Health stories in the news

Obama to play greater role in crafting health reform package

To date, President Barack Obama has by and large left the details of health care reform legislation to Congress, but no longer, reports Sheryl Gay Stolberg in the Sunday New York Times.

Stolberg writes:

“…Mr. Obama has grown concerned that he is losing the debate over certain policy prescriptions he favors, like a government-run insurance plan to compete with the private sector, said one Democrat familiar with his thinking. With Congress beginning a burst of work on the measure, top advisers say, the president is determined to make certain the final bill bears his stamp.”

As part of this new initiative, Mr. Obama dedicated his weekly Internet address to health care reform, summarizing a letter he sent to Congress.

This week, I conveyed to Congress my belief that any health care reform must be built around fundamental reforms that lower costs, improve quality and coverage, and also protect consumer choice. That means if you like the plan you have, you can keep it. If you like the doctor you have, you can keep your doctor, too. The only change you’ll see are falling costs as our reforms take hold.

In that letter, Mr. Obama indicated that he supported the creation of a controversial public health insurance plan that would compete with private insurers.

Mr. Obama wrote.

But for those who don’t have such options, I agree that we should create a health insurance exchange — a market where Americans can one-stop shop for a health care plan, compare benefits and prices, and choose the plan that’s best for them, in the same way that Members of Congress and their families can. None of these plans should deny coverage on the basis of a preexisting condition, and all of these plans should include an affordable basic benefit package that includes prevention, and protection against catastrophic costs. I strongly believe that Americans should have the choice of a public health insurance option operating alongside private plans. This will give them a better range of choices, make the health care market more competitive, and keep insurance companies honest.

This public plan, writes Kevin Sack in the New York Times, “has excited intense opposition from Republicans, insurers and big business.”

Opponents argue that the public plan will inevitably be given preferable treatment from the government, an advantage that will allow it to drive private insurers out of business and result in a single-payer, government-run health system.

To learn more:

• Read the text of President Obama’s weekly address for June 6 and the text of his letter to Congress.
• Read Sheryl Gay Stolberg’s article: Obama to forge a greater role on health care.
• Read Kevin Sack’s article: State coverage model no help for uneasy insurance industry.

Doctors who spend time with their patients

In the business section of today’s New York Times, Julie Weed writes about doctors who are trying to get off the big clinic “treadmill” where they can see patients for only a few minutes by switching over to a “patient-centered care” practice model.

“These doctors spend more time with patients, emphasize prevention and education to keep them healthy, and can handle many medical problems without referrals to specialists,” Ms. Weed writes.

“The model seems to be working, according to a 2008 study by Dr. John H. Wasson at Dartmouth Medical School. His research showed that patients in patient-centered practices were more likely to say they were informed about how to manage chronic diseases and got the care they needed, compared with those in a national sample of medical practices. They also were less likely to say they had to wait for an appointment.”

To learn more:

• Read Julie Week’s article: If all doctors had time to listen. 

 A way to boost local biotech?

In an op-ed piece in today’s Seattle Times, two Northwest biotech entrepreneurs lament the gap between the amount money spent on life-science research in the Seattle area and the number of new life-science companies being launched in the region.

In the column, Tom Ranken and Bob Wilcox point out that despite the fact that the U.S. government spends $1 billion a year on life-science research at local institutions only three new companies get launched in the area each year, and even these may be based on ideas developed elsewhere.

Ranken and Wilcox call on the formation of a public-private organization that will help translate promising local discoveries into products:

“This new organization assists by financing the creation of the first prototype of that invention, developing a business plan and making the introductions to investors and entrepreneurs.”

Government funds would be used to launch the new organization, but after that it would have to be self-sustaining, they write.

“We believe that this partnership could help create three new companies each year. If they are successful, within five years they could generate 1,000 local jobs in startup companies and the businesses that support them.”

To learn more:

• Read the Ranken and Wilcox’s op-ed piece: Close the invention-to-job gap for the region’s life-science sector.

Tags: Biotech, Health Insurance, Health-care Reform, Healthcare Policy, Insurance, Life-Sciences, Medical Home, Patient-Centered Care

Category: Health Insurance, Health-care Policy, Insurance