Aug
6

CMS denies off-label Actiq coverage

The latest shot in the battle against drug costs comes from the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services, which is reported to be denying coverage for off-label use of drugs such as Actiq and Fentora.
Whenever CMS moves, the healthcare world shakes, and this is no exception. There are a host of possible ‘downstream implications’ in areas as diverse as workers comp, formulary management, and hospice.

Continue reading CMS denies off-label Actiq coverage


Aug
1

Murdoch is out! WSJ taken over by Chicken Little!

To listen to some, you would think single payer health care will cause the sky will fall, and it will be full of really large rocks when it hits our heads.
At least that’s what the editors at the Wall Street Journal (subscription required) would have you believe will happen if Wisconsin adopts a single payer system.
While I’m no fan of single payer, I’m even less enamored of junk economics masquerading as policy analysis. And junk is what the editors’ arguments are.

Continue reading Murdoch is out! WSJ taken over by Chicken Little!


Jul
20

Universal coverage is bad – Part Nine, Socialism

The last argument against universal coverage is that it is socialist, and therefore bad.
Whenever critics start throwing labels around, its obvious their position is not based on facts, data, and logic. And/or they are just lazy, as not much is simpler than saying “that’s bad because it is socialist/fascist/communist/libertarian”.
(have you noticed that as we get to the bottom of the list the I-Hate-Universal-Coverage crowd’s arguments get thin to the point of invisibility?)

Continue reading Universal coverage is bad – Part Nine, Socialism


Jul
19

Universal coverage is bad – Part Eight

Universal coverage is not needed because its just a replacement for a failed Medicaid/Medicare system that should be covering those folks without employer-based insurance. Once we fix the ‘M’ programs we’ll be fine.
That’s another argument against UC, and the one we’ll tackle today.
(Again, we will narrowly construe this argument; corollaries and complementary/supplemental positions have been addressed in detail previously.)

Continue reading Universal coverage is bad – Part Eight


Jul
18

Universal coverage is bad – Part Seven

This morning we address the “if they have insurance, they’ll use it, which will drive up costs…and inevitably lead to rationing” reason to not favor universal coverage.
I used to agree with the first part of the statement; the ‘moral hazard’ argument. Now, after reading comments on this blog and others,and doing more research, I don’t agree with it at all.
Rationing” is one of those scare words designed to make people think they’ll die before getting an MRI to diagnose cancer. But first things first.

Continue reading Universal coverage is bad – Part Seven


Jul
17

Universal coverage is bad – Part Six

Perhaps the most puzzling condemnation of universal coverage is the contention that “A mandate is not necessary as the free market will solve the problem”.
Proponents of the free market argue that the problem is today’s market is not “free”, but rather over-regulated. And once we completely de-regulate the insurance market, the Invisible Hand will produce products and services that will provide coverage for a lot more folks.

Continue reading Universal coverage is bad – Part Six


Jul
11

Universal coverage – Part Three

The second in the list of top ten reasons universal coverage is bad is…
People don’t have insurance because they choose to not buy it.
Admittedly there are several closely related arguments, but we’ll stick with the letter of the argument in this post, and address the relations later.
I will stipulate to some people choosing to not buy insurance, with the caveat that ‘some’ is a really small number. In fact, that ‘really small number’ is 2%. Yes, only 2% of those without insurance say they have no need for insurance.
So, at a simplistic level, the ‘choice’ argument goes down in flames. Alas, my more demanding readers will want more.

Continue reading Universal coverage – Part Three