President-elect Barack Obama should take note – health reform is about the little things just as much as it is sweeping changes to the system.

Information gathered from a batch of more than 8,500 meetings held around the country in December will be compiled and used to help design the healthcare proposal that has been in the news as of late. Obama’s transition team plans to post some of the material at change.gov.

One particular meeting took place late December 2008, between newly appointed secretary of health and human services, the former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, and more than two dozen seniors During this meeting, seniors told Daschle that they placed more importance on certain things such as waiting times to see their doctor, the increasing cost of prescription drugs, and the narrow range of Medicare coverage for certain medical procedures, equipment, and treatments.

An Example for Health Care Reform: Alzheimer’s

One woman at the meeting cited her family’s history of Alzheimer’s disease for her hope that the new administration will put heavy emphasis on medical research. A man said that helping people live healthier lives should receive more emphasis than it currently does – not only to improve health, but also to reduce medical costs for individuals and the nation as a whole. Another man says he wants medical providers to show more concern for the people they treat than whether or not those people will pay their medical bills.

Daschle says that lawmakers are more likely to get behind a new health care system if voters provide enough incentive pressure. And it seems that the transition team is listening: The Obama administration is encouraging seniors to submit their own stories about health care – and any other issues they think need to be addressed.

The team should also take one final note: The current effort to gather information about the health care system has been compared to the 2005-2006 attempt by the Citizens Health Care Working Group. More than 6,500 people participated in meetings across America, and a further 14,000 participated in online surveys. The Congress-sponsored group eventually recommended guaranteed health coverage for certain doctor’s visits, and some ways to protect people from high health care costs – but none of its recommendations were acted upon.

Let’s hope that this new round of meetings prompts some real change.

photo credit: woodleywonderworks

Universal healthcare could be useful in more ways than one. With more than half a million jobs lost in America in November (the biggest decline in a single month in more than thirty years), the country is in dire straights. Nearly 7% of the nation is wholly unemployed, and a total of 12.5% are either unemployed or barely working. That’s 19.3 million Americans who have little or no work.

The incoming administration is preparing a stimulus package to be introduced in the New Year, intended to get the economy ticking over again by investing billions in infrastructure. The package may include upgrading school buildings, upgrading public buildings to improve energy efficiency, building of bridges and roads, extending the reach of broadband internet, and improving electronic record keeping for medical billing.

What About Healthcare?

But what about healthcare reform? The much-touted universal healthcare program doesn’t top the to-do list – but should it? Developing universal healthcare as part of the economic stimulus package could have many beneficial effects. Economic stimulation is only the tip of the iceberg – overall, American citizens would enjoy improved financial security, and just as important, the barriers to that much-needed healthcare reform would finally start coming down.

America’s healthcare problems are impossible to ignore. The country spends 16% of gross domestic products on healthcare – more than any other in the world. But despite this, America lags far behind in life expectancy (#48) and infant mortality (#29). Nearly 40 million Americans lacked health insurance in 2007, and that figure is likely to be very much higher now.

Given all these problems, it’s easy to see why universal healthcare could be just what the doctor ordered. With a universal healthcare program in place, every citizen under the age of 65 would be insured, either through a qualified company, or via a government-sponsored insurance program (over-65s are already covered by Medicare).

The Uninsured in America

In the short term, universal coverage would provide an excellent and much-needed boost to the country’s economy. Increasing numbers of people are having trouble paying their medical bills (or accrued medical debts), and in 2007, some 116 million were either uninsured, had problems paying medical bills, or had to forgo medical treatment due to the cost.

And these are average, ordinary Americans – Main Street, not Wall Street. Targeting healthcare as an economic stimulus measure would benefit ordinary, average workers and help relieve one of the most pressing problems for people who lost their jobs during the past year.

There are problems, of course, not the least of which is the cost – an estimated $160 billion a year, and an additional $100 to $200 billion just to set the program up. And this might not turn out to be a long-term solution. But as far as solutions go, it’s hard to see that new bridges and roads are any better – and perhaps the most significant benefit of using healthcare reforms is that the people who benefit the most are this country’s citizens.

photo credit: yosoynuts

AARP (formerly the American Association of Retired Persons, but now known more commonly by its acronym) is a non-profit, non-government interest group which, according to its web site mission statement, is “dedicated to enhancing quality of life for all as we age,” by providing “a wide range of unique benefits, special products, and services for our members.” AARP acts as a member advocate, and is a powerful lobbying group. It also sells insurance, investment products, and endorses certain insurance companies.

Sounds good, yes? But by virtue of its habit of endorsing insurance companies, AARP has recently come under fire. The Kaiser Family Network recently revealed that AARP’s endorsements don’t come cheaply – 43% of the revenue the supposedly non-profit, independent advocacy group collected in 2007 came from royalties and fees the organization took from insurance companies – as payment for endorsements.

Doesn’t sound too much like consumer advocacy, does it.

AARP Endorsements Equal Higher Insurance Costs for Consumers

AARP advertising claims that by choosing AARP-endorsed insurance, AARP members will save money. But as it turns out, those AARP-endorsed insurers often charge higher premiums. And the reason for the higher price is at least in part because the insurers add the cost of AARP’s fees and royalties to the price that consumers pay.

Under AARP insurance plans, the organization collects the premiums from AARP members, and pays the insurance companies. And the insurance companies then return a portion of that fee to AARP, in the form of those royalties and fees. So AARP is telling people to purchase insurance from certain companies, and this supposedly ‘independent’ organization is taking a cut of the premiums. In 2007, this earned AARP a cool $500 million.

There’s more, of course. When AARP receives payments from its members, it holds that money in its own accounts for up to a month before paying the insurers. And that month is enough investment time for the company to have earned a further $40 million in interest from its own members.

Now obviously, that’s not illegal. But it’s clear that there’s a conflict of interest here. And this has been noted in the past, too, with BusinessWeek saying that many of the insurance and finance products endorsed and sold by AARP are actually no better than products that seniors could get on their own or through the government – and in some cases may even be worse.

Taking Consumer Driven Health Care into Your Own Hands

In the past few years, consumer driven health care has taken over many of the older and well-established methods of health insurance, and although it’s common to save hundreds – or even thousands of dollars -  simply by choosing a private health insurance plan, it’s not always the best choice, especially for seniors, who are often already given a wide range of benefits from the government.

The controversy with AARP shows that endorsements of health plans may not be truly “independent.” This highlights the need for you – the consumer – to take the important research into your own hands so you can decide on the best plan for both you and your family.

photo credit: Publicly Scalped

Many of us rarely ponder what our health and life are worth. It’s often assumed that life is priceless, but that doesn’t do justice to the stratospherically rising health care and insurance costs; in fact health bills are now the leading cause of bankruptcy.

One common way to calculate the value of our life is to use the same equation used by many health care providers. That cost was once $50,000 per year of quality life, according to the international standard for government-run health insurance plans across the globe. This number has been disputed by economists at Stanford and they were able to calculate that a year of quality life is actually $129,000! That is a lot of money for a year of life, but of course: life is priceless!

Calculating Costs with Kidney Dialysis

As a benchmark, economists at Stanford decided to use kidney dialysis for their research. One reason they chose dialysis is because hundreds of thousands of Americans in the United States are kept alive each year through dialysis while waiting for an organ transplant. The other reason is that Medicare has covered this procedure since 1972 without regard for costly innovations in the procedure.

“Assigning a dollar figure to Medicare patients’ lives may sound crass, but such valuations are routine in Americans’ daily lives.” As an economist, you must focus on the supply and demand of the market. In this case, the patients waiting for an organ transplant have a high demand for organs and unfortunately, a low supply of organs. Therefore, kidney dialysis is a temporary, but costly solution to this law of supply and demand.

How Economics Values Your Health and Life

Modern medicine has changed the way we look at life. We are continually trying to look younger, live longer and stay healthy. The only problem is that it is expensive to keep some patients alive especially for those waiting for a kidney. Hypothetically, Medicare coverage no longer can afford to pay $129,000 for hundreds of thousands of Americans each year based on new research done by economists at Stanford.

Some people waiting for an organ would not be able to afford to pay $129,000 a year to stay alive and would say farewell to their family. The miracle of life lies in our ability to receive the health and care that we deserve, when we need it most – all while staying alive, at least until an organ is ready.