by The Rat
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE EXAMINED TEN PROGRAMS EVALUATED BY MEDICARE
Healthcare “reform programs” that are similar to those promoted by ObamaCare do not save the government money or reduce healthcare costs, according to a new report by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).
And they’re just now figuring this out why?
The report examined 10 major demonstration projects conducted by Medicare in which managed-care programs and value-based payment programs were evaluated. These two types of healthcare “reform” are key features of ObamaCare, which became the law of the land in March, 2010.
As part of the managed-care program evaluation, care-management companies were hired to coordinate care between doctors and patients with chronic diseases, (diabetes, etc.), sending nurses to monitor whether patients were following doctor’s orders. The CBO found the programs did not sufficiently reduce costs to save the government money.
“The evaluations show that most programs have not reduced Medicare spending: In nearly every program involving disease management and care coordination, spending was either unchanged or increased relative to the spending that would have occurred in the absence of the program,” the report said.
Under value-based payment programs, hospitals are paid in part based on the quality of care they provide their patients. As was the case with managed-care evaluations, the CBO again found that all but one of the assessed programs did not reduce health care costs enough to save Medicare money.
“The bundled-payment demonstration achieved savings for the Medicare program, but the demonstrations that paid bonuses to providers on the basis of their quality scores, estimated savings, or both, produced little or no savings,” reported the CBO.
Both managed-care and value-based payment reforms are key components of ObamaCare. The Medicare evaluations found conclusively that while a minimal number of program that did manage to reduce costs did not reduce them enough to actually reduce Medicare spending. More importantly, the majority did not reduce costs at all.
“The results of those Medicare demonstrations suggest that substantial changes to payment and delivery systems will probably be necessary for programs involving disease-management and care-coordination or value-based payment to significantly reduce spending and either maintain or improve the quality of care provided to patients.”
This raises several questions:
Is it reasonable to assume that Obama and his fellow-Socialists did at least a modicum of research as they crafted Obamacare? (Let’s pretend the answer is “yes” and that the details of Obamacare were know for at least a year before legislation was introduced in Congress.)
Is it also reasonable to assume that Democratic lawmakers sought independent professional advice before deciding whether to introduce – and ultimately support – the bill? (Yeah, I know; that’s asking too much, but you get my point.)
Obamacare legislation was introduced in the House in October, 2009. Is it not also reasonable to assume that demonstrations could have – and should have – been evaluated prior to passage of the most government-invasive legislation in U.S. history?
Given that the answer to the previous question is apparently “no” - and that Obamacare was passed nearly two years ago, why has it taken so long for the American people to learn what many of us suspected all along?
Obamacare was never about healthcare reform; the goal has been government control and wealth redistribution from the beginning.
Reminds me of the old “It won’t hurt – did it?” line.