Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Thursday, April 12, 2012 | 2:31 p.m.
CARSON CITY - A federal official says there is no contingency plan if President Barack Obama’s health care law is overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Herb K. Schultz, regional director for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, told state legislators at a briefing on the new law Thursday that he is confident the court will uphold it.
“We’re focusing 100 percent on implementation,” he said Thursday. “There is not a contingency plan.”
Sen. Ben Kieckhefer, R-Reno, asked what would happen if all or parts of the law are found unconstitutional.
Schultz replied all the efforts now are on “outreach and education.”
In Nevada, the Silver State Health Insurance Exchange has been established to prepare for the changed called for in the law. Among the changes: no one can be denied insurance coverage because of a pre-existing medical condition.
Assemblyman Steven Brooks, D-Las Vegas, the only other lawmaker to attend the briefing, asked if the state’s computer system would have to be updated to accommodate implementation of the law.
Mike Willden, director of the state Department of Health and Human Services, said groups are studying that question. He said the system has to be established so the various programs can talk to each other.
Two weeks ago state officials estimated the president’s health care plan could cost Nevada an additional $574 million to cover the additional persons who would qualify for Medicaid from 2014 to 2019.
The plan would allow people with higher incomes to be eligible for Medicaid, the federal-state program to provide medical care for the poor. And there are estimates there will be 120,000 to 150,000 new eligible participants on the Medicaid program.
Schultz said the federal government will pick up 100 percent in reimbursement to physicians in the first three years. After that, 90 percent will be paid by the federal government and 10 percent by the state.
Why, why, why, didn't we go with the public option? If everyone could just opt in or out of Medicare with cost-neutral premiums set, we could fix this mess so quickly.
People who don't work in healthcare just don't understand the waste in the private healthcare.
In this market:
Casino company A hires health-insurer B (via a broker) to process their claims. Health insurer B hires company C to process their prior authorization requests ( a way to deny you the tests your doctor ordered ). Then sometimes there is a company D involved that re-prices the claims based on their negotiated rates in the market.
Company A's broker takes a cut
Company B takes a cut
Company C takes a cut
Sometimes company D takes a cut.
Doctor is left paying a lot of people to deal with the prior-authorizations, denials, pricing problems, etc.
Reimbursement for doctor is less than Medicare (which isn't overly generous in the first place)
Company A and doctor take it in the shorts.
You'd get better care under Medicare, have access to just about any doctor you wanted, and have rules based on protecting YOU, not the bottom line.
Anyone care to refute?