NAHU Newswire

Advertisement

ABC World News (9/19, story 7, 0:15, Gibson) reported, "There's welcome news for more than 40 million older and disabled Americans on Medicare. For the first time since the year 2000, premiums will not go up next year."

        "Medicare's monthly premium will be unchanged at $96.40 next year for most of the 44 million beneficiaries in the U.S. health program for elderly and disabled people," the Chicago Tribune (9/20) added.

        The Washington Post (9/20, A20) explained that the "decision to hold premiums steady results in part from increased reserves in the Medicare trust fund. The Part B trust fund was reimbursed $9.3 billion earlier this year after officials discovered money had been inadvertently drawn to cover hospice benefits that should have come from the separate Part A hospital fund."

        On the front page of its Health section, the San Francisco Chronicle (9/20, C1, Colliver) pointed out that "the announcement may seem surprising, given the fact that medical costs continue to outpace inflation. But, Medicare officials said many unusual factors contributed to what will be just the sixth year without a premium increase since Medicare began in 1965." Even though "premiums have risen in recent years -- more than 17 percent in 2005 -- in part because Medicare had to build up reserves to offset changes made by Congress to adjust physician payments," these "reserves finally have reached adequate levels."

        Still, the AP (9/19, Freking) noted that "healthcare costs have been rising much more quickly than overall inflation over the years. That trend indicates this year's break for beneficiaries is likely a blip."

        Elaborating on how premiums affect Medicare recipients' income, The Hill (9/19, Young) reported that those who earn "less than $85,000 a year, or couples earning less than $170,000 a year, will have to pay $96.40 a month" in 2009 "for benefits under Medicare Part B, the part of the program that covers services not provided in hospitals, such as physician care, home healthcare, and medical equipment," Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) officials explained.

        But, even though the Medicare Part B premium will not increase, the Part A deductible will. Bloomberg News (9/19, Goldstein) pointed out that "the deductible that Medicare beneficiaries must pay for hospital stays of up to 60 days will rise next year to $1,068, from $1,024 this year." CQ (9/19), AHN (9/20), CongressDaily (9/19), HealthDay (9/19, Preidt), WebMD (9/19, Zwillich), and MedPage Today (9/19, Walker) also covered the story, as did the Wall Street Journal's (9/19, Goldstein) Health Blog.

CQ (9/19) reported that "House leaders have altered plans to move a stand-alone mental health parity bill early [this] week because some Senate Republicans dislike the measure's proposed budgetary offsets." The measure "would require health insurers to offer mental health insurance with benefits, co-payments, and treatment limits equal to traditional medical coverage plans," and would be paid for "in part with a ban on some physician referrals to so-called specialty hospitals. ... The ban could save substantial Medicare spending on some procedures, advocates say." Now that some Senate Republicans have voiced concern about the specialty hospital offset, the House "may push off consideration of the bill until at least next Tuesday. Democrats were considering dropping the specialty hospital offset and substituting other, less-controversial provisions, including one dealing with corporate interest income." Last year "the Senate passed its original mental health parity measure," and "the House passed its version...in March. The current proposal represents a compromise between those two."

Healthcare IT News (9/19, Manos) reported that, according to a report released Sept. 17 by the General Accountability Office (GAO), the "Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has made progress toward addressing privacy in healthcare IT, but there is more yet to do." While the "GAO said HHS has made advances in healthcare quality and other aspects of healthcare...privacy risks to electronic storage and exchange of personal health information remain a problem." After reviewing "HHS documents describing the agency's privacy-related healthcare IT activities, GAO determined" that "HHS still needs to include 'a process for ensuring that key privacy principles and challenges are completely and adequately addressed.'"

The Washington Post (9/21, A7, Balz) reported, "An article about healthcare published in an obscure journal led to a new skirmish Saturday between the campaigns of Democrat Barack Obama (Ill.) and Republican John McCain (Ariz.)." The article appeared in Contingencies magazine "under Sen. McCain's name," and it "included a favorable reference to banking deregulation that...provided an irresistible target for Sen. Obama's campaign." Sen. Obama asserted that Sen. McCain is "out of touch at a time when Washington is moving rapidly to re-regulate the financial industry to curb the excesses that put the system into near-paralysis in the past week." Sen. McCain's campaign then "accused Obama of manufacturing an attack by deliberately misreading the Republican's words." In the article, Sen. McCain wrote that he plans to increase "competition in healthcare as one way to expand coverage and reduce costs." He added, "Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation."

The Boston Globe (9/21) editorialized, "On few issues do Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) diverge as dramatically as they do on healthcare." While McCain proposes "a system in which all Americans cut their own deals with private insurers," Obama aims to expand "the existing employer-based system" to include "new coverage plans for families and businesses." The Globe noted, however, that Obama's plan is similar to Massachusetts' current universal coverage law, even though the state does not mandate "individuals to get insurance or pay a penalty." In Massachusetts, "94.6 percent of residents now have insurance," and although "Obama's plan would never come as close to universal coverage" without his mandate, the Globe acknowledged that "it would expand coverage." The Globe added that Massachusetts would also serve as a trial for whether "better access to healthcare" leads to "improved prevention and lower costs," as Obama has also proposed. Meanwhile, the Globe pointed out that "there is no comparable lab test...for the radical revision of healthcare that McCain is proposing," which is "a prescription for disaster."

In a front-page article, the Wall Street Journal (9/22, A1, Fuhrmans) reports, "As the credit crunch threatens to throw the economy into a deep slump, Americans are already cutting back on healthcare, a sector once thought to be invulnerable to recession." According to data from IMS Health, a market research company, "The number of prescriptions filled in the U.S. fell 0.5 percent in the first quarter and a steeper 1.97 percent in the second, compared with the same periods in 2007." Americans are also making fewer physician office visits and undergoing fewer lab tests. A survey by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners showed that of 686 consumers, "22 percent...said that economy-related woes were causing them to go to the doctor less often. About 11 percent said they've scaled back on prescription drugs to save money." Data also indicated that "obstetrician-gynecologist visits...dropped six percent in the first quarter compared with the same period last year," according to Laboratory Corp., the country's second-largest clinical lab-testing company.

        Study indicates workers' healthcare costs may increase nine percent in 2009. The Chicago Tribune (9/21, Japsen) reported that healthcare costs "are expected to rise next year in the form of out-of-paycheck and out-of-pocket expenses" for U.S. workers. A study by Lincolnshire-based Hewitt Associates projects "the combined average premium and out-of-pocket costs for healthcare coverage for an individual worker...to climb nearly nine percent," in 2009. The study of "more than 300 major employers and more than 13 million health-plan participants," projected an estimated eight percent increase in "contributions to premiums," while "out-of-pocket costs monthly...are rising 10.1 percent." The Tribune noted that the increases "are smaller than those workers saw in the double-digit percentage increases of two years ago and throughout the decade." Still, employers are expected to see a 6.4 percent increase in healthcare costs. According to analysts, the rising costs will result from employers "shifting costs to their workers in the forms of higher deductibles or co-payments on everything."

CQ (9/19, Jansen) reported, "A trade group for drugmakers spent $11.3 million on" advertising in support of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which "President Bush vetoed as too costly." In what CQ called "the biggest single advertising buy this political season from any special interest group," Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association paid "a new organization called America's Agenda: Health Care for Kids Inc." for ads on SCHIP. Appearing in "the districts or states of at least 25 lawmakers," the ads commend them "by name for supporting" the children's insurance bill. The ads also ask viewers to contact their lawmakers to tell them to continue "fighting to insure our kids."

In a commentary in the San Francisco Chronicle (9/21, G4), John Diaz, the Chronicle's editorial page editor, wrote, "California law is supposed to protect patients against...unwarranted rescissions" of healthcare coverage. The law, however, "is vague, and regulators are often overmatched against the larger insurance companies that fight mightily to preserve their right to deny coverage after the fact." In an effort to clarify the law, Assemblyman Hector De La Torre (D) drafted legislation to protect "a patient's health coverage" from being "rescinded unless he or she 'intentionally misrepresented or intentionally omitted' material health information on" the application. The measure was met with criticism from the insurance industry "that the law's requirement of intent would make it too difficult to rescind the coverage of people who are trying to game the system." Diaz argued that insurers have "nothing to fear from the clarified rules of AB1945," if they are in fact "doing what they say they are -- protecting honest ratepayers by rescinding coverage only in cases of fraud and deception." Diaz concluded by urging Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to sign the bill into law.

Advertisement

The Columbus Dispatch (9/21, Rowland) reported, "Fifty-six percent [of people in Ohio] in a Dispatch Poll" said "expanded healthcare accompanied by higher taxes is preferable to lower taxes with fewer people covered." Of "2,102 likely Ohio voters" polled, only a third reported "no problems paying for routine medical care," while most said that they "struggle to come up with the money to deal with a major illness." And, "nearly three-fourths face at least minor difficulties covering the cost of prescription drugs." Yet, three-fifths of the respondents indicated that they had "no problem with both the availability and quality of medical care in their community." Notably, most were in support of "charging higher health-insurance premiums to people who make unhealthful lifestyle choices."

The AP (9/21, Sedensky) reported that "Medicaid recipients across Florida" are saying that "the state is illegally forcing them to live in nursing homes when they should be able to live where they choose." Advocates for the elderly and disabled patients "charge that nursing homes, afraid of losing money, have successfully pressured politicians to make qualifying for community care more difficult," so "have filed a federal lawsuit seeking class-action status on behalf of nearly 8,500 institutionalized Floridians." In 1999, the Supreme Court ruled that "unjustified isolation of the disabled in institutions amounted to discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act. It said states must provide community services if patients want them, if they can be accommodated, and if it's appropriate." But, in court filings, defendants Florida Agency for Health Care Administration, the Florida Department of Elder Affairs, and Gov. Charlie Crist's (R) office, "have claimed the plaintiffs lack standing, because they haven't proven that treatment professionals deemed community-based care" is "appropriate for each patient."

The Chicago Tribune (9/21) editorialized that last spring, Illinois "lawmakers unanimously passed a law that would have guaranteed hundreds of thousands of uninsured Illinois consumers the most generous hospital discounts in the U.S." But, Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D) has yet to sign the bill because he "decided to 'improve' it with an amendatory veto." The Tribune asserted that the governor's move was "not a good idea" since "his changes may scuttle efforts to pass any bill." Among his adjustments to the bill, Gov. Blagojevich "raised income limits too high" and "slashed the markup that hospitals charge to the uninsured." While "Illinois hospitals had agreed to charge most patients without insurance what it actually costs to provide care plus a markup of 35 percent," Gov. Blagojevich "cut that markup to 20 percent above cost" for some. The Tribune agreed with state legislators that now "vow to override the amendatory veto." The Tribune concluded that the uninsured should not be "victimized by a governor who grandstands about helping them pay their medical bills while effectively torpedoing efforts to do just that."

In the Wall Street Journal's (9/19) Health Blog, Sarah Rubenstein wrote, "Since health savings accounts (HSAs) started getting a lot of buzz a few years back, one of the big conundrums has been that a number of people who get the health insurance piece don't bother to open the bank account." Rubenstein added that although the accounts are "heavily tax advantaged," they "aren't so easy for people to grasp." According to a survey by UnitedHealthcare of 212,000 customers, however, "86 percent of people opened an HSA if their employer offered up a contribution." Meanwhile, only 27 percent of employees opened accounts "when the employers kept their purse-strings tight." She suggested offering "seed money" to encourage employees to open their accounts. Rubenstein also pointed out that "customers with incomes under $25,000 were the most apt to open HSAs," although they tended to contribute "less money on their own."

In BusinessWeek's (9/19) Smart Answers column, Karen Klein, a small-business writer, "asked several experts to weigh in on the short- and long-term impact of this week's financial free fall on small business owners." With 11 failed banks so far this year, "and a number of additional banks [that] are said to be teetering," Klein asked experts how business owners can tell "if [their] bank is struggling." According to Sam Thacker, finance and credit expert for AllBusiness.com, a portion of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's (FDIC) website "lists a number of private firms" that provide "internal bank ratings." Owners can also request an "institution's latest 'condition report'" from the banker, or "look it up online at the FFIEC [Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council] Central Data Repository Public Data Distribution website." For businesses with loans in banks that are "taken over by the FDIC" or are "acquired by a competitor," Thacker said that strong businesses should "consider moving the loan to another bank that's not in trouble." The experts also weighed in on credit unions, labor, pricing, insurance, and private investment capital.

In an article for the Wall Street Journal (9/22), Boris Groysberg, a Harvard Business School associate professor, Lex Sant, managing director of Persimmon Tree Capital, and Robin Abrahams, Harvard Business School research associate, write that in "good economic times and bad, companies compete for the best, the brightest, [and] the hardest-working." But "hiring top talent is not without risk. There is always the chance that the star won't be able to replicate his or her success in a new environment." In hiring a new candidate, "managers need to think about how portable a job candidate's performance is likely to be -- and to a large degree that depends on the job." Even if a candidate seems like a "star," their performance may rely "on a few people they work closely with." Some stars attempt to "ease the transition to a new company by bringing at least some of these team members with them. For example, a surgeon may take an entire operating-room team to a new hospital." Ultimately though, the "star who has to forge new connections" after arriving at the company may "have stronger ties to his or her new company."

Subscriber Tools

• Unsubscribe
• Change Email Address
• Send Feedback
• Email Help

NAHU Newswire is a digest of the most important news selected from thousands of sources by the editors of U.S. News Custom Briefings. The National Association of Health Underwriters does not receive any revenue from the advertising herein. The presence of such advertising does not endorse, or imply endorsement of, any products or services by the National Association of Health Underwriters.

This complimentary copy of NAHU Newswire was sent to leigh.ashley@earthlink.net as part of your NAHU membership. View U.S. News Custom Briefings' privacy policy.

Neither U.S. News Custom Briefings nor the National Association of Health Underwriters is liable for the use of or reliance on any information contained in this briefing.

For information about other member benefits, please contact NAHU Member Service Center at 703-276-0220 or membership@nahu.org.

National Association of Health Underwriters | 2000 N. 14th Street Suite 450 | Arlington, VA 22201

Copyright © 2008 by U.S. News Custom Briefings | 11190 Sunrise Valley Drive, Suite 130 | Reston, VA 20191