small employers cannot afford to offer health benefits. Companies that do offer health insurance, often require employees to contribute a larger share toward their coverage. As a result, an increasing number of Americans have opted not to take advantage of job-based health insurance because they cannot afford it.
Who are Who are the uninsured?
Nearly 46 million Americans, or 18 percent of the population under the age of 65, were without health insurance in 2007, the latest government data available.1
The number of uninsured rose 2.2 million between 2005 and 2006 and has increased by almost 8 million people since 2000.1
The large majority of the uninsured (80 percent) are native or naturalized citizens.2
The increase in the number of uninsured in 2006 was focused among working age adults. The percentage of working adults (18 to 64) who had no health coverage climbed from 19.7 percent in 2005 to 20.2 percent in 2006.1 Nearly 1.3 million full-time workers lost their health insurance in 2006.
Nearly 90 million people – about one-third of the population below the age of 65 spent a portion of either 2006 or 2007 without health coverage.3
Over 8 in 10 uninsured people come from working families – almost 70 percent from families with one or more full-time workers and 11 percent from families with part-time workers.2
The percentage of people (workers and dependents) with employment-based health insurance has dropped from 70 percent in 1987 to 62 percent in 2007. This is the lowest level of employment-based insurance coverage in more than a decade.4, 5
In 2005, nearly 15 percent of employees had no employer-sponsored health coverage available to them, either through their own job or through a family member.6
In 2007, 37 million workers were uninsured because not all businesses offer health benefits, not all workers qualify for coverage and many employees cannot afford their share of the health insurance premium even when coverage is at their fingertips.1
The number of uninsured children in 2007 was 8.1 million – or 10.7 percent of all children in the U.S.1
Young adults (18-to-24 years old) remained the least likely of any age group to have health insurance in 2007 – 28.1 percent of this group did not have health insurance.1
The percentage and the number of uninsured Hispanics increased to 32.1 percent and 15 million in 2007.1
Nearly 40 percent of the uninsured population reside in households that earn $50,000 or more.1 A growing number of middle-income families cannot afford health insurance payments even when coverage is offered by their employers.
Monday, October 29, 2007
SICKO - It's downright American!!
The radically fierce and funny fireball he aims at our health-care system is a flat-out invitation to steal. First, Moore shows us how France, England, Canada and – yikes! – Cuba actually help sick people instead of letting them wither and die for lack of health insurance. Then he instructs us to loot those places for ideas. Anti-American? Hell, no. Moore argues that if another country builds a better car, we buy it. If it crafts a better wine, we drink it. Why not free universal health care?
Found this piece at www.rollingstone.com
Found this piece at www.rollingstone.com
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
SICKO - 50 Million Americans without Health Insurance!
I found this portion of a review of the SICKO movie at www.rottentomatoes.com.
It's a nice overview of the film's basics. What I'd like to know, for those of us/you who work in the Medical Billing industry, how does our current health care situation effect our industry? How would drastic changes effect OUR security in Medical Billing?
Sicko is not a movie about the 50 million Americans walking around without health insurance. Sicko is a movie about the other 250 million of us who have insurance, but are just as well and truly screwed. It’s also about freedom, real freedom, not the empty kind that gets thrown around as a buzzword; the freedom to live your life with the certainty that forces beyond your control won’t take away everything you have and everything you are. We don’t have that kind of freedom here in America, and Moore’s film makes that point by simply talking to real people. They’re your neighbors, your friends, your parents, some of them are even 9/11 heroes. Moore uses his camera to let them tell their stories of insurance company mistreatment and in the process paints a complete picture of a corrupt and fatally flawed system which isn’t just killing people but taking away their dignity and their liberty.
It's a nice overview of the film's basics. What I'd like to know, for those of us/you who work in the Medical Billing industry, how does our current health care situation effect our industry? How would drastic changes effect OUR security in Medical Billing?
Sicko is not a movie about the 50 million Americans walking around without health insurance. Sicko is a movie about the other 250 million of us who have insurance, but are just as well and truly screwed. It’s also about freedom, real freedom, not the empty kind that gets thrown around as a buzzword; the freedom to live your life with the certainty that forces beyond your control won’t take away everything you have and everything you are. We don’t have that kind of freedom here in America, and Moore’s film makes that point by simply talking to real people. They’re your neighbors, your friends, your parents, some of them are even 9/11 heroes. Moore uses his camera to let them tell their stories of insurance company mistreatment and in the process paints a complete picture of a corrupt and fatally flawed system which isn’t just killing people but taking away their dignity and their liberty.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
The U.S. spends more on health care than any other!
This rings home when seeking articles concerning our current health care system in the U.S. I took excerpts from an article written by Dr. Schroeder, published in the New England Journal of Medicine. What do you think???
The United States spends more on health care than any other nation in the world, yet it ranks poorly on nearly every measure of health status. How can this be? What explains this apparent paradox?
The two-part answer is deceptively simple — first, the pathways to better health do not generally depend on better health care, and second, even in those instances in which health care is important, too many Americans do not receive it, receive it too late, or receive poor-quality care.
Among the 30 developed nations that make up the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the United States ranks near the bottom on most standard measures of health status (One measure on which the United States does better is life expectancy from the age of 65 years, possibly reflecting the comprehensive health insurance provided for this segment of the population.) Among the 192 nations for which 2004 data are available, the United States ranks 46th in average life expectancy from birth and 42nd in infant mortality. It is remarkable how complacent the public and the medical profession are in their acceptance of these unfavorable comparisons, especially in light of how carefully we track health-systems measures, such as the size of the budget for the National Institutes of Health, trends in national spending on health, and the number of Americans who lack health insurance. One reason for the complacency may be the rationalization that the United States is more ethnically heterogeneous than the nations at the top of the rankings, such as Japan, Switzerland, and Iceland. It is true that within the United States there are large disparities in health status — by geographic area, race and ethnic group, and class. But even when comparisons are limited to white Americans, our performance is dismal. And even if the health status of white Americans matched that in the leading nations, it would still be incumbent on us to improve the health of the entire nation.
Although inadequate health care accounts for only 10% of premature deaths, health care receives by far the greatest share of resources and attention. In the case of heart disease, it is estimated that health care has accounted for half of the 40% decline in mortality over the past two decades.
Improving population health would be more than a statistical accomplishment. It could enhance the productivity of the workforce and boost the national economy, reduce health care expenditures, and most important, improve people's lives. But in the absence of a strong political voice from the less fortunate themselves, it is incumbent on health care professionals, especially physicians, to become champions for population health.
Americans take great pride in asserting that we are number one in terms of wealth, number of Nobel Prizes, and military strength. Why don't we try to become number one in health? -Steven A.Schroeder, MD
The United States spends more on health care than any other nation in the world, yet it ranks poorly on nearly every measure of health status. How can this be? What explains this apparent paradox?
The two-part answer is deceptively simple — first, the pathways to better health do not generally depend on better health care, and second, even in those instances in which health care is important, too many Americans do not receive it, receive it too late, or receive poor-quality care.
Among the 30 developed nations that make up the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the United States ranks near the bottom on most standard measures of health status (One measure on which the United States does better is life expectancy from the age of 65 years, possibly reflecting the comprehensive health insurance provided for this segment of the population.) Among the 192 nations for which 2004 data are available, the United States ranks 46th in average life expectancy from birth and 42nd in infant mortality. It is remarkable how complacent the public and the medical profession are in their acceptance of these unfavorable comparisons, especially in light of how carefully we track health-systems measures, such as the size of the budget for the National Institutes of Health, trends in national spending on health, and the number of Americans who lack health insurance. One reason for the complacency may be the rationalization that the United States is more ethnically heterogeneous than the nations at the top of the rankings, such as Japan, Switzerland, and Iceland. It is true that within the United States there are large disparities in health status — by geographic area, race and ethnic group, and class. But even when comparisons are limited to white Americans, our performance is dismal. And even if the health status of white Americans matched that in the leading nations, it would still be incumbent on us to improve the health of the entire nation.
Although inadequate health care accounts for only 10% of premature deaths, health care receives by far the greatest share of resources and attention. In the case of heart disease, it is estimated that health care has accounted for half of the 40% decline in mortality over the past two decades.
Improving population health would be more than a statistical accomplishment. It could enhance the productivity of the workforce and boost the national economy, reduce health care expenditures, and most important, improve people's lives. But in the absence of a strong political voice from the less fortunate themselves, it is incumbent on health care professionals, especially physicians, to become champions for population health.
Americans take great pride in asserting that we are number one in terms of wealth, number of Nobel Prizes, and military strength. Why don't we try to become number one in health? -Steven A.Schroeder, MD
Monday, September 24, 2007
SICKO Healthcare System
I found this blurb at http://www.bestamericanhospital.blogspot.com
It is certainly true that Sicko is not a careful accounting of the pros and cons of the U.S. insurance system. But the basic truth of Moore's indictment is undeniable. A recent survey by Consumer Reports found that nearly half of adults younger than 65 — most of them insured — say they are "somewhat" or "completely" unprepared to cope with a costly medical emergency in the coming year. A substantial share of the more than 1 million personal bankruptcies in the United States each year — perhaps as many as half — are due in part to medical costs and crises. In no other rich country are people even remotely as likely to report having trouble with paying medical bills or going without care because of the cost. These problems are long-standing — yes, "dating back to the 1980s" — and worsening. And they are largely due to our reliance on employment-based, voluntary private health insurance.
The question is why we let these problems fester and what we can do to address them.
How do you Medical Billers feel about this?
It is certainly true that Sicko is not a careful accounting of the pros and cons of the U.S. insurance system. But the basic truth of Moore's indictment is undeniable. A recent survey by Consumer Reports found that nearly half of adults younger than 65 — most of them insured — say they are "somewhat" or "completely" unprepared to cope with a costly medical emergency in the coming year. A substantial share of the more than 1 million personal bankruptcies in the United States each year — perhaps as many as half — are due in part to medical costs and crises. In no other rich country are people even remotely as likely to report having trouble with paying medical bills or going without care because of the cost. These problems are long-standing — yes, "dating back to the 1980s" — and worsening. And they are largely due to our reliance on employment-based, voluntary private health insurance.
The question is why we let these problems fester and what we can do to address them.
How do you Medical Billers feel about this?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)