Massachusetts Health Stats

Romneycare Health Care Reform Statistics Waste Money, Cook the Books

Healthcare insurance was invented in Massachusetts over 150 years ago.  A high percentage of people in Massachusetts have always had insurance to cover health care needs.

So all the ongoing hoopla by Governor Patrick (who may not know the history because he is a carpetbagger) and by others in his left-wing Democratic administration is intellectual deceit.  Sadly all their self congratulation of each other about 98% coverage is a waste of taxpayer money because the state could have just as easily depended on numbers from the U.S. Census Bureau, I presume at no cost to Massachusetts taxpayers.

But the Census Bureau numbers for coverage -- at 95% -- did not meet the agreed-to goal of near universal coverage of Massachusetts residents. At inception, proponents promised 100% participation.  When that didn't work out, they cut back the goal to 98%.  When that didn't work out according to the last survey conducted by the state itself in 2007, the Patrick administration cooked the books by changing the methodology by which it counted the insured/uninsured and hiring the far-left Urban Institute to manipulate the data. 

I am not arguing that the number of insured did not go up.  How could it not have?  The state gives the insurance away for free. [But -- as explained here -- the number of people actually buying insurance has dropped according to the state since Romneycare's mandate kicked in.]  Since the number of insured went up, the only issue is whether it went up from 90% to 95% as per the U.S. Census Bureau or from 94% to 96% as per the original state Department of Healthcare and Finance Policy (DHCFP) statistics or from 96% to 98% as per the Urban Institute.

Whatever numbers you want to use, gathering the statistics is just another way Romneycare is costing Massachusetts residents big time.

-- Dennis Byron

Even Left Laughs at Liberal Claims about Massachusetts Healthcare Reform

During the week of December 20, as described here, the left wing journalist group known as the Journolisters began a concerted coordinated effort to claim that so-called Massachusetts healthcare reform was a huge success. Multiple columns from multiple writers appeared in multiple newspapers, all filled with the same inaccurate data and lemming-like opinions about what the bad data meant.

Of course the columns by Ezra Klein of the Washington Post, Fromma Harrop of the Providence Journal, the Daily Dish and others were a complete laugher here in Massachusetts. To the best of my knowledge, not one Massachusetts paper even reprinted the Journolister propaganda, knowing what its readers would think.  But readers of all political persuasions from Oregon to Southern Florida to academia saw the columns and were also astute enough about the subject (or about the journalists?) to realize both the data (most of it cribbed from a NY Times column on another subject) and the analysis was flawed. 

And the left-wing blog consumerwatchdog.com was apparently so offended it went to work and proved the key Journolister data wrong: even Massachusetts individual premiums -- which is what the NY Times originally said, and which lemmings like Harrop and the Daily Dish missed -- didn't go down 40%. Furthermore what all the sources fail to tell you is that Massachusetts individual insurance only accounted for about 40,000 of over 6,500,000 people living in the state at the time Romneycare was passed.

The jist of the propaganda blast was that Massachusetts' so-called healthcare reform efforts begun in 2006 are a great precursor for Obamacare.  Of course that's true but unfortunately for the Journolisters it translates into the opposite of what they are hoping for. Obamacare faces the same incredibly bad results experienced here in Massachusetts: 

• crippling state budget deficits
• a doubling of healthcare insurance premiums
• much larger co-pays and co-insurance arrangements for individuals
• a shortage of doctors
• out of control hospital rates
• longer wait times for patients
• two temporary freezes on the Massachusetts healthcare insurance market in 2010
• a very slow increase in the percentage of people covered under Massachusetts' so-called universal coverage
• tens of thousands fewer Massachusetts residents actually buying healthcare insurance
• other devastating provable statisitcs that have emerged during the 2006-2010 timeframe 

The problems are so bad here in Massachusetts that at the same time the national left-wing journalist fraternity is claiming the Massachusetts experiment is a great success, the local left-wing government of Massachusetts, both the governor and the legislature, is claiming it is in trouble and needs to be re-reformed.

-- Dennis Byron

Mass. Healthcare Insurance Premiums Did NOT Drop 40%

To people that actually live in Massachusetts, one of the more hilarious statistics-based claims floating around the blogosphere the week of December 20 is the meme that Massachusetts healthcare premiums dropped 40% after the start of Romneycare. It looks like the claim started with David Leonhardt of the NY Times on December 14 and it is interesting to see how the liberal-blogger lemmings who followed all marched over the cliff behind him while changing the facts like people playing the pass-the-orange game (more to come in a future post).

But first to set the record straight (as if anyone who lived in Massachusetts needed to be reminded), premiums did not drop 40% after Romneycare. Here is the closest thing to some "official" up-to-date data on the subject of the trend line for healthcare insurance premiums in Massachusetts post passage of Romneycare. Unlike the NY Times data which is two to four years old, this data is from the August 2010 quarterly Key Indicators report from the Massachusetts DHCFP - Department of Healthcare Finance and Policy, page 22.  Premiums for typical policies -- according to the state -- went up 40% since January 2008, not down 40%. The rise was just about the same even going back to January 2007, at the beginning of Romneycare (to see that data, access the August 2008 Key Indicators report from the linked website). In other words, premiums in general were up only slightly the first year of Romneycare, certainly not down 40%, and then began a steady increase.

To give the NY TImes some credit, even though the data is old Leonhardt does explain that he is only talking about those who used to buy insurance individually in Massachusetts, which was about 40,000 people out of 6,500,000 at the time Romneycare began. But Froma Harrop of the Providence Journal and other left-wing bloggers did not pick up on that subtlety and expanded the claim to include everyone in Massachusetts. And none of the bloggers seems to acknowledge that individuals in Massachusetts now buy healthcare insurance at the small group rate.  Almost 800,000 people are in the small group market including the 40,000 added when the two markets were combined.

But this DHCFP data is useful only to the extent that it shows premiums for some middle-of-the-road classic healthcare insurance policies sold through the state to individuals and small groups acting as a broker for BC/BS, Centene, Fallon, Harvard and maybe Tufts.  But there are hundreds of options in Mass and individuals or small groups might be getting a better deal through other means.  The variations are almost endless especially because of ratings for age and geography in Massachusetts.  And of course this does not apply to large group private purchases of insurance. The DHCFP data probably applies to the 150,000-plus people that get their insurance via the Commonwealth Care program however.

There is no one statistic you can point to truly illustrate what is happening to premiums in Massachusetts. What you can do is look at reports from the Commonwealth Fund, Kaiser and other left-leaning research houses that say premiums in general on the average rose by varying different percentages. Similarly the Boston Globe runs a story about the "evil insurers" raising rates almost weekly. Many self-employed people – including me -- are anecdotally reporting that their premiums doubled during this time period.  [Why do you think Deval Patrick and the Democrat-controlled Massachusetts state legislature twice froze individuals out of buying (or insurers out of selling is the way he would put it) insurance during 2010?]

Overall, no one but the NY Times and its fellow travelers -- not even the bureaucrats in the Massachusetts statehouse that hope reform is a major success -- claim that premiums went down. But the false claim that they went down 40% is multiplying out on the Internet so there are apparently some who hope wishing will make it so.  As your father taught you, don't believe what you read in the newspapers.

-- Dennis Byron

 

Medicare in 2012: Seniors To Be Placed in ACO Whether They Want One or Not

The far-left Center for American Progress hosted a panel discussion on December 20, 2010 on Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) implementation issues. 

For all of you senior citizens who remember President Obama saying all through 2009 and into early 2010 that you could keep your doctor and insurance plan "if you are happy with them," you won't hear this news from the near-left-wing AARP:

There's a big surprise on the way in 12 months, at the beginning of 2012. President Obama of course was technically correct; if you have Medicare, you keep Medicare of course.  But Medicare differs greatly from what it is today. Jonathan Blum, Medicare/Medicaid Deputy Administrator, exlained how everyone who is not  on Medicare Advantage will be put in an ACO, perhaps arbitrarily. 

That's "only" 80% of us according to Blum. Medicare will likely assign you to an ACO according to Blum, apparently without consulting you. 

Based on the panel discussion, the Medicare/Medicaid bureaucrats seem to be more concerned about getting comments from providers such as large hospitals (e.g., Mass. General).  Such groups (I have no idea if Mass General is one of them) are already lobbying the government to be the designated ACO for certain "markets." And they seem to be dedicated to getting rid of "small" physician practices, whatever "small" means. 

As for us seniors, all the bureaucrats want for you is to "change your behavior."  I hope the doctor you have today and really like is a member of the ACO you're assigned to.

-- Dennis Byron

50,000 Fewer Mass. Residents Actually Buy Healthcare Insurance under Romneycare

One of the best analyses of what's going on in Massachusetts vis a vis so-called healthcare reform came out of the Statehouse News Service (SNS) on December 13. This SNS article explains how Massachusetts state government spending on Romneycare is crippling other state expenditure line items such as aid to higher education, aid to towns and cities including for K-12 education, and so forth.

But what caught my eye was the article's statistical factoid that there are almost 1.3 million people enrolled in Medicaid in Massachusetts, almost 20% of the state population.  I was confused because the Massachusetts Department of Healthcare Finance and Policy (DHCFP) quarterly Key Indicators report (see page 4) implies that the number is between 800,000-900,000.  But Mike Norton of SNS sent me a link to his source document.  Read it and weep. 

The difference between the two state departments' official numbers is apparently in the fine print (isn't everything?):

"MassHealth enrollment (in the DHCFP page 4 graph I guess they mean) does not include members with partial coverage or premium assistance; they are counted in the private plans. These members include Seniors, MassHealth Limited, individuals with third party liability (e.g., disabled with Medicare), and Family Assistance/Insurance Partnership."

It would be interesting to know how much the total Massachusetts Medicaid population grew under Romneycare applying the SNS source's approach to the page 4 graph in the DHCFP's report.  And how much the "private" category in the DHCFP report grew -- or most likely contracted given that the state's official "private" number is not that private (that is, that according to the fine print, it includes Medicaid enrollees).

As I say elsewhere "statistics don't lie but statisticians do."  You might argue that my headline is an example of that in that I believe the number of people actually taking real money out of their pockets to buy insurance under Romneycare is falling like a rock, down over 50,000 in just a few years. I came up with my statistic by adding the Private Group and Individual Purchase line items from page 4 of the DHCFP report and starting the count on December 1, 2008 when the actual meaningful penalty of Romneycare kicked in (before that, was the mandate really a mandate if it only cost a scofflaw $219 for the year?). 

But given what the SNS reporters dug up, maybe my headline is accurate even if I go back to June 30, 2006.

-- Dennis Byron

Massachusetts Health Stats: 'Tis the Season for Statistical Lying

There’s an old saying that 

“Statistics don’t lie but statisticians do.” 

Both a group of national pseudo-statisticians that have illogically begun to support the so-called healthcare reform here in Massachusetts at exactly the wrong time, and actual statisticians in Massachusetts state government have taken stats-based manipulation to a new level in December 2010.  Governor Deval Patrick appears to be a willing participant and Massachusetts-based left-wing media operations such as Boston's Channel 5 TV station and left-wing-sponsored blogs are joining in.

The national group -- members of the infamous former Journolist list-server -- is trying to associate Massachusetts’ “individual mandate” and near universal coverage to the supposed success of the so-called Massachusetts healthcare reform effort, apparently not realizing that no one in Massachusetts – particularly the Democrat governor and his political appointees – consider the so-called reform a success. The national group of propagandists appears to be reacting to the Federal District Court case in Richmond, VA announced on December 13, 2010 that found the individual mandate in the 2010 U.S. Affordable Care Act to be in violation of the United States Constitution.

Ironically the national group is working at cross purposes with the December 2010 Massachusetts-based propaganda campaign that also uses statistics to misinform the people. The Massachusetts government propagandists -- facing crippling budget deficits, a doubling of healthcare insurance premiums and much larger co-pays and co-insurance arrangements for individuals, a shortage of doctors, out-of-control hospital rates, longer wait times for patients, two temporary freezes on the Massachusetts healthcare insurance market, a very slow increase in the percentage of people covered under Massachusetts' so-called universal coverage, and other devastating provable statisitcs that have emerged during the 2006-2010 timeframe – is saying the so-called healthcare reform effort is in troubled and needs to be re-reformed.

Right-wingers such as the group running a web site supporting the U.S. presidential candidacy of former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney are just as bad in terms of making false claims about the so-called progress of Massachusetts so-called healthcare reform.  They are just not as good at using statistics in a misleading fashion to back up their claims. That's why its web page on Romney's healthcare reform efforts has sat "under development" for weeks (status as of December 20).

-- Dennis Byron