‘RomneyCare’ — a revolution that basically worked

[Synthaholic]

‘RomneyCare’ — a revolution that basically worked

*snip*

A detailed Globe examination of voluminous health care and financial data, and interviews with key figures in every sector of the health care system, makes it clear that while there have been some stumbles — and some elements of the effort merit a grade of “incomplete’’ — the overhaul has, after five years, worked as well as or better than expected:

■ The percentage of residents without insurance coverage is down dramatically, to less than 2 percent; for children, the figure is a tiny fraction of 1 percent, a state survey shows. These are by far the lowest rates in the nation.


■ Many more businesses are offering insurance to employees than were before the law. The fear going in was that the opposite would happen.



■ The cost of the changes, while large, has proved manageable thus far, though there are some serious warning signs on the horizon, especially as federal stimulus funds, which have helped defray the cost, run out.



■ The plan remains exceptionally popular among state residents — indeed its popularity has only grown with time. There are some unhappy sectors — notably small business owners, who had hoped to see moderating premiums and chafe, in some cases, at the heavy-handed enforcement of the rules by the state. And support for the requirement that individuals obtain insurance is down to a slender majority, a recent poll shows. But there is no significant constituency here for repeal.



■ And while health care costs continue to grow at alarming rates, as they have nationally, the consensus of industry leaders and health care economists is that this trend cannot be fairly traced to the makeover but rather to cost pressures baked into the existing health care payment system. Massachusetts does have the highest health care costs in the nation, but it owned this dubious distinction long before “RomneyCare’’ was born.

​

Taken in sum, it is a far cry from what critics of Romney, and of Obama, are saying about the Massachusetts plan. The attacks often rely on distortions, omissions or flagrant inaccuracies, and typically ignore the fact that the law accomplished its principal goal — expanding coverage to nearly every citizen.



*snip*

 

[Trajan]

you forgot this from your link;

The remaining worry is future costs.

indeed...



and in rebuttal;

While Massachusetts' uninsured rate has dropped to around 3%, 68% of the newly insured since 2006 receive coverage that is heavily or completely subsidized by taxpayers. While Mr. Romney insisted that everyone should pay something for coverage, that is not the way his plan has turned out. More than half of the 408,000 newly insured residents pay nothing, according to a February 2010 report by the Massachusetts Health Connector, the state's insurance exchange.

Another 140,000 remained uninsured in 2008 and were either assessed a penalty or exempted from the individual mandate because the state deemed they couldn't afford the premiums.

Mr. Romney's promise that getting everyone covered would force costs down also is far from being realized. One third of state residents polled by Harvard researchers in a study published in "Health Affairs" in 2008 said that their health costs had gone up as a result of the 2006 reforms. A typical family of four today faces total annual health costs of nearly $13,788, the highest in the country. Per capita spending is 27% higher than the national average.

The state's stubbornly high health costs are partly the result of intrusive government regulations that stifle competition in the insurance market and strict mandates on what services insurance must cover. A 2008 study by the Massachusetts Division of Health Care Finance and Policy found that the state's most expensive insurance mandates cost patients more than $1 billion between July 2004 and July 2005. The Massachusetts health reform law left all of them in place.

Further, insurance companies are required to sell "just-in-time" policies even if people wait until they are sick to buy coverage. That's just like the Obama plan. There is growing evidence that many people are gaming the system by purchasing health insurance when they need surgery or other expensive medical care, then dropping it a few months later.

Some Massachusetts safety-net hospitals that treat a disproportionate number of lower-income and uninsured patients are threatening bankruptcy. They still are treating a large number of people without health insurance, but the payments they receive for uncompensated care have been cut under the reform deal.

The Bay State is also suffering from what the Massachusetts Medical Society calls a "critical shortage" of primary-care physicians. As one would expect, expanded insurance has caused an increase in demand for medical services. But there hasn't been a corresponding increase in the number of doctors. As a result, many patients are insured in name only: They have health coverage but can't find a doctor.

Fifty-six percent of Massachusetts internal medicine physicians no longer are accepting new patients, according to a 2009 physician work-force study conducted by the Massachusetts Medical Society. For new patients who do get an appointment with a primary-care doctor, the average waiting time is 44 days, the Medical Society found.

more at-

Grace-Marie Turner: The Failure of RomneyCare - WSJ.com



oh and Q-

how much of this-
■ The percentage of residents without insurance coverage is down dramatically, to less than 2 percent; for children, the figure is a tiny fraction of 1 percent, a state survey shows. These are by far the lowest rates in the nation.


is Schip driven? they s till have schip in mass?

 

[Anachronism]

Nobody who LIVES in the Communistwealth of and pays taxes actually thinks Romneycare is working.

 

[Oddball]

■ The cost of the changes, while large, has proved manageable thus far, though there are some serious warning signs on the horizon, especially as federal stimulus funds, which have helped defray the cost, run out.

IOW, without the federal succubus slush fund propping it up, the whole mess would've been even deeper in the hole than it already is.

So much for that "containing costs" lie.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

‘RomneyCare’ — a revolution that basically worked

I don't know anyone back home who has said a good thing about RomneyCare.

 

[Greenbeard]

■ And while health care costs continue to grow at alarming rates, as they have nationally, the consensus of industry leaders and health care economists is that this trend cannot be fairly traced to the makeover but rather to cost pressures baked into the existing health care payment system. Massachusetts does have the highest health care costs in the nation, but it owned this dubious distinction long before “RomneyCare’’ was born.

Therein lies the confusion of some about Massachusetts' situation. Their reforms were designed and intended only to expand coverage and organize the insurance market, objectives that have been met exceptionally well. Only recently have they turned their attention to the cost issue (which is very closely linked to the shape of the provider market in their state), which is why they're kicking around payment reform ideas now.

 

[Trajan]

■ And while health care costs continue to grow at alarming rates, as they have nationally, the consensus of industry leaders and health care economists is that this trend cannot be fairly traced to the makeover but rather to cost pressures baked into the existing health care payment system. Massachusetts does have the highest health care costs in the nation, but it owned this dubious distinction long before “RomneyCare’’ was born.

Therein lies the confusion of some about Massachusetts' situation. Their reforms were designed and intended only to expand coverage and organize the insurance market, objectives that have been met exceptionally well. Only recently have they turned their attention to the cost issue (which is very closely linked to the shape of the provider market in their state), which is why they're kicking around payment reform ideas now.

Only recently have they turned their attention to the cost issue

that's probably the most honest thing I have ever heard you say across 3 forums and 2 years and change.

and speaks for itself.

 

[Trajan]

■ The cost of the changes, while large, has proved manageable thus far, though there are some serious warning signs on the horizon, especially as federal stimulus funds, which have helped defray the cost, run out.

IOW, without the federal succubus slush fund propping it up, the whole mess would've been even deeper in the hole than it already is.

So much for that "containing costs" lie.

no you missed it OB, they have NOW "turned their attention to the cost issue"


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDAmPIq29ro]YouTube - ‪Animal House - All Is Well!‬‏[/ame]

 

[Oddball]

■ And while health care costs continue to grow at alarming rates, as they have nationally, the consensus of industry leaders and health care economists is that this trend cannot be fairly traced to the makeover but rather to cost pressures baked into the existing health care payment system. Massachusetts does have the highest health care costs in the nation, but it owned this dubious distinction long before “RomneyCare’’ was born.

Therein lies the confusion of some about Massachusetts' situation. Their reforms were designed and intended only to expand coverage and organize the insurance market, objectives that have been met exceptionally well. Only recently have they turned their attention to the cost issue (which is very closely linked to the shape of the provider market in their state), which is why they're kicking around payment reform ideas now.

You still haven't told us who is paying you to pump this bilge.

 

[Greenbeard]

■ And while health care costs continue to grow at alarming rates, as they have nationally, the consensus of industry leaders and health care economists is that this trend cannot be fairly traced to the makeover but rather to cost pressures baked into the existing health care payment system. Massachusetts does have the highest health care costs in the nation, but it owned this dubious distinction long before “RomneyCare’’ was born.

Therein lies the confusion of some about Massachusetts' situation. Their reforms were designed and intended only to expand coverage and organize the insurance market, objectives that have been met exceptionally well. Only recently have they turned their attention to the cost issue (which is very closely linked to the shape of the provider market in their state), which is why they're kicking around payment reform ideas now.

You still haven't told us who is paying you to pump this bilge.

I realize this isn't common knowledge, since you'd need both 1) internet access and 2) to read the news once in a while to know this super secret insider stuff ("Cost control the next step for Massachusetts health reform")

March 28, 2011-- Already a pioneer of health coverage expansion, Massachusetts is beginning to tackle the critical next phase of its health system reforms: containing costs. There may be debate about the best way to accomplish that, but observers agree it is the necessary next step if universal coverage is to be successful. [...]

In February, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick unveiled his cost-containment plan to follow up on the landmark 2006 coverage expansions. If approved by legislators, it would define and encourage accountable care organizations within the state; give the state insurance commissioner the ability to scrutinize insurers' rates, including underlying physician pay, and disapprove rates that are excessive; and revamp the medical liability system to try to resolve disputes more quickly and curb defensive medicine.

If you're really crafty, you can even find and read the text of the reform proposals they're considering.