Health care policy

...now browsing by category

 

Are You Taking Advantage of The New Health Insurance Appeals Process?

Wednesday, June 15th, 2011

One of the big advantages of the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. the healthcare reform bill) is that millions of Americans who once had no recourse when their insurers turned them down for coverage, now can appeal. Insurance company turns you down for a transplant? Appeal. Says no to a life-saving procedure? Appeal. Insists that you have to pay for something you believe is covered under your policy? Appeal.

And your appeal won’t be decided by the same administrator who turned you down in the first place. Under the new healthcare reform law, health insurance appeals are decided by an independent decision-maker, one who has no financial stake in the outcome.

This provision can be a lifesaver … but only if you know about it and act on it within the 180-day timeframe permitted.

According to Kaiser Healthcare News:

The provision took effect for most plans Jan. 1. But in response to self-insured plans’ concerns about being able to meet some of the requirements, the government said it wouldn’t require the plans to tell members about their external appeals rights until plan years beginning after July 1. Since most plans start their new year in January, that means they won’t have to notify members about their right to external appeals and how to file them until next year.

However, the government isn’t granting enrollees more time to file appeals, said an official at the Department of Health and Human Services, who spoke only on the condition of not being identified. Patients have 180 days from the date of initial denials to file internal appeals to the plan. If the appeals are rejected, they then have another four months to appeal to outside arbiters.

If nobody tells patients about their rights, this provision, in other words, might not be discovered by the people who need it most until it’s too late.

So, I’m urging you to link to this post wherever you can: Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, any and all social networks. Explain the need to be informed. Tell your friends and family: you have a right to appeal. For some, it can be a matter of life and death.

Don’t let the chance slip away.

– Yvonne S. Thornton, MD, MPH

Posted in General health news, Health care policy, Women's health issues, Women's health news | No Responses »
Tags: , ,

Drug Maker Attempted to Capitalize on the Lives of Infants

Tuesday, April 5th, 2011

There is a synthetic form of progestin called hydroxyprogesterone caproate, or 17P, that is used to prevent mothers-to-be from delivering prematurely. Treating a mother at risk of having a preemie with hydroxyprogesterone caproate was found, in tax-payer funded studies by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, to reduce the incidence of pre-term births, which naturally means that babies suffer fewer of the complications that plague preeemies. The studies also found that giving this drug to mothers-to-be at risk of premature delivery could save the health care system at least $2billion per year.

Until recently, the drug had been available only through “compounding pharmacies” (pharmacies that formulate drugs that aren’t commercially available), at a cost of about $10 to $20 per dose. But the FDA recently licensed one manufacturer, KV Pharmaceuticals, to manufacture the drug commercially, and exclusively, for the next seven years.

What usually happens at the point where a manufacturer is given exclusive rights to market a drug is that compounding pharmacies are told that they may no longer produce the drug.

And that would have happened this time – if KV Pharmaceuticals hadn’t done something that has caused a huge uproar in the maternal-fetal medicine and obstetrics community. It raised the price of the drug from the $10 to $20 per dose that compounding pharmacies had been charging to (are you sitting down?) $1,500 per dose.

No, that’s not a typo.

They raised the price by an average of 100 times what it had been.

Remember, it was tax-payer dollars that funded much of the research, so the raise in price could not be attributed simply to recouping research costs. And driving the price that high would put it out of reach of most women (and babies) who needed it. A full course of the drug, given between the 16th and 36th weeks of pregnancy, had previously cost about $400. The price increase would push that cost to $30,000!

This story, at least, has a happy ending. Although, according to this article in the Seattle Times, KV Pharmaceuticals agreed  to drop the price to $690 per dose (still outrageously high, in the opinion of most in the obstetrics community), the FDA decided to allow compounding pharmacies to continue to formulate the drug when presented with a prescription.

But just imagine all the mothers and babies who would have suffered had the FDA allowed KV to put profits ahead of all else, and ordered compounding pharmacies to cease formulating the prescription.

As a maternal-fetal specialist and a mother, it sends shivers up my spine.

– Yvonne S. Thornton, MD, MPH

Posted in Childbirth & delivery, Health care policy, Pregnancy, Women's health issues, Women's health news, Your newborn baby | No Responses »
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

What’s a “Health Care Exchange” and Why Should You Care?

Wednesday, March 30th, 2011

One of the biggest changes in health care that comes as a result of last year’s vote to institute health care reform, hasn’t begun to take shape yet. This is the inception of the “Health Care Exchange” marketplaces – due to take effect by January 2014. And once the health care exchanges get rolling, we’ll finally see the full impact of health care reform.

But what is a Health Care Exchange, exactly, and how will it affect you? Think of it as a health insurance “store,” where individuals and small businesses get to choose the best policies for their needs. Only those insurers that meet certain requirements will be allowed to sell their policies in this “store.” For example, each insurer will have to offer plans with certain “essential benefits” and will not be able to deny coverage to those with pre-existing conditions, nor will they be able to exclude coverage for benefits that such people need. Most states will run their own Health Care Exchanges but some might opt to partner with neighboring states, while others might let the federal government run their exchanges.

A big question everyone wants answered: will insurance sold on the Health Care Exchanges be affordable? Here is where health care reform shows its muscle. Insurers, under the health care law, must pay out from 80 to 85 percent of premiums for health care costs. And, according to this article in the Washington Post:

People who make less than 133 percent of the federal poverty level, $14,484 this year, will qualify for Medicaid in all states, under the law. Above that, sliding-scale subsidies for private insurance on the exchanges will be available for residents who make up to 400 percent of the poverty level, about $43,560 this year. Most people will be required to have coverage of some sort beginning in 2014.

But probably the best cost controls come from the transparency of the Health Care Exchange system, because consumers and small businesses will be able compare one policy to another in terms of cost, coverage, deductibles, and exclusions, before they buy. And maybe – just maybe – that will bring health insurance costs in the U.S. more in line with other developed countries where people typically get much better coverage at much lower cost.

– Yvonne S. Thornton, MD, MPH

Posted in General health news, Health care policy, Women's health issues | No Responses »
Tags: , ,

The Latest News From the CDC on Birth Defect Risks

Saturday, March 5th, 2011

In a report published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) [] warned against using prescription opiate-based painkillers such as codeine, hydrocodone or oxycodone (brand names include Vicodin and Oxycontin) during pregnancy.

According to an article about the CDC report:

In the study of data from 10 states, the CDC researchers found that 2 percent to 3 percent of mothers interviewed received prescription opioid pain killers, or analgesics, just before they got pregnant or early in their pregnancy. Any illicit use of painkillers was not assessed.

For those women, the risk of having a baby with hypoplastic left heart syndrome — a critical heart defect — was about double that of women who took no opioid drugs.

Risks of other birth defects, including spina bifida (a type of neural tube defect), hydrocephaly (build up of fluid in the brain), congenital glaucoma (eye defect), and gastroschisis (a defect of the abdominal wall), also somewhat increased among babies whose mothers took these drugs either shortly before or during pregnancy.

I have concerns about the generalization of both articles, but the conclusions may be valid. Taking a drug before you’re pregnant, or up to 17 days after conception, is unlikely to cause birth defects. It will either cause a miscarriage or will have no effect. But because most women don’t know precisely when they conceived, it’s best to avoid taking drugs at any time during pregnancy.

The greatest risk to a developing baby from a pregnant mother taking potentially toxic drugs occurs between 17 days post-conception to 12 weeks (end of the first trimester).

You’ve probably heard of Thalidomide, a sedative given in the 1950s to pregnant women in their first trimester. It dramatically illustrated the risks to a fetus’s development from drug effects during the critical first weeks. Thalidomide given early in pregnancy stunted the development of babies’ arms, legs, hands and feet, and caused other limb deformities.

If you’re pregnant, or planning to be, you should also be aware that most drugs, whether prescription or over-the-counter can have unknown effects on a growing fetus. The bottom line is: Every drug is, in some sense, a poison. Don’t consider any drug safe in pregnancy unless prescribed by someone who knows its toxicity as well as the risks and benefits of the drug.

– Yvonne S. Thornton, MD, MPH

Posted in Health care policy, Pregnancy, Women's health issues, Women's health news, Your newborn baby | No Responses »
Tags: , , , , ,

When You Can’t Buy Health Insurance, at Any Price

Monday, February 21st, 2011

As you might already know, I’m a staunch advocate for access to health care, and cheered when health care reform became the law last year. We need the opportunity to stay well and keep our families well, and we need to be able to afford medical care when things go wrong. As a mother and a physician, I’ve seen firsthand how imperative this is.

There are those who say we should repeal the recent landmark health care reforms that Congress passed last year. But that would mean that some people would be shut out of health care completely. Some seem to believe it’s just those who are too poor to afford health insurance, or who can afford it but choose not to buy it, who go without. Those are faulty assumptions, as this op ed by the co-founder of Palm Computer, who was denied insurance before the new law passed, shows:

It never occurred to me that we would be denied! Yes, we had listed a bunch of minor ailments, but nothing serious. No cancer, no chronic diseases like asthma or diabetes, no hospital stays.

Why were we denied? What were these pre-existing conditions that put us into high-risk categories? For me, it was a corn on my toe for which my podiatrist had recommended an in-office procedure. My daughter was denied because she takes regular medication for a common teenage issue. My husband was denied because his ophthalmologist had identified a slow-growing cataract. Basically, if there is any possible procedure in your future, insurers will deny you.

If a woman with $millions couldn’t get approved because of a corn on her toe, what would happen to the average woman, or a child, with a more serious issue if health care reform were repealed?

We need to keep ourselves informed about what’s really at stake. And, trust me, there’s a great deal at stake. If health care reform is repealed, we go back to the days when life-saving care is denied to people who can’t pay the costs—oftentimes, hundreds of thousands of dollars—out-of-pocket. We go back to seeing our kids kicked off our policies when they’re just out of high school and don’t yet have jobs that offer health insurance. We go back to denials for pre-existing conditions as tiny—and ludicrous—as a corn on the toe. Or acne. Or depression. Nevermind more serious illnesses.

We can’t go back. Look at how far we’ve come. Please, be as informed as possible about your new rights under health care reform. You can find most of the information you need at this website set up by the government to guide you through your options and your rights.

– Yvonne S. Thornton, MD, MPH

Posted in General health news, Health care policy, Women's health issues, Women's health news | No Responses »
Tags: , , , , , ,

New Rules on Health Insurance Keep Insurers Honest.

Tuesday, November 23rd, 2010

Starting in 2011, health insurance companies will be limited in how much they can charge you for insurance. If you work for a large employer, your health insurer will have to use at least 85 percent of your premiums to pay for actual health care or activities that improve health care quality. If you’re self-employed or work for a small business, your health insurer will be required to use 80 percent of your premiums for health care and improving health care.

That means that health insurance companies can no longer divert more than 20 to 25 percent to profits, or salaries, or marketing, and other overhead.

How much will this affect you? Potentially, a great deal.

Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), told reporters at a press event that some health insurers currently spend less than 60 percent of premium revenues on health care. And that drives up your costs for health insurance:

“Those overhead costs contribute little or nothing to the care of patients and to the health of Americans. And while some administrative costs are certainly necessary, we believe that they have gotten out of hand. And that’s going to change in 2011.”

But what if health insurance companies fail to follow the new regulations? Starting in 2012, if your insurer doesn’t spend 80 to 85 percent of revenues on health care or activities that improve health care quality, you’ll be due a rebate on your premiums.

It’s about time that consumers had some clout when dealing with health insurance companies, and I applaud these changes. I also look forward to hearing your stories about how the new health care law affects you and your family. Has the new law helped your family get or keep health insurance? Get better care? Please let me know in the comments section.

– Yvonne S. Thornton, MD, MPH

Posted in General health news, Health care policy, Women's health issues, Women's health news | No Responses »
Tags: , ,

All your questions answered on how Healthcare Reform will affect you

Thursday, September 23rd, 2010

You might have read that as of  today, September 23, 2010, consumers will have several new rights when dealing with health insurance companies:

  1. Children can no longer be turned down for health insurance due to pre-existing conditions.
  2. Your insurer can no longer cancel your health insurance policy if you get sick.
  3. Your insurer can no longer charge you a co-pay for preventive care or tests such as mammograms and colonoscopies.
  4. If you have a medical emergency and need to go to an out-of-network hospital, insurers can’t charge you additional fees.
  5. You won’t need a referral from your primary care physician to visit your Ob-Gyn.
  6. Insurance companies can no longer cap the dollar amount of lifetime benefits available to you for essential medical care.
  7. You now have a right to appeal to an outside authority if your insurer denies a claim.
  8. Your adult children can stay on your health insurance policy up to the age of 26.

One thing the above should tell you: you’ve lost your last excuse for putting off that mammogram (make an appointment today, if you haven’t yet).

These changes are hugely valuable – but most people don’t yet know about them.

And the above are just the beginning. The Kaiser Family Foundation has one of the most comprehensive explanations I’ve seen of just how healthcare reform is likely to affect you and your family. And while you’re at the website, check out the animated video for an entertaining, thorough explanation of your expanded rights under the new legislation. It covers just about every question you might have.


– Yvonne S. Thornton, MD, MPH

Posted in General health news, Health care policy, Women's health issues, Women's health news | No Responses »
Tags: , , ,

Is baby fat a “pre-existing condition? Really?

Tuesday, October 13th, 2009

You may have read the news that a family in Colorado was told their 4-month-old son would be denied health insurance by Rocky Mountain Health Plans because of a pre-existing condition: he was too chubby.

The child in question, baby Alex Lange, weighs just 17 lbs and is 25 inches long. That puts him in the 99th percentile according to the CDC but his pediatrician says the baby is perfectly healthy.

Although the insurance company’s spokesperson, Dr. Douglas Speedie, agreed that a baby can be healthy at little Alex’s weight, he said that the line has to be drawn somewhere. “It’s a calculation based on height, weight, and a fudge factor.”  But he also said “We’d like to see health care reform so that these things go away.”

Just think of that for a minute. Why does a health insurer claim there is a pre-existing condition where none exists? And if an insurer acknowledges that this is a flawed decision-making process, why doesn’t it act on its own to make “these things go away”? Does this make sense to you?

Me neither.

And that illustrates why we need health care reform. Right now, insurers can claim people have “pre-existing conditions” that they don’t actually have, and make other arbitrary decisions to deny people care. That must change and insurance companies will not change on their own … well, except in cases where their decisions are so ridiculous that they make the nightly news.

In baby Alex Lange’s case, the negative publicity convinced the insurer to reverse its decision. But the reason that Alex’s story got so much attention is that his daddy works for the NBC TV affiliate in Colorado that broke the story.

Most other people just get stuck with the insurance company’s arbitrary decisions.

– Yvonne S. Thornton, MD, MPH

Posted in General health news, Health care policy, Your newborn baby | 2 Responses »
Tags: , , , , ,

Health care reform will save the U.S. $250 billion per year says Institute of Medicine

Thursday, September 17th, 2009

No one should die in America for lack of health insurance. Yet so many people do – one every thirty minutes.

We know we have to change this. It’s one of the great moral issues our country faces. Yet, there are those who say, we can’t afford to cover everyone. I can’t fathom that argument. I believe that all deserve the right to life-saving treatment.

So I was happy to learn that we will soon have an economic argument as well as a moral argument to support making health care available to all.

The Institute of Medicine is about to release a study that reportedly found that, some years after reform is instituted, we  may save up to $250 billion per year over what we’d pay if we did nothing.

That gives us every reason to reform health care and no excuses not to. The moral imperative is obvious, at least to me, as a doctor who has treated both the very poor and the very wealthy. The economic argument should counter those who want to do less or nothing at all.

To save lives (and even, we now learn, to save money), it’s time to provide no loopholes, no fine print, real, affordable health care coverage for all.

– Yvonne  S. Thornton, MD, MPH

UPDATE: The above figures, showing that one person dies every 30 minutes due to lack of health insurance, are from The Institute of Medicine statistics of 2002. A new study, just released today by Harvard Medical School researchers, shows that it’s even worse than that: today, one person dies every 12 minutes due to lack of health insurance.

Posted in General health news, Health care policy, Women's health issues, Women's health news | No Responses »
Tags: , , , , ,

Why it’s essential to offer kids comprehensive sex education

Monday, August 31st, 2009

In a recent study, about half of teens surveyed admitted to sexual activity. It’s a fact of life that adults have to face squarely.

And adults probably would be naïve to assume that the only ones having sex are the ones who are willing to admit to it.

But there’s another factor to consider: kids without access to comprehensive sex education may not know enough to call the sex that they’re having “real” sex.

Consider this finding from another survey, this one of ninth graders, that appeared in the journal Pediatrics in April 2005:

Adolescents evaluated oral sex as significantly less risky than vaginal sex on health, social, and emotional consequences.

That study found that, because of their assumptions about it being less risky, considerably more ninth-graders were having oral sex than were having vaginal sex.

Clearly, we’re failing our children if they believe that oral sex is less dangerous to their health. Oral sex can expose teens to the same sexually transmitted diseases — herpes, Chlamydia, gonorrhea, and HIV — as “real” sex. The only risk they’re avoiding by having oral-genital or anal-genital intercourse instead of genital-to-genital contact is pregnancy.

So why don’t kids know the risks?

Because we adults are not providing them with frank, comprehensive sex education.

We all want to keep children safe and preserve their innocence. But think for a minute — would you hand over the car keys to a child who’s never had a driving lesson? Teens are exposed to a more powerful drive than the one to get behind the wheel. Those raging hormones of adolescence are a biological imperative. We ignore that irrepressible drive at our children’s peril.

As an Ob-Gyn, I see the consequences of inadequate sex education. After years of decline, STDs are on the rise among adolescents. So is pregnancy.

We need to be honest with our children about sex, not because we expect them to be sexually active any more than when we expect them to crash the car when we tell them to buckle up. We must do it to protect them. We would be negligent not to. And, we need to discuss sexual intercourse and all the attendant risks along with the responsibilities before they are teenagers.

Age-appropriate sex education must be available to all youngsters. It must be comprehensive, and include detailed information about homosexuality, heterosexuality, anal-genital intercourse, oral-genital intercourse, and sexually transmitted diseases, as well as abstinence. We must tell our youth the entire story, without flinching or sugar-coating. A child’s future fertility, even his or her life and quality of life can be at stake. If that doesn’t merit giving them the truth, I can’t imagine what does.

– Yvonne Thornton, MD, MPH

Posted in General health news, Health care policy, Women's health issues | No Responses »
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »