Veteran journalist and health policy specialist Trudy Lieberman has begun a new series, “Medicare Uncovered,” on the Columbia Journalism Review website.
The first in the series is on “the pain from skin in the game.’ ”
In it, she writes:
Right before Christmas, when Beltway reporters were absorbed in the fisticuffs on the edge of the fiscal cliff, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC), a group of state insurance regulators that drafts model laws, delivered some important news that has yet to surface as much of a story. It should.
The Affordable Care Act tasked the insurance commissioners group with helping to think through the implementation of Obamacare, and the commissioners poked a pretty big hole in one of the ways the health reform law seeks to control medical costs.
Buried deep in the Act is a little-noticed provision—that is, little noticed so far by the press and the public—that would require seniors who have bought two popular Medigap plans (more on those below) to pay a lot more out-of-pocket for them because the plans would be required to pay for a lot less out than they do today. The theory behind the move is that consumers will not use as many medical services if they have to pay more each time.
This is another variation on the “skin-in-the-game” approach to cost control—forcing the patients to carry a higher share of their medical bills so they’ll use fewer services. That’s a popular idea with some policy people and with certain healthcare special interests, since it tends to protect their incomes. Whether patients get what they need is another matter.
Journalists covering Medicare in the coming debates over entitlements will hear that seniors must have more “skin-in-the-game,” to help the government balance its budget. Tennessee Republican Senator Bob Corker has introduced a bill that would do just that. The NAIC’s report is a starting point for asking Corker and others advocating this approach some tough questions about the underlying assumptions behind it.
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
The tale of two “negative” studies. Or, how spin is applied to make research findings look more impressive. A must read. https://johnmandrola.substack.com/p/the-tale-of-two-negative-studies
The @nytimes chose to interview one of the editors of the @AnnalsofIM (publisher of this paper) who "gushed with extraordinary glee: It’s huge! There are very few things that reduce your mortality by 30%."
Turns out coffee is not one of those few things despite all that glee. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1533202075928215558
Comments (2)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Brad F
January 16, 2013 at 6:40 pmThe post conveyed an assured conviction elimination of Medigap would have negative consequences for beneficiaries. Not clear:
http://www.kff.org/medicare/upload/8208.pdf
The NAIC, “were unable to find evidence in peer-reviewed studies or managed care practices that would be the basis for nominal cost sharing to encourage the use of appropriate physicians’ services.” Is this so?
Also, can we implement changes to discourage the use of inappropriate services?
Brad
Brad F
January 16, 2013 at 6:40 pmThe post conveyed an assured conviction elimination of Medigap would have negative consequences for beneficiaries. Not clear:
http://www.kff.org/medicare/upload/8208.pdf
The NAIC, “were unable to find evidence in peer-reviewed studies or managed care practices that would be the basis for nominal cost sharing to encourage the use of appropriate physicians’ services.” Is this so?
Also, can we implement changes to discourage the use of inappropriate services?
Brad
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like