Key takeaways from the Supreme Court’s Obamacare hearing

Oral arguments were heard in the Supreme Court on March 4 for King v. Burwell. The case centers on the constitutionality of IRS regulations that provide federal subsidies to just over 9 million people, totaling $28.8 billion in tax credits and cost-sharing reductions in 2016, in states that did not establish their own health care exchanges.

Several good resources providing an overview of what's at stake include:

The Washington Post offers a guide and an article from Jason Millman on five important takeaways:

1. The vote will be close.
2. Kennedy's skepticism could be good for the Obama administration.
3. The Supreme Court could offer a temporary 'fix' if subsidies are struck down.
4. Court standing likely won't be an issue.
5. No one knows what Chief Justice John Roberts is thinking. 

Jason Adler posted a helpful overview here.

And, the SCOTUS Blog can be found here.

Poor health costs employers $576 billion

Publications including The Washington Post, Forbes and Business Insurance recently reported on the estimate calculated by the Integrated Benefits Institute finding that poor health and its impact on productivity costs the U.S. economy $576 billion per year.

In addition to showing the entire financial burden of poor health, IBI researchers found that 39 percent—or $227 billion—is due to lost productivity associated with poor health. Lost productivity results when employees are absent due to illness or when they are underperforming due to poor health (“presenteeism”—when employees are at work but not performing at their peak).

“There’s a reason that everyone in the U.S. is worried about the economy and health care,” said Thomas Parry, PhD, IBI president. “These are two fundamental issues that are tightly coupled through health’s impact on productivity, and shape our standards of living. Since this election is weighing heavily on how the candidates tackle these issues, it’s important that we recognize how they are connected. Illness costs this country hundreds of billions of dollars, and this should serve as a wake-up call for both candidates and employers to invest in the health of workers, for the sake of the people and the benefit of U.S. business."

The estimate for total U.S. health costs is calculated using the IBI Full Cost Estimator (FCE), a proprietary tool that calculates the full costs of health and productivity based on five large databases. The tool can be used to show the full health and productivity costs for a specific industry, or even an individual company. In this case, the FCE was used to calculate the costs to the entire U.S. economy.

New study finds doctor rating websites concern physicians

According to a July 2 article written by Kaiser Health News in The Washington Post, the growth of physician rating websites is of increasing concern among doctors.

Many physicians have criticized doctor rating sites that allow patients to provide feedback anonymously. They argue that such sites do not offer accountability or a way for physicians to defend themselves.

Consumer Reports recently ventured into physician rating territory in Massachusetts. The ratings, published as an insert in the July issue for the magazine’s Massachusetts subscribers and available online as well, put 487 primary-care and pediatric practices through their paces, assigning scores.

The article notes, "Rating sites of any sort help consumers take a more active role in managing their health and making health care choices, say experts. And that’s important, whether the information comes from a scientifically valid survey or an anonymous online review."

Washington Post on second anniversary of health reform

On the second anniversary of the Affordable Care Act, there is a great deal of commentary around the pros and cons, as well as predictions as to what will happen after the Supreme Court hears arguments on the constitutionality of the individual mandate.

Here are two articles on the topic in today's Washington Post:

"Health reform turns 2," by Ezra Klein

"Health reform at 2: Why American health care will never be the same," by Sara Kliff

Why health care costs vary in one chart

From the Washington Post in Ezra Klein's Wonkblog....

There’s no shortage of evidence that health care prices vary dramatically across the country - and no shortage of questions about why this is true. Are certain populations sicker? Doctors charging more? Patients seeking more unnecessary treatments? All of the above?

Here's a link to the full post and chart.

Health-care groups laying groundwork for post-election debate over cost cuts

Regardless of whether Congress’s supercommittee meets its deadline for finding ways to reduce the federal deficit, budget and policy experts are braced for Washington to soon face the painful task of finding even more savings — and they anticipate that health spending, which makes up more than a fifth of the federal budget, will be a main target.

Some health-care leaders are already laying the groundwork to redirect a debate they’re expecting in 2013, after the 2012 election. They hope to prevent spending from simply being shifted from one part of the system to another. Read the full article...

Supreme Court to hear challenge to Obama’s health-care overhaul

The Supreme Court decided on Monday to review President Obama’s 2010 health-care overhaul, promising a high-profile hearing on the question dominating American politics: the constitutional limits of the federal government’s power.

Next March, around the second anniversary of the act’s passage, the nine justices will hear arguments in the case, taking on the role of constitutional referee between those who see the law as a trespass on individual and states’ rights and those who consider it an extension of a safety net to Americans regardless of where they live or work. Read the full article...

New Maryland health program promotes care for the whole patient

The state launched a program that offers financial incentives for comprehensive patient care. Doctors are encouraged to come up with coordinated care among health-care providers to place a focus on preventing illness, rather than waiting until it needs costly treatment. Read the full article...

In implementing health reform, governors are turning to unilateral action

Governors in five states -- Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, Rhode Island and now Minnesota-- have used executive orders to move forward on the law. And when you count states that have pursued grant money through their executive branch, that number rises to 15, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. That includes all the medium-blue states on this map (an interactive version). Read the full article...