Health Reform Progress Report

Posted by Catherine Knowles on October 6th, 2009

Catherine Knowles is C3′s new Director of Policy

The health care reform debate continues.  Last week, the Senate Finance Committee discussed Senator Baucus’s proposal and considered hundreds of amendments.  The Committee will hold a final vote on the proposed bill later this week.  This will allow the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) time to complete its analysis of the bill and provide a final cost estimate.  After the Finance Committee has approved the bill, it will be combined with the bill from the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee before it is scheduled for a vote on the floor by the full Senate.

C3 has been closely following the various health reform proposals introduced in Congress, because access to care is critical to preventing, treating and beating colorectal cancer.  Please feel free to share your thoughts with us by leaving comments below.

Continue reading for more information on some of the amendments adopted by the Senate Finance Committee that C3 thinks are important for people living with colorectal cancer.

C3 was pleased to see that the Senate Finance Committee made significant changes to the health reform overhaul package it considered that will make health care more affordable and accessible.

Sen. Cantwell (D-WA) sponsored an amendment that will let states create low-cost health insurance plans for low-income families.  The amendment is designed to encourage states to enact a program mirroring the Washington State Basic Health plan.  It will allow states to put people making more than 133 percent of the federal poverty level (the upper threshold for Medicaid in the mark) and less than 200 percent of the federal poverty level (approximately $44,000 for a family of four) in a state-based government plan.  The amendment provides a federally funded, non-Medicaid, state plan which combines the innovation and quality of private sector competition with the purchasing power of the states.  It passed 12-11.  This amendment would help expand coverage to people who currently cannot afford insurance.  And without insurance, people are less likely to be screened, let alone able to be treated for colorectal cancer.

The committee also adopted along party lines an amendment sponsored by Senate Finance Health Subcommittee Chairman Rockefeller (D-WV) regarding so-called “Cadillac” insurance policies – expensive policies with low deductibles, limited co-pays and extensive benefits.  Senator Baucus proposed taxing the insurers for plans that cost over $8,000 anually ($21,000 for a family) in order to help offset costs of coverage for the uninsured.  In addition, there is an underlying assumption that “Cadillac” policies encourage inappropriate over-use of medical care – and taxing these policies could help make them less attractive.   However, some of the committee were concerned that some consumers – people in high-risk jobs, or older Americans – have to spend that much for “Chevrolet” coverage.  They felt that the costs should be increased.  Under the Rockefeller amendment, the cost of the plans for retirees older than 55 and those in high-risk professions must total $9,850 for individuals and $26,000 for families before they are considered “Cadillac” and therefore taxable.  The threshold tops the amounts in the underlying proposed bill by $1,100 for individuals and $3,000 for families.

Colorectal cancer patients tend to be older – most people are diagnosed over age 50.  And the cost of insurance policies increases significantly as people age.  The Rockefeller amendment will increase affordability to policies for retirees over age 55.

The Rockefeller amendment also guarantees that the independent commission set up to find savings in Medicare cannot propose increases to Medicare premiums.  This will reassure Medicare recipients who are concerned about cuts in benefits accompanied by increases in premiums.

The Committee also addressed comparative effectiveness research.  Comparative effectiveness research (CER) compares treatments – for example, does ibuprofen, aspirin or acetaminophen work better for a headache?  Senator Baucus proposed the formation of a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) which would be responsible for coordinating CER data and communicating results with health care providers and the public.  Comparative effectiveness will help determine what therapies can be used to effectively treat those with colorectal cancer.  Any provisions related to comparative effectiveness research should be conducted through an open and transparent process involving all stakeholders, starting from the research planning stage.  During the Senate Finance Committee markup, Sen. Grassley (R-IA) sponsored an amendment designed to improve the PCORI governance of patient-centered outcomes research institute.  The amendment would not allow the Secretary of Department of Health and Human Services, the National Institutes of Health, and other high-ranking officials, including elected officials and appointees, from being board members of the institute.   It was agreed to by voice vote.  Ensuring that patient voices are represented and that politics is kept out of comparative effectiveness research is extremely important to ensuring that patients continue to have access to innovative and life-saving medical treatments.

You can read the entire text of the Senate Finance Committee bill as amended online.

2 Responses to “Health Reform Progress Report”

  1. October 07, 2009 at 12:15 pm, Laura Morefield said:

    As a cancer patient, I am concerned about CER being used as a cost saving tool to the detriment of life saving and life extension.

    As it stands, the “standard” of holding off on colonoscopies until the patient is 50 gave me a false sense of security (my mother had a precancerous polyp at 70 years of age and the doctor told her to “have your children eat lots of broccoli.”

    If he’d encouraged (and the medical establishment suggested a range of ages for testing) a more proactive approach, it’s likely instead of being diagnosed with asymptomatic Stage IV colon cancer at 48 that I might have caught it at an earlier age and stage.

    Group think is not always best.

  2. October 08, 2009 at 7:29 pm, Catherine Knowles said:

    Laura – Thank you for taking the time to read the blog and to post such a thoughtful comment. You are absolutely correct that comparative effectiveness research (or CER) should not be used as a cost saving tool to the detriment of life saving and life extending treatments.

    Comparative clinical effectiveness research has been discussed as an avenue for producing information to help health care decision makers, such as patients, providers, and public and private payers, reach informed, evidence-based decisions. Although publicly supported by many governmental and non-governmental entities in the abstract, controversy about comparative clinical effectiveness research lies in its practice and implementation.

    Much of the controversy surrounding whether costs should be included in comparative effectiveness research lies in the questions: when, how, and by whom will the research results be used to make decisions? The issue is most controversial if results that include costs are used to make insurance reimbursement, pricing, or coverage decisions.

    Other important questions about CER research include the following:

    Which treatments would be studied?
    Would different types of treatment options, such as drugs and surgery, be compared to each other?
    Would the research methods include systematic reviews, decision models, and observational studies, as well as randomized trials?
    Who would oversee and review the studies’ methods, timing, and clinical endpoints?
    Which researchers and what expertise would be required to conduct the studies?
    How would the results be presented and used?
    How would the political support for the entity be maintained?

    The answers to these questions could have repercussions on many interested parties including physicians, patients, payers, manufacturers, researchers, and federal agencies. C3 is working to ensure that CER enhances patient outcomes. Stay tuned!

Leave a Reply

Your comments are welcome. However, specific medical advice will not be provided, and we urge you to consult with a qualified physician for diagnosis and for answers to your personal questions. FightCRC is not responsible for the medical accuracy of any comments left by persons other than FightCRC staff members. FightCRC staff members monitor comments and may respond publicly where appropriate.

Please note that we automatically publish the name that you enter next to your post. Also note that our pages are automatically indexed by Google and other search engines, and your name may therefore appear in search results on those sites. So if you wish to remain anonymous please use a different name or enter 'Anon' as the name.

We regret that we are unable to privately answer questions left as comments. So please do not include your phone number, email or mailing address in the body of your comment. For the best personal and direct response to your colorectal cancer treatment questions, please call our Answer Line at 1-877-4CRC-111 (1-877-427-2111).

Please note that we automatically publish the name that you enter next to your post. Also note that our pages are automatically indexed by Google and other search engines, and your name may therefore appear in search results on those sites.