The New, Lifecasting Looxcie – Is It Awesomeness Or Ominous? Tech Talk Nick Delorenzo

AFC Individual Leaders
Week 13
Quarterbacks




Att
Com
Yds

I&rsquo;D LIKE to thank Mr. William A. Levinson for bringing attention to the need for continued efforts to reduce the growth in health care costs in his recent column that mentions my support of the health care law (&ldquo;Corbett can deliver health care reform &ndash; and more,&rdquo; Nov. 27). The substance of his commentary shows we can have a productive conversation about ways to make care as affordable as possible.
Mr. Levinson and I are in agreement that we must recognize ways to reduce skyrocketing health care costs, and that states have a significant opportunity to do so. To tame future health care cost growth, and fully address Mr. Levinson&rsquo;s valid concerns, we must look to all options. Specifically, I concur with Mr. Levinson&rsquo;s call to: encourage employers to drive workers to healthier behaviors, known as workplace wellness programs; connect hospital and doctor reimbursement to providing more efficient care; and continue research of the best practices in medicine. 
The health care law passed earlier this year began this process. On the issue of workplace wellness programs, it provides $200 million in grants to small employers to implement programs and allows larger employers already using these plans to increase the size of the incentives. As to Mr. Levinson&rsquo;s suggestion to use measures of quality care in determining reimbursement, the bill implements pilot programs in Medicare, the largest government insurance program, to pay doctors based on the quality of the care they provide &ndash; not just on how many patients they see.
 Also, much like the Pennsylvania Health Care Cost Containment Council promoted by Mr. Levinson, the bill provides funding for &ldquo;comparative effectiveness&rdquo; research to help determine the most efficient way to provide quality care so that we direct our resources to funding the most successful methods. In addition, the health care bill helps lower costs by creating new health insurance marketplaces that will improve competition and by reducing wasteful spending in Medicare.
Mr. Levinson also suggests that governors should take action to address growing health care costs; I strongly support these efforts. In fact, the health care bill gives governors new powers to rein in costs. Specifically, it establishes state-based health insurance exchanges &ndash; marketplaces where individuals can go to purchase private coverage, as part of larger pools of individuals, to spread the cost and lower premiums. Governors and state health insurance commissioners have the ability to restrict insurers from these pools if they do not take sufficient actions to reduce costs. 
The passage of the health care reform law took a significant step toward addressing health care costs. Objective analysis by the Congressional Budget Office expects it to reduce the federal budget deficit by as much as $1.2 trillion over the next 20 years. However, I have long believed that our debate about affordable health care reform did not end with the passage of the recent law; rather it began in earnest. For example, I have argued that we must continue to address costs by removing the federal anti-trust exemption that allows insurance companies to collude on pricing. We also should consider an often-discussed solution of breaking down state barriers to increase competition and allow individuals to purchase insurance from other states &ndash; as long as we also ensure a minimum level of benefits are required to prevent insurance companies from moving their headquarters to states that now have the lowest standards for care.
The reality is that without any action, health care costs are scheduled to reach 30 percent of gross domestic product in two decades. In the past decade, health care premiums doubled. Up to 700 Pennsylvanians were losing their coverage every day. And fewer employers offered health coverage, while those that continued to offer coverage shifted more and more of the cost to employees.
 For those people who want to repeal what already has been done in cost-savings, rather than move forward, it is important to understand that this would mean Medicare will again be at risk of going bankrupt in the next seven years, individuals will have to go back to being charged co-pays for preventive care and seniors will face an extra $3,500 in prescription drug costs.
I welcome this dialogue and hope that we can rise above partisan bickering to work together to bring about a more effective health care system.


 I have long believed that our debate about affordable health care reform did not end with the passage of the recent law; rather it began in earnest.

Sestak: Work Has Just Begun On Health Care Reform Commentary Joe Sestak