Thursday, October 15, 2015

This study is forcing economists to rethink high-deductible health insurance - Vox

Americans aren't used to shopping for health care — and maybe we don't want to start


In 2006, about one in 10 employees had a health insurance deductible over $1,000. Today? About half do.
To health economists, this sounded like good news; they've long theorized that higher deductibles would force down health-care costs. The idea was that higher deductibles would make patients become smarter shoppers: If they had to pay more of the cost, they'd likely choose something closer to the $1,529 appendectomy than the $186,955 appendectomy (yes, some hospitals really do charge that much). This would push the really expensive doctors to lower their prices so cheaper physicians didn't steal their business.
This was, however, just a theory. And a massive new study suggests it might have been all wrong.
Economists Zarek Brot-Goldberg, Amitabh Chandra, Benjamin Handel, and Jonathan Kolstad studied a firm that, in 2013, shifted tens of thousands of workers into high-deductible insurance plans. This was a perfect moment to look at how their patterns of care changed — whether they did, in fact, use the new shopping tools their employer gave them to compare prices.
Turns out they didn't. The new paper shows that when faced with a higher deductible, patients did not price shop for a better deal. Instead, both healthy and sick patients simply used way less health care.
"I am a little bit surprised at just how poorly patients were able to do when looking at very similar products, like MRI scans, and with a shopping tool," says Kolstad, an economist at University of California Berkeley and one of the study's co-author. "Two years in, and there's still no evidence they're price shopping."
This raises a scary possibility: Perhaps higher deductibles don't lead to smarter shoppers but rather, in the long run, sicker patients.


This study is forcing economists to rethink high-deductible health insurance - Vox

Government: No benefit hike for Social Security next year - AOL

Government: No benefit hike for Social Security next year 

Thanks to decreasing gas costs, the annual cost of living adjustment (COLA) in 2016 will be zero. However this may be even worse for some Medicare beneficiaries. A little known exemption (waiver) means  current medicare recipients will not have any increase.  The waiver also extends to several other groups. The impact will affect those who begin receiving Medicare benefits in 2016. The monthly premium increase will be about $ 60.00.  This increase occurs despite the fact that Medicare's reimbursements have decreased over the past several years due to many factors.

Normally the COLA offsets any Medicare premium increases annually.

Since 2010 there have been three years where there was no COLA.

Social Security benefits are complex. The age at which you apply, your marriage status and  other factors will affect your monthly benefits.

Some seniors may benefit from applying for  Medicare early, before January 2016.  Advice from Health Train Express   "Check with your  social security office.

Tuesday, October 13, 2015

400,000 Citizens To Lose Health Insurance (Again) Because Of Obamacare Co-Op Failures | Galen Institute

400,000 Citizens To Lose Health Insurance (Again) Because Of Obamacare Co-Op Failures | Galen Institute



CMS Undermines Real Cost Savings for Consumers



The Obama administration is proposing a Medicare payment rule that would have the effect of clamping price controls on biosimilar drugs, extending destructive pricing policies to a potentially vibrant 21st century life sciences industry.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has proposed a rule that would guide how Medicare pays for a new class of medicines used in physicians’ offices and hospitals. The new medicines are designed to imitate the therapeutic effect of biologics—medicines created in the laboratory but derived from living organisms that lock into the body’s own biological processes to treat cancer, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, and other diseases

Her proposals to rein in prescription drug costs involve forcing pharmaceutical companies to meet a government quota for investing in research, denying companies tax breaks for consumer advertising, and capping out-of-pocket expenses for individuals with chronic health problems. Those are the new ideas.
Clinton also is recycling ideas to allow Americans to import cheaper drugs from abroad, allow Medicare to “negotiate” prescription drug prices, and reduce the patent life for innovative drugs—stale old ideas that have failed to gain bipartisan traction.
Her government-centric solutions would impede creation of new treatments and cures, restrict access to medicines for patients, and, by distorting markets and treatment decisions, ultimately drive up health costs. The dangers are addressed here, here, and here.

A  Bad Actor, Not A Pharmaceutical Innovator Causes Outrage over Drug Prices.
A profiteer masquerading as a pharmaceutical company executive has set the Internet afire with his 5,000% price increase for a rare but important drug used by AIDS and some cancer patients.
Martin Shkreli, a 32-year-old former hedge fund manager, cornered the market on Daraprim, a drug used to treat a life-threatening parasitic infection. His start-up company, Turing Pharmaceuticals, bought rights to this old but effective generic drug and used his temporary monopoly power to dramatically jack up prices.
Shkreli is by no stretch of the imagination a pharmaceutical innovator, yet The Washington Postused the news to implicitly indict the industry in a front-page article, “Pricey pill is rare case of transparency in health care.”
“Shkreli’s actions were shocking for a simple reason: It was an unusual moment of complete transparency in health care, where motives, prices and how the system works are rarely ever talked about so nakedly,” Post reporter Carolyn V. Johnson wrote.  “Shkreli’s company, Turing Pharmaceuticals, raised the price of Daraprim from $18 to $750 per pill because he could.”
The article implies that these actions are a windowinto the pricing practices of other pharmaceutical companies.  Nothing could be further from the truth.
Established pharmaceutical companies invest billions of dollars in research over more than a decade to bring a single new drug to market.  Companies must recoup their investment if they are to continue to invest in research for new treatments and cures.
Comparing Turing Pharmaceuticals to established pharmaceutical companies does not have legs. Turing did not invest in creating this drug. It bought rights to a drug approved 62 years ago and which has sold for as little as $1 a pill by previous licensers.  Recouping years of investment in research was not Shkreli’s agenda.
Still, even someone as arrogant as Shkreli responds to public outrage over his outrageous price hike for Daraprim. After the public outcry, Shkreli said he would lower the price by a yet-undisclosed amount.  It is hard to see any justification for anything remotely close to the $750 price. He was taking advantage of a temporary monopoly on this drug to, in turn, take advantage of patients with cancer and AIDS. How much worse does it get?
What Shkreli needs is not only public pressure but genuine competition

 By Grace-Marie Turner 56 Changes so far to ObamaCare(PDF) By our count at the Galen Institute, more than 56 significant changes have been made to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, at least 35 that the Obama administration has…

Tuesday, October 6, 2015

Millions More Need H.I.V. Treatment, W.H.O. Says - The New York Times







Millions More Need H.I.V. Treatment, W.H.O. Says - The New York Times

City Endorses New Policy for Treatment of H.I.V. - The New York Times







City Endorses New Policy for Treatment of H.I.V. - The New York Times

For Gay Community, Finding Acceptance Is Even More Difficult on the Streets - The New York Times







For Gay Community, Finding Acceptance Is Even More Difficult on the Streets - The New York Times

Insurer Says Clients on Daily Pill Have Stayed H.I.V.-Free - The New York Times







Insurer Says Clients on Daily Pill Have Stayed H.I.V.-Free - The New York Times

San Francisco Is Changing Face of AIDS Treatment - The New York Times









San Francisco Is Changing Face of AIDS Treatment - The New York Times

California Governor Signs Assisted Suicide Bill Into Law - The New York Times

California Governor Signs Assisted Suicide Bill Into Law - The New York Times

Jerry Brown signs doctor-assisted death bill | The Sacramento Bee

Jerry Brown signs doctor-assisted death bill | The Sacramento Bee

Beyond Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: Redefining an Illness - Institute of Medicine







Beyond Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: Redefining an Illness - Institute of Medicine