|
 |
4/7/2008
Jack Lohman: What do smoking ban and Healthy WI have in common?
Money! And lots of it. Special interests are taking money from one business and giving it to another, and some business associations are benefitting.
When I originally wrote about how a smoke free Wisconsin makes financial sense for the hospitality industry, I argued that tobacco industry money given to tavern associations can have a telling impact on the messages they send to their members, even if false.
In virtually every state that has implemented a 100% ban on smoking in bars and restaurants, revenues either remained the same or increased. New York reported 10,000 new restaurant jobs a year after its statewide ban went into effect, surely not the sign of a failed policy.
But that’s not the message Phillip Morris wants to send, so they pay big dollars to send a different one. They are interested in tobacco profits, not tavern profits, thus they contribute money to restaurant and tavern leagues across the country so they serve as their front groups to block reform. And they also give cash to politicians to influence the passing or blocking of laws. I bet that’s a surprise.
So here we have it. Just as Phillip Morris relied on the associations to misinform their members, it’s not much different as the insurance industry penetrates the business associations. Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce and other chambers of commerce not only have insurance companies and their sales brokers as members, some actually sell employee health plans to its corporate members.
That’s not a revenue source many associations would want to lose, especially if it supports their salaries.
However, let’s consider what’s in the best interest of their members. Restaurant operators eventually got smart and demanded that their association back a statewide smoking ban, which they now do. Tavern owners are getting smarter as well, if they aren’t already there.
But WMC and other associations have not supported Healthy Wisconsin. Businessmen that should be objectively studying Healthy Wisconsin have instead accepted the advice of their association’s so-called “health experts,” even against their own best interest.
One small business association even has as their health care “expert” a representative from the insurance industry, who is unlikely to support the elimination of his industry’s involvement in the insurance bureaucracy that unnecessarily drains 31% of healthcare costs.
Healthy Wisconsin will replace most corporation’s insurance premiums that are now costing 15% of wages, with a state-wide single-payer system costing just 10.5% of wages. That’s a 4.5% savings in anybody’s book.
And Healthy Wisconsin leaves the current private health care delivery system in place, allows physician choice, and guarantees coverage even through job changes. It’s better than Canada and avoids their wait times, but those are details the opponents ignore. Business leaders, where ar e your calculators?
HW is the best thing that could happen to Wisconsin’s business climate, and WMC should support it. Would we have lost the national bowling association and 200 jobs to Texas with a Healthy Wisconsin in place? Would we be at risk of losing Miller Brewery to Colorado?
I’d argue NO in both cases, but the campaign money from the insurance industry and business associations has made a major impact in blocking its passage, and it is especially egregious in the Assembly.
That should tell us something about our corrupt political system. It’s got to go. If we don’t have public financing of campaigns by November, the politicians must be replaced, starting with the assembly Republicans that are blocking reform.
Jack Lohman is a retired business owner who blogs via “Moneyed Politicians” and authors a regular e-newsletter focused on campaign and health care reform. His views, though thought-provoking and interesting, do not reflect the views of FoxPolitics.net.
COMMENTS
Jo -
Why do you continue to give Jack space on your blog?
The big money behind Healthy Wisconsin comes from a variety for liberal groups including the Unions, Citizen Action, Families USA and a host of unsavory left-wingers like George Soros.
The big money behind the SmokeFreeWisconsin campaign comes from even more leftwingers hiding behind a bunch of "do-gooder" organizations.
Unfortunately, Jack doesn't give a rip about the leftwing money. All of that is good because it supports his narrow and wrong-headed agenda.
Jack has only one-note and it is flat.
JackFreeWisconsin (Mon Apr 07 12:12:46 2008)
It’s too bad that -- whoever this anonymous person(?) is -- s/he doesn’t have the capacity to present a well thought out rebuttal rather than simply trashing left wingers. Most right-wingers have more moxie than that.
But for your sane readers, I am employed by none of the above groups. I support some but not all of their causes. I don’t have a dog in this race.
But as a former business owner – and one with enough intelligence to project consequences – I can assure you that our system is going to get a lot worse before it gets better.
You can be sure of one thing: if the politicians were not being paid off by the health and insurance industries to retain the status quo, our medical system would be fixed virtually overnight.
That left wingers and right wingers -- alike -- are willing to let the moneyed interests have their way with them, I find to be a bit astounding.
Jack Lohman (Mon Apr 07 15:02:53 2008)
One thing I appreciate about Jack is that he is a free thinker, and he doesn't let a knee-jerk label thrown at him, or at an idea, dissuade him from using his analytical mind.
With regards to the content of his article, I think that (assuming the figures of 15 percent and 10.5 percent are correct, and assuming these are average Wisconsin employer health care costs) the reduction in health care costs that are currently paid by employers would be thirty percent. The reduction in total payroll costs would indeed be 4.5 percent, while actually improving the effective benefits enjoyed by Wisconsin workers, without reducing wages.
At least that's what my calculator says.
It wouldn't hurt most of us to look a bit carefully under the surface, rather than immediately jump to one end of the field on each and every issue that arises, and point and shout at the other end of the field.
clyde winter (Mon Apr 07 16:26:32 2008)
So Jack and Clyde, the question that continues to need addressing is how does Jack's system control the out of control costs of health care? [It doesn't.] How will it control utilization? How will it bring the cost of health care down? The cost of health care - not the cost of health insurance...
Jo E. (Mon Apr 07 17:44:40)
I am sure Jack will say competition, but I think it will be price controls. Look what is happening in Mass. I know their plan is a bit different, but they already are going to raise premiums and are talking about cutting physician reimbursements.
There needs to be more of an incentive for providers to cut waste, and for us users to appropriately use physician and hospital services. For example, I was told of a patient that was in the hospital and was scheduled to have an MRI and then be released. However, the patient complained of a headache and refused the MRI and therefore stayed an extra day in the hospital. $6,300 wasted. I know this is a small example, but there are many more examples of waste from both sides. HW, I do not believe addresses any of these issues. It is just a financing vehicle, controlled by a qausi-governmental body.
John P (Mon Apr 07 18:15:06 2008)
Jack:
Regarding the smoking ban, since the last time I checked, smoking was legal, why should the government have the right to ban it in a private business? If you do not like to enter an establishment that allows smoking, then you know what, do not go there.
I am not a smoker, and I do not like being in a bar/rest. that is really smoky, but it is my choice to be there and my choice to walk out.
If there was a large demand for some free bar and rest, why are they not all over the place?
John P (Mon Apr 07 18:21:47 2008)
Not assigning responsibility to the patient for overutilization is malarkey Jack. Because we have no clue what health care is costing us, the vast majority believe it is our right to receive any and all treatments/diagnostics that might possibly be helpful for our particular condition.
I don't buy your 31% either Jack. When you completely eliminate the risk analyzer (Oh, I know - no more risk, everyone is treated the same, unconditional coverage and all of that) and the administrator and a market arbiter, and???, how are you going to get those functions done?
Jo E. (Mon Apr 07 19:09:19)
There is no one magic bullet, Jo. Eliminating the biggest waste, the 31% of unnecessary middleman insurance costs, is an excellent start. Much more must be done and they can be done simultaneously (if the politicians have the will). See here. Overutilization and fraud, hospital overbuilding, hospital-physician conflicts of interest, physician self-referral conflicts of interest, eliminating clinic cash cows and much more, is also needed.
But don’t underestimate the “cost of health insurance.” That 31% includes broker commissions, actuarial costs, costs for cherry-picking and gatekeeping, high executive salaries and the ever-rising shareholder profits. Even the insurer’s high costs for lobbying and campaign contributions to politicians that were passed on to the patient are eliminated under Healthy Wisconsin. Plus excessive billing staff at hospitals and clinics.
Our problem, of course, is getting over the well-greased political decision makers.
Jack Lohman (Mon Apr 07 18:35:29 2008)
And Jo, let me add that "utilization" is a problem caused mostly by physicians ordering tests that they make a lot of money on, and only about 20% can be attributed to inappropriate patient demand. Most patients do not look forward to sitting in the doctor's office.
There's another price to be paid by ordering unnecessary tests, and that's exposing the patient to unnecessary risks that themselves could add costs later on.
Jack Lohman (Mon Apr 07 18:50:21 2008)
Jack:
I find it funny, that in not one case, do you find any fault with the health care user? Blame the provider. I always find it amusing, that someone who is not a doctor or a nurse, thinks they know how to solve the problems with health care. Not all doctors are money grubbing people Jack. Many of your so-called fixes would be a tremendous mistake. I have no problem with hospitals employing physicians, as long as they do not have to admit to that hospital. I do not know any doctors that order tests for their patients to just pad their pockets. Some of your ideas are really out there.
John P (Mon Apr 07 19:30:47 2008)
No, John, I won’t say competition because it isn’t. There is no such thing as competition in health care. And we already have price controls, both through Medicare and the private insurers that have gotten smarter over the years.
What we don’t have is control of physician overutilization when they’ve invested in an expensive echocardiograph and making their monthly payments depends on how many times they use the system. It is very easy to check someone’s pulse and say “Oops, you need an echo! I’ve got a slot open next week.” You can’t provide an incentive to cut waste when waste is more profitable.
Massachusetts is a good example of “mandates.” We need to get rid of the insurance bureaucracy, not mandate that everybody pay into it.
The smoking issue is simply about providing a workplace that does not kill employees. Tobacco is legal today only by historical accident, and hundreds of millions of campaign dollars. Isn’t politics great?
Jack Lohman (Mon Apr 07 19:43:30 2008)
Jo, the patient is not totally clean in this, but profit-making equipment is the bigger culprit. A doctor can easily say “look, patient, the tests have risks and you don’t need it.” But they are not inclined to do that if profits are at stake. Physicians should not be allowed to self-refer to their own labs.
On the 31% waste, see here Quote:
The United States has the most bureaucratic health care system in the world. Over 31% of every health care dollar goes to paperwork, overhead, CEO salaries, profits, and other non-clinical costs. Because the U.S. does not have a system that serves everyone and instead has over 1,500 different insurance plans, each with their own marketing, paperwork, enrollment, premiums, rules, and regulations, our insurance system is both extremely complex and fragmented. The Medicare program operates with just 3% overhead, compared to 15% to 25% overhead at a typical HMO. It is not necessary to have a huge bureaucracy to decide who gets care and what care they get, if and when everyone is covered and has the same comprehensive benefits. With a universal health care system we would be able to cut our bureaucratic burden in half and save nearly $150 billion per year.
But if you want more sources, Harvard published the number in the New England Journal of Medicine and I can track that down too.
Jack Lohman (Mon Apr 07 20:01:08 2008)
Jack, I'm tiring of your echocardiograph example - you've used it once too often for me.
My 18 year-old son had a seizure yesterday afternoon (he's controllable with meds, but ran into some problems); we spent the afternoon and evening in a very slow-moving emergency room. Because we've done this before, we know the routine. This time Pete fell when unconscious and sustained a very large contusion on his forehead. We asked for an ice pack and got it. Then the P.A. (or R.N., I don't know his title) told us the attending physician might want to order a cat-scan. We'd already said no to an (VERY expensive) EEG, as it's been done recently. We said if the scan is really needed, ok, we of course would agree to it. But we want to hear from the M.D. before it's ordered - and want to thoroughly understand other options (like 24-hour observation, for example).
That's not because we don't care for our son's health - of course not. It's because we are very aware of medical costs, have relatively high medical costs year to year and work hard to be responsible consumers of health care.
If more people in this country of uninformed health care users knew more about the costs incurred when a test is just ordered for the heck of it, they would and should ALWAYS question their doctor.
It's called the market Jack. It's called personal responsibility. It's called one's checkbook. Not just the checkbook of some benevolent bill-payer in the sky. I've heard about your echocardiograph machines one time too many.
Jo E. (Mon Apr 07 20:31:32)
On the 31% number:
Costs of Health Care Administration in the United States and Canada (Steffie Woolhandler, M.D., M.P.H., Terry Campbell, M.H.A., and David U. Himmelstein, M.D.) (by New England Journal of Medicine and www.pnhp.org)
In 1999, health administration costs totaled at least $294.3 billion in the United States, or $1,059 per capita, as compared with $307 per capita in Canada. After exclusions, administration accounted for 31.0 percent of health care expenditures in the United States and 16.7 percent of health care expenditures in Canada. Canada’s national health insurance program had overhead of 1.3 percent; the overhead among Canada’s private insurers was higher than that in the United States (13.2 percent vs. 11.7 percent). Providers’ administrative costs were far lower in Canada. Between 1969 and 1999, the share of the U.S. health care labor force accounted for by administrative workers grew from 18.2 percent to 27.3 percent. In Canada, it grew from 16.0 percent in 1971 to 19.1 percent in 1996. (Both nations’ figures exclude insurance-industry personnel.)
Also:
With its decades of data, Dartmouth [Medical School] has exposed the incredible waste in the U.S. health-care system. Sizing up the evidence, Wennberg estimates that up to one-third of the over $2 trillion that we now spend annually on health care is squandered on unnecessary hospitalizations; unneeded and often redundant tests; unproven treatments; over-priced, cutting-edge drugs; devices no better than the less expensive products they replaced; and end-of-life care that brings neither comfort nor cure.
See “The State of the Nation’s Health.”
Jack Lohman (Mon Apr 07 20:35:19)
John, I have never said the patient has zero blame. Please see my response to Jo. I’ve always blamed them for 20% of the overutilization. I’m not a doctor or nurse, but I employed nurses for 25 years and worked with doctors for 35 years, even had some as consultants. Most are very good in this area, but some are horrendously bad.
Are you telling me that physicians who are employed by hospitals are never pressured to get bed utilization up, or lab testing up, or are paid a “production bonus?” There was a day when physicians provided oversight of the hospitals, and now they are their employers. You cannot paint this as anything other than a conflict of interest.
You do not know any doctors that order tests for their patients to just pad their pockets? A McKinsey study found that physicians that had an ownership in the lab equipment were up to eight times more likely to order tests than were physicians who had no such ownership. I’ll try to find that document, but in the meantime I've provided other links that demonstrate the same.
Jack Lohman (Mon Apr 07 20:59:39 2008)
Sorry Jo, cardiology was my field and echocardiography was a part of that. But I can give you examples of overuse of Holters, stress tests, EKGs, cardiac event monitoring, pacemaker transmissions, or stress tests. Which do you prefer? And if you prefer none of those, then follow the links I provided and hear it from the doctors instead.
And why did you avoid this very expensive EEG? There could have been important changes that you now don't know about. You’re a very responsible consumers of health care. Why didn’t you price shop?
Jo, the point I’m making is that I don’t care how good you are or think you are, your questioning your doctor and keeping him gun shy because you're “watching over him,” may someday backfire and you or one of your loved ones will get hurt. I’d rather that we eliminate the financial conflicts of interest and let doctors be doctors.
And it’s not the "market," Jo. CEOs deal with markets; doctors deal with patients. And you best hope it stays that way.
Jack Lohman (Mon Apr 07 21:21:45 2008)
You've gone too far Jack. My husband and I constantly price shop. We also know (much better than you) that our son does NOT need an EEG every other second. Price shop? Ok, so I price shop. So an EEG costs $2,000 instead of $3,000. Do you want to pay for it?
You are suggesting that we Americans are too dumb to monitor, question our own health care. And not only are we too dumb, but apparently the government is smarter than we. And the doctors can't be questioned, just as any other purveyor of services?
Too far Jack. You've gone too far.
Jo E. (Mon Apr 07 21:32:15)
Jo, most people (that I know, anyway) do not seek out the lowest bidder in health care. They look for the highest in quality, though under our current system even that is hard to determine.
But low price can indicate a physician that is not very popular and has lowered his fees to attract those who price shop. Or it can represent a hospital that is underutilized because of high infection rates or low in technology.
But as “consumers” in the “market,” Jo, you and your husband have that right. Go for it!
And when one hospital offers a cheaper heart scan, find out whether it is because theirs is a 16-slice scanner and the other is a 32- or 64-slice scanner. Or one’s technology is five years older than the other’s. And then go to the web and do your research.
Yes, Jo. I’m saying that 95% of the public are not educated enough in all fields of medicine to second-guess their physicians.
Be careful here too. Excellent bedside manners does not necessarily mean a good physician, and the best doctor could have zero personality. But go for it! It's a free market.
Oh, sorry, I used another cardiac test as an example. Please rename that to whatever you are more comfortable with.
Jack Lohman (Mon Apr 07 22:05:56 2008)
Damn it Jack. The American people are not stupid! The medical community is working toward transparency in all the areas you mentioned - quality standards, quality rankings, experience, costs (of course), caretake ratings by patients, etc., etc.
Damn it, damn it. You have exposed your bias. Keep us all barefoot, pregnant, stupid and out in the sticks; doctor and the govenrment know best. You're wrong Jack. Just plain wrong. I - and the rest of the country, once we are educated - and not nannied to death - will make good health care choices.
Jo E. (Mon Apr 07 22:13:35)
Clearly, Jo, you consider yourself qualified. I hope you are right and don't make mistakes when they really count.
But having had direct contact with thousands of patients over the last quarter century, I will stick with my "bias." The vast majority cannot and should not make major medical decisions. The world is not ready for the "consumer medical system" that you envision.
Jack Lohman (Mon Apr 07 22:30:39 2008)
I just got home from Senator Erpenbach's presentation on his (un) Healthy Wisconsin proposal. One question ... why is health care insurance the govt's responsibility? As Larry Sobel pointed out in yesterday's PC, we are incredibly unhealthy people largely by choice. We drink too much, smoke too much, eat too much junk/fast food, talk on cell phones while we drive, abort babies we don't want, fund unnecessary vaccines, and don't get enough exercise. We overmedicate because it's easier to pop a pill than it is to deal with pain. So, why should the govt pick up the tab?
Here's a thought. How about if we incentivize wellness! Every American who registers gets $2,500/year put into a health care account. If you don't spend it you can elect to keep the cash, or leave it in your account to be used for future healthcare needs or retirement. Seems to me consumers might start asking about costs upfront and taking better care of themselves.
There is no easy answer here ... but the blame ought to be shared equally between consumers, doctors, insurance providers, pharmaceutical companies, the media and government.
I took my mom to the doctor a couple weeks ago for a med check. She has a lot of pain in her legs and muscle weakness. She falls and doesn't get hurt, but can't get up. So my sister and I did the research and found that several of her drugs contradicted each other. The doc reviewed our chart and agreed to take her off two of the five medications she's on. (Ya think he might have researched the meds before he prescribed them!?) Last week she got a statement indicating the 15 minute appt cost $186! And he even took a phone call in the middle of it! What am I missing?
Thanks for addressing this issue Jo. Keep up the good work!
Jane Frantz (Mon Apr 07 22:35:13 2008)
Yes, and Medicare is so much more efficient... been there, heard that.
Health care is bad in Canada, if you are sick.
Your 31% number includes a lot of inflated data and taxes.
Keep trying Jack.
JackFreeWisconsin (Tue Apr 08 01:21:38 2008)
Jane, there are some things that are best dealt with by pooling resources and paying for them through taxes. Roads, fire and police protection, and health administration are just a few. Remember that all hospitals and doctors remain private corporations under the HW system. They just send their bill to HW rather than one of the 450 insurance companies in the state.
Yes, people need to consume better foods, beginning with yours truly. But let’s not cloud the issue.
This is an issue of doing what is most efficient to save as many lives as possible. And to ensure that people who have lost their jobs are not at the mercy of the highly profitable insurance industry. Given the choice, I’d rather have my doctor calling the shots than some insurance CEO that is looking to increase his profits and salary and stock options.
The problem with putting $2500/year into a health care account, which is essentially a health savings account, is that people then do exactly what the plans are designed to do: they avoid doctors. Until their disease is more costly to treat or becomes untreatable.
My wife stayed away when she had a bad cold, and when it turned to pneumonia she finally went in. And she has 100% Medicare/Gap coverage!
Of course, had she simply died she would have saved the system a lot of money.
HSAs only delay the inevitable.
And now, some hospitals are demanding cash up front for elective surgeries by HSA patients. They want to make sure that the patient pays the bill before they perform their work.
See here and here.
Jack Lohman (Tue Apr 08 06:41:12 2008)
Yeah, Canada is pretty bad. Dead people all over the place. But 85% of Canadians still prefer their system over ours, even with their wait times. Only 5% prefer our system, and these are the moneyed interests that are trying to break into the system.
The Canadian “system” is superb, but it is underfunded. They spend half what we do “per patient,” 10% of GDP versus our 16% of GDP. Healthy Wisconsin is a similar structure with proper funding and no wait times.
You can usually tell how close you are to doing the right thing by looking at the special interest monies you’ve aroused. Yes, there are some WI citizens whose ideology falls on both sides of this issue, but the major opposition is from the insurance and hospital industry.
Even 59% of physicians nationally support a single payer system (64% in MN). Those not in the health insurance industry are leaning more and more toward a single payer system.
Nonetheless, HW is NOT a Canadian system. Ours is properly funded.
On Canada, see here.
On the 31%, believe what you want. But some pretty strong players support the numbers. Except the insurance industry. They’d have us believe that the 5% increase per year in medical costs is the sole reason for insurance for their premiums increasing by over 100% since 2000.
See growth chart here
Jack Lohman (Tue Apr 08 06:44:34 2008)
Jack ...
Cloud the issue? Um, what about each one of us taking responsibility for our own lives instead of relying on the govt to do so? Which brings me back to my original question ... why is it up to the govt to fund health care in the first place? Employers offered it as way to attrack employees post WWII. It has since become an entitlement.
I'm not worried about people dying all over the place. We're far too self-absorbed to allow that to happen. It may take a little while for people to catch on to the fact that how they live directly impacts how they feel, but eventually they'll catch on.
And as far as having to pay in advance for elective surgeries, that's a fabulous idea. Most elective surgeries are vanity procedures anyway. If you can afford them to begin with, pay up front.
Now I'll cloud the issue ... some (not all) of the same principles apply with our "addiction" to oil. Consumers need to consume less and the system will correct. It has to. Yes, it will take time, but the longer we allow ourselves to be misled by the govt, docs, insurance companies, pharmaceuticals and other special interests, the worse the situation will get. I'm (sick and) tired of funding other people's inability to take responsibility for their own life. I'm all for helping the indigent and unemployed in their time of need, but let's make it the exception instead of the rule.
Health care, like govt, is out of control. Yes, I agree, a single payor system makes sense administratively. It's how we fund it, and what we fund with it, that I'm most concerned about.
Like mandating bogus vaccines and feeding our teenaged girls birth controls so they can do whatever they "feel" like because it's a "free" country. Sure, they can. I just don't want to pay for it. But their parents can if they want to. Assuming they know their kids are sexually active and are okay with that too. But I digress, and cloud the issue even further. Except, you know what, it's really the heart of the issue ... self-control. Most of us have none. We want what we want and we want it now, no matter how much it costs or who pays for it ... until we hear the words "higher taxes." By then, it's usually too late.
Jane Frantz (Tue Apr 08 08:35:36 2008)
Yes, Jane, there are many things that people can do to reduce their chances of needing health care, but even if they did things perfectly they have no control over genetic diseases, contagious diseases, accidents, or the biggest of all, losing your job and health care coverage.
And with our politicians giving away our national assets on a daily basis, those jobs are going fast.
Yes, we could have three systems. One for good guys, one for bad guys, and another for those in the middle who usually do everything right but got caught by happenstance.
Or we could just say “everybody fend for yourselves.” You can’t ask for a better system of personal responsibility than that.
Or, we could do it in a way that – I think – is in the best interest of the country, and then move on to solving our much greater problems with the nation’s economy and well being. That the special interests have managed to trash the nation’s economy should be of great concern to all. It should also tell you where health care is heading if they win this argument.
How would we fund single-payer? I’ve suggested that we allow corporations to opt into the Medicare system. If Medicare is superior they will win more corporations than the privates, and vice versa. But WPS in Madison has not bitten on the idea. And they may not because it would compete with their for-profit side of the business.
But I object to corporations funding health care in the first place. It should be funded by taxpayers. And good corporations should not even pay taxes
Jack Lohman (Tue Apr 08 10:33:54 2008)
Jack Said:
"The smoking issue is simply about providing a workplace that does not kill employees. Tobacco is legal today only by historical accident, and hundreds of millions of campaign dollars. Isn’t politics great?"
Sorry Jack. That is called FREEDOM, not Politics. It is a shame that you are oblivious to the difference.
Daniel Braun (Wed Apr 09 12:47:44 2008)
Oh, okay, and owners should have the "freedom" to serve tainted food and water? Why not?
My point is that were we not to have Philip Morris money involved and health insurance money involved, these issues would be addressed overnight. But our political system thrives on special interest money.
Jack Lohman (Thu Apr 10 00:01:01 2008)
There is much to like about Healthy Wisconsin.
Under Healthy Wisconsin on day one everyone is eligible (persons on Medicare, Medicaid and Badger Care would remain in those programs).
Healthy Wisconsin is affordable with workers paying 4% of their wages (4% of about the first $100,000 in income).
Under Healthy Wisconsin there are no exclusions for preexisting conditions and persons with preexisting conditions can not be charged higher premiums.
Healthy Wisconsin members select their primary care doctor.
The Healthy Wisconsin benefit package is very comprehensive. It covers mental illness the same as any other illness.
Healthy Wisconsin drastically reduces administrative complexity for members, providers and payers.
Healthy Wisconsin establishes a quality threshold that provider networks are required to meet in order to participate in the program.
Under Healthy Wisconsin providers have a financial incentive to provide cost effective care and members have a financial incentive to seek cost effective care.
Annually provider networks set a price for their plan and if the member selects the lowest priced plan in their area there is no additional member charge. If the member selects a higher priced plan they pay the difference between the lowest priced plan and the plan they selected. This managed market competition causes provider networks to continually seek ways to provide care more efficiently in order to keep prices down and thus attract new plan members. It also causes members to switch to lower priced plans to avoid the cost of higher priced plans.
Healthy Wisconsin has an affordable prescription drug plan.
Healthy Wisconsin has no deductible or co-pays for preventive care and a modest deductible and co-pays for other care so it is hoped that it will not discourage members from seeking early intervention.
Jim K (Thu Apr 10 15:11:13 2008)
Sounds like almost too good to be true...
Jo E. (Thu Apr 10 16:09:09)
|
|
Blog Archives
| 2010 |
  December
|
November
|
October
|
September
|
August
|
July
|
June
|
May
|
April
|
March
|
February
|
January
• Solberg: Healing After an Abortion
• Basketball fans eyeing extension of Miller Park sales tax
• Nanny sex-ed bill goes to Doyle
• A first. Village limits pension contribution for employees
• Nanny State update: Toothbrushing mandated
• Obama pushes education inflation
• WI Investment Board votes to borrow to juice up returns
• So Republicans have brought nothing to the table?
• You have got to be kidding me
• Nygren: Governor Continues Terms of Failure in State of the State
• Sen. Fitzgerald: Governor down the wrong track at high speed
• Phosphorus is the new CO2. $Billions in Wisconsin
• More Obama giveaways
• A reprimand? Would you keep him on the job?
• Burri: Sarah Palin for Prez troubles me
• Quote of the Day – Obama after the pie-eating contest
• Populism, abused and trampled
• Fitzgerald: Senate Republicans Propose Real Job Creation Agenda
• Stripped down health insurance – it’s about time
• Ok GOP, scrap the Party of NO; time to lead
• No way Feingold is a Coakley. Is Wall a Brown?
• Burri: Conservatives off the chart for a RINO?
• Paltry quid pro quo?
• Doyle says ARRA has ‘created or retained’ 44,000 WI jobs
• Does most of the public fall for this stuff?
• When you get signatures, always get a couple extra
• Blame it on the outmoded computers
• Scott Brown victory does not scuttle health bill
• 8th Congressional Candidate Forum, Jan. 25
• Scott Walker Meet-and-greet, Monday, Jan. 18
• Aren’t consumers taxpayers too?
• MORE taxes on investment income - dreadful and wrong
• Join the blaze orange army and say ‘Enough is Enough’
• The future of government-run health care
• Tax on banks is a really bad idea
• Roth, Savard on the stump, grassroots style
• Savard speaking in Appleton, 8 PM, Wed., Jan. 13.
• Rahmlow: Savard, Bies frontrunners for State Senate
• Burri: Failing Political Correctness 101
• School contracts and Race to the Top
• Senator Feingold worrisome and big red flags
• Psephological?
• This is really important. Contact Rep. Kagen. Now. Please.
• This is exactly what we need from Governor Doyle
• This guy is my hero
• Why am I not surprised?
• Talk health reform with Feingold (Th), Petri (today)
• Give the Mayor power over MPS - if he can break contracts
• Burri: Yup, Dems really are going to bypass a conference
• The $2.7 billion Wisconsin deficit no one told you about
• Walker launches county accountability website
• Rahmlow: Why is Van Hollen dodging the Nebraska deal?
|
| 2009 |
December
|
November
|
October
• The Lawton-Bader files
• Yup, it’s the TAX LEVY, not the tax RATE
• Ellis: costly automobile insurance laws must be rolled back
• If not Barrett, who?
• The subsidy game
• Burri: Bailouts, Banks, Health Care, and the Mob
• Attend Appleton Schools budget meeting tonight
• A public option WON’T increase costs? That’s delusional!
• Appleton Schools budget meeting Monday
• Wisconsin should be screaming for accountability
• Burri: If anything, we need more obstructionism around here
• WI on the leading edge - in the wrong direction
• Rep. Montgomery: Utility Customers Join State’s Crime-Fighting Efforts
• Public Conservation and Recreation Lands Total 16.5% of State
• In the crow's nest of the Titanic, shouting 'Iceberg!'
• Is Rep. Nelson a political hack?
• Health care: The road ahead will be brutal
• Kagen's pandering again
• Birthers - good stuff for you
• How much do we bend over backward for seniors?
• The trouble with health care is paying for it
• Two-parent families: The Gold Standard
• Burri: Kids... the joys and blessings
• Very, very worried about health care
• Rep. Huebsch: Wisconsin is proof government health care isn’t the answer
• School district contracts push up tax levy
• What? Obama, the Peace Prize?
• TODAY - hearing on Campaign Finance Reform
• Appleton School District tax levy up way too much
• CBO report is out - and the bill isn't even written yet?
• So, how much do YOU budget for health care?
• Burri: Copenhagen trip was amateurish
• “Sotomayor, you have blood on your hands...”
• Cap and Trade. Always follow the money
• Rep. Kagen gets (almost) free health services
• I actually agree with Rep. Kagen
• Future Wisconsin Conference for Conservatives, October 10, Wauwatosa
|
September
|
August
|
July
|
June
|
May
|
April
|
March
|
February
|
January
|
| 2008 |
December
|
November
|
October
|
September
|
August
|
July
|
June
|
May
|
April
|
March
• Important votes Tuesday, including Appleton Common Council
• Democrats are becoming supply siders??
• Further debunking Hillary myths
• WEAC has created an unsustainable monopoly
• From Mark Gundrum: One of the greatest honors an American can experience
• 'Operation Chaos' working?
• Joe Martin the best candidate in Appleton's 8th
• State programs to cut? - Volume II
• Oh the naivete of youth
• Not just disingenuous - flat wrong
• Steve - you will be missed
• Make cuts only AFTER you're elected....
• Getting serious: What programs can we cut?
• Rep. Steve Kagen joining me on Jerry Bader Show today
• Rep. Van Roy: Dental Care Pilot Program
• Has Dave Obey turned the corner on earmarks?
• Speaker Huebsch: Governor turns down Federal Aid?
• Mark Rahmlow: "We're Broke."
• As taxpayers, how do we know if it's a Chevy or a Lexus?
• This is trash talk - about a veteran
• Frank Lasee: Take time to get the Compact right
• 'The Gableman Ad' - is it racist?
• Roth thankful, Kagen shaking money tree
• Gov. Doyle's office not enamored with Freedom of Information
• Governor Doyle will never do it
• Leadership on smoking ban? Not Hanna
• Rep. Van Roy speaks out about smear ads
• You're threatening me about potholes?
• Losing the Hastert seat is NOT a trend and NOT curtians for the GOP
• First suggestion for 'slashing' programs
• Big money-saver for municipalities
• More one time fixes. Nuts.
• Any chances???
• I'm doing the Jerry Bader Show, today, the 11th
• Representative Frank Lasee: Final Waltz of the Season
• Guest Blog: It's not the county's business to be in the nursing home business
• Yup, Hillary won Texas and Ohio
• Gableman/Butler race featured - and it isn't pretty
• Lies from Planned Parenthood and NARAL
• He who sacrifices liberty.....
• Duh.
• The Troha sentencing, Doyle and that $200K
• Guns, passion and "originality"
• How hard is it anyway, to shut down a government program?
• Voting is a PRIVILEGE. And so are property taxes....
• Guest Blog: Governor Doyle, cancel your Ireland trip
|
February
|
January
|
| 2007 |
December
|
November
|
October
|
September
|
August
|
July
|
June
|
May
|
April
|
March
|
February
|
January
• Lots of ideas. No money.
• The Cigarette Tax - "Poor Policy Instrument?"
• School budget Lite?
• Frankenstein - not in the library, but in the legislature
• A librarian, a legislator, a president
• $1.25/pack - NO, NO, NO, and NO
• Kagen and Reagan in the same breath?
• Menasha: behind the 8-ball, but not biting the dust
• Any way you slice it, Wisconsin government wants (further) in on health care
• The World is Flat...what about health care?
• The PAC - too precious to fail. Day 3
• News follow-ups: Appleton West, Kagen at the White House
• Fox Cities PAC - too precious to fail - Day 2
• Fox Cities PAC - too precious to fail
• New Transit Tax coming your way
• Rep. Petri has his finger in the dike - I guess
• AASD Retirement Costs Burdensome
• Health care, health care, health care, health care
• Water rate increase was no slam dunk
• Education for all is just a bad dream
• New Year's resolutions from a parade snob
|
| 2006 |
December
|
November
|
October
|
September
|
| 2000 |
May
|
|
