Saturday, March 7, 2009

News Clipping Archives

 

Monday / Reigonal

---

National / International

Even Now, Health Care Adds Jobs (Wall Street Journal)

Consensus bid could be derailed by health overhaul (Washington Post)

Opinion

A Start on Health Care Reform (New York Times)

 
Maryland / Regional

 

___

 

 

National / International

 

Even Now, Health Care Adds Jobs

 

Wall Street Journal

Saturday, March 7, 2009

 

Employment figures for February are out today, and the numbers are a horror show: The economy lost some 651,000 jobs during the month. But health care added some 27,000 jobs.

 

In all, the U.S. economy has lost some 2.6 million jobs since in the past four months, according to the seasonally adjusted figures in the non-farm payroll report. During that time, health care has added a little more than 100,000 jobs. That’s a small percentage gain, given that the total number of jobs is about 13.5 million. But, these days, any gain at all is pretty astonishing.

 

The Health Blog knew there was a reason all those people who lived through the depression kept telling us to go to medical school back in the day.

 

The number of people on the payroll increased in categories including physician offices, hospitals, home health services, and nursing homes. Read the numbers for yourself in this table.

 

Still, it’s not rosy everywhere. As we noted this morning, even some hospitals and clinics are laying people off.

 

Copyright 2008 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

 

Consensus bid could be derailed by health overhaul

 

Associated Press

By Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar

Washington Post

Saturday, March 7, 2009

 

WASHINGTON -- The search for agreement on health care may be short lived.

 

The flashpoint is a proposal that would give Americans the option of buying medical coverage through a government plan. President Barack Obama and many Democrats have endorsed it, as one part of a broader health overhaul. On Saturday, Republicans laid down a challenge.

 

"I'm concerned that if the government steps in, it will eventually push out the private health care plans millions of Americans enjoy today," Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., said in the Republican weekly radio address.

 

Blunt, who will play a leading role in the debate, warned: "This could cause your employer to simply stop offering coverage, hoping the government will pick up the slack."

 

The proposal he referred to would, for the first time, offer government-sponsored coverage to middle-class families, as an alternative to private health plans. By some estimates, it could reduce premiums by 20 percent or more - making it much more affordable to cover the estimated 48 million people who don't have health coverage.

 

It could also be a deal breaker for broad, bipartisan agreement on health care.

 

Insurers fear competition from a government plan could drive them out of business, and Republicans worry it would lead to a government takeover of health care. Liberals, meanwhile, are equally adamant that Americans deserve the choice of government-sponsored health care.

 

"The purpose of health care reform is to make sure all Americans have health care, not to promote the insurance industry," said Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., who serves on a House panel that will help write the legislation.

 

The new government coverage could be similar to what seniors have in Medicare, which is run directly from Washington. Or it might be designed like the federal employee health plan, available to members of Congress, and delivered through private insurers.

 

Asked at the White House health care summit this week about the brewing controversy, the president promised to address the qualms felt by some. But he did not abandon the notion of a government plan.

 

"I'm not going to respond definitively," Obama said, answering a question from Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa. "The thinking on the public option has been that it gives consumers more choices and it helps ... keep the private sector honest, because there's some competition out there.

 

"I recognize, though, the fear that if a public option is run through Washington, and there are incentives to try to tamp down costs ... that private insurance plans might end up feeling overwhelmed."

 

Obama says he is committed to preserving a health care system in which government, employers and individuals share responsibility. Many Americans may not realize the government already picks up nearly half the nation's $2.4 trillion health care bill, through programs including Medicare and Medicaid.

 

A public plan for the middle class could give a final nudge that puts the system firmly in government hands.

 

Obama's campaign proposal - a foundation for Democrats in Congress - called for setting up a national insurance marketplace through which individuals and small businesses could buy coverage. People could pick private insurance or opt for a government plan that would resemble coverage for federal employees.

 

A recent analysis by the Commonwealth Fund, a nonprofit group that sponsors health care research, is giving supporters of a public plan some ammunition.

 

The study estimated costs and coverage under a hypothetical health reform plan similar to what Obama proposed in the campaign. It found that a public plan like Medicare could reduce projected health care costs by about $2 trillion over an 11-year period. Premiums in the public plan would be at least 20 percent lower, partly because of reduced administrative costs. Within a decade or so, some 105 million people would be in the public plan, compared with about 107 million with private insurance.

 

Commonwealth Fund President Karen Davis said the administration has been very interested in the study. "Some of their top economists are on the phone, poring over it," she said in an interview.

 

Democrats say they will fight to ensure a public plan stays in the final bill.

 

On the Net:

http://www.whitehouse.gov

 

© 2009 The Associated Press.

 

Opinion

 

A Start on Health Care Reform

 

New York Times Editorial

Saturday, March 7, 2009

 

President Obama has shown both courage and sound judgment pressing for quick action on comprehensive health care reform, even in the midst of the country’s deep economic crisis. He has rightly stressed the urgency of reining in skyrocketing health care costs that are straining the budgets of families, businesses, and federal and state governments.

 

But his proposals, for all of their ambition, do not fully answer two central questions: how to cover tens of millions of uninsured Americans, and how to reform the health care system to reduce costs and improve the quality of care.

 

Mr. Obama has decided to let Congress thrash out the details of those issues, with the White House providing guidance along the way. Democratic leaders in Congress, many of whom are far more versed in the issues than the president is, will have to step up and fashion an effective bill. If they falter, Mr. Obama will need to step in with a clear vision and vigorous leadership.

 

To his credit, the president has tackled the first tough issue of how to pay for expanded coverage and systemic reforms. His budget has proposed huge expenditures — $634 billion over 10 years — as a down payment, and it clearly specifies where to find the money.

 

Half would come from raising taxes on the rich, another quarter from eliminating unjustified subsidies for private plans that participate in Medicare, and other big chunks from reducing payments to drug companies, hospitals and the home health care industry.

 

Yet even the administration admits that $634 billion will not be enough to reach universal coverage: some experts think it will take at least twice that amount.

 

The administration has also given no clue as to how it will significantly reduce the number of uninsured Americans — now 46 million and growing. The expanded children’s health insurance program, which Mr. Obama signed into law early last month, will cover more than four million uninsured children, and his stimulus bill will help millions more Americans retain or gain coverage. But this, too, is only a down payment on the problem.

 

The president’s main focus is on starting to reduce the soaring cost of health care. That, he argues, is a prerequisite to making universal coverage affordable and politically palatable. But in the meantime, many millions of uninsured Americans continue to go without adequate care. Congress will need to look hard at whether bigger strides can be made toward universal coverage at the same time that costs are addressed.

 

The president’s plans make a start toward reforming the health care delivery system, but it is only a start. His stimulus program is pouring money into electronic medical records, preventive care and comparative effectiveness studies of medical treatments — all of which should help improve care and possibly lower costs in the long run. His budget plan calls for Medicare to change its reimbursement rates for hospitals to promote higher quality, greater efficiency and substantial savings.

 

All told, the changes are projected to cut the growth rate in Medicare spending — from 7.3 percent a year to 6.1 percent in the fifth year. That looks like a modest reduction for now, but when compounded over many decades, it could greatly reduce projected Medicare expenditures by midcentury. Since Medicare policies often ripple through the entire health care system, overall health expenditures should slow.

 

Meanwhile, the administration has deliberately ducked some of the most contentious issues. There is no mention of requiring individuals to carry health insurance on themselves or their children. No mention of requiring employers to pay for coverage. No mention of having a public plan compete with private plans in a national insurance exchange. No discussion of whether employee health benefits should be taxed. No talk of requiring insurers to cover all applicants. No mention of government negotiating Medicare drug prices.

 

The White House has obviously decided that it is best to let Congress work out the compromises and decide how to allocate the pain. That is the opposite of the Clinton administration’s approach. It hatched a highly detailed plan in secret that never won Congressional support and crashed under a barrage of opposition from affected industries.

 

We do not challenge Mr. Obama’s political instincts. We simply note that someone will need to make the hard choices if health care reform and universal coverage are to succeed.

 

Copyright 2009 New York Times.

---

BACK TO TOP