America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 11 years ago by DrMaddVibe. 11 replies replies.
OwedumbaCare...C'mon Down!
DrMaddVibe Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,618
YOU'RE the MAIN OFFENDER on The Price Is Wrong Bitch!

Seniors caught in Medicare dispute between BayCare health system and UnitedHealthcare


Tampa Bay's biggest hospital group and one of its biggest health insurers are at war, and thousands of Medicare patients are nervously watching, wondering if they could be collateral damage.

It's a battle being waged in full-page newspaper ads and a letter campaign, and it has erupted just as seniors are studying their Medicare options for next year.

BayCare Health System says UnitedHealthcare owes it $11-million in unpaid claims and needs to increase its reimbursement rates, or else its Medicare Advantage customers can't use some of the area's most popular hospitals.

United says BayCare is throwing its weight around to win contract concessions that will only increase costs to consumers.

Medicare supplemental plans offered by United would not be affected even though two were mentioned in the BayCare ad.

Nearly 30,000 area seniors are enrolled in a United Medicare Advantage plan, including HMOs and PPOs. Some of the plans bear the AARP name.

Last week, BayCare ran a full-page ad in the Tampa Bay Times and sent letters to patients that said United Medicare Advantage patients will no longer be able to use BayCare facilities — including St. Anthony's, St. Joseph's, Morton Plant and Mease hospitals — after Nov. 26. One exception: emergency rooms, which are open to all under federal law.

United fired back this week with its own full-page ad in the Times telling customers not to panic. The insurer promised to honor claims at BayCare facilities through Dec. 31, 2013, for Advantage members.

The corporate warfare has consumers confused and concerned.

Maureen Dabeck, a 72-year-old Safety Harbor resident, is enrolled in the United Medicare PPO. After receiving a letter from BayCare last week, she's been worrying over losing her physician who works in the BayCare Health System.

"My son tells me, 'Don't worry. They're just trying to get United off the dime,' " she said. "It's upsetting because you don't stop and think they're just using this in their negotiations. I took it for face value."

BayCare president and CEO Steve Mason said Thursday that, despite what the United ad says about honoring claims through December 2013, the hospitals and doctors in his system won't take United Medicare Advantage plans after next month.

"We don't have a contract now from United that is a fair contract, with fair pricing," Mason said. "We take this whole issue seriously because we know there may be some inconveniences to our patients."

A BayCare spokeswoman said she couldn't reveal how much of an increase is being sought.

But a United spokeswoman said BayCare wants 8 percent higher reimbursement rates for Medicare Advantage plans than they have been getting.

"That's BayCare's choice,'' United's Elizabeth Calzadilla-Fiallo said of the health system's declaration that it won't take United customers after next month. "It's their choice to turn them away."

Bruce Rueben, president of the Florida Hospital Association, said an 8 percent increase would be a reasonable request because Medicare rates aren't adequate.

"A hospital can't continue to provide care if it doesn't get its costs covered," he said.

BayCare, a private, not-for-profit, dominates more than one-third of the regional hospital market. In recent months, it has announced plans to expand into Polk and Sarasota counties.

That kind of clout can make a health system a "must-have" for insurers in order to win customers. It also can mean the power to demand higher payments, which can lead to higher prices for consumers.

Seniors may be only the first wave of consumers affected by the dispute.

BayCare is seeking a 23 percent increase in rate payments on private, employer-provided plans, said United's Calzadilla-Fiallo. That big an increase would have to be passed on to patients she said, calling it unacceptable to United.

Why is BayCare playing hardball? BayCare told patients in letters that United has failed to pay $11 million in claims, some of them four years old.

"We cannot allow United to continue to deny claims for services that your physician feels are best for your health. You deserve better,'' it read.

In an interview, Mason declined to comment on the $11-million figure, saying that attorneys were reviewing it. United said that amount is less than 1 percent of claims it has paid in the past four years. The insurer will "continue to work with BayCare in efforts to resolve any disagreement they may have with us in that regard,'' Calzadilla-Fiallo said.

Jane Pictor, 69, of Palm Harbor has a United Medicare PPO. So does her 99-year-old mother-in-law. She said she felt like patients are being used.

"I understand contract negotiations," she said. "This is a little bit more serious in that you are dealing with patients' health."

Art Pollock, a 65-year-old Dunedin resident, spent much of Thursday on the phone with United, only to learn his supplemental Medicare plan would not be affected by the dispute, despite BayCare's claims in its newspaper ad.

"Very misleading," he said.

Counselors at a consumer assistance program called SHINE, or Serving Health Insurance Needs of Elders, have been fielding calls about the dispute.

Their free, unbiased advice: Wait and see.

"Sit calm and wait if you do not wish to change your plan," said Janet Mills, volunteer coordinator at the service, run through the Florida Department of Elder Affairs. The dispute may end before Dec. 7, when seniors must choose a Medicare plan.

Cynthia Dean received the BayCare letter, even though she no longer has a United plan.

She dropped it last year on the advice of her doctors, who mostly work out of St. Anthony's Hospital in St. Petersburg. They told her the insurer had a reputation for poor payments.

"This whole system, it's a minefield," Dean said.

As the services coordinator at the Gulfport Senior Center, she hears frequently from seniors confused by advertising in the enrollment period for Medicare.

"It is very, very difficult ,'' she said, "because the choices are so wide and varied and there are so many companies out there."




Remember the lie?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXqKp5B0ZLE
ZRX1200 Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,682
I though Ryan already dumped these old folks off the cliff??
DrMaddVibe Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,618
ZRX1200 wrote:
I though Ryan already dumped these old folks off the cliff??



PX90 really works!!!whip
Brewha Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,202
You would think some people would be happy to get free mental health care . . . .
DrMaddVibe Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,618
Brewha wrote:
You would think some people would be happy to get free mental health care . . . .



There's NOTHING free about Owedumba Care!
Brewha Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,202
Mellow
teedubbya Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
Explain the link to obamacare?
DrMaddVibe Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,618
teedubbya wrote:
Explain the link to obamacare?



I already did!horse
HockeyDad Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,208
What it all comes down to is that everything's gonna be quite alright.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,618
HockeyDad wrote:
What it all comes down to is that everything's gonna be quite alright.



After Hope and Change wiped the Mavericky Map...well, things are not alright.

The world is not alright.

The nation is not alright.

DrMaddVibe Offline
#11 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,618
ObamaCare: Rhetoric Vs. Reality


Just recently, the Internal Revenue Service issued an 18-page, single-spaced notice explaining how to distinguish between full-time and part-time workers under the Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare"). The difference matters, because the ACA requires employers with 50 or more full-time workers to provide health insurance for those workers. At the same time, no company has to buy insurance for part-time employees, defined as those working less than 30 hours a week.

Here's a sample:

This notice expands the safe harbor method described in a previous notice to provide employers the option to use a look-back measurement period of up to 12 months to determine whether new variable hour employees or seasonal employees are full-time employees, without being subject to a payment under section 4980H for this period with respect to those employees.

Obamacare has faded as a campaign issue, perhaps because it doesn't suit either the president or Mitt Romney. It's not popular, a minus for Barack Obama. Its resemblance to Romney's Massachusetts program is a minus for him. But Obamacare's relentless march to full-fledged introduction in 2014 demonstrates that, for all its good intentions, it will make the health care system more confusing (see above), costly and contentious. It won't control health spending -- the system's main problem -- and will weaken job creation.

Consider the treatment of full-time and part-time workers as an object lesson.

Exempting part-time workers is a concession to practicality. If companies had to provide insurance for all part-time and seasonal workers -- often unskilled and poorly paid -- the high costs (a worker-only insurance policy can run more than $5,000) would eliminate many jobs or inspire mass evasion. On the other hand, exempting too many "part-time" and "seasonal" workers would make achieving near-universal insurance coverage much harder.

So there's a balancing act: preserving jobs versus providing insurance. The problem isn't small. In September, 34 million workers, about a quarter of total workers, were part-time, reports the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). But the BLS defines part-time as less than 35 hours a week; Obamacare's 30 hours a week was presumably adopted to expand insurance coverage. There are now 10 million workers averaging between 30 and 34 hours a week. To the BLS, they are part-time; under Obamacare, they're full-time.

Employers have a huge incentive to hold workers under the 30-hour weekly threshold. The requirement to provide insurance above that acts as a steep employment tax. Companies will try to minimize the tax. The most vulnerable workers are the poorest and least skilled who can be most easily replaced and for whom insurance costs loom largest. Indeed, the adjustment has already started.

As first reported in the Orlando Sentinel, Darden Restaurants -- owners of about 2,000 outlets including the Red Lobster and Olive Garden chains -- is studying ways to shift more employees under the 30-hour ceiling. About three-quarters of its 185,000 workers are already under, says spokesman Rich Jeffers. The question is "can we go higher and still deliver a great [eating] experience." The financial stakes are sizable. Suppose Darden moves 1,000 servers under 30 hours and avoids paying $5,000 insurance for each. The annual savings: $5 million.

As a reaction to Obamacare, this makes business sense, but in other ways, it doesn't. Waiters and waitresses going below 30 hours a week will lose income. They make about $15 an hour with tips, says Jeffers. A server who drops five hours would lose $75 a week. Although some servers under the limit might increase their hours and incomes, jobs will become less attractive because earnings will be effectively capped. Turnover, already 50 percent annually, might rise, as would Darden's training costs. On average, servers receive 35 hours of training, says Jeffers.

Many companies, especially in the fast-food, retailing and hotel industries, will explore similar changes. Some workers will resent the limits on their wages. Others will think that companies have illegally denied them insurance, even though the IRS guidelines permit much flexibility in calculating who exceeds the 30-hour limit. That's why the IRS notice is so long and complex. Still, some firms will cheat; enforcement will be hard.

The argument about Obamacare is often framed as a moral issue. It's the caring and compassionate against the cruel and heartless. That's the rhetoric; the reality is different. Many of us who oppose Obamacare don't do so because we enjoy seeing people suffer. We believe that, in an ideal world, everyone would have insurance. But we also think that Obamacare has huge drawbacks that outweigh its plausible benefits.

It creates powerful pressures against companies hiring full-time workers -- precisely the wrong approach after the worst economic slump since the Depression. There will be more bewildering regulations, more regulatory uncertainties, more unintended side effects and more disappointments. A costly and opaque system will become more so.


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/10/22/obamacare_rhetoric_vs_reality_115851.html#.UITKTaTkHwA.twitter



Rhetoric vs Reality...it's like saying Owedumba vs Mittens!
Users browsing this topic
Guest