I had the opportunity to be invited by Congressman McGovern's office to attend the Health Insurance Reform Forum at the University at Massachusetts Medical School today, 8/4/09 from 330-5 PM. Besides getting a lost due to poor logistics on finding the appropriate amphitheater and being appalled by the lack of adequate handicap accessibility for persons with disabilities, this forum achieved some of its goals in explaining the nuts and bolts on the proposed health insurance reform that is currently sitting in Congress.
The room was full and standing room only. Fortunately, I followed a few people to the platform level where I was able to hear the speakers and not see them. Later on, I was told to go to the fourth floor amphitheater where I was able to sit in an air conditioned room and see the speakers on the screen.
Some of the participants in the audience were loud, rude and disrespectful toward both Congressmen Richard Neil (from Springfield) and James McGovern and to each other. An UMass official told the audience that if those participants did not clamp down and stop their heckling, that both Congressmen would be escorted from the room and the forum would end.
After the brief 15 minute fray, things quieted down and both speakers were able to present their support of health insurance reform. Here are some of the points on why they both support changes:
1) The current system of health care is broken
2) The status quo is not working
3) 16% of Gross Domestic Product(GDP goes to healthcare costs; by 2040, health insurance costs will be 50% of the GDP. If this becomes the cost, the federal government will have difficulties paying for education and other costs that are important for Americans to have.
4) Drug costs are increasing exorbitantly.
5) The donut hole in Medicare is unaffordable for many seniors and for persons with disabilities
Here are some points that were clarified and supported by both speakers for health insurance reform:
1) The current Bush medicare "donut hole" for seniors would be changed. Currently, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is forbidden under federal law to negotiate drug prices with drug companies. If bill is passed and would be effective in 2013, HHS would be able to negotiate for lower drug costs.
2) The myth or misunderstanding that patients would be mandated to have "End of Life Care" discussions with their doctors is false. Both speakers emphasized that these discussions are voluntary and the doctors will be able to get reimbursed for their time with their patients. It was noted that End of Life care is very expensive in particular for a young 25 old male (as an example) who gets into a motorcycle accident and has no health insurance to cover his costs. This position sort of makes sense to me as I understand why "the morphine" is sometimes pushed with hospice patients to get them of their misery. If they on Medicaid, it is cheaper to end their life sooner, as a cost-saving mechanism for the government. I also understand that this issue is controversial and very taxing and emotional for some family members to deal with.
3) If you have your insurance plan and like it, you can keep it. A participant yelled out, "How long?" Both speakers emphasized that nothing would change for them if they like their health insurance plans.
4) Incentives would be given for doctors to enter the primary care field as there is a current shortage of them throughout the country. The same is for increased recruitment of nurses for the same current economic conditions.
5) Increase emphasis will be on promoting and using evidence based practices to reduce costs and increase quality for patient care. An Independent Board of physicians and experts would conduct studies to evaluate the cost effectiveness of using evidence based practices that are not influenced by drug companies and special interest groups.
6) Overall, the gist of health insurance reform is to promote prevention, to increase responsibility on the individuals to purchase health insurance, and to improve the quality of care using cost-effectiveness evidence-based practices in reducing costs to the government and to taxpayers. To do nothing as both speakers stress, will result in higher taxes for Americans and maintain the status quo.
What do you think?
Robbin Miller, LMHC
Citizen-Therapist
www.robbinmiller.vpweb.com
1 comment:
Health Care as a for profit industry will always be subject to being broken. That said, the changes being proposed within a for profit paradigm seem to move in the "greatest good for the greatest number" direction: no denial for pre-existing conditions, portability, competitive pricing, prevention with decision-making less in the hands of insurance companies as is the case now and more in the hands of doctors and patients. It's a start, especially for those with nothing which is criminal in this country!
Post a Comment