Tag Archives: Obamacare

“Veritas”, Ivy and the Affordable Care Act: What’s Good for the Goose May Now NOT be Good for the Gander at Harvard

Prominent academics within the prestigious Harvard University department of Economics have long been vocal supporters of President Obama and his Affordable Care Act legislation.  In fact, many Harvard professors helped develop some of the concepts that were utilized in the drafting of the ACA.  During the debates over the ACA in Congress, these professors were frequently seen (and heard) touting the legislation as a fiscally responsible way to provide affordable care to all Americans.  The current Provost, Dr Alan Garber,  (not to be confused with MITs Gruber), was part of a group of economist who sent letters to the President in the early days of the ACA praising certain aspects of the bill such as “cost sharing” and the Cadillac tax applied to the best plans.

My how things have changed.  This week, as reported in the New York Times, these same Harvard faculty are in an uproar as they have seen their own healthcare plans completely overhauled.  Rather than being allowed to maintain their long time low cost (out of pocket) plans, the university has now implemented healthcare coverage that is consistent with the provisions in the ACA.  Now there are more up front out of pocket expenses for basic insurance plans and the Cadillac plans are much more expensive.

During a faculty meeting the vast majority of Harvard professors voted to oppose the changes in the Harvard health plan that would require them to pay more for their own healthcare—How dare Harvard adjust their own benefits and how dare the University actually expect them to be a part of a new ACA influenced health care plan at Harvard???

This type of attitude is even more prevalent among lawmakers in both the White House and in Congress.  Members of Congress as well as the President and all staffers are EXEMPT from the individual mandate.  This type of paternalistic governance is what is wrong with Washington today.  Many Democrats seem to have taken the attitude that they were elected not to represent the people but rather to do what they think is best for their constituents.    In an era when the ACA is wildly unpopular, many politicians continue to refuse to believe that changes to the legislation should be made.

If the ACA is such a great thing, why then do those who designed it and legislated it refuse to participate?

  1. The President and His Legacy:  The President continues to see the ACA as his legacy.  In spite of plummeting approval numbers and a negative referendum on his failed policies during the 2014 Midterm Elections, Obama refuses to examine the numerous issues associated with the healthcare law and does not appear to have any willingness to compromise on amending the act.  Unfortunately, Obama’s pursuit of his legacy appears to trump sensible bipartisan negotiations and will severely limit Washington’s ability to actually govern.
  2. Paternal Governance:  Currently, Many in power feel as though they know what is “best” for the rest of us.  Rather than represent a constituency, many of our leaders actually believe that the American people are incapable of making sound decisions for themselves and their own healthcare.  The “Big Brother” knows best attitude continues to alienate millions of voting Americans.  Interestingly, when those that helped craft the legislation (i.e. the now disgruntled Harvard economics professors) are subjected to the law that they supported, the outlook quickly changes.
  3. Partisan Politics:  Our country is the more divided politically than ever before.  Relationships in Washington are so polarized that compromise will be difficult to achieve.  Our elected government is divided with the President refusing to even consider bills that are put forward–instead he threatens vetoes in advance on any bills that address issues concerning the reform of the ACA.

So, What’s Next?

As a country we must begin to deal with the issue of healthcare in a more productive and collaborative way.  Politics as usual will result in another two years of decline in both the quality and affordability of the American healthcare system.  We must hold Washington accountable and the Obama administration MUST begin to work with Congressional leaders to find workable, effective solutions to the mountain of problems that has been created by the poorly thought out and recklessly implemented Affordable Care Act legislation.  And, those at Harvard (as well as those in Washington) should have to live with the same healthcare insurance programs that are mandated for the rest of us–No Exemptions.

Unknown

Reflecting on Medicine in 2014: Sailing Rough Seas and Finding Uncharted Waters Ahead

As we close out on a tumultuous 2014 in healthcare, many physicians are looking forward to a better and more stable 2015. For most of us, 2014 has been marked by significant change. Many healthcare providers have seen their jobs and their patient care roles transform completely. Physician autonomy has diminished and regulation and mandated electronic paperwork has more than doubled. Many physicians find that they are spending far less time caring for patients and a greater proportion of their available clinical time is now being spent interfacing with a computer—both at work and at home on personal time.

During the last year, we have all been affected by the rollout of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), changes in reimbursement, as well as the implementation of a new billing and coding system (ICD-10). For many of us, it also marked a year of transition to system wide electronic medical record systems such as Epic and the growing pains associated with such a major upheaval in the way in which medicine is practiced.   Many practices have continued the trend of “integration” with larger healthcare systems in order to remain financially viable. The American College of Cardiology estimates that by the end of 2014, nearly 60% of all physician members have integrated with hospital systems and this number is expected to rise even further in 2015—ultimately defining the death of private practice as we know it.

Why have these changes occurred?

Ultimately, I believe that the changes to the way in which healthcare is delivered has come about due to 3 distinct reasons:

 1. Declining Reimbursement

Currently reimbursement continues to fall. Multiple government budgetary “fixes” have led to much uncertainty and instability in medical practices (much like seen in any small business with financial and market instability). In addition, the implementation of the ACA has resulted in the expansion of the Medicaid population in the US—now nearly 1 in 5 Americans is covered under a Medicaid plan. Traditionally, Medicaid plans reimburse at levels 45% less than Medicare (which is already much lower than private insurance payments). While the Obama administration did provide a payment incentive for physicians to accept Medicaid, this incentive expires this week. Many practices are becoming financially non viable as overhead costs are risking to more than 60%. As for the ACA, many exchanges have set prices and negotiated contracts with hospital systems—leaving many practices out of network. Both patients and doctors suffer—longtime relationships are severed due to lack of access to particular physicians.

2. Increasing Administrative/Regulatory Demands

With the implementation of the ICD-10 coding system, now physicians are confronted with more than 85, 000 codes (previously the number of codes was approximately 15,000). In addition, “meaningful use” mandates for payment have resulted in increasing documentation requirements and even more electronic paperwork. In addition, the implementation of new billing and coding systems has required increasing staff (more overhead) as well as intensive physician training. Sadly, the new coding system that has been mandated by the Federal government includes thousands of absurdities such as a code for an “Orca bite” as well as a code for an “injury suffered while water skiing with skis on fire”.

3. Electronic Medical Record Mandates

Federal requirements for the implementation of Electronic Medical Records and electronic prescribing have resulted in several negative impacts on practices. While in theory, the idea of a universal medical record that is portable and accessible to all providers is a noble goal, the current reality in of EMR in the US is troubling. There are several different EMR systems and none of them are standardized—none of them allow for cross talk and communication. Many small practices cannot afford the up front expenditures associated with the purchase and implementation of the EMR (often in the hundreds of thousands of dollars).   In addition, the EMR has slowed productivity for many providers and resulted in more work that must be taken home to complete—not a good thing for physician morale. Finally, and most importantly, the EMR often serves to separate doctor and patient and hinders the development of a doctor-patient relationship. Rather than focusing on the patient and having a conversation during an office visit, many physicians are glued to a computer screen during the encounter.

So, What is next in 2015?

While I have probably painted a bleak picture for Medicine in 2014, it is my hope that we are able to move forward in a more positive way in 2015. I think that there are several very exciting developments that are gaining momentum within medicine and healthcare in general.  Innovation and medical entrepreneurship will be critical in moving healthcare forward in 2015.  Physicians must continue to lobby for the tools and freedoms to provide better patient care experiences for all stakeholders in the healthcare space.

2015 begins with much promise. I am excited to see what we as healthcare professionals will be able to accomplish in the coming year. We must continue to put patients first and strive to provide outstanding care in spite of the obstacles put before us. While 2014 provided challenges, we must rise above the fray and continue to advocate for a better healthcare system in the US today and in the future.

Unknown

Obama’s Latest Bait and Switch for Docs: Medicaid Payments to be Cut by 40%

As we enter year two of the Affordable Care Act, we have seen many issues arise during implementation.  Through both executive order and executive memorandum, President Obama has unilaterally changed the law more than 100 times in order to advance his own political agenda.  When it became important to publicize enrollment and increased coverage of the uninsured, the President and the ACA provided for an increased payment scale for patients with Medicaid.  With the rapid increase of Medicaid insured patients due to the implementation of the ACA, the administration utilized the increased payments as an incentive to attract more physicians to participate in Medicaid programs.  According to the New York Times, the ACA has resulted in the largest increase in Medicaid covered patients in history–now nearly 20% of all Americans are covered under this plan.  Attracting physicians to cover Medicare patients has been critical in order to meet the demand for access to care and  to adequately cover the newly insured.  Now, unless changes are made this week, Medicaid reimbursements will be cut once again leaving many physicians to wonder if they can continue to treat the increasing numbers of Americans covered thru these programs.

Traditionally, Medicaid has reimbursed physicians at rates significantly lower than Medicare–making practices with large numbers of Medicaid patients financially non viable.  As the ACA was rolled out, a provision provided for significantly better Medicaid payment rates to physicians in order to help provide larger networks of care for the newly insured.  Now, there looms an automatic payment rate cut of nearly 43% for Medicaid payments to primary care physicians–many of these are the same physicians who agreed to expand Medicaid within their practices in order to meet demand.  According to Forbes, traditional Medicaid reimbursement averages just 61% of Medicare reimbursement rates (which is often significantly lower than private insurance rates).  In addition, many Medicaid patients require a disproportionate amount of time and resources from the office–doctors are caught between a “rock and a hard place”–between a moral obligation to treat these patients and a desire to avoid financial ruin.  These patients tend to be sicker, have multiple medical problems and have suffered from a long time lack of preventive care.

Finances are not the only piece of the Medicaid puzzle. Government regulation and paperwork and processing often delays payments to physicians and impacts their ability to run a financially sound business.   Interestingly, a study from 2013 published in Health Affairs suggested that while physicians welcomed an increase in reimbursement rates as incentive to treat Medicaid patients that quicker payment times, reduced paperwork and simplified administrative processes would also need to be a part of any type of reform.  (of course, none of these items were included in the incentive package).

Many primary care physicians stepped up to answer the call for increasing coverage of Medicare patients when the ACA was initially rolled out.  Now, these same physicians are contemplating the need to drop these patients from their clinics with the pending change in reimbursement.  As mentioned above, in addition to lower reimbursement rates, the Medicaid program requires an enormous amount of administrative work in order to file claims and these claims are often paid very late–those running a small practice are forced with more work for less pay and often have to make difficult budgetary decisions in order to  payroll for their staff each week.   While the administration touts the swelling numbers of Medicaid covered patients–nearly 68 million currently–I suspect access to quality care will soon become an issue.  Just as with every other manipulation of the ACA over the last two years, legacy and political agendas have taken precedent over what really should matter–providing quality medical care AND prompt, easy access to care for the formerly uninsured.  In an effort to tout swelling numbers of “covered” Americans, the Obama administration has failed to anticipate the impact of short term financial incentives for primary care physicians to accept increasing numbers of Medicare patients.  Even in states such as California, officials are bracing for a large number of physicians who have announced that they will likely drop out of Medicaid plans if the planned cuts are implemented as scheduled.

It is time for the Obama administration to stop playing political games with our healthcare.  If the mission of the ACA is to provide affordable quality healthcare for all Americans, then we need to ensure that there are quality, dedicated physicians available to provide that care.  The Medicaid “bait and switch” is just one example of our President’s shortsightedness and lack of connection to those dedicated physicians who work tirelessly to ensure that ALL patients have access to care (regardless of insurance type).  It is my hope that the new Congress will engage with the physician community and find real solutions to the US healthcare crisis–and no longer allow the President to place his perceived legacy over the healthcare of those Americans who are in need.

Unknown

Image adapted from The Peanuts comic strip by Charles Shultz

Should We All Die at 75?: Addressing the “Emanuel Principe” in Obamacare

Ezekiel Emanuel, one of the authors of the Affordable Care Act spoke publicly this week about his own desire to “die at 75” in a article published in the Atlantic.  In his piece, he argues that as he ages, he wishes to stop all preventative medical measures and “let nature take its course” as he approaches the age of 75.  This includes screenings such as colonoscopy as well as taking flu shots for the prevention of communicable illness.  While currently in excellent health, Mr Emanuel believes that while death is a loss–”living too long is also a loss.” He argues that the American obsession with living longer results in a larger number of elderly, disabled citizens.  I take significant issue with this position and fear that this is simply the beginning of a new phase in the ACA debate–the rationing of care. From the outset, many of us in healthcare and scholars of healthcare policy have seen Obamacare as a way to promote the rationing healthcare (particularly for the elderly).  While the administration has vehemently denied these claims throughout the legislative and implementation phases of the new healthcare law, it is particularly revealing that one of the principal architects of the law firmly believes that we should not pay attention to life expectancy statistics beyond the age of 75.  Medical advances have made it increasingly possible for seniors to lead healthy, productive exciting lives well into their 80s.  Now, I certainly am not arguing for providing futile care in the setting of terminal illness but–Why then should government (instead of doctors) now have the right to determine how healthcare resources are utilized and who gets what?  Is it all about age?  Do we value the young more than the more “seasoned” citizens? The US healthcare system, while certainly imperfect, offers some of the greatest technological advances in the world and the most significant thing that has always set US healthcare apart form others has been CHOICE.  With Obamacare in place, we now have less choice in our healthcare and very little improvement in access.  This latest article by Mr Emmanuel is no surprise–he has been clear about his belief in allocating health care dollars away from activities which may extend lifespans for Americans.  While, Mr Emmanuel certainly has the RIGHT to refuse care for himself at a certain age neither he (NOR OBAMA or any GOVERNMENT agent) should be able to determine an “acceptable” life span for each of us. Quality of life and health status can be very subjective and care must remain individualized rather than mandated (or withheld) based on actuarial tables or government rationing of resources. Medicine is all about innovation and the development of new technologies.  Through technology we are able to provide longer, more productive lives for our patients.  Our patients are able to retire from a life of work and enjoy spouses, family and friends–well into their 80s and 90s WITH a quality of life.  In fact one of my favorite “golf buddies” is 80 years old and going strong–He can still shoot in the 80s from time to time and never misses a game. In MEDICINE one size does not fit all.  OBAMACARE wants to force a ONE SIZE FITS ALL healthcare system on all of us and as a physician I find this to be unacceptable.  Just as we must cater therapy to individual patients—when (and how) you die must also be catered to each individual patients needs, desires and beliefs. Chronological age such as 75 may be different for different people AND we must respect individual needs.  Medicine is a clearly a science but in many cases the practice of medicine –particularly when making decisions about end of life issues–makes it more of an ART.  The government has no place in dictating ART.  Government should help to preserve and curate art–not regulate and mandate the way in which medical care is delivered to individual patients based on age. Ultimately, left to its own devices, I believe that the ACA will create rationing of care for Americans and we will have two classes of people–those that are wealthy and can afford private care and can pay cash for it–these can make their own healthcare decisions and decide when enough is enough.  The others–most of us–will be lumped into the disaster that IS obamacare and will have little or no choice in how our healthcare is delivered.  Waiting lists for advanced procedures and denials of advanced care for the elderly will be the standard–Just as Mr Emanuel envisioned it when he crafted the law just a few short years ago.

Unknown

More (or less) Hope and Change (for the worse) In Healthcare: Are Doctor Shortages Really All Due To Training Bottlenecks?

There is no doubt that Affordable Care Act has changed the landscape of medicine in the US.  Now, private practice is becoming a thing of the past. Financial pressures, increasing regulatory requirements, electronic medical records and outrageously complex coding systems are forcing long time private physicians to enter into agreements with academic centers and large hospital systems in order to survive.  As a result, medicine today is more about increasing patient volumes, completing reams of paperwork and administrative duties than it is about interacting with patients and providing superior care.  The American Academy of Family Practice (AAFP) estimates that there will be a significant shortage of primary care physicians in the next several years unless we increase the number of primary care trainees by more than 25% over the same time period.  In fact, the AAFP suggests that the primary care workforce must increase to 260K physicians by the year 2025–which translates to an additional 52K primary care doctors.

Given the need for more physicians and the pending shortage (particularly in primary care), many analysts have suggested that the reason for the shortage is a lack of training slots in primary care.  The ACA will add an additional 32 million patients to the pool of insured and primary care doctors will be at a premium.  In the New York Times this week, the editorial board collectively penned an article discussing their thoughts concerning the doctor shortage.  The NYT editorial board suggests that the shortage is all about an imbalance between Residency training slots and medical school graduates and can be easily corrected by federal funding of a larger number of training positions.  However, I think that the issue is much more complex and the solution is far from simple.

Primary care is an incredibly challenging specialty and requires a broad knowledge of much of medicine.  Reimbursements for primary care work continue to lag and physicians are now spending more time with administrative duties than they are with patients.   I do not believe that the so called post graduate training “bottleneck” will come into play.  I would suggest that many primary care training slots will go unfilled over the next 5-10 years even without increasing the numbers of available positions.  Increasing training slots for primary care specialties may do nothing to alleviate shortages if there are no students who wish to train.  While medical school enrollments have increased over the last decade, much of this increased enrollment may be due to a lack of jobs available to recent college graduates.  Moreover, as the ACA continues to evolve, physicians are now realizing lower compensation rates, increased work hours, more administrative duties and LESS time spent caring for patients.  Many physicians are forced to double the number of patients seen in a clinic day–resulting in less than 10mins per patient–in order to meet overhead and practice expenses.  In a separate article in the New York Times, author and cardiologist Sandeep Jauhar discusses the increased patient loads and subsequent higher rates of diagnostic testing that is required in order to make sure that nothing is missed–ultimately increasing the cost of care.

For most of those who have entered medicine, the attraction to the profession is all about the doctor-patient interaction and the time spent caring for others.  I would argue that the primary care shortage (and likely specialist shortage) will worsen in the future.  Many bright minds will likely forego medicine in order to pursue other less government-regulated careers.  In addition, many qualified primary care physicians will opt out of the ACA system and enter into the rapidly growing concierge care practice model.  The answer to the physician shortage may be more political than not–politicians must realize that laws and mandates only work if you have citizens willing to devote their time, energy and talents to the practice of medicine.  Going forward, more consideration must be given to physician quality of life and autonomy must be maintained.  In order to make healthcare reform sustainable, those in power must work with those of us “in the trenches” and create policies that are in the best interest of the patient, physician and the nation as a whole.  Cutting costs must be approached from multiple angles–not simply reducing the size of the physician paycheck.

Medicine remains a noble profession.  Those of us that do continue to practice medicine are privileged to serve others and provide outstanding care.  In order to continue to advance, we must continue to attract bright young minds who are willing to put patients and their needs above their own–at all costs.  I think that there is still HOPE to save medicine in the US.  It is my HOPE that our government will soon realize that in order to continue to propagate a workforce of competent, caring physicians we must provide time for physicians to do what they do best–bond with patients and treat disease.  (as opposed to typing into a computer screen and filling out endless reams of electronic paperwork).  It is my HOPE that those physicians in training  that will follow in my generation’s footsteps will realize the satisfaction that comes from impacting the health and lives of patients over time.  It is my HOPE that the ART of medicine can be saved before it is too late….

 

images

Healthcare Industry CEOs and the Cost of Care: Too Many Men (and Women) in Black (Suits)?

Healthcare reform is a reality.  The ACA and its associated mandates have forever changed the landscape of medicine in the US today.  The Obama administration touts the goals of reform as providing affordable, cost effective, high quality care for all Americans.  Certainly these are noble and lofty goals–but have we completely missed the mark?  Today, many remain uninsured and the majority that have signed up for the exchanges are simply those who have lost their healthcare coverage from other providers.  Healthcare costs in the US remain above those of all other industrialized countries while physician salaries in the US continue to fall.  Even though the US spends more dollars per capita on healthcare than any other country on earth, our outcomes, when compared to other nations,  remain mediocre at best.

What about cost?  Who is actually delivering care?

Over the last 30 years, hospital administrators and CEOs have grown by 2500% while physicians have grown by only a modest amount.  In fact, according to the American Academy of Family Practice, there must be a 25% increase in primary care doctors over the next 10 years in order to keep pace with demand.  Multiple independent surveys (published by the AAMC) indicate a significant shortfall of all types of physicians nationally by the year 2020.  As administrators and insurance company executives grow, hospital staff and services continue to be cut—nurses and doctors are asked to care for more patients with fewer resources.  Executives continue to tout savings within their organizations and boards award these administrators with enormous financial bonuses.

Screen Shot 2014-05-19 at 7.24.21 AM

Source :  BLS and Hammelstein/Wool handler

Where are the Doctors in all of this?

The short answer is that physicians are caring for patients and managing the piles of paperwork that the government and other healthcare organizations and executives have created for them.  Doctors are now consumed with checking boxes, implementing EMRs and transitioning to a new coding system for billing—all while seeing increasing patient loads and meeting increasingly steep clinical demands.

This week in the New York Times, Elisabeth Rosenthal penned an article that spells out what many physicians have known for a very long time—the administrators and hospitals are the high wage earners–not the doctors.  As the numbers of administrators continues to rise exponentially, many independent physicians and physician groups are being driven to integrate with or leave practice altogether in order to remain fiscally viable.  According the the Times, the salaries of many administrators and CEOs (in both the hospitals and the insurance industry) are outpacing salaries of both general practice physicians, surgeons and even most specialists.  Astronomical wages such as those earned by Aetna’s CEO (total package over 36 million dollars) and others are a big contributing factor to the trillions of dollars that we spend on healthcare each year.  According to the New York Times, healthcare administrative costs make up nearly 30% of the total US healthcare bill.  Obviously, large corporations and CEOs will argue that these wages are necessary to attract the best and brightest executives to the healthcare industry.  What is there to attract the best and brightest scientists to medicine?  Certainly altruism is a big part of what physicians are about but economic realities must still come into play when bright young students are choosing careers (while accumulating graduate and professional school debt at record paces).

Why then does it seem as though physicians are the only target for reform?

That answer is simple–hospital administrators and insurance company CEOs are well trained businessmen (and women) with MBAs from prestigious schools.  They understand politics and how to effectively lobby.  They have been actively involved in reform and have participated in discussions on Capitol Hill rather than watch the change happen around them.  When costs are cut from the healthcare expenditures, they have made erudite moves–they have worked effectively to isolate themselves and their institutions from the cuts that are affecting the rest of the industry.   While reimbursement for office visits and procedures falls to less than 50% through many of the exchanges and other government based programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, CEOs and hospital administrators continue to financially outpace their colleagues in other sectors of business.

As physicians, we must continue to focus on our patients and their well being.  Individually, we must continue to provide outstanding, efficient, quality care to those who depend on us every single day.  As a group, however, doctors must begin to work harder to influence those in Washington for change.  While healthcare reform is essential and must be accomplished in a fiscally responsible way, it is my hope that those in a position to effect change will recognize that we must begin to better regulate and limit those in CEO and administrative positions in both the insurance and hospital industries.  Just as we reduce the numbers of nurses on the floor to care for patients in order to save healthcare dollars, maybe we should eliminate a few VPs with fancy offices on the top floors of our hospitals.  Which one do you think will positively impact patients more–fewer nurses or fewer dark suits?

images

Obamacare Delays and Rearranging Deck Chairs on the Titanic: Old People Can’t Surf

This week the White House announced yet another Obamacare delay–actually, to be precise, they termed it an “accommodation”.  The reason given for the delay was that there were concerns voiced by the Obama administration that the “rush” to sign up during the final days may cause delays and result in a website crash.  Therefore, it was proclaimed that those who were “trying to sign up” would be given an extension to mid April to complete the process.  Overall there have been more than 20 unilateral changes/delays/exceptions made by the President without Congressional approval or oversight.  Exceptions have been provided for businesses and those who serve and work in our Congress BUT the individual mandate remains in place.   In the meantime, many that have been counted as “signing up” have no insurance and a large number have not yet paid their premiums.  However, the biggest problem with the manipulation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) may actually be the commentary of one of its greatest supporters–Senator Harry Reid.

With the 2014 Midterm elections looming, many of those in Congress who are facing reelection have commented on the latest delays in an effort to positively spin the news.  As you might expect, those in leadership roles such as Senator Harry Reid have tried to minimize the impact of repeated Obamacare failures and fixes on his part (a desperate attempt to cling to a majority). In an effort to explain the need for the latest delay Senator Reid has shown his complete lack of connection with the nation.  He publicly proclaimed and was quoted in the Washington Times as saying that “some [old people] may not be educated about [or understand] the internet”.  In reality, more seniors than ever before are utilizing the internet in order to maintain medical information.  Pew Research Center data indicates that as of 2013, nearly 60% of all Americans in the 50-65 year old age group are actively engaged in internet based social media.  Even more telling is the fact that 50% of those over the age of 65 are involved in AT LEAST one internet based social media outlet.  It is clear that the internet and medicine will be intimately connected in the future.  Twitter, a popular site for micro-blogging in 140 characters or less has seen a 79% increase in utilization by users in the 50-65 year old age group.  When you carefully examine the Senator’s comments he is clearly referring to those in the 50-65 year old range–those over 65 will be enrolled in Medicare and have no need to go to the exchanges.  The younger populations-such as the millennials–are assumed to be web savvy from birth.

The delivery of healthcare is already evolving digitally–particularly in the areas of the electronic patient and in mobile health applications.  For Senator Reid to make such a statement concerning the inability of older Americans to “understand” the internet not only is insulting but  shows a complete lack of connection to and respect for the very people he claims to want to protect.  Seniors are more web savvy now and are able to access the web in a variety of ways–there is data from non biased scientific surveys (such as those conducted last year by Pew) to substantiate my statement.  In reality, his comments are a sad attempt to explain the inexplicable–why do the Democrats in Congress continue to hang on to a system that is clearly failing?

The ACA continues to suffer setbacks–most of them at the hands of the President who has dedicated his legacy to its success.  The latest delay (or accommodation, as the Obama Administration prefers to call it) is more about the lack of enrollees and less about the ability of older Americans to successfully interact with the internet.  Many seniors are surfing on a daily basis.  The internet is not the problem with the ACA and healthcare reform–rather it is the legislation that is broken and badly in need of a fix.

1086587_a1b4_625x1000