qotd: California reform defeat and UnitedHealth (fwd)
Dana C. Iorio
Dana
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 11:03:45 -0800
From: Don McCanne <d...@mccanne.org>
To: Quote-of-the-Day <quote-of...@mccanne.org>
Subject: qotd: California reform defeat and UnitedHealth
Los Angeles Times
January 29, 2008
Panel kills Schwarzenegger's health plan
By Jordan Rau
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's audacious plan to arrange medical insurance for
nearly all Californians -- one watched as a potential model for the nation --
was rejected Monday by the state Senate, obliterating the chance of anything
but piecemeal healthcare changes from the Legislature this year.
The Senate Health Committee voted down the $14.9-billion proposal, which would
have required people to hold private insurance and subsidized the premiums for
those who could not afford them. The repudiation came from Republicans and
Democrats, with only one of 11 senators backing the plan that Schwarzenegger
and Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez (D-Los Angeles) spent much of 2007 putting
together.
Lawmakers called the plan, which passed the Assembly last month, "fundamentally
flawed" and "a fairy tale" as a visibly frustrated Nuñez, sitting in the
committee room, muttered disagreement under his breath. Senators said the
proposal, while laudable in its ambitions, might fall apart financially in a
few years, leaving the state to cancel its new healthcare services or put
taxpayers on the hook for billions of dollars more.
The defeat may be a poor omen for national efforts to overhaul the country's
healthcare system. The three leading Democratic presidential candidates --
Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards -- all have proposed similar
programs aimed at expanding private insurance while allowing people who have
coverage they like to keep it.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-health29jan29,1,2516994,full.story
And...
Los Angeles Times
January 29, 2008
Health plan faces fines of $1.33 billion
By Lisa Girion
California regulators are expected to announce today that they are seeking as
much as $1.33 billion in penalties from Cypress-based PacifiCare as a result of
widespread problems stemming from its takeover two years ago by healthcare
giant UnitedHealth Group Inc.
In an investigation prompted by widespread complaints, the state Department of
Insurance uncovered 133,000 alleged violations of state laws and regulations
regarding payments for medical care. Each violation carries a maximum penalty
of $10,000 for a possible total of $1.33 billion.
Separately, the state Department of Managed Health Care alleged that 30% of the
medical claims it reviewed were improperly denied. That agency is seeking an
additional $3.5 million in fines.
"These were very serious violations," said Cindy Ehnes, executive director of
the Department of Managed Health Care. "The most fundamental promise of
insurance is that they will pay when you are sick, and they will pay those
physicians and hospitals in a fair manner."
Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner expressed frustration at efforts to get
the company to make changes.
"After years of broken promises to California regulators, it became crystal
clear that PacifiCare simply could not or would not fix the meltdown in its
claims-paying process," he said. "We're going to put an end to that. If
PacifiCare can't understand the ABCs of basic claims payment, maybe it will
understand the dollars and cents of regulatory action."
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-insure29jan29,0,3638983.story
Comment: There is no celebration in California. We are back to the status quo.
Although those who call for compromising fundamental health policy principles
say that the status quo is everyone's second choice, it isn't. It's our last
choice.
What on earth happened in California?
The California legislature passed SB 840, Sen. Sheila Kuehl's single payer bill
that would have ensured comprehensive, affordable health care for everyone.
Gov. Schwarzenegger vetoed it simply because of his anti-government ideology.
He then called for a post-partisan process that would achieve the goal of
universal, affordable coverage, with shared responsibility for financing health
care.
The model selected, of course, was to build on the current system, expanding
public coverage, and mandating individuals (or their employers) to obtain
private insurance coverage. Numerous studies have confirmed that this is by far
the most expensive method of achieving comprehensive reform, and falls short on
several important policy measures.
After years of relative inaction on reform, a new problem has been introduced.
Health care has become so expensive that private insurers are no longer able to
market reasonably comprehensive plans at premiums that are affordable for
average-income individuals. As in Massachusetts, the negotiators of the reform
proposal pretended that they could.
Fortunately, Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata recognized that the bill was
structured on a wish-it-would-work financing proposal, and failed to pass the
sniff test. He decided that we needed more information about the proposed
financing. He asked for an independent analysis by the Legislative Analyst. The
numbers didn't work.
To move forward with this proposal would have resulted in financial hardships
for average-income Californians who needed health care, and it would have
resulted in chronic underfunding of the health care delivery system with
inevitable impairment of access ("rationing" due to inadequate resources).
It has been well established that the least expensive and most effective and
equitable method of comprehensive reform would be to adopt a single payer
system. Yet, in the name of compromise, health reform negotiators continue to
insist that reform must be built on a framework that keeps the private
insurance industry in play. This is an industry that makes health care access
unaffordable by shifting costs to patients, that deprives patients of their
choices of health care providers, that dumps high-cost patients onto
taxpayer-funded programs, that... (make your own list).
Since they are doing such a poor job of providing the services that we should
expect from insurers, what do they provide that should cause us to keep them in
play? Well, their primary product is administrative services. How well are they
doing there? They not only provide a great excess of expensive, superfluous
administrative services, they also place a tremendous, costly administrative
burden on the providers of health care.
Some might say that the outrageous costs of this administrative burden might be
worth it if they were providing high-quality administrative services. But as an
example, look at the record of UnitedHealth/PacifiCare. The most
stright-forward administrative function is claims processing. Yet, as Insurance
Commissioner Steve Poizner says, "after years of broken promises to California
regulators, it became crystal clear that PacifiCare simply could not or would
not fix the meltdown in its claims-paying process."
We need to hunt down the nut who keeps telling us that we can't fix our health
care system without including the private insurance industry. Whoever it is is
feeding that same nonsense to the leading Democratic presidential candidates.
A positive note:
Yesterday, before the crucial vote in the Senate Health Committee, hundreds of
medical students from throughout California descended on Sacramento for Lobby
Day - to advocate for a single payer health care system. The day before, a
training session was so well attended that a second auditorium with video
transmission was required to accommodate the students.
My observation is that the future of U.S. health care is in very, very good
hands.
http://www.csphr.org-a.googlepages.com/lobbyday#cosponsors
_______________________________________________
Quote-of-the-day mailing list
Quote-of...@mccanne.org
http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/quote-of-the-day