Health Care II
I've made up my mind on the 2 big health care bills making their way through the legislature -- SB 34 (Patient Access Reform) and SB 61 (the IHC break-up bill, which has been substituted many times and had many different titles). I will vote against SB 34, if it gets to the floor (it won't). On SB 61, I will vote for a task force to study the issues, ONLY IF the current provision comes out that makes it illegal to own a hospital and a health insurance business (effective July 1, 2008). Let's study it, and, then, figure out what we might want to do.
I'm often asked, "Does constituent feedback affect your decisions." You bet. These two bills provide an example.
You can see in my February 11th entry that I had determined (partially as a result of meeting with informed constituents) that these issues should be studied. But, I was struggling to figure out whether we should put IHC in a box for the study (i.e., require the separation, but delay it) or leave it out of the box. The good commentary I received to that entry (comments posted below that entry and comments sent privately to my e-mail) and commentary over at The Daily Debate contributed greatly to my decision.
UPDATE (02/24): An anonymous commentator states below, "Obviously no one involved in this debate has taken economics 101. Spliting up the IHC monster would promote growth in the health care industry in Utah."
And deregulating California utilities, without adequate study, obviously would promote improved power delivery. Oh, wait a second.
I'm often asked, "Does constituent feedback affect your decisions." You bet. These two bills provide an example.
You can see in my February 11th entry that I had determined (partially as a result of meeting with informed constituents) that these issues should be studied. But, I was struggling to figure out whether we should put IHC in a box for the study (i.e., require the separation, but delay it) or leave it out of the box. The good commentary I received to that entry (comments posted below that entry and comments sent privately to my e-mail) and commentary over at The Daily Debate contributed greatly to my decision.
UPDATE (02/24): An anonymous commentator states below, "Obviously no one involved in this debate has taken economics 101. Spliting up the IHC monster would promote growth in the health care industry in Utah."
And deregulating California utilities, without adequate study, obviously would promote improved power delivery. Oh, wait a second.
posted by steve u. at 2/22/2005
Subscribe
8 Comments:
Steve-
It is encouraging to see that you have decided to vote against Bill 34 and Bill 61. As a sales representative of IHC Health Plans and numerous other health coverage products I am concerned at the lack of information that has been provided our Senators and Representatives in regards to Bill 34 and Bill 61. It appears that some of our state Representatives and Senators are putting the cart before the horse in regards to Bill 34 and Bill 61. I am convinced that a thorough study is necessary prior these bills ever being brought to the floor. Bill 34 and Bill 61 are perfect examples of where a Government Relations Council could be effectively formed and utilized. The council should be made up of State Senators and Representatives, IHC Officials, IHC Employees, Utah citizens insured by IHC Health Plans and those individuals who sell health care products for a living. The goal of the council should be to educate, inform, understand, and dissolve the misconceptions surrounding Bill 34 and Bill 61. After a thorough investigation of both sides of Bills 34 and 61 elected Senators and Representatives may then determine whether or not these bills are worthy of further discussion. As of today there is a lack of study, thought, and education in regards to Bills 34 and 61. Your consideration to my thoughts and comments is most appreciated.
Hmmm....
I wonder why we pass any bills. We should just form feel-good committees and study everything. I wonder how much IHC will be able to contribute to the objective lawmakers in the focus group.
(by the way, how does a non-profit lobby so much and pay for ads that don't even have their name on them and still keep the non-profit status? I thought non-profits couldn't lobby.)Once more we see that big money wins. How can anyone believe that limiting competion will help control costs? Obviously no one involved in this debate has taken economics 101. Spliting up the IHC monster would promote growth in the health care industry in Utah.
This issue won't go away. The only way it will get settled is to get the money out of the process. Congrats to IHC you bought/won round 1.
When election time comes around, I will look for reps that are action oriented.
Steve,
It is refreshing to know that there are some legilsators who take time to study both sides of the issues. As an insurance agent for employee health plans, I believe that Passage of Bill 34 and 61 would have serious repercussions on every person covered by medical insurance in Utah. The bills should not be pushed through to a vote without more study. As Kurt said, they should have been studied in committee before being brought to the floor. Legislators can't take at face value the claims made by citizens who "testify" for or against a bill. There are some startling facts that weren't disclosed by those who "testified" that they had to claim bankruptcy because of IHC's harsh billing practices. If legislators only knew or cared about the whole story. Perhaps people should be sworn in to tell the whole truth before appearing before the legislature. Idaho has a bill similar to Bill 34. Utah should study the impact it has had in the health care market. Providers found a way to get around "any willing provider" by forming independent physician groups. This makes it difficult for carriers to develop networks in Idaho. No network means no discounts which equates to higher medical costs. Regarding Bill 61, integrated health systems provide higher quality of care at less cost. IHC has proven that. Why break something that is working so well?
Isn't it funny that those that claim IHC isn't a monopoly say that these bills will "serious repercussions on every person covered by medical insurance." Actually, they will only affect those with IHC insurance. It would actually help everyone else. Utah has 3-4 major insurance companies, maybe that is the reason of increased costs. Maybe if we had 8-10 insurance companies and more hospitals that are not owned by IHC we would have better rates.
The logic against these bills is insane!!!
UPDATE (02/24): An anonymous commentator states below, "Obviously no one involved in this debate has taken economics 101. Splitting up the IHC monster would promote growth in the health care industry in Utah."
And deregulating California utilities, without adequate study, obviously would promote improved power delivery. Oh, wait a second.It wasn't the deregulation that caused the problems, it was crooked corporations. And by the way, deregulation is way different than breaking up a monopoly. Look what has happened to the long distance market since the break-up of Mabel. Just think what we would be paying today for gas if the government didn't break up Standard Oil.
Economic rules still say that more competition creates technology advances, better service, lower consumer prices, better market efficiency, more balance in supply and demand, etc.
Really, any freshman business student at the U of U could tell you how these forces work in the market. I don't understand why in such a conservative state we allow a dominant force in the health care industry. How can a bully be good for the industry?
I am sick (no pun intended) and tired about hearing that IHC is the number one integrated health care system in the US. Well, DUH! If you are the monopoly, you control the cash. No fair competition brings about a monopoly with the prevailing market share, and thus the most cash. Not to mention the fact that they don't pay taxes just adds to the mix. Just look at Microsoft, they are a monopoly, and they have billions in cash. Its not because they have the best operating system, its because they are the only operating system offered on more than 85% of new computers sold today.
Steve you live in St. George right? Where do you go for your hospital needs? Do you drive to the U of U health centers up north? Your only choice is IHC in St. George or IHC in Cedar City. You have to travel to Beaver or Kanab before you get a hospital owned by someone other than IHC. Someday you or someone you know will have a life threatening health issue and they will be taken to IHC whether they want to or not. That is no a choice. What happens if IHC decides to not allow any other insurance carrier to negotiate rates and that carrier doesn't contract with IHC. Well if you or your loved one has to go to IHC in St. George then they are going to pay big time.
There is not fair competition when it comes to health care in Utah.
You of all people should know that IHC doesn't even offer their cheapest plan in Washington County. The people that voted for you are paying higher premiums than those in say Salt Lake just because they live in Washington County. Does that seem fair to you? Why would IHC offer a cheaper plan in Washington County, they have no competition.
The fact of the matter is that this whole issue has nothing to do with what is right for Utah citizens and it has everything to do with money. The ones with more win, and we saw who won this issue.
Steve, just one more question. How can IHC as a non-profit lobby the legislator and pay for political ads. They did pay for an ad from supposed independent insurance agents and didn't even disclose that the ad was paid for by IHC. I understand they also did one for business owners. I was under the impression that non-profit companies could not be involved in the lobby and political campaign issues. Could you clear this up for me?
It's interesting that the writers of the majority of these anonymous comments are so unhappy about Utah's health care issues being studied. Do these anonymous writers fear study may disprove the myths and distortions which motivated the original SB 61 and SB 34?
No question IHC is imperfect. IHC is me and thousands of other women and men who find meaningful satisfaction working to offer the best health care we can. We believe this study is an opportunity for us to learn and improve. We may discover we need to do some things differently and if Utah health care is better off because of it, it will be worth it. I also believe the factual foundation which supports our efforts to defeat the orginal bills will withstand scrutiny.
Health care is not the same as other industries. That's one reason why the study of economics doesn't end with course 101. Health care is complex, heavily regulated, and personal. Impartial national experts recognize this. The Federal Trade Commission's several-thousand-page study compiled in July 2004 does express concern and a need for competition in health care. It also clearly advises legislatures NOT to pass any willing provider/freedom of choice type laws as states which have them have higher health care costs and a greater number of uninsured -- see pdf pages 274-276 in the on-line report. Read it online at ftc.gov/reports/healthcare/040723healthcarerpt.pdf (type www in the browser address as including links in a comment on this site seem to prevent posting). The FTC report shows legislation like SB 34 actually reduces competition because it eliminates small panel health plans products.
Monopolies exist to drive up costs so greater profits may be pocketed. If IHC were a monopoly, IHC rates would be higher than everybody else's because the large "captive membership" would "have" to pay them. Data from national research (Kaiser) lists Utah lowest in the nation in terms of health care expenditures and hospital costs. Charges at IHC hospitals are 17% less than at non-IHC Utah hospitals. Utah insurance premiums are 7th to the least expensive in the nation. I know, the anonymous team quotes different statistics. That's another great reason these nameless writers should be thrilled about study. Somebody's data isn't right. Whose?
I'm grateful to fair-minded legislators that it looks like Utahans will have an opportunity to find out. Thank you, Steve, for your commitment to vote "NO" on SB 34 and "YES" on SB 61, Subtitute 5.
Steve,
I have appreciated the dialogue that your site has enabled on a number of issues. I think it is absolutely correct to take the time and effort to study healthcare issues and even to review how the state's only integrated healthcare system does things. It is important to know what effect we'll feel in Utah if we break them up, tax them more than they are already taxed (yes, IHC does pay some taxes), or limiting IHC Health Plans' (and all other insurers in Utah) ability to control costs through effective contracting and differently-sized provider panels.
Any reasonable, consumer-minded, econ 101 (102, 201,202) "graduate" would certainly want to do a little investigation prior to taking such drastic action against ANY company providing service to so many citizens.
I think all interested people and parties stand to learn something in this task force process. I sure hope all the antagonists of IHC are open minded enough to consider all the facts as IHC opens their books. IHC is guaranteed to be listening, as their very mission and existance as an integrated system is at stake.
I have been fascinated to learn more about the process of legislation. It appears we all need to pay more attention. It's amazing to have read in a comment above that someone actually thought IHC couldn't lobby. Wow. Someone needs to take Poly Sci 101.
And what about IHC running ads to get its message out? Isn't that freedom of speech? Why, as a not-for-profit, should IHC not be able to have a voice?
I'm glad they do. I'm glad they had hundreds of supportive, independent insurance agents who cared enough about this legislation to allow their names to be used. I'm glad businesses and their key representatives gave their time and allowed their names to be used to get the message out --that SB 61 as worded until the final 5th substitute, would harm Utahans. And more than just 450,000. That may take an upper division class in Healthcare Finance for folks to understand, but hopefully we'll get it during the task force!
Thanks, Rep. Urquhart for your great efforts in this and other "debates".
-Jon Pike
IHC sure has free speech, just wondering why they didn't let Utah know they paid for the ads? What was there to hide? I can't imagine why any insurance agent wouldn't support IHC...they make their living off the commissions they get from IHC's insurance.
<< Home