Since I'm not wrong, I'll stick with what I said in my last post. Beyond that, your charge is without merit. Neither of us knows much about the surveys other than what is in the articles (blog in your case). I'd say there's not enough history at this point to draw any definitive conclusions.
ACA Running Thread
- Thread starter Wrangor
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
Since I'm not wrong, I'll stick with what I said in my last post. Beyond that, your charge is without merit. Neither of us knows much about the surveys other than what is in the articles (blog in your case). I'd say there's not enough history at this point to draw any definitive conclusions.
We know one is about actual patients, the actual number of insured and the actual numbers of uninsured who were admitted.
The other states clearly is about what "may" happen and what the respondents "believe" will happen.
One is about absolute numbers thus far. The other is opinion. This is patently obvious.
The other states clearly is about what "may" happen and what the respondents "believe" will happen.
One is about absolute numbers thus far. The other is opinion. This is patently obvious.
LOL, rj. The first sentence of the blog you are hanging your hat on "Preliminary data from a survey of acute care hospitals in Arkansas suggests..." Preliminary data suggests? Later it reads: "This preliminary data should be viewed with caution — it represents just three months of information covering only half the acute care hospitals in the state."
The physicians in the ER survey know exactly how many patients they've seen as a charge is generated for each one. Even of they are employees of a hospital, they get more utilization data than they probably want.
Either, or both, surveys might be junk because it's just too early to draw real conclusions.
The physicians in the ER survey know exactly how many patients they've seen as a charge is generated for each one. Even of they are employees of a hospital, they get more utilization data than they probably want.
Either, or both, surveys might be junk because it's just too early to draw real conclusions.
sarcasdeac
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 343
- Reaction score
- 91
actually, the article wfu71 linked does include a link to probably the best study to date - Oregon Medicaid expansion. That study showed that ED visits increased 40% over 18 months among low income residents who gained coverage compared to those that didn't.
also, the article references the Tenet CEO that states his ED Medicaid volume has increased 25% in the Q1 compared to last year...
both of these are "absolute numbers"...reading is fundamental and all.
A Republican mayor from a city in NC is now participating in Moral Monday demanding the state participate in Medicaid expansion saying if they don't the only hospital in the town will close. The next closest hospital is 75 minutes away. Oh yeah, the hospital is also the city's largest employer.
WFFaithful
Well-known member
http://www.journalnow.com/business/...cle_1e7fd2b9-f3ec-5857-843e-9e178802899d.html
"One critical prediction came from Tom Donohue, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce president, who said in January 2011 that many companies were thinking about ending their employer-based plans to cope with the law’s new mandates.
That hasn’t happened. None of the more than 600,000 employers who are clients of Automatic Data Processing, the largest U.S. payroll firm, is planning to eliminate health benefits for full-time workers in response to the law sometimes called Obamacare. While there are costs imposed on employers by the law, the amounts are nominal for most companies, according to benefits consultants."
"One critical prediction came from Tom Donohue, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce president, who said in January 2011 that many companies were thinking about ending their employer-based plans to cope with the law’s new mandates.
That hasn’t happened. None of the more than 600,000 employers who are clients of Automatic Data Processing, the largest U.S. payroll firm, is planning to eliminate health benefits for full-time workers in response to the law sometimes called Obamacare. While there are costs imposed on employers by the law, the amounts are nominal for most companies, according to benefits consultants."
Deadbolt
Well-known member
The GOP has pledged no Medicaid expansion till they figure out how to deal with cost overruns...something they've had two years to do now. I guess wrecking ACA to win an election is more important than people having accessible health care. Well, that and fighting the gays.
2&2 Slider To Leyritz
Well-known member
#anecdotes
Deacfreak07
Ain't played nobody, PAWL!
Deacon923
Scooter Banks
"cost overruns" needs to be put in context. For the past several years the Department of Health people would tell the legislature "hey we estimate Medicaid is going to cost $x million this year" and the legislature would proceed to vote funding for significantly less than $x million, then call it a cost overrun when, surprise, Medicaid cost about $x million. So maybe the issue is not "cost overruns" but figuring out how to pay for the program. Hint: maybe slashing taxes on the top 20% and out-of-state corporations wasn't the best way.
deacondamo
El Jefe
Welp, my wife's company through which we have our healthcare is moving to a policy to that does not include hospital in-patient visits. WTF? I haven't received all the info yet, but this sounds terrible. We currently have a PPO accepted everywhere. The new insurance sounds like some fringe weird thing that won't be accepted most places.
bcobbdeacs
Well-known member
You are correct about that RJ
2&2 Slider To Leyritz
Well-known member
Eh, not really. We're going through that same situation. In order to cover the costs of the now-required components, the ACA-compliant policies with premiums about the same as what we were paying either (a) take away some of our prior coverages or (b) shift the excess costs to the employees through higher out-of-pocket limits. So it is either give up prior coverages in exchange for what Obamacare thinks is important, or pay the higher premiums and/or out-of-pockets.
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2011
- Messages
- 23,238
- Reaction score
- 6,366
The ACA is the reason his company has to go with a plan that has less features in order to keep their costs under control.
There's no free lunch.
bcobbdeacs
Well-known member
Well my plan for my employees went down by 2000.00 a quarter, will get next years estimate next month. You doom and gloomers have told me all year it will show up in the second year. If you are correct I will report back to you and tell you that you were right.
Wakeforest22890
Snowpom
I'm just not particularly sympathetic. There's always going to be cost-shifting with new laws and this is an area where I think there should be. I wish there were a requirement that businesses eat the costs instead of passing it on but that's capitalism for you what can ya do about it you know?
Wakeforest22890
Snowpom
Good post.