I has cheeseburger Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > And if you've actually
> > spent the time to READ the bill, there's
> nothing
> > about "rationing of care" or "triage". Provide
> a
> > source that supports anything you say and I'll
> > listen. Preferably a source outside of the
> Rupert
> > Murdoch controlled media.
>
>
> Coalition of 24 Medical Associations Representing
> More Than 350,000 Doctors: “[N]ot only does the
> creation of IPAB severely limit congressional
> authority, it essentially eliminates the
> transparency of hearings, debate and a meaningful
> opportunity for critical stakeholder input. …
> America’s physicians are also concerned that the
> strict budgetary targets and other limitations
> imposed on the IPAB will ultimately threaten the
> ability of our nation’s seniors and disabled to
> obtain the health care they need, when they need
> it.”
>
>
http://www3.aaos.org/govern/federal/issues/Medicar
> e/IPAB_MarkUp.pdf
>
>
> The American Medical Association, Representing
> More Than 217,000 Physicians and Medical Students:
> “The IPAB puts important health care payment and
> policy decisions in the hands of an independent
> body that has far too little accountability. …
> Adding additional formulaic cuts through IPAB is
> just not rational and would be detrimental to
> patient care, especially as millions of baby
> boomers enter Medicare.”
>
>
http://www.ama-assn.org/resources/doc/washington/h
> r452-support-letter-27feb2012.pdf
>
>
> The American Hospital Association, Representing
> More Than 5,000 Member Hospitals, Health Systems
> and Other Health Care Organizations, and Nearly
> 42,000 Individual Members: “America’s
> hospitals support the repeal of IPAB because its
> existence permanently removes Congress from the
> decision-making process, and threatens the
> important dialogue between hospitals and their
> elected officials about how hospitals can continue
> to provide the highest quality care to their
> patients and communities. … We are deeply
> concerned that removing elected officials from the
> decision-making process could result in even
> deeper cuts to the Medicare program in the
> future.”
>
>
http://www.aha.org/advocacy-issues/letter/2012/120
> 228-let-pollack-roe.pdf
>
>
> “It Is Likely that Access to Quality Care Will
> Be Reduced and Costs Will Be Shifted to Private
> Payers.” “The language of the Affordable Care
> Act so limits where the IPAB can make changes that
> all that is really left is reducing reimbursements
> to providers. … If circumstances bring about a
> mandated cut in reimbursement to providers, it is
> likely that access to quality care will be reduced
> and costs will be shifted to private payers, which
> only worsens an existing problem.” (Katy Beh
> Neas, Senior Vice President, Government Relations,
> Easter Seals, 3/6/12)
>
>
> Washington, DC (March 6, 2012) – The
> Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO)
> applauded the House Energy and Commerce
> Committee’s passage of the Medicare Decisions
> Accountability Act, H.R. 452, which would repeal
> the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB)
> established in the health care reform law.
>
>
> “The IPAB Serves Only to Drive More Physicians
> Out of the Medicare Program…Further
> Deteriorating Access To Healthcare Services.”
> “If the IPAB has any accountability, it is only
> to the President who appointed its members, not to
> the Congress, and certainly not to the American
> people. The IPAB serves only to drive more
> physicians out of the Medicare program or limit
> their willingness to see and accept Medicare
> patients into their practice, further
> deteriorating access to healthcare services by
> this vulnerable population.” (David F. Penson,
> M.D., MPH, Vice Chair, Health Policy Council,
> American Urological Association, 3/6/12)
>
>
> IPAB Will Make the Development of New Medical
> Technologies “More Uncertain, More Costly, and
> Less Attractive to New Investment.” “Yet
> IPAB’s entire scheme is far less transparent,
> rigorous, and open to challenge than the average
> private health plan. This will have implications
> for patients and providers. It will also have
> significant implications for those developing new
> medical technologies. It will make that process
> more uncertain, more costly, and less attractive
> to new investment.” (Scott Gottlieb, M.D.,
> Resident Fellow, American Enterprise Institute for
> Public Policy Research, 3/6/12)
>
>
> IPAB “Will Put More Systemic [Medicare] Payment
> Reforms Further Out of Reach.” “Owing to the
> way it is set up, IPAB is statutorily required to
> achieve its savings in the short term. This will
> mean IPAB can do little more than manipulate
> Medicare’s current price schedules and its
> coding process. … By ‘doubling down’ on the
> existing practice of simply whacking existing
> price schedules in order to slow spending – with
> no meaningful eye to how these changes impact
> long-term incentives -- IPAB will put more
> systemic payment reforms further out of reach.”
> (Scott Gottlieb, M.D., Resident Fellow, American
> Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research,
> 3/6/12)
>
>
> States Cut Medicaid Drug Benefits To Save Money
>
> By Phil Galewitz
> KHN Staff Writer
> JUL 24, 2012
>
> Illinois Medicaid recipients have been limited to
> four prescription drugs as the state becomes the
> latest to cap how many medicines it will cover in
> the state-federal health insurance program for the
> poor.
>
> Doctors fear the state's cost-cutting move could
> backfire on patients, who have to get state
> permission to go beyond the limit.
>
> "We understand the state is trying to get its
> Medicaid budget under control," says Dr. William
> Werner, president of the Illinois State Medical
> Society. "But our concern is it not be a hardship
> for patients and a hassle for doctors in the
> execution."
>
> 13 States Cut Medicaid To Balance Budgets
> Details: States Making Cuts To Medicaid
>
> Sixteen states impose a monthly limit on the
> number of drugs Medicaid recipients can receive
> and seven states have either enacted such caps or
> tightened them in the past two years, according to
> the Kaiser Family Foundation (KHN is a program of
> the foundation). The limits vary across the
> country. Mississippi has a limit of two brand-name
> drugs. In Arkansas adults are limited to up six
> drugs a month.
>
>
>
> Want more?
Okay, I understand your viewpoint. So you believe there's something inherently wrong with insuring 32 million Americans, eliminating a lifetime spending cap, and eliminating the idea of a pre-existing condition? You're against healthcare providers having to return 80% of income as benefits?
States have to make cuts to Medicaid because allotted funds are insufficient. And that's a function of the "we need to have this massive military" complex that this country has. Medicare's issue is that it overpays for drugs, by quite a large margin. A bag of saline solution costs between 6 and 8 dollars, usually. Medicare pays 16 dollars a bag.
I agree that the IPAB is a bad idea, as are most presidential oversight boards. Yes, the bill has flaws, I don't think anybody denies that. But it's better than the idea of "hey, you've a pre-existing condition, tough shit!"
The IPAB can be eliminated at any time... all Congress has to do is refuse to fund it. Which is not illegal, by the way.