EzraKlein Archive | The American Prospect

Feeds: Articles | Issues


	TAPPED \| Beat the Press

SUBSCRIBE | LOGIN

Current Issue

Download the PDF

The

symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.

Momma said wonk you out

« EXTREMELY TRUE STOCK MARKET COMMENTARY. | Main | IS THIS ALL ABOUT CBO? »

DOCUMENT DUMP: THE BIG HEALTH CARE LETTER.

All this fuss over one little letter. I've got the full document for download here. And the early reports are true. It's signed by the presidents of Pharma, Advamed (device manufacturers), the American Medical Association (doctors), the American Hospital Association, America's Health Insurance Plans, and SEIU's Health Care project. It promises that "we will do our part to achieve your Administration’s goal of decreasing by 1.5 percentage points the annual health care spending growth rate—saving $2 trillion or more." It says that "we are developing consensus proposals to reduce the rate of increase in future health and insurance costs through changes made in all sectors of the health care system." And it gives some general areas of agreement:

• Implementing proposals in all sectors of the health care system, focusing on administrative simplification, standardization, and transparency that supports effective markets;

• Reducing over-use and under-use of health care by aligning quality and efficiency incentives among providers across the continuum of care so that physicians, hospitals, and other health care providers are encouraged and enabled to work together towards the highest standards of quality and efficiency;

• Encouraging coordinated care, both in the public and private sectors, and adherence to evidence-based best practices and therapies that reduce hospitalization, manage chronic disease more efficiently and effectively, and implement proven clinical prevention strategies; and,

• Reducing the cost of doing business by addressing cost drivers in each sector and through common sense improvements in care delivery models, health information technology, workforce deployment and development, and regulatory reforms.

Devil, details, etc. I'm looking forward to reading those consensus proposals. And one more thing: A source who I generally trust and who has deep knowledge of these conversations says that she is more confident that a public plan will be included now than she was 48 hours ago. So take that for what it's worth.

Posted by Ezra Klein on May 11, 2009 12:18 PM | Permalink

COMMENTS (38)

"Paranoia runs deep. Into your mind it will creep"
(Buffalo Springfield, 1960's)

Next up: Mr. President, we'll do all this with self-regulation because government oversight will prevent the innovation needed to achieve these goals.
(The Health Care Industry Zombie)

/snark

Posted by: JimPortlandOR | May 11, 2009 12:32 PM

A source who I generally trust

Hmmm. Administration source? Congressional source? Think-thank/Dc-type source?

Aren't there journalistic standards on anonymous sourcing?

You're walking a fine line with this blog thing-- this feels a lot like the Administration trying to offer up a bone to the left who may not be as thrilled with the whole Obama/AHIP photo op going on right now.

I love the info, but something doesn't feel right to me... your sources are much less on the record to start. This feels like it either crosses or is very close to the line.

Posted by: wisewon | May 11, 2009 12:34 PM

Shorter letter from PHARMA, et. alia:

"Dear American: We're going to @ss-rape you again--only this time, to protect those of you who are alergic to lates, we're going to do it without a condom."

Posted by: Jamey | May 11, 2009 1:02 PM

Shorter letter from PHARMA, et. alia:

"Dear American: We're going to @ss-rape you again--only this time, to protect those of you who are alergic to latex, we're going to do it without a condom."

Posted by: Jamey | May 11, 2009 1:03 PM

Jamey: was better with lates allergy than latex.... :-)

Posted by: JimPortlandOR | May 11, 2009 1:10 PM

Is it possible that Pharma is figuring that even though universal healthcare will reduce the per-dose prices they can charge for medicine in the US, the larger customer base will more than make up the difference? I'm not sure how to do the calculation.

Posted by: Galen | May 11, 2009 1:15 PM

we will do our part to achieve your Administration’s goal of decreasing by 1.5 percentage points the annual health care spending growth rate

My insurance company just banked 17 years of 1.5% cost cuts by upping my monthly payment by 30%. These voluntary savings are not the worth the paper they are written on.

Posted by: ndm | May 11, 2009 1:25 PM

Jim:

Better "Lates" than clever?

Posted by: Jamey | May 11, 2009 2:03 PM

Quotes of anonymous sources with no justification are "worth" exactly nothing, Ezra.

For god's sake Stop wasting your readers' time with that crap.

Posted by: roberto | May 11, 2009 3:11 PM

Please join me in writing to whitehouse.gov with details from Ezra's original post. Here's what I wrote:

HEALTHCARE: saying one thing and doing another on CER - doublespeak is cheap

Ezra Klein:

"This is one of those moments when new words are being used to drown out ongoing actions. A major source of potential savings, at least in the administration's estimation, will come from comparative effectiveness review. But the pharmaceutical industry and the device industry -- both of which are represented here -- fought violently against CER when the Obama administration sought to include it in the stimulus. By the end, they had managed to win legislative language stating that comparative effectiveness studies wouldn't include cost-effectiveness and wouldn't be used to make coverage decisions. Another source of potential savings is the public plan, which can marry best practices with federal bargaining power to push down costs. The insurance industry has gone to war against this provision.

What we have, in other words, are promises of future cost containment that exist alongside concrete and continued opposition to the cost containment ideas that are actually on the table. And for good reason. A 1.5 percentage point decrease in health spending is a 1.5 percentage point decrease in medical industry profits. This commitment doesn't contain any examples of concessions that will reduce a participant's revenue streams. Conversely, every time legislators have proposed a reform that will actually cut industry profits -- and thus cut health spending -- the industry has howled in pain and anger. It's hard to sync that with promises to cut spending by $2 trillion over the next 10 years by implementing a set of unspecified reforms."

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=05&year=2009&base_name=is_the_health_care_industry_on

George W. Bush gave us 8 years to learn Orwellian doublespeak and we're quite fluent by now.

Stop playing games with these crooks and give us the public option you promised as the fundamental basis of your campaign.

Posted by: obsessed | May 11, 2009 3:21 PM

I agree with Atrios -- buy 'em out. Should cost only a few hundred billion, and it'd be money better spent than on Wall Street...

Posted by: jairoi | May 11, 2009 6:38 PM

Yes it is true.

Posted by: sesli chat | June 7, 2009 4:07 AM

i agree with u.. its an amazing blog.. thanks for sharing with us...

___________________
Jessica
Get 28 movie channels for 3 months free

Posted by: jessica | July 14, 2009 1:16 AM

kenan