An article in the Oct 16 '09 issue of The Washington Post reported on yet another troubling proposal in the Senate health care bills that could make the situation yet worse for people with diabetes. 

     The article describes the proposed rise in the amount that employers would be permitted to reward employees for achieving wellness goals, which also can be considered penalties for employees (and any insured dependents) who do not meet the employers' wellness goals, which often include weight loss, smoking cessation, and meeting BG and A1c targets.

"...I CAN GIVE YOU AN INCENTIVE...."

    The article quotes a CEO of a company that it says "manages incentives for employers:", Mr. Short, as stating, "I can't give you an incentive based on being diabetic or not being diabetic, but whether you're managing your blood glucose -- I can give you an incentive based on that."   It does not state why Mr. Short thinks that diabetics, already at substantially increased risk of earlier death, heart attack, stroke, blindness and amputation, require this extra, financial "incentive" to achieve what the majority of daibetics in the U.S. have never yet ever achieved. 

"... AN INCENTIVE STRONG ENOUGH FOR AMERICANS TO WANT TO PARTICIPATE"

     Although wellness incentives are generally referred to as voluntary, the article quotes Senator John Ensign (R-Nev.), who would seem by his recent admissions to know something about unhelpful incentives, as stating that his proposal would "guarantee an incentive strong enough for Americans to want to participate." Sen. Ensign is described as the lead sponsor of the wellness provisions in the Finance Committee bill.

"...FAMILIES COULD HAVE $6,688 AT RISK..."

    According to the article, employers are currently limited to providing only 20% of the total premium as a wellness incentive, but under the proposed Senate bills, the limit would rise to 30% and could even climb to 50%, if government officials raise it.  The article notes that a single employee paying with a premium meeting the national average ($4,824) "could have as much as $2,412 on the line" and a family of 4 with an annual premium matching the national average for employer-sponsored health insurance according to a recent survey ($13,375) "could have $6,688 at risk."

    The article notes that "critics say employers could use the rewards and penalties to drive some workers out of their health plans."    Indeed.

       - Paula

 --
see:  David S. Hilzenrath, "Wellness Incentives Could Create Health-Care Loophole." The Washington Post, Oct 16, 2009. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/15/AR2009101503036_pf.html

I suspect that any bill that makes it to the floor will have many surprises that are unacceptable to the public.  From published comments this week, the support for a comprehensive bill seems to be waning slightly.  I don't know which is worse, no bill or a bad bill.

It is waning a lot more than "slightly" as more Americans are beginning to understand what the government is trying to foist on them. No bill is far better than any bill which puts the politicians totally in charge of individuals' health care.

The experience in places like Britain demonstrate that clearly enough, where the doctors and others who work for the infamous National Health Service are themselves flocking to seek privately provided care.

The experience in places like Britain demonstrate that clearly enough, where the doctors and others who work for the infamous National Health Service are themselves flocking to seek privately provided care.

Please don't repeat these lies about the NHS. I am entirely satisfied with my treatment by NHS doctors. The Republicans appear to be trying to demonise it.

And some people are satisfied with gruel for dinner, but you may not feel so sanguine when some day NHS decides that, considering your age, it would be more appropriate to "make you comfortable" than to give you proper medical care.

I don't consider the Times of London a source of lies, nor all the other reports about the NHS I have been reading from British physicians and other credible sources, including also The Wall Street Journal, America's most reliable newspaper.

I shall continue to do all I can to demonstrate the my fellow citizens the utter folly of accepting a government takeover of our health care that would lower us to the pits of NHS. You're stuck with it, but most Americans are mindful that this country was founded as an antidote to Great Britain's  governing ways.

infmom.net

Dear David,

      I fear that your suspicion is well-placed and that some of our legislators are dedicated to making sure that the saying that "any kind of bill would be an improvement" won't be true in this case.  

       - Paula

infmom.net

I don't think you can be aware at the outrage and disgust felt in Britain about the campaign of lies promoted by the opponents of health reform. I can see that it is being promoted by the Father of Lies, Rupert Murdoch all toowell known here.

Apparently, you are unaware -- or prefer to be so -- of the rising disgust among your fellow countrymen, including physicians, with the abominable service provided by the NHS, the euthanasia practices under LCP, and the denial of treatment under the NICE plan.

But I prefer to get my information from your own press rather than an ultra-radical (yep, I am familiar with your oddball views from another forum), or even a pair of axe-grinding Trotsky Twins who support you in defiance of the majority American view (see Rasmussen polls).

For some facts instead of the sliced and diced baloney you spout, take a look HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE -- the first three of which represent views and reports of Brits who have to suffer under the substandard care of your socialist system.

Those are only a representative few of the wide reports of what goes on under NHS. Do you think I am more inclined to believe what is published in reputable venues or the opinions of a bunch of radical Marxists? Three guesses.

And btw, reputable polls show that most Americans want no part of government managed health care in any way resembling the British model.

>> so the coverage is there through the back door. <<

That's the way it is ow, Dick.  My question is, are they actually to be "covered" such that the hospitals can get paid for services provided?  Here in SoCal, at least, we are losing ERs and trauma centers left and right as they close their doors.  Mind you, I am NOT blaming all the hospital/ER woes on illegal aliens, but they are part of the equation.  I also realize that if the Fed "pays" for it, then we as taxpayers are in fact paying for it, but at least it should take some strain off the hospitals/ERs..  connie