Wednesday, May 31, 2017

CanuckCare in Crisis

Last we looked, our Neighbors to the North© had some serious problems with their national health "care" scheme:

"Euthanasia became legal in Canada in June and by December Quebec bioethicists had already published an article in the Journal of Medical Ethics calling for organ donation after euthanasia."

How lovely. But certainly things have progressed and they're no longer in such a bind, right?


[Hat Tip: IP4PI‏]

Interesting STM Solution

Regular readers know that, effective April 1st, the maximum amount of time for which a given short term medical plan may stay in effect is 3 months. This poses a number of challenges to folks who, for whatever reason, are between Open Enrollment periods and find themselves uninsured.

When the gummint, in its infinite wisdom, unceremoniously (and frankly, of dubious legality) announced that no plans could extend past three months, these folks had a problem. Previously, they could have bought a 9 month plan, paid it monthly until they no longer needed it, and been relatively okay: although these plans don't cover pre-existing conditions, if something new cropped up during the term of the plan it'd be covered.

Now, though, they'd have to buy a new plan for month 4, and if something happened during months 1 through 3, they were outta luck.

Which is a quandary, indeed.

Yesterday, though, I got an email from the "General Agent Center" touting a plan offering up to 9 months of short term coverage. Intrigued, I called to see how they could do this. Turns out, they have a very interesting set-up: one buys (up to) four 3-month policies (payable monthly). The first one, of course, covers no pre-existing conditions. At the end of each 3-month term, the deductible and co-insurance "reset," but any health issues arising after issue are covered during successive periods.

So, for example, if one had a heart attack in week three of the first "duration," it wouldn't be considered pre-existing (and thus excluded) in durations 2 or 3 or 4. There would be new deductibles to meet, but I'm guessing these are a miniscule fraction of the ICU costs.

Outside-the-bun solution, no?

Tuesday, May 30, 2017

More ACA Anecdata

Another in a continuing series on the impact of ObamaCare on the lives of ordinary citizens:

Sally and Dave are longtime clients, with a Grandmothered plan boasting a $5,000 per person deductible, then 100% after that for covered expenses. The family max out-of-pocket is $10,000, and the plan is built on the PPO model (which means they have coverage both in and out of network). They're in their late 50's, and in good health.

Their current plan renews in a few months, and will be going up some 15%, from $680 to about $790. As usual, I went out to the site to do some comparison shopping. The least expensive plan I could find ran a little over $900,with a $6500 deductible, and a max out of pocket of just over $14,000.

So they could spend an additional $1,200 for a plan with 40% higher exposure.

On the other hand, it does cover birth control.

Oh, and they shouldn't feel too awful about that 15% rate hike. As FoIB Holly R notes:

"Premiums for individual health plans doubled between 2013 and 2017"

Such a deal!

More #ACAWinning, BX-style

Another day, another Blue Cross blues story.

Or rather, a couple BX blues stories:

■ Not to run up the score, but about that "if you like your plan, you can keep it" promise?

Well, FoIB Holly R has some sad news:

"Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City ... just announced that -- everyone, put on your shocked faces --  it's withdrawing from Obamacare."

Of course, if you lose north of $100 million over the previous 3 years, this shouldn't be a surprise.

■ And FoIB Jeff M alerts us that:

"Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina announced that it has filed for a 22.9 percent rate increase"

Seeing as how they're the only statewide carrier, seems like that may, in fact, be a bargain.

A major factor in the amount of the increase is the cutting off of CSR (cost-sharing reduction); that is, the Feds are shutting off the flow of that sweet, sweet slush fund carrier-subsidy fund. Which, contrary to conventional wisdom (ie The MFM), as always been the plan.

Oh, well.

Friday, May 26, 2017


The world is coming to an end! According to CBO (cough, cough) by 2026, 23 million people will lose insurance as Obamacare is "dismantled". This is the headline reverberating through the MSM echo chamber.

The reality is something very different than what is being portrayed. Here are four reasons why the CBO score is flawed.

Baseline Data

Under CBO rules the only way to determine the impact of a new law is to compare it to the data presented under current law. The baseline that was used in calculating the impact of AHCA was from 2016. At that time CBO projected that this year there would be 15 million people enrolled in exchanges. Actual plan election - not paid enrollment - for 2017 was 12.2 million. History shows that 10% never pay a premium giving a conservative true paid enrollment at 11 million.

What this means for the AHCA score is that CBO is assuming 4 million more people starting out with insurance than the actual number.

Medicaid Expansion Assumption

Another significant figure is the number of people who will lose Medicaid. There are 31 states plus DC who have expanded Medicaid. Without a doubt killing the expansion over the course of a few years will decrease the number of people eligible in these states. But, with no changes to Medicaid funding prior to 2020 why would any state that has expanded coverage elect to kill the program early? I highly doubt any of them will.

Using the logic that no state will turn away the Federal matching funds for their expansion, the question becomes why does the AHCA have 6 million people dropped from the Medicaid rolls before 2020? The answer is, AHCA's CBO score includes the potential enrollment from the 19 states that "could" expand their Medicaid rules.

Defining Insurance

Under Obamacare the definition of good insurance is set by the government. CBO, in it's infinite wisdom, thinks that they know what good insurance is too. So much so that they have set their own parameters in the scoring. In their estimation "a few million people" would buy policies that don't meet their definition of having "sufficient financial protection". Never mind that it might be what the consumer wants.

While CBO doesn't actually define what constitutes insurance in the score, they insinuate that some states will cut or reduce the number of essential health benefits and cause out-of-pocket limits to rise. Suffice it to say it's amazing that they can't give us this definition yet count a few million people as uninsured because of this definition.

Who Doesn't Want It

Finally, the CBO score doesn't tell us who doesn't want to buy insurance. Without a mandate any number of people might simply say no thanks. These people aren't losing insurance, they simply don't want it.

Does it Matter?

Take the 4 million baseline error plus 6 million Medicaid error plus a few million with "bad insurance" and add in an unknown amount who don't want insurance and the CBO scoring model just doesn't add up. The echo chamber will say it does and many will fall in line with the narrative. But, reality is this CBO score doesn't matter.

At the end of all the political gamesmanship and shouting matches AHCA will not pass. Not because of a fictitious number people losing insurance. Not because of pre-existing conditions. Not because of funding cuts. Definitely not because Obamacare is working.

It will fail because just like Obamacare it focuses on the effect and not the cause.

Outside the bun insurance

So, got a call the other day from one of our (numerous) long-term P&C clients asking for some help with a life policy. I'd met with her a few years ago to review it, and now she had some additional questions.

As requested, she brought with her the policy and as much documentation as she could.

In a nutshell:

This is a Variable Universal Life policy (basically a UL with mutual fund-like cash accumulation options). It's for a sizable amount on the life of her ex (I believe as part of the divorce settlement). There had been a pretty significant cash accumulation, but the policy is already looking to go upside-down in a half dozen or so years. Still, there's currently about $60,000 in cash surrender value.

After I explained all this, we discussed her needs and concerns; she's trying to determine whether or not to keep it until it fails or cash it in now. She asked me what I would do, and I of course demurred. But she persisted, and I told her that, based on our discussion, I thought she would do well to consider something called a Single Premium Immediate Annuity.

Briefly: these are plans, sold by insurance companies, that pay out a constant stream of income payable for the rest of her life. There are some tax issues, but in her case they'd be pretty insignificant, and she asked me to get her some numbers.

After receiving and reviewing  quotes from several carriers, I called her to discuss them. She was elated, and asked when we could get together to make this happen.

What's so fun about cases like this is the opportunity to look at different types of plans to find effective solutions based on what our clients need and want. It's a lot of fun, actually, and I'm pleased as punch that we can help her out.

Thursday, May 25, 2017

Premier Health fires back

Last we looked, local healthcare behemoth Premier health and health insurance biggie UHC had parted ways:

"As of yesterday (April 30), folks with either individual or group medical plans from UHC are no longer able to receive services at Premier Health facilities at negotiated rates"

This was significant because a lot of folks in this area count on Premier Health doc's and hospitals for health-related services. The stated roadblock was (no surprise) cost-related. Earlier, UHC had claimed that "Premier is one of the most expensive health systems in Southwestern Ohio." On the one hand, that doesn't really say a lot: after all, you (generally) get what you pay for. On the other hand, of course, carriers are always on the lookout for cost-savings opportunities (NTTAWWT).

Anyway, we promised to keep our readers "in the loop," and the other day we received a letter from Premier stating their case. It's addressed to business owners, but the general points are applicable to pretty much all local UHC insureds. Here are some hightlights (full document available for download here):

"We are writing out of concern for recent events that have left Premier Health out-of-network with UnitedHealthcare ... Premier Health has done everything it can on behalf of our patients."

Okay, but if it's "all about the Benjamins," then what's your argument?


"Premier Health works to fulfill its nonprofit mission ... We serve more than 60 percent of the region's adult patients who are covered by Medicaid."


Now, I have no inherent objection to charitable care, but I'm already paying for Medicaid through my taxes. I see no reason to further subsidize it by paying more for my own health insurance. After all, Gov Kasich (among others) welcomed Medicaid expansion with open arms, further exacerbating the problem. Premier's argument seems to be heartstring-pulling, not sound financial acumen and planning.

Gonna have to do better, Ms Boosalis.

Wednesday, May 24, 2017

Breaking: BX Bails

Remember that running gag about how "if you like your plan, you can keep it?"

Well, if you're in either the Sunflower or Show-Me States, the joke's on you:

"Blue Cross pulls out of Obamacare markets in Kansas, Missouri ... the insurer says it has lost more than $100 million on Obamacare."

Imagine that.

Now, almost 70,000 BX insureds, both on and off the Exchange, will be kicked off their plans next year.

But hey, I'm sure there'll be lots of other choices...

[Hat Tip: FoIB Holly R]

Pirate's Bounty

Johnny Depp has made a fortune playing a variety of roles. By one account he has raked in $650 million over the last 13 years. A very talented and versatile actor playing everything from the Lone Rangers faithful sidekick Tonto,  a mascara wearing pirate, and Donald Trump when he was just a regular millionaire but not (yet) living in taxpayer subsidized housing.

By almost anyone's standards, $650 million is a lot of money. Enough to buy a dozen plus houses, estates and at least one island, plus a yacht. That's a lot of scratch but not very liquid.

And therein lies the problem.

the star could have blown $66,000 every day across that peak earnings period and still ended up with close to $100 million in the bank.
Instead, he owes the IRS money and is going to need to make tough career choices if he wants to keep the houses he’s already bought, much less buy more. - Trust Advisor
But the former Edward Scissorhands is not alone. Other famous people have had similar issues.

Nic Cage learned about 10 years ago after a similar hot streak left him upside down on about $100 million in ultra-high-end real estate and no cash to make the payments.
He put his entire net worth into a single asset class, leveraged up, and then lost it all when the market froze and he couldn’t find an exit at any price.
Now he’s living in a Las Vegas condo taking every role he’s offered in order to rebuild his fortune. Those movies are at best hit or miss, but when you’re working for volume instead of quality, your professional reputation takes a dive.
So what you may say? The average Joe isn't earning $66,000 per day and many are living paycheck to paycheck. But there are plenty of small business owners who have almost all their assets tied up in their business.

A business that probably isn't liquid.

A business that is profitable, but only while the owner is alive and actively involved in the day to day operation.

Business owners along with regular guys and gals often leave behind heirs who rely on the income to maintain their lifestyle. And most of these folks also have debt, some of which may be passed on to those who are left behind.

Financial advisors encourage clients to save for retirement. Create a nest egg so you can enjoy your later years.

Great idea as long as the egg is liquid and not subject to market fluctuations.

A solid estate plan should address not only wealth accumulation but liquidity, debts and income for heirs. Life insurance that will be in place as long as it is needed is the least expensive way of creating liquidity along with a tax-free cash inheritance.

You may not be rich and famous but you probably have some planning to do. Right now would be a good time to start. Talk to an insurance agent that specializes in estate planning concerns. You will not regret it.


#EstateLiquidity #EstatePlanning #LifeInsurance

Tuesday, May 23, 2017

ACA Anecdata, anti-Kimmel Style

We've been hearing a lot of stories lately from folks who ostensibly benefited from ObamaCare, but what about those "left behind?" Surely their lives matter, too?

"My husband would’ve died with Obamacare ... In April of 2008, my husband, Doug, suffered a massive heart attack."

To be sure, this could have happened in 2017, as well. But that it happened in '08 was auspicious:

"Doctors and nurses worked through the night to get Doug’s heart pumping ... That was just step one in a long medical process."

Okay, Henry, we get it, a medical miracle happened, and the family's insurance did what it was designed to do: shielded them from financial ruin.

So what?

Here's what:

"Had Obamacare been the law of the land in early 2008, my husband probably would’ve died. And even if he didn’t, we probably would’ve had thousands and thousands of more dollars in medical expenses than we did."

How does she know this?

"[P]ost-Obamacare, the ongoing health needs of my husband cost thousands of dollars more in deductibles and copays than we ever paid in the freer market."


[Title corrected - Thanks, FoIB Bernie F!]

Pre-Existing Tuesday Morning

Many pixels have been spilled about how horrible it would be for those with per-existing conditions were ObamaCare to be repealed. There may or may not be much merit in that argument, but it neglects to address a more fundamental question:

How has ObamaCare been for those with these conditions?

To hear proponents tell it, O'Care has been a godsend for those with serious pre-existing conditions, offering a much improved experience vice pre-ACA days. But is this really true?

Well, we already know that O'Care has an actual body count, but is that a string enough argument agin it, at least insofar as those pesky pre-ex situations are concerned?

Turns out, not so much.

First, H H Manning alerts us to this excellent piece from Linda Gorman (director of health care policy at the Independence Institute, a free market think tank based in Denver):

"ObamaCare has failed patients with pre-existing conditions ... Estimates suggest that less than one percent of all people covered by private insurance have medically uninsurable conditions that would make them ineligible for medically underwritten coverage." [emphasis added]

Bingo. So we throw out the baby's insurance with the bath water. But that's not really the best part of this article. That would be this:

"The fact that so few policy makers have any actual experience with the individual insurance markets they want to regulate makes them particularly susceptible to snake oil salesmen with an agenda."

And I think "so few" is being far too generous: Congress boasts about a dozen or so doctors, yet there seems to be exactly zero insurance agents. Now, I don't believe that it's strictly necessary that only insurance agents get to vote on insurance-related matters (in that case, there was ever only 1 person who could have voted on NASA). But I do think it speaks volumes about the fact that no one there has actually been in the trenches, sitting down with moms and dad's and business owners, and thus able to offer insights and solutions that might actually, you know, work.

And by the way, if you still think that ObamaCare has been such a panacea for those very few uninsurables, well, Dean Clancy tips us to this insightful post from uber-wonk John Goodman, who actually co-wrote it with one of those aforementioned insurance agents:

"Obamacare’s destruction of the individual health insurance market has done enormous damage to the lives and finances of millions of people who  purchase their own insurance."

Go on...

"Mandated health coverage is now the second most expensive item in many household budgets  ... only about 10 percent of them were previously uninsured"

So, fewer carriers, more expense, very few first-time buyers.

Sure smells like #Winning, no?

Monday, May 22, 2017

1,000 Words on Single Payer

Graphically illustrated:

[click to embiggen]

[Courtesy FoIB Allison B]

A Risky Climb, Covered

[Courtesy Beazly A&H]

Friday, May 19, 2017

Odds & Ends

Last time we discussed medical tourism, it was to lament the increasing price of financing it:

"The cost of international private medical insurance is climbing globally, with an inflation rate of 9.2 percent reported for 2016."

Now FoIB Holly R tips us that a popular tourist destination has gotten serious about offering reasonably priced care:

"Jamaica, like other developing nations before it, is trying to boost its economy by wooing “medical tourists” to fly in for an inexpensive knee replacement or nose job."

No word on whether that includes complimentary Red Stripes.

From the Two Steps Back Department:

"Health insurance gains stalled last year ... 28.6 million people were uninsured last year, unchanged from 2015"

Wait a darned minute there, fella!

Weren't we told - repeatedly - that ObamaCare was going to ensure that everyone would have health insurance? In fact, it requires that they do.

How to square this circle?

And further proof, as if it's needed, that the push to insure everyone has bottomed out, FoIB Jeff M alerts us that:

"Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina has confirmed it is laying off 165 customer service representatives."

As we've previously reported, Tar Heel State BX is the only game in town, er, state. And, as Jeff notes, "if you don't have much b usiness, or competition, you don't really need lots of folks in customer service."

After all, where are they gonna go?

Thursday, May 18, 2017

#ACAWinning Update

■ Remember when we were told, over and over again, how ObamaCare would "cure" the problem of so many uninsured Americans? And that it was "for the children?"

Turns out - and you'll want to sit down for this - not so much:

"The percentage of Americans under 65 who had private health coverage fell in 2016, and the percentage of low-income children who had no health coverage at all rose sharply."

That's right: people lost their health insurance as a direct result of the ACA. Of course, their lives don't matter.

On the other hand, a lot of previously-insured middle income folks with private health insurance lost both: adults earning 100-200% of the FPL saw their private insurance go away, replaced with Medicaid.

Oh, and this line:

"That reduced their uninsured rate to 23.2%, from 24.1%"

Is garbage: Medicaid insurance.

One reason for the slowdown may well be agents (such as yours truly) who've decided to sit out Open Enrollment altogether. Now, the Rocket Surgeons in DC© seem to have figured out that most folks don't buy insurance, they're sold it. So the Feds are allowing "web broker entities that meet CMS data security standards" to enroll folks directly, bypassing the notorious security sinkhole.

Unfortunately. our good friend Allison Bell, in a rare misstep, gets it completely wrong:

"[H]ealth insurance agents and brokers may get to play a much bigger role in selling exchange plan coverage."

Um, no:

"web broker entities" "health insurance agents and brokers" This is a direct hit on agents in favor of large, faceless web brokerage outfits.


Simply Irresistible

Blogging on the latest from the DC Rocket Surgeons©. Effective mid-June, new rules from the folks at CMS go into effect, two of which stand out as (unintentionally?) hilarious.

First, the issue of "Guaranteed Availability;" according to our friends at Cornerstone:

"CMS is changing its interpretation of the guaranteed availability requirement to allow insurers to apply a premium payment to an individual’s past debt owed for coverage from the prior 12 months before applying the payment toward a new enrollment."

This is in response to "anecdotal examples" of folks gaming the system by paying a few months' premiums and then "letting it ride." The upshot was that untold numbers of folks were able to then hop back on board during the next Open Enrollment with zero consequence.

Weird that no one thought of this before....

The second change that caught my eye was changes the bureauweenies are making to "give insurers greater flexibility in creating lower cost plans, in an effort to attract younger and healthier enrollees." They're called "Actuarial Value Requirements," and they're not exactly new to regular readers.
Yeah, good luck with that fellas. ProTip: it's not the plans, it's the EHB's and lack of underwriting. Until you can get to truly catastrophic-type plans, you're merely rearranging deck chairs.

But DC's gonna DC.

A *Yuuuge* Health Wonk Review

Our favorite Health Care Economist, Jason Shafrin, makes his hosting debut with this week's round-up of health care punditry, from Repeal/Replace/Refresh to swamp-draining, it's just simply the best, believe me.

Wednesday, May 17, 2017

High Risk Pools, a lousy idea...

So, as Congress talks about bringing back high-risk pools, I thought people should see what one looks like.  Here's a link to California's 2010 version...

Key Highlights:
  $75,000 Annual Max
  $750,000 Lifetime Maximum
  Limited number of spots for potential insureds, with substantial waiting lists

In 2010 in California, normal underwritten policies had no dollar benefit caps, could not be individually repriced because of adverse health events, could not be cancelled except for non-payment and were substantially cheaper.

Politely speaking, high-risk plans were better than nothing, but not by much.  You get seriously ill and they were pretty f'ing worthless. 

My suggestion?  Keep everything in place as-is, and add  Federally funded, taxpayer supported, reinsurance for big ($1M?) claims.  The risk pool idea was tried and failed.


SHOP's a Flop

CMS is changing the way small businesses can buy insurance through SHOP Exchanges. Left leaning health care "reporters" are crying foul claiming that the Trump Administation is trying to dismantle or "effectively end" the program. While these claims are nothing more than fake news aimed at placing blame on the opposition, maybe the government should take a look at killing it.

The SHOP Exchange was created to provide employers with less than 50 employees an easy to use process to enroll employees in group health insurance. The big carrot at the end what that if you had a small number of low wage employees there was a chance you could receive a tax credit. It was such a great option for small businesses that CBO estimated SHOP's would have 4,600,000 people covered by now.

If only it was as "simple" as it sounds. Turns out SHOP enrollment is extremely cumbersome, there are less plan options compared to the off exchange market, and that tax credit, well it hasn't been worthwhile for most employers. Plus it's only available for a maximum of two years.

Couple that with Obama screwing his own law by allowing Grandmothered Plans and what you've got is a high cost, low volume platform destined to fail.

The Federal SHOP has a paltry 38,749 people covered. State based SHOP exchanges have fared better with about 193,949 enrolled. While enrollment is higher, part of that comes from the DC health link which forces employers to use the chassis. As of 2017  64,805 where enrolled through DC Link. Of this amount Congress and staffers represent about 11,000 people. A second state, Vermont, also forces employers to use their exchange and has 46,099 enrolled.

So when not forced or illegally enrolled (Congress is NOT a small business) total enrollment into SHOP exchanges is 121,794.

Less than 3% of projected enrollment. That is why SHOP should be dropped.

Missed it by *THAT* much

As regular readers know, I'm a big fan of Health Savings Accounts (HSA's). And of course I'm far from alone; in fact, uber-wonk Michael Cannon (among others) has been proposing expanding their availability as a (partial?) cure for ObamaCare. Unfortunately, these plans may best be characterized as "necessary, but insufficient."


Here's an example from the Dallas News, from a recent article titled "This little health care funding mechanism could solve our big crisis." In it, Kevin Simmons (an economics professor at Austin College) walks us through the political processes that have brought us to where we sit now, and then segues to how HSA's could help:

"One provision could create common ground: health saving accounts. The idea is simple; you deposit money tax-free into an account and that money is available for medical expenses ... use of HSAs could be opened up to people on all insurance plans, not just those with high deductibles."


First, Kevin, I applaud your willingness to explore new economic models, and am glad to have you aboard the "HSA wagon." But (and you just knew there'd be a "but"): nowhere in that 700+ word article do we see the term "catastrophic." Now, why is that important? Well, the premise of HSA's is that one has enough cash left over after having paid one's insurance premium (or not; more on that in a moment) to actually have shekels enough to contribute to the account. As long as we have to pay for birth control and maternity (and all the other EHB nonsense, let alone pre-ex coverage and no underwriting), very few people are actually in this boat. So you're proposing to expand something most folks can't afford in the first place.

(By the by, why not allow DPC subscription fees to be HSA-eligible?)

And riddle me this: why does the HSA have to be tied to owning any insurance plan? What if I'd like to completely self-insure? No one seems to be asking (let alone answering) that one.

If I sound frustrated, it's because I am: I would really like to see either full repeal or, failing that, some kind of carve-out for truly catastrophic plans exempt from EHB's, etc. Such would be an acceptable start, anyway.

Okay, rant over.

(For now)

Tuesday, May 16, 2017

And then there was one, South Carolina style

[click to embiggen]

This Sceptered Isle - Part CDLIV

When politics has managed to exceed 51% of the decision-making in medical care:

"NHS nurses with dementia should be allowed to carry on working, according to the profession’s top body."

Apparently the Royal College of Nursing has already adopted this rule in its own staff, experienced no noticeable affect on its work, and now proposes to extend the concept to clinical patient care.

O Brave New World that hath such people in't.

Monday, May 15, 2017

Breaking: Premier is out‽ Premier is out‽

We recently reported that local hospital chain Premier Health and insurance giant United Healthcare had reached an impasse in their on-going negotiations to lock down a new contract:

"As of yesterday (April 30), folks with either individual or group medical plans from UHC are no longer able to receive services at Premier Health facilities at negotiated rates"

At the time, most of us were still hopeful that things would, as these things usually do, work out.

Alas, that's not going to be the case here (at least for a while). This just in from UHC:

"Premier Health Network Participation Not Renewed

We have an important update about our negotiations with Premier Health Network and their participation in our network. Premier has decided to not renew its participation for employer-sponsored, individual and Medicaid plans, which means its hospitals and physicians are no longer in-network for commercial and Medicaid health plans as of May 14, 2017."

As usual, cost was the driving factor, as Premier continues to be a leader (for certain values of "lead") in high-end health care pricing.

There is, however, some good news to be had:

■ They've "reached an agreement to extend Medicare Advantage plans for Premier facilities and physicians" through year's end, and

■ "Continuity of Care may be available to any individuals" undergoing certain kinds of care (eg oncological, etc) at Premier facilities at in-network pricing for a limited time.

As always, we'll keep our readers in the loop if/as things develop.

Coffee saves lives: It's science!

Last week, it was wine's propensity for reducing the risk of Alzheimer's. This week, we learn that our morning cuppa may have an even more profound effect on our lives. Namely, the saving thereof:

"You actually would die without your coffee, research says"

Now waitaminute there, Henry, that's a might bold statement to make (SWIDT?). Sure you can back it up, or is this just weak tea?

Well, since you insist on pressing the issue:

"Research the world over is confirming that drinking coffee keeps you alive ... To get the health benefits of coffee, you have to drink it like you mean it."

Just let that percolate a moment. What does "like you mean it" supposed to mean?


"Drinking three to five cups of coffee per day gives you a longer life"

And for us men-folk, "[t]hree cups of Italian-style espresso per day cuts the risk of prostate cancer in half."

So, 6+ cups a day to live a long, healthy life?

That just drips with irony.

1,000 words on health insurance

[Hat Tip: Healthcareonomics‏]

Friday, May 12, 2017

Hopeful Alzheimer's News

We last blogged on Alzheimer's treatments about a year or so ago, with this unlikely news:

"Maple syrup isn't just delicious, it could also cure Alzheimer's disease"

Blueberries made an appearance, too.

Fast forward to now, and we learn about promising research being done in Israel :

"A protein dubbed SIRT6 is almost completely absent in Alzheimer’s disease patients and this deficiency likely contributes to its onset"

Using mouse as human stand-ins, researchers are trying to lock this connection down.


RELATED: From the folks at PowerLine blog, we learn that:

"The brain scans showed the somms had developed thicker and more robust areas of the brain that deal with olfactory and memory response. In turn, the researchers concluded that studying wine might help lower the risk of Alzheimer’s disease."

It's science!

Thursday, May 11, 2017

Aetna out. Who’s still in? Anyone? Anyone?

Aetna blamed ‘marketplace structural issues’ that have led to health care co-op failures, exits by health insurers and a deteriorating risk pool leaving behind sicker, poorer people that lead to higher insurance rates.

It's not like Aetna hasn't been warning of doing exactly this, and for pretty much the same reasons, for months - many months, years even.   

As just one example of numerous media articles still on the web, here's an article more than a year old:

In this article, the author cites Aetna's view that State Obamacare Exchanges "set standard deductibles, copays and other benefits, forcing insurers to compete more directly on price".

So let’s follow the logic.

In order to compete on price, scale is essential. “Scale” is business shorthand that means reducing unit cost by spreading overall costs over a larger base.  Aetna needed a much larger base than its own individual policy enrollment in Obamacare Exchanges. To achieve such scale, Aetna went looking for a willing merger partner. That willing partner turned out to be Humana. When the government blocked that path there was no way forward for Aetna to achieve the scale it still believes it needs to compete on price. That is, without the additional Humana enrollment Aetna alone cannot grow in any market by enough to achieve the competitive pricing it needs. Worse, uncompetitive prices mean Aetna will inevitably lose the enrollment it has, losing gobs of money along the way, even in places where it may have earned small margins up to now.  Aetna has decided its only realistic alternative is to withdraw completely from Obamacare Exchanges.

BTW, Aetna’s current Obamacare Exchange enrollment is about 255,000, down from a peak of just under 1 million when Aetna participated in 15 States.  By contrast, Aetna reports total enrollment for medical coverage overall of just over 23 million Americans, virtually all group plans.

Also keep in mind this wider perspective: the essence of a functioning economy is the meeting of willing buyers and willing sellers. Under Obamacare, the government created unwilling sellers - Aetna is not the only insurer bailing out - and unwilling buyers, too.  The government has meanwhile done virtually nothing to address the underlying problem all along - the high cost of delivering medical care in the US.  How could the People of Smart like Jonathan Gruber, Ezekiel Emanuel, and The Fair Nancy Pelosi ever allow this to happen?

That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it.