When Mayor Bill de Blasio announced his first labor agreements with New York City unions this spring, he was sharply criticized for granting long-awaited wage increases in exchange for promises of unspecified though sizable savings on health care expenses. Now, some of the specifics are coming into focus: City officials and union leaders say they hope to push municipal workers to use walk-in clinics more and emergency rooms less, order generic drugs more often than brand-name ones, and buy them through the mail rather than at retail pharmacies to achieve bulk discounts. The city hopes the unions will agree to steer workers to use centralized, cheaper centers for blood tests, X-rays or M.R.I.s, rather than having those tests performed in doctors’ offices or at costly physician-owned facilities. Patients who resist could face higher copayments, while savings would be passed on to the city in lower premiums. The cost-cutting comes with high stakes: If the city and unions are unable to save a total of $3.4 billion on health care by 2018, a mediator will be empowered to order increases in workers’ premiums to cover the shortfall, officials said. As an added inducement, if the unions help the city exceed that goal, the first $365 million in additional savings would be distributed as lump-sum bonuses to workers, officials said. Any savings beyond that would be split evenly between the city and its employees. In interviews, Harry Nespoli, chairman of the Municipal Labor... |
Copyright
(c) 2010-2025 Jon L Gelman, All Rights Reserved.
Showing posts with label Emergency department. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Emergency department. Show all posts
Thursday, July 31, 2014
De Blasio’s Plans to Reduce Worker Health Costs Have a Carrot and a Stick
Tuesday, July 15, 2014
Why Improving Access to Health Care Does Not Save Money
One of the oft-repeated arguments in favor of the Affordable Care Act is that it will reduce people’s need for more intensive care by increasing their access to preventive care. For example, people will use the emergency room less often because they will be able to see primary care physicians. Or, they will not develop as many chronic illnesses because they will be properly screened and treated early on. And they will not require significant and invasive care down the line because they will be better managed ahead of time. Moreover, it is often asserted that these developments will lead to reductions in health care spending. Unfortunately, a growing body of evidence makes the case that this may not be true. One of the most important facts about health care overhaul, and one that is often overlooked, is that all changes to the health care system involve trade-offs among access, quality and cost. You can improve one of these – maybe two – but it will almost always result in some other aspect getting worse. You can make the health care system achieve better outcomes. But that will usually cost more or require some change in access. You can make it cheaper, but access or quality may take a hit. And you can expand access, but that will increase cost or result in some change in quality. The A.C.A. was primarily about access: making it easier for people to get insurance and the care it allows. The law also tries to make changes that may bend the curve of spending... |
Related articles
- The Soaring Cost of a Simple Breath (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
- COPD: The 3rd Leading Cause of Death (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
- The Illogic of Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
- Patient Access To Physicians Notes: An Experiment of Psychological Importance (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
- In Detroit Ruling, Threats to Promises and Assumptions (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
- I.R.S. Bars Employers From Dumping Workers Into Health Exchanges (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
- The Robotic Workforce (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
- Questioning Statins for Older Patients (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)