Sunday, August 28, 2011

Medicaid?s cost conundrum

Kaiser Health News? Chris Weaver has an excellent story in today?s Washington Post on what insurers view as an growing and lucrative market: Medicaid. As he writes, states increasingly rely on private, managed care companies to cover Medicaid patients. With the health reform law expected to expand Medicaid to 16 million more Americans, insurers see a ?potential bonanza.?

Insurers see Medicaid as a place to expand business. It?s worth exploring, too, whether that expansion can accomplish one of the key things states really want it to: reduced Medicaid spending.

Across the board, states are facing incredible budget pressures in Medicaid; managed care is often looked to as an antidote to that. And on the surface, it does feel like it should reduce costs. Insurers, for example, generally have to bid for states? plans, so they have an incentive to keep proposed contract fees low.

An important new study, however, suggests otherwise. The National Bureau of Economic Research published this month the first national report on Medicaid managed care and cost savings. It?s verdict: moving Medicaid recipients into managed care ?did not lead to lower Medicaid spending during the 1991 to 2003 period.?

?Last time I checked, there are a lot of slogans that sound great, like paying for quality,? says University of Pennsylvania?s Mark Duggan, co-author of the NBER study. ?People just take it as a given that it saves money. But that?s not always true.?

Why not? One possible explanation has to do with Medicaid?s provider reimbursement rates, which tend to be low. The NBER study suggests that rates are low enough that private insurers couldn?t negotiate a similar payment. Any decrease in utilization would have to be massive to generate a cost saving.

To be sure, some states did show cost savings. And there are indeed ample case studies that can show a particular state or region reducing Medicaid spending by switching to a managed care program.

The NBER study found that those places have at least one thing in common: they tend to already spend more on their Medicaid programs in the first place, reimbursing health providers at a higher rate.

?If...Medicaid?s reimbursement is close to that by private insurers, then there may be some scope to reduce Medicaid spending through reductions in utilization of care,? the study explains.

Duggan?s study results are surprising on their own. But there?s one other thing about the study that makes it stand out: it is the first national look at whether Medicaid managed care has actually does a key thing that states want it to do. This is a trend that has swept through Medicaid since the 1990s as a means of reducing costs within the $450 billion entitlement program. Seventy percent of Medicaid patients now receive coverage through a managed care plan, up from 11 percent in 1991.

That there?s been so little academic work into whether this approach has delivered on its assumed goal startled me, and Duggan too.

?It?s hard to see how formidable the fiscal challenges we face are and how we?re not looking at the hard data,? he says. ?We?re just trying to move things forward one inch here. You?d think we?d want to ask, have we been saving money??



Source: http://feeds.washingtonpost.com/click.phdo?i=e6e2f2f165b898f79aa99ae1ec457ff4

Alps Cheryl Cole Health & wellbeing Soap opera Pensions Animals

Leicester Mercury published Jan's Euro road trip in souped-up banger

Article


Source: http://rss.feedsportal.com/c/32715/f/503348/s/17bb06b7/l/0L0Sthisisleicestershire0O0CJan0Es0EEuro0Eroad0Etrip0Esouped0Ebanger0Cstory0E1321560A20Edetail0Cstory0Bhtml/story01.htm

Post-traumatic stress disorder Nepal Walking holidays Andrew Cole Social networking Facebook

Giants 2, Astros 1

Times wires
Saturday, August 27, 2011

Giants 2, Astros 1

SAN FRANCISCO — Jeff Keppinger hit a two-run double and Madison Bumgarner won for the second time in six starts for the Giants. San Francisco won for just the ninth time in its past 27 games. It has played six consecutive games (and nine of 11) decided by two or fewer runs and. Keppinger's RBIs gave him five since he joined the Giants in a July 19 trade from Houston for Henry Sosa, who beat the Giants on Thursday.

Source: http://www.tampabay.com/sports/giants-2-astros-1/1188371

Blackburn Rovers Petrol prices Boxing North and Central America Simon Barker US politics

Can the Fed increase inflation?

Depending on whom you ask, Ben Bernanke?s speech at Jackson Hole is either a signal that he?ll do nothing in the face of a weakening economy, or a welcome indication that he intends to rally the Fed behind more stimulative measures. We?ll find out who?s right after the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meets next month, but until then it?s worth asking what the Fed can actually do.

There is no shortage of policy moves the Fed could take now. It could lower the interest rate on reserves, initiate another round of quantitative easing or change the composition of its debt holdings. But many economists think the most important thing it could do is signal it will allow higher inflation in the medium term. Higher inflation would eat away at household debt, allowing consumers to spend rather than pay off loans. This increases demand, and thus growth and employment. As Justin Wolfers notes, this could take a number of forms. The Fed could, as Kenneth Rogoff and IMF chief economist Olivier Blanchard have suggested, state openly that it is targeting a higher rate of inflation ? say, 4 percent instead of the current 2 percent target. It could, as Greg Mankiw has proposed, change from a 2 percent inflation target to a 2 percent price level target, which would allow higher near-term inflation. It could even, following Scott Sumner, start targeting nominal GDP, which would allow more inflation (because the target is nominal, not real) and also make Fed policy directly focused on ensuring higher growth. It could even just say it wants higher short-term inflation, as Michael Woodford suggested this morning, without adopting big changes to its targeting approach.

The key to all these proposals is that the Fed?s statements and actions can affect inflation expectations, and thus inflation. By spurring a bit more inflation, it can then drive up growth and speed the recovery along. But though the people proposing this know whereof they speak ? Woodford is arguably the most respected monetary theorist alive today ? there are a number of economists who dispute the idea that the Fed, at the moment, can do much to drive up inflation. Peter Diamond, the Nobel laureate and failed Fed nominee, told Ryan Avent in an interview that although the Fed can set a level of inflation that it?s willing to tolerate, it can?t itself spur inflation. Donald Kohn, who served as vice chairman of the Fed from 2006 to 2010, told me he also doubts the Fed can do much to spur inflation at the moment. The Fed can create inflation, he explained, either by spurring demand so high that there?s upward pressure on prices (obviously, not a problem right now) or by creating credible inflation expectations. ?At this point with the economy operating so far below potential and monetary policy having trouble pushing it higher one might wonder whether either of these would be operative right now,? he said in an e-mail. With demand as low as it is now, convincing the markets that inflation is going up might be impossible, so it could be that the Fed just can?t affect inflation expectations for now.

And then there?s the question of whether higher short-term inflation would spur growth and employment, even if the Fed can produce it. Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody?s Analytics, doubts it. He thinks another round of quantitative easing might do some good, and doesn?t doubt that the Fed can increase inflation if it wants to, but argues that driving up inflation expectations would increase interest rates and could cause inflation to spiral out of control. ?I don?t think the Fed can inflate our way out of our economic problems,? he said. ?It?s a very risky sort of game to play. If it does truly affect inflation expectations, that?s a very difficult thing to reign in.? Joel Prakken, chairman of Macroeconomics Advisers, suggests that trying to spur growth by increasing inflation expectations gets what?s causing what reversed. ?Inflation expectations are not certain to move up if current inflation remains subdued because of the weak economy...the Fed might not be able to stimulate the economy enough to convince people inflation is headed higher any time soon no matter what,? he said.

Obviously, it would be great if the Fed had the power to spur growth through higher inflation, and there are a lot of economists who think it does. But it?s not a settled matter by any means.



Source: http://feeds.washingtonpost.com/click.phdo?i=f014055b7b103bdb06ebdb4a54bc2a12

Communities Regulators US economic growth and recession Tuition fees Alex Reid Bradford Bulls

Preseason football: Brandon 35, Blake 6

Brandon Wright, Times Correspondent
Friday, August 26, 2011

BRANDON — Brandon picked up right where it left off last year, hammering visiting Blake 35-6 in the preseason opener Friday night.

Brandon, which finished 9-2 and reached the playoffs for the first time since 2007 last season, dominated both sides of the ball and led at one point 29-0 before a number of starters exited.

Brandon's suffocating defense set the tone for the evening, registering a safety on Blake's first possession. On the night, the Eagles' defense recorded six sacks and picked off a pair off passes.

The Eagles' ground game punished the Blake front seven.

Tyrell Garner rushed for a pair of scores and D'andre Franklin added another from 26 yards out. The Eagles only threw a handful of times, but were efficient when they did.

Quarterback Alan Knippel tossed a pair of TDs, including a juggling catch in the back corner of the end zone to Jalen Stringfellow from 25 yards out. The senior signal caller also hooked up with Will Plachta for a 26-yard TD.

Brandon Wright, Times correspondent

Source: http://www.tampabay.com/sports/footballpreps/preseason-football-brandon-35-blake-6/1188326

WikiLeaks Cricket Julian Assange Guantánamo Bay Radio 1 Cancún climate change conference 2010 | COP16

HDMcwigham published Cloutier salutes Stingrays' opening pre-season victory

Article


Source: http://rss.feedsportal.com/c/32715/f/503342/s/17bf650a/l/0L0Sthisishullandeastriding0O0CCloutier0Esalutes0EStingrays0Eopening0Epre0Eseason0Cstory0E132195570Edetail0Cstory0Bhtml/story01.htm

US constitution and civil liberties Energy efficiency al-Qaida Chelsea Panto season Communities

Hold off on those shale gas obituaries

This week?s natural gas headlines are awfully gloomy: ?U.S. to Slash Marcellus Shale Gas Estimate 80%,? writes Bloomberg. ?Geologists Sharply Cut Estimate of Shale Gas,? declares the New York Times. The stories, based on a new report from the U.S. Geological Survey, all suggest that the United States might have far, far less natural gas ? which is expected to provide a cheap, abundant energy source in the decades to come ? than previously thought. Terrible news, right?

Well, hold up. As it turns out, some of those stories may have been somewhat premature ? and appear to be based on a slight misunderstanding of the USGS survey.

Here?s some rough background: Ten years ago, few people believed that much natural gas could ever be extracted from the hard shale rock in the Marcellus formation that spans much of the Northeast. A 2002 USGS survey estimated there was only about 2 trillion feet of recoverable gas. Then, hydraulic fracturing technology got dramatically better, and experts realized a great deal more gas was in play. In 2008, Penn State geologist Terry Engelder began publishing estimates suggesting that the Marcellus contained a jaw-dropping amount of natural gas out there ? his 2009 study suggested 489 trillion cubic feet, enough to satiate the country?s gas needs for the next 20 years. That, in turn, set off a drilling frenzy in the region. Earlier this year, the Energy Information Administration echoed Engelder?s work by estimating that the Marcellus contained 410 trillion cubic feet of recoverable gas.

Now along comes Tuesday?s USGS survey with a new topline number: 84 trillion cubic feet. That?s a lot of gas, by any measure. But it?s also far less than 410 trillion or 489 trillion. So doesn?t this vindicate earlier (and oft-criticized) reporting by Ian Urbina of the New York Times that both the government and the gas industry have been exaggerating shale gas resources?

A few caveats. As Brenda Pierce, program coordinator for the USGS energy resources program told me, it?s important to do an apples-to-apples comparison here. The USGS and EIA aren?t measuring the same thing, exactly: The USGS offered an estimate of undiscovered resources that can be recovered with current technology, whereas the EIA report looked at both ?active? and ?undeveloped? reserves together. ?Ours is additive to what?s already in production,? explains Pierce.

So the USGS only surveyed a subset of what the EIA had been measuring. Although the comparison isn?t perfect, USGS?s figure of 84 trillion cubic feet can be lined up against the EIA?s 232 trillion cubic feet of ?undeveloped? reserves. What?s more, Pierce notes, the 84 trillion cubic feet is a mean estimate?the USGS survey?s estimates ranged from 43 trillion to 144 trillion cubic feet. So the downward revision could end up being less stark than early media reports implied. Currently, USGS and EIA are working to reconcile the two studies, which will take a few weeks, and we?ll have to await the end result.

Meanwhile, Penn State?s Terry Engelder says that the new USGS report wasn?t necessarily incompatible with his own research. ?They have only included part of the sum, so of course it?s going to be smaller,? he says. He also pointed to differences in modeling for how production at gas wells decline over time: Engelder?s study uses a more optimistic curve than the USGS?s conservative model. ?It?s important to note that gas yield production is still very immature. We don?t know for sure what the truth is here,? Engelder explains. ?It?s possibly between the optimistic and conservative projections.?

In any case, there?s a lot more work to be done in figuring out just how much gas is out there ? and how much can be drilled at a profit (the USGS focused on how much gas could technically be extracted, not how much gas could be profitably extracted, an important distinction). Estimating reserves is a rough art, and the New York Times has raised sharp questions about how the government calculates its numbers. And it?s crucial that those numbers are as firm as possible, given the giant role shale gas is likely to play in energy policy for years to come.

(Meanwhile, there?s the separate ? but no less controversial ? question of whether hydraulic fracturing can be pursued in a safe and ecologically sound manner. Bryan Walsh recently wrote a nice piece on that topic in Time.)



Source: http://feeds.washingtonpost.com/click.phdo?i=ca580586598bb63d7d0d5a8cd7af4de2

BBC2 Kanye West Environmental sustainability Winter sun Mark Bright Mafia