Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Nine Major Changes In The Democrats' New Health Reform Bill

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Emit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-10 10:24 PM
Original message
Nine Major Changes In The Democrats' New Health Reform Bill
Nine Major Changes In The Democrats' New Health Reform Bill
Print Share Email Topics: Health Reform, Politics

By Julie Appleby and Mary Agnes Carey

KHN Staff Writers

Mar 18, 2010


~snip~

Here are some of the major changes between the reconciliation proposal and the Senate-passed bill:

HEFTIER SUBSIDIES: Compared to the Senate legislation, the reconciliation bill would provide more generous subsidies to low- and moderate-income Americans to help them buy health coverage.

THE MASERATI TAX: The levy on high-cost insurance plans is scaled back and delayed, rendering it more a "Maserati" than a "Cadillac" tax. It would apply only to the portion of plans costing more than $10,200 a year for individuals, up from $8,500, and $27,500 for families, up from $23,000. The tax wouldn't kick in until 2018, reducing the projected revenue to the government by 80 percent.

CLOSING THE DOUGHNUT HOLE: Unlike the Senate bill, the reconciliation measure would eventually close the coverage gap, called the “doughnut hole,” for Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in Part D drug plans. (Currently, seniors who hit the gap must bear the full cost of their medications until they spend a certain amount, when coverage kicks back in.)

Under the new bill, seniors who hit the gap this year would get $250 to help cover the costs of their medications. Starting next year, they'd get a 50 percent discount on brand-name drugs, with the cost borne by the drug industry. In subsequent years, the discounts would expand and begin covering generic drugs, with the expense picked up by the government. By 2020, the discounts would reach 75%.

SHIFT IN MEDICARE ADVANTAGE PAYOUTS: Government payments to Medicare Advantage, the private-health plan alternative to traditional Medicare, would be cut back more steeply than under the Senate bill: $132 billion over 10 years, compared to $118 billion.

The government currently pays the private plans an average of 14 percent more than traditional Medicare. The new bill, besides reducing payments overall, would shift the funding; some high-cost areas would be paid 5 percent below traditional Medicare, while some lower-cost areas would be paid 15 percent more than traditional Medicare. The Senate's plan that would have shielded some areas of the country such as South Florida from major cuts was largely eliminated.

A RAISE FOR DOCTORS: Primary care doctors would get a Medicaid payment boost in the reconciliation bill. Beginning in 2013 and 2014, the doctors' payment rates would be on par with Medicare rates, which typically are about 20 percent higher than Medicaid. The goal is to ensure that there will be a sufficient number of doctors willing to care for the millions of additional people who will become eligible for Medicaid under the health care overhaul.

PUSHING UP THE MEDICARE TAX: The Senate bill adds 0.9 percent to the Medicare payroll tax on earned income above $200,000 for individuals, or $250,000 for couples. Under the reconciliation bill, starting in 2013, people in those income brackets also would face a 3.8 percent tax on investment income, such as interest, capital gains and dividends.

PENALTY FOR NOT HAVING INSURANCE: Under the new bill, most Americans without insurance would face an annual penalty, starting in 2014 at $95 – the same as in the Senate bill. But in following years, the penalties in the reconciliation bill are slightly different. Those without insurance in 2016, for example, would pay the greater of two alternatives: A flat fee of $695, down from the Senate’s $750, or 2.5 percent of their income, up from 2 percent in the Senate bill.

EXPANDING MEDICAID: The reconciliation package differs from the Senate-passed bill in several ways. It would delete a provision dubbed the “Cornhusker kickback” that would have exempted Nebraska from paying any cost of a Medicaid expansion included in the bill. But it would provide full federal funding to all states for newly eligible Medicaid recipients for three years. And it would give additional funding to states like Vermont and Maine that have already moved to cover adults without children, which isn't required under the Medicaid program.

MEDICARE SPENDING BOARD: The Senate bill would create an independent, 15-member board to recommend ways to control Medicare spending. The board remains in the reconciliation package, but would be expected to produce just about half of its original projected savings of $23 billion in the Senate bill. That's because the new proposal would make greater cuts in Medicare Advantage plans.
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2010/March/18/Nine-Major-Changes-In-New-Health-Reform-Bill.aspx
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
NYC_SKP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-10 10:52 PM
Response to Original message
1. YaY! Another great post from you Emit!
I shall call off these hovercats:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flamingdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-19-10 01:28 AM
Response to Reply #1
5. wow!! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Emit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-19-10 07:27 PM
Response to Reply #1
7. I am mesmerized by those cats!
Very cool. I want a whole litter.

:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-10 11:18 PM
Response to Original message
2. Drug discounts? What controls the drug PRICES?
And the penalty for not having insurance means that the insurance companies can offer garbage and we're forced to take it and pay for it AND STILL DIE BECAUSE WE HAVE NO HEALTHCARE.

And $250 for people who pay that much for ONE DRUG monthly is not a lot of help.

Great bill. Really impressed with the improvements.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-19-10 12:54 AM
Response to Original message
3. Excellent news, actually, for once. Thanks for posting this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill_Segundo Donating Member (45 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-19-10 01:02 AM
Response to Original message
4.  I want to know what this means, I only have three days to understand
‘‘(II) the overall limitation under
2 subsection (b)(2).
3 ‘‘(ii) AGGREGATION.—In the case of
4 persons treated as 1 employer under sub5
paragraph (C)(i), only 1 reduction under
6 subclause (I) or (II) shall be allowed with
7 respect to such persons and such reduction
8 shall be allocated among such persons rat9
ably on the basis of the number of full10
time employees employed by each such per11
son.’’.
12 (b) APPLICABLE PAYMENT AMOUNT.—Section
13 4980H of such Code, as so added and amended, is amend14
ed—
15 (1) in the flush text following subsection
16 (c)(1)(B), by striking ‘‘400 percent of the applicable
17 payment amount’’ and inserting ‘‘an amount equal
18 to 1⁄12 of $3,000’’;
19 (2) in subsection (d)(1), by striking ‘‘$750’’
20 and inserting ‘‘$2,000’’; and
21 (3) in subsection (d)(5)(A), in the matter pre22
ceding clause (i), by striking ‘‘subsection (b)(2) and
23 (d)(1)’’ and inserting ‘‘subsection (b) and paragraph
24 (1)’’.
VerDate Nov 24 2008 12:44 Mar 18, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\TEMP\HCEARA_001.XML HOLCPC
March 18, 2010 (12:44 p.m.)
F:\P11\NHI\RECON3\HCEARA_001.XML
f:\VHLC\031810\031810.115.xml (463129|15)
11
1 (c) COUNTING PART-TIME WORKERS IN SETTING
2 THE THRESHOLD FOR EMPLOYER RESPONSIBILITY.—
3 Section 4980H(d)(2) of such Code, as so added and
4 amended and as amended by subsection (a), is amended
5 by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
6 ‘‘(E) FULL-TIME EQUIVALENTS TREATED
7 AS FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES.—Solely for pur8
poses of determining whether an employer is an
9 applicable large employer under this paragraph,
10 an employer shall, in addition to the number of
11 full-time employees for any month otherwise de12
termined, include for such month a number of
13 full-time employees determined by dividing the
14 aggregate number of hours of service of employ15
ees who are not full-time employees for the
16 month by 120.’’.
17 (d) ELIMINATING WAITING PERIOD ASSESSMENT.—
18 Section 4980H of such Code, as so added and amended
19 and as amended by the preceding subsections, is amended
20 by striking subsection (b) and redesignating subsections
21 (c), (d), and (e) as subsections (b), (c), and (d), respec22
tively.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-19-10 04:45 AM
Response to Original message
6. In other words, the bill will be useless to anyone not poor enough for Medicaid until 2014
No plans to help eligible people find doctors willing to see them, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Emit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-19-10 07:34 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. Expanding Medicaid will help many, but you are right to doubt there will be enough docs accepting
Edited on Fri Mar-19-10 07:35 PM by Emit
Medicaid, as many have stopped seeing Medicaid patients, just like with Medicare ~ my mother has experienced that first hand, but it's not as prevalent as with Medicaid.

But, from what I have read, the bill also seeks to increase funding of Medicaid, so maybe more docs will reverse their decision to turn patients away now:

REFORM BILL TO INCREASE MEDICAID PAYMENTS FOR PRIMARY CARE

This also should be a headline, especially in the medical community, but for some reason is not.

REFORM BILL TO INCREASE MEDICAID PAYMENTS FOR PRIMARY CARE
The provision, would, over several years, bring Medicaid payments for primary care services up to the Medicare rate (which is itself too low but generally far outstrips the paltry remuneration offered by Medicaid). I was a bit unsure whether this provision had made it into the final bill, but the CBO score (Title I, Subtitle B, Sec 1202 for those keeping track at home) seems to imply that it did.

Why is this important? Well, first of all, the problems Medicaid patients experience regarding limited access to care have been well-reported and are linked to reimbursement levels for physicians. Which is not a surprise: when the overhead cost for an office visit (meaning rent, staff salaries, malpractice insurance) exceeds the reimbursement, the practice takes a net loss on each Medicaid visit (and the physician is literally paying out of pocket for seeing the patient). So practices in state after state are either closing to new medicaid patients or refusing them entirely. If the compensation for at least some services rises to Medicare levels, more practices will open their doors to these patients.

~snip~
http://www.medpagetoday.com/Blogs/19130

edit to finish my thought, lol
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-20-10 01:00 AM
Response to Reply #8
11. My point was that Medicaid ALREADY EXISTS
There is not a goddamed thing "historical" about expanding it, which could have been done by revisiting the existing legislation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merkins Donating Member (309 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-19-10 10:31 PM
Response to Original message
9. Kaiser Health News?
yeah there's an unimpeachable news source.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Emit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-19-10 11:13 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. KHN is a program of the Kaiser Family Foundation, and is not Kaiser Permanente or Kaiser Industries
You can search all you want on it and you will see for yourself that it is a critical source of HCR, and has done good work, offering unbiased info. It is referenced reading on Bill Moyers: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/08282009/profile2.html

It passes the sniff test here on DU and is used by many sources who advocate public option and other more left-leaning HCR issues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 04:11 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC