New Obamacare provision in effect today

[Honu]

Originally Posted by Riot

A new provision of Obamacare went into effect today: hospitals will be penalized financially via their Medicare reimbursements, if their Medicare patients are re-admitted for the same medical problems too quickly, too frequently.

This applies to things like hospitalization for heart attacks ,etc.

The goal is to make sure the hospital treats and follows up with the patient correctly and thoroughly the first time they have a major health problem - to save the patient recurring bad health and quick readmission for the same problem again in a short time, and to save Medicare from paying for excessive admissions for the same problem over and over again in quick succession.

Treat it right the first time, ensure the patient gets appropriate follow up care.

What a concept!

Healthier patients, less admissions, less cost to the provider (which is you and I) Medicare already delivers a higher quality of care, for far less cost, than US private insurance companies. This simply improves that again. One of the ways Obamacare extends the life of Medicare by 8 years.

Of course, Mitt Romney vows to repeal this horrible provision, socialist healthcare and huge government overreach the first day he is in office

I like Obamacare. Yes, I do

Those pesky old sick people. Shame on them for not getting better right away.

[dino]

I'm a right wing Conservative but even I have figured out that Romney is going to get smoked in November. The Liberal's have finally figure out that you can buy votes by signing up more people for welfare, food stamps and all the rest of the give aways.
In the 50's they tried to keep the woman barefoot and pregnant so men could have control over them. Now they just keep them dumb and happy so they'll vote for them.
Long gone is my grandfather's and father's America. Welcome to Obamaland where he wants to open the borders to the hispanic vote, turn the poor against the rich, the blacks against the white, the young against the old....I could go on forever.
My hope was aleays that people would figure it out but with the dumbing down of America that probably won't happen. So now all we can do is watch the country go down the drain.

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by dino

I'm a right wing Conservative but even I have figured out that Romney is going to get smoked in November. The Liberal's have finally figure out that you can install anyone with a pulse and they will defeat the pervasive Fundamentalist Christian agenda that has infected and permeated the once great Republican party.

FTFY.




WAR! PRISONS! NDAA STAYS! MORE WAR! MORE PRISONS! WAR ON DRUGS! WAR ON TERRORISM! WAR ON THE CONSTITUTION! WAR ON ANYONE WHO DOESN'T AGREE WITH US! WAR AGAINST CHOICE! WAR ON GAYS!

Pretty much why - America has had enough of the nonsense, to the point that a great number of Mcain voters are not backing Romney. The Republicans should have rolled over Obama blindfolded, but pandering to their 20% wacko base has killed any chance of that.

If Romney comes out with a more centrist position, a draw down plan in Afghanistan, an actual DEFENSE initiative as opposed to goading Iran into another conflict to replace the lost cause in Pakistan/Afghanistan, a detailed jobs plan that doesn't gut the middle class, etc., and he rolls this clown 70%-30%.

But the psychopaths win out, then lose again, when reality strikes.

[sham]

Anyone who supports this new provision has not thought it through. I just lived and continue to live this new Medicare requirement. My wife 65yo and a Congestive Heart Failure (CHF) patient had her aortic valve replaced a couple weeks ago. This Medicare mandate was the subject that several doctors and nurses were talking about. When the government makes mandates (usually with good intentions) there are always unintended consequences. The new mandate could cost more money than it saves because hospitals would rather see you die in the hospital than go home and then be readmitted later. Thus, hospital stays will last longer for serious illnesses, AND the real problem with extended stays is that the longer one is in a hospital, the greater the chance of contracting a serious staff infection or some other illness. The other end of the problem is that hospitals will be reluctant to readmit a previously treated patient even if the patient becomes dangerously ill. This is a serious consequence for CHF patients because numerous hospital stays is the norm for them.

The way doctors will get around this new provision is to readmit under the identity of a new medical condition. If my wife has to be readmitted, they will try to use something like kidney impairment (for example) rather than a heart based problem. The law looks good on paper but likely will not work in reality. The law reflects a business decision, not a decision in favor of an individual's health. "We must pass it to find out what is in it." Well, we are finding out what is in it and it is not good.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by sham

Anyone who supports this new provision has not thought it through. I just lived and continue to live this new Medicare requirement. My wife 65yo and a Congestive Heart Failure (CHF) patient had her aortic valve replaced a couple weeks ago. This Medicare mandate was the subject that several doctors and nurses were talking about. When the government makes mandates (usually with good intentions) there are always unintended consequences. The new mandate could cost more money than it saves because hospitals would rather see you die in the hospital than go home and then be readmitted later. Thus, hospital stays will last longer for serious illnesses, AND the real problem with extended stays is that the longer one is in a hospital, the greater the chance of contracting a serious staff infection or some other illness. The other end of the problem is that hospitals will be reluctant to readmit a previously treated patient even if the patient becomes dangerously ill. This is a serious consequence for CHF patients because numerous hospital stays is the norm for them.

The way doctors will get around this new provision is to readmit under the identity of a new medical condition. If my wife has to be readmitted, they will try to use something like kidney impairment (for example) rather than a heart based problem. The law looks good on paper but likely will not work in reality. The law reflects a business decision, not a decision in favor of an individual's health. "We must pass it to find out what is in it." Well, we are finding out what is in it and it is not good.

the doctor-patient relationship is secondary to the government's word.

What's next?

[jms62]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

the doctor-patient relationship is secondary to the government's word.

What's next?

All Healthcare is secondary to the ALMIGHTLY DOLLAR. For profit Healthcare is the issue here. But you will never let a reason to bash Obama go to waste.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by jms62

All Healthcare is secondary to the ALMIGHTLY DOLLAR. For profit Healthcare is the issue here. But you will never let a reason to bash Obama go to waste.

Yea all doctors are in it for the money. Their oath means nothing.

You're right let's let the government run healthcare. Look at the success they've had with Fannie and Freddie.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

the doctor-patient relationship is secondary to the government's word.

What's next?

I guess you are unawares that right now, the doctor-patient relationship is secondary to the private insurance companies word on how many days they will pay for hospitalization, and what treatments they will cover?

You are unawares that 100% of your allowable (meaning paid for) medical treatment for a conditions is dictated by private insurance company actuaries, not by what your doctor might choose to do?

Yes, the treatments for common conditions are dictated by insurance companies, not your doctor.

That patients are often sent home a day early by private insurance companies trying to save money, causing "bounce back" of some of those patients because she wasn't ready to go home yet, and the insurance company was mandating an early discharge for profit?

Yes, the government preventing that "bounce back" for the patients it pays for - Medicare patients - is a good thing.

Medicare provides better care for patients, at a vastly decreased cost, than private insurance companies do.

Those with private insurance will have to take their chances.

Why this country doesn't have single-payer, like other first world countries, is due simply to the fact that too much of our congress is owned by private insurance companies.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by sham

Anyone who supports this new provision has not thought it through. I just lived and continue to live this new Medicare requirement. My wife 65yo and a Congestive Heart Failure (CHF) patient had her aortic valve replaced a couple weeks ago. This Medicare mandate was the subject that several doctors and nurses were talking about. When the government makes mandates (usually with good intentions) there are always unintended consequences. The new mandate could cost more money than it saves because hospitals would rather see you die in the hospital than go home and then be readmitted later.

No, this does not apply to a deteriorating, terminal patient. This does not apply to normal hospitalization times for an aortic valve replacement - it's when hospitals kick patients out early, against common medical practices. This only affects what is currently bounce-backs for a few conditions, that is common for only hospitals that don't "do it right" on treatment in the first place.

Achieving normal hospitalization times (and yes, those are documented and we all know it) for regular procedures is the aim of this - times are not being increased. Hospitals that constantly press for early discharge, before the "usual" hospitalization time, will be affected.

Thus, hospital stays will last longer for serious illnesses, AND the real problem with extended stays is that the longer one is in a hospital, the greater the chance of contracting a serious staff infection or some other illness. The other end of the problem is that hospitals will be reluctant to readmit a previously treated patient even if the patient becomes dangerously ill. This is a serious consequence for CHF patients because numerous hospital stays is the norm for them.

This provision does not affect patients with ongoing serious conditions.

Please - read the few conditions the mandate affects.

Other than that, how are you and your wife enjoying your increased Medicare benefits and drug savings due the law?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Honu

Those pesky old sick people. Shame on them for not getting better right away.

That's not the problem being discussed, is it?

It's to discourage hospitals from kicking seriously ill Medicare patients with certain conditions out early, with no continuing health care, where those patients "bounce back" (yes, that's the term for it) rather than continue their recovery.