U.S. Rep. Ron Paul | HMO |
HMO
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998 1998 Ron Paul 2:80
This is strong evidence that we have not yet learned anything in the past 50 years, and the 1994 revolution has not yet changed things. We can expect more HMO’s and PPO mismanagement, rationing medical service and price control of all medical services. Shortages of quality health care and education will result.
HMO
The Patient Privacy Act
21 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 82:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Patient Privacy Act, which repeals those sections of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 authorizing the establishment of a “standard unique health care identifier” for all Americans. This identifier would then be used to create a national database containing the medical history of all Americans. Establishment of such an identifier would allow federal bureaucrats to track every citizen’s medical history from cradle to grave. Furthermore, it is possible that every medical professional, hospital, and Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) in the country would be able to access an individual citizens’ record simply by entering the patient’s identifier into the national database.
HMO
The Patient Privacy Act
21 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 82:3
I ask my colleagues, how comfortable would you be confiding any emotional problem, or even an embarrassing physical problem like impotence, to your doctor if you knew that this information could be easily accessed by friend, foe, possible employers, coworkers, HMOs, and government agents?
HMO
The Patient Privacy Act
21 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 82:6
This argument has two flaws. First of all, history has shown that attempts to protect the privacy of information collected by, or at the command, of the government are ineffective at protecting citizens from the prying eyes of government officials. I ask my colleagues to think of the numerous cases of IRS abuses that were brought to our attention in the past few months, the history of abuse of FBI files, and the case of a Medicaid clerk in Maryland who accessed a computerized database and sold patient names to an HMO. These are just some of many examples that show that the only effective way to protect privacy is to forbid the government from assigning a unique number to any citizen.
HMO
The Patient Privacy Act
21 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 82:8
For those who claim that the Patient Privacy Act would interfere with the plans to “simplify” and “streamline” the health care system, under the Constitution, the rights of people should never take a backseat to the convenience of the government or politically powerful industries like HMOs.
HMO
Patient Protection Act of 1998
24 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 84:4
Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased that Congress is addressing the subject of health care in America, for the American health care system does need reform. Too many Americans lack access to quality health care while millions more find their access to medical care blocked by a “gatekeeper,” an employee of an insurance company or a Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) who has the authority to overrule the treatment decisions of physicians!
HMO
Patient Protection Act of 1998
24 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 84:8
MSA’s provide consumers the freedom to find high-quality health care at a reasonable cost. MSA’s allow consumers to benefit when they economize in choosing health care so they will be more likely to make informed health care decisions such as seeking preventive care and, when possible, negotiate with their providers for the lowest possible costs. Most importantly, MSA’s are the best means available to preserve the patient’s right to choose their doctor and the treatment that best meets their needs, free from interference by an insurance company or an HMO.
HMO
Patient Protection Act of 1998
24 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 84:11
However, as much as I support H.R. 4250’s expansion of MSA’s, I equally object to those portions of the bill placing new federal standards on employer offered health care plans. Proponents of these standards claim that they will not raise cost by more than a small percentage point. However, even an increase of a small percentage point could force many marginal small businesses to stop offering health care for their employees, thus causing millions of Americans to lose their health insurance. This will then lead to a new round of government intervention. Unlike Medical Savings Accounts which remove the HMO bureaucracy currently standing between physicians and patients, the so-called patient protections portions of this bill add a new layer of government-imposed bureaucracy. For example, H.R. 4250 guarantees each patient the right to external and internal review of insurance company’s decisions. However, this does not empower patients to make their own decisions. If both external and internal review turn down a patient’s request for treatment, the average patient will have no choice but to accept the insurance companies decision. Furthermore, anyone who has ever tried to navigate through a government-controlled “appeals process” has reason to be skeptical of the claims that the review process will be completed in less than three days. Imposing new levels of bureaucracy on HMO’s is a poor substitute for returning to the American people the ability to decide for themselves, in consultation with their care giver, what treatments are best for them. Medical Savings Accounts are the best patient protection.
HMO
Patient Protection Act of 1998
24 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 84:13
I am also concerned that this bill further tramples upon state automony by further preempting their ability to regulate HMO’s and health care plans. Under the 10th amendment, states should be able to set standards for organizations such as HMO’s without interference from the federal government. I am disappointed that we did not get an opportunity to debate Mr. BRADY’s amendment that would have preserved the authority of states in this area.
HMO
National Provider ID
8 October 1998 1998 Ron Paul 115:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that under the rule my amendment to the Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations bill is not permitted. This simple amendment forbids the Department of Health and Human Services from spending any funds to implement those sections of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 authorizing the establishment of a “standard unique health care identifier” for all Americans. This identifier would then be used to create a national database containing the medical history of all Americans. Establishment of such an identifier would allow federal bureaucrats to track every citizen’s medical history from cradle to grave. Furthermore, it is possible that every medical professional, hospital, and Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) in the country would be able to access an individual citizen’s record simply by entering the patient’s identifier into the national database.
HMO
National Provider ID
8 October 1998 1998 Ron Paul 115:4
I ask my colleagues, how comfortable would you be confiding any emotional problem, or even an embarrassing physical problem like impotence, to your doctor if you knew that this information could be easily accessed by friend, foe, possible employers, coworkers, HMOs, and government agents?
HMO
National Provider ID
8 October 1998 1998 Ron Paul 115:10
This argument has two flaws. First of all, history has shown that attempts to protect the privacy of information collected by, or at the command, of the government are ineffective at protecting citizens from the prying eyes of government officials. I ask my colleagues to think of the numerous cases of IRS abuses that were brought to our attention in the past few months, the history of abuse of FBI files, and the case of a Medicaid clerk in Maryland who accessed a computerized database and sold patient names to an HMO. These are just some of many examples that show that the only effective way to protect privacy is to forbid the government from assigning a unique number to any citizen.
HMO
National Provider ID
8 October 1998 1998 Ron Paul 115:14
For those who claim that this amendment would interfere with the plans to “simplify” and “streamline” the health care system, under the Constitution, the rights of people should never take a backseat to the convenience of the government or politically powerful industries like HMOs.
HMO
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999 1999 Ron Paul 4:59
For this reason, the proposal for a national medical data bank to assure us there will be no waste or fraud, that doctors are practicing good medicine, that the exchange of medical records between the HMOs will be facilitated and statistical research is made easier, should be strenuously opposed. The more the government is involved in medicine or anything, the greater the odds that personal privacy will be abused.
HMO
Health Care Reform: Treat The Cause, Not The Symptom
4 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 103:5
Only true competition assures that the consumer gets the best deal at the best price possible by putting pressure on the providers. Once one side is given a legislative advantage in an artificial system, as it is in managed care, trying to balance government-dictated advantages between patient and HMOs is impossible. The differences cannot be reconciled by more government mandates, which will only make the problem worse. Because we are trying to patch up an unworkable system, the impasse in Congress should not be a surprise.
HMO
Health Care Reform: Treat The Cause, Not The Symptom
4 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 103:6
No one can take a back seat to me regarding the disdain I hold for the HMO’s role in managed care. This entire unnecessary level of corporatism that rakes off profits and undermines care is a creature of government interference in health care. These non-market institutions and government could have only gained control over medical care through a collusion through organized medicine, politicians, and the HMO profiteers in an effort to provide universal health care. No one suggests that we should have universal food, housing, TV, computer and automobile programs; and yet, many of the poor do much better getting these services through the marketplace as prices are driven down through competition.
HMO
Health Care Reform: Treat The Cause, Not The Symptom
4 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 103:9
Partial government involvement is not possible. It inevitably leads to total government control. Plans for all the so-called patients’ bill of rights are 100 percent endorsement of a principle of government management and will greatly expand government involvement even if the intention is to limit government management of the health care system to the extent necessary to curtail the abuses of the HMO.
HMO
Health Care Reform: Treat The Cause, Not The Symptom
4 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 103:10
The patients’ bill of rights concept is based on the same principles that have given us the mess we have today. Doctors are unhappy. HMOs are being attacked for the wrong reasons. And the patients have become a political football over which all sides demagogue.
HMO
Health Care Reform: Treat The Cause, Not The Symptom
4 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 103:14
Artificial and generous payments of any service, especially medical, produces a well-known cycle. The increased benefits at little or no cost to the patient leads to an increase in demand and removes the incentive to economize. Higher demands raises prices for doctor fees, labs, and hospitals; and as long as the payments are high the patients and doctors don’t complain. Then it is discovered the insurance companies, HMOs, and government can’t afford to pay the bills and demand price controls. Thus, third-party payments leads to rationing of care; limiting choice of doctors, deciding on lab tests, length of stay in the hospital, and choosing the particular disease and conditions that can be treated as HMOs and the government, who are the payers, start making key medical decisions. Because HMOs make mistakes and their budgets are limited however, doesn’t justify introducing the notion that politicians are better able to make these decisions than the HMOs. Forcing HMOs and insurance companies to do as the politicians say regardless of the insurance policy agreed upon will lead to higher costs, less availability of services and calls for another round of government intervention.
HMO
Health Care Reform: Treat The Cause, Not The Symptom
4 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 103:15
For anyone understanding economics, the results are predictable: Quality of medical care will decline, services will be hard to find, and the three groups, patients, doctors and HMOs will blame each other for the problems, pitting patients against HMOs and government, doctors against the HMOs, the HMOs against the patient, the HMOs against the doctor and the result will be the destruction of the cherished doctor-patient relationship. That’s where we are today and unless we recognize the nature of the problem Congress will make things worse. More government meddling surely will not help.
HMO
Health Care Reform: Treat The Cause, Not The Symptom
4 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 103:16
Of course, in a truly free market, HMOs and pre-paid care could and would exist — there would be no prohibition against it. The Kaiser system was not exactly a creature of the government as is the current unnatural HMO-government-created chaos we have today. The current HMO mess is a result of our government interference through the ERISA laws, tax laws, labor laws, and the incentive by many in this country to socialize medicine “American style”, that is the inclusion of a corporate level of management to rake off profits while draining care from the patients. The more government assumed the role of paying for services the more pressure there has been to managed care.
HMO
Health Care Reform: Treat The Cause, Not The Symptom
4 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 103:17
The contest now, unfortunately, is not between free market health care and nationalized health care but rather between those who believe they speak for the patient and those believing they must protect the rights of corporations to manage their affairs as prudently as possible. Since the system is artificial there is no right side of this argument and only political forces between the special interests are at work. This is the fundamental reason why a resolution that is fair to both sides has been so difficult. Only the free market protects the rights of all persons involved and it is only this system that can provide the best care for the greatest number. Equality in medical care services can be achieved only by lowering standards for everyone. Veterans hospital and Medicaid patients have notoriously suffered from poor care compared to private patients, yet, rather than debating introducing consumer control and competition into those programs, we’re debating how fast to move toward a system where the quality of medicine for everyone will be achieved at the lowest standards. Since the problem with our medical system has not been correctly identified in Washington the odds of any benefits coming from the current debates are remote. It looks like we will make things worse by politicians believing they can manage care better than the HMO’s when both sides are incapable of such a feat.
HMO
Health Care Reform: Treat The Cause, Not The Symptom
4 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 103:23
The ERISA law requiring businesses to provide particular programs for their employees should be repealed. The tax codes should give equal tax treatment to everyone whether working for a large corporation, small business, or is self employed. Standards should be set by insurance companies, doctors, patients, and HMOs working out differences through voluntary contracts. For years it was known that some insurance policies excluded certain care and this was known up front and was considered an acceptable provision since it allowed certain patients to receive discounts. The federal government should defer to state governments to deal with the litigation crisis and the need for contract legislation between patients and medical providers. Health care providers should be free to combine their efforts to negotiate effectively with HMOs and insurance companies without running afoul of federal anti-trust laws — or being subject to regulation by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Congress should also remove all federally-imposed roadblocks to making pharmaceuticals available to physicians and patients. Government regulations are a major reason why many Americans find it difficult to afford prescription medicines. It is time to end the days when Americans suffer because the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) prevented them from getting access to medicines that where available and affordable in other parts of the world!
HMO
Quality Care For The Uninsured Act
6 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 104:2
Contrary to the claims of many advocates of increased government regulation of health care, the problems with the health care system do not represent market failure, rather they represent the failure of government policies which have destroyed the health care market. In today’s system, it appears on the surface that the interest of the patient is in conflict with rights of the insurance companies and the Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs). In a free market this cannot happen. Everyone’s rights are equal and agreements on delivering services of any kind are entered into voluntarily, thus satisfying both sides. Only true competition assures that the consumer gets the best deal at the best price possible, by putting pressure on the providers. Once one side is given a legislative advantage, in an artificial system, as it is in managed care, trying to balance government dictated advantages between patient and HMOs is impossible. The differences cannot be reconciled by more government mandates which will only makes the problem worse. Because we are trying to patch up an unworkable system, the impasse in Congress should not be a surprise.
HMO
Quality Care For The Uninsured Act
6 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 104:3
No one can take a back seat to me regarding the disdain I hold for the HMOs’ role in managed care. This entire unnecessary level of corporatism that rakes off profits and undermines care is a creature of government interference in health care. These non-market institutions and government could have only gained control over medical care through a collusion among organized medicine, politicians, and the HMO profiteers, in an effort to provide universal health care. No one suggests that we should have “universal” food, housing, TV, computer and automobile programs and yet many of the “poor” do much better getting these services through the marketplace as prices are driven down through competition.
HMO
Quality Care For The Uninsured Act
6 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 104:6
Partial government involvement is not possible. It inevitably leads to total government control. Plans for all the so-called Patient’s Bill of Rights are a 100% endorsement of the principle of government management and will greatly expand government involvement, even if the intention is to limit government management of the health care system to the extent “necessary” to curtail the abuses of the HMOs. The Patients’ Bill of Rights concept is based on the same principles that have given us the mess we have today. Doctors are unhappy, HMOs are being attacked for the wrong reasons, and the patients have become a political football over which all sides demagogue.
HMO
Quality Care For The Uninsured Act
6 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 104:9
Artificial and generous payments of any service, especially medical, produces a well-known cycle. The increase benefits at little or no cost to the patient leads to an increase in demand and removes the incentive to economize. Higher demands raises prices for doctor fees, labs, and hospitals; and as long as the payments are high the patients and doctors don’t complain. Then it is discovered the insurance companies, HMOs, and government can’t afford to pay the bills and demand price controls. Thus, third-party payments leads to rationing of care, limiting choice of doctors, deciding on lab tests, length of stay in the hospital, and choosing the particular disease and conditions that can be treated as HMOs and the government, who are the payers, start making key medical decisions. Because HMOs make mistakes and their budgets are limited however, doesn’t justify introducing the notion that politicians are better able to make these decisions than the HMOs. Forcing HMOs and insurance companies to do as the policitians say regardless of the insurance policy agreed upon will lead to higher costs, less availability of services and calls for another round of government intervention.
HMO
Quality Care For The Uninsured Act
6 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 104:10
For anyone understanding economics, the results are predictable: Quality of medical care will decline, services will be hard to find, and the three groups, patients, doctors and HMOs will blame each other for the problems, pitting patients against HMOs and government, doctors against the HMOs, the HMOs against the patient, the HMOs against the doctor and the result will be the destruction of the cherished doctor-patient relationship. That’s where we are today and unless we recognize the nature of the problem Congress will make things worse. More government meddling surely will not help.
HMO
Quality Care For The Uninsured Act
6 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 104:11
Of course, in a truly free market, HMOs and pre-paid care could and would exist — there would be no prohibition against it. The Kaiser system was not exactly a creature of the government as is the current unnatural HMO-government-created chaos we have today. The current HMO mess is a result of our government interference through the ERISA laws, tax laws, labor laws, and the incentive by many in this country to socialize medicine “American style,” that is the inclusion of a corporate level of management to rake off profits while draining care from the patients. The more government assumed the role of paying for services the more pressure there has been to managed care.
HMO
Quality Care For The Uninsured Act
6 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 104:13
Since the problem with our medical system has not been correctly identified in Washington the odds of any benefits coming from the current debates are remote. It looks like we will make things worse by politicians believing they can manage care better than the HMO’s when both sides are incapable of such a feat.
HMO
Quality Care For The Uninsured Act
6 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 104:19
The ERISA laws requiring businesses to provide particular programs for their employees should be repealed. The tax codes should give equal tax treatment to everyone whether working for a large corporation, small business, or is self employed. Standards should be set by insurance companies, doctors, patients, and HMOs working out differences through voluntary contracts. For years it was known that some insurance policies excluded certain care and this was known up front and was considered an acceptable provision since it allowed certain patients to receive discounts. The federal government should defer to state governments to deal with the litigation crisis and the need for contract legislation between patients and medical providers. Health care providers should be free to combine their efforts to negotiate effectively with HMOs and insurance companies without running afoul of federal anti-trust laws — or being subject to regulation by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Congress should also remove all federally-imposed roadblocks to making pharmaceuticals available to physicians and patients. Government regulations are a major reason why many Americans find it difficult to afford prescription medicines. It is time to end the days when Americans suffer because the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) prevented them from getting access to medicines that were available and affordable in other parts of the world!
HMO
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:80
There is no indication that the trend toward government medicine will be reversed. Our problems are related to the direct takeover of medical care in programs like Medicare and Medicaid. But it has also been the interference in the free market through ERISA mandates related to HMOs and other managed care organizations, as well as our tax code, that have undermined the private insurance aspect of paying for medical care. True medical insurance is not available. The government dictates all the terms.
HMO
Statement of Ron Paul on the Misuse of the Social Security Number
May 11, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 35:9
Finally, I would remind my colleagues that no private organization has the power to abuse personal liberty on as massive a scale as the federal government. After all, consumers have the right to refuse to do business with any private entity that asks for a Social Security number, whereas citizens cannot lawfully refuse to deal with government agencies. Furthermore, most of the major invasions of privacy, from the abuse of IRS files to the case of the Medicare clerk who sold the names of Medicare patients to an HMO, to the abuse of the FBI by administrations of both parties have occurred by government agents. Therefore Congress should focus on the threat to liberty caused by the federal government’s use of uniform identifiers.
HMO
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1304, QUALITY HEALTH-CARE COALITION ACT OF 2000
June 29, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 60:3
Who are the greatest opponents of H.R. 1304? The HMOs and the insurance companies.
HMO
Quality Health-Care Coalition Act of 2000
June 29, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 61:1
* Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to take this opportunity to lend my support to H.R. 1304, the Quality Health Care Coalition Act, which takes a first step towards restoring a true free-market in health care by restoring the rights of freedom of contract and association to health care professionals. Over the past few years, we have had much debate in Congress about the difficulties medical professionals and patients are having with Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs). HMOs are devices used by insurance industries to ration health care. While it is politically popular for members of Congress to bash the HMOs and the insurance industry, the growth of the HMOs are rooted in past government interventions in the health care market though the tax code, the Employment Retirement Security Act (ERSIA), and the federal anti-trust laws. These interventions took control of the health care dollar away from individual patients and providers, thus making it inevitable that something like the HMOs would emerge as a means to control costs.
HMO
Quality Health-Care Coalition Act of 2000
June 29, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 61:2
* Many of my well-meaning colleagues would deal with the problems created by the HMOs by expanding the federal government’s control over the health care market. These interventions will inevitably drive up the cost of health care and further erode the ability of patents and providers to determine the best health treatments free of government and third-party interference. In contrast, the Quality Health Care Coalition Act addresses the problems associated with HMOs by restoring medical professionals’ freedom to form voluntary organizations for the purpose of negotiating contracts with an HMO or an insurance company.
HMO
Quality Health-Care Coalition Act of 2000
June 29, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 61:3
* As an OB-GYN with over 30 years in practice, I am well aware of how young physicians coming out of medical school feel compelled to sign contracts with HMOs that may contain clauses that compromise their professional integrity. For example, many physicians are contractually forbidden from discussing all available treatment options with their patients because the HMO gatekeeper has deemed certain treatment options too expensive. In my own practice, I have tried hard not to sign contracts with any health insurance company that infringed on my ability to practice medicine in the best interests of my patients and I have always counseled my professional colleagues to do the same. Unfortunately, because of the dominance of the HMO in today’s health care market, many health care professionals cannot sustain a medical practice unless they agree to conform their practice to the dictates of some HMO.
HMO
Quality Health-Care Coalition Act of 2000
June 29, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 61:4
* One way health care professionals could counter the power of the HMOs would be to form a voluntary association for the purpose of negotiating with an HMO or an insurance company. However, health care professionals who attempt to form such a group run the risk of persecution under federal anti-trust laws. This not only reduces the ability of health care professionals to negotiate with HMOs on a level playing field, it, like existing antitrust laws, are an unconstitutional violation of medical professionals’ freedom of contract and association.
HMO
Quality Health-Care Coalition Act of 2000
June 29, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 61:5
* Under the United States Constitution, the federal government has no authority to interfere with the private contracts of American citizens. Furthermore, the prohibitions on contracting contained in the Sherman antitrust laws are based on a flawed economic theory: that federal regulators can improve upon market outcomes by restricting the rights of certain market participants deemed too powerful by the government. In fact, anti-trust laws harm consumers by preventing the operation of the free-market, causing prices to rise, quality to suffer, and, as is certainly the case with the relationship between the HMOs and medical professionals, favoring certain industries over others. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I would hope that my colleagues would see the folly of antitrust laws and support my Market Process Restoration Act (H.R. 1789), which repeals all federal antitrust laws.
HMO
Quality Health-Care Coalition Act of 2000
June 29, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 61:6
* By restoring the freedom of medical professionals to voluntarily come together to negotiate as a group with HMOs and insurance companies, this bill removes a government-imposed barrier to a true free market in health care. I am quite pleased that this bill does not infringe on the rights of health care professionals by forcing them to join a bargaining organization against their will. Contrary to the claims of some of its opponents, H.R. 1304 in no way extends the scourge of federally-mandated compulsory unionism to the health care professions. While Congress should protect the right of all Americans to join organizations for the purpose of bargaining collectively, Congress also has a moral responsibility to ensure that no worker is forced by law to join or financially support such an organization.
HMO
Quality Health-Care Coalition Act of 2000
June 29, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 61:7
* Mr. Chairman, it is my hope that Congress will follow up on its action today by empowering patients to control their health care by providing all Americans with access to Medical Saving Accounts (MSAs) and large tax credits for their health care expenses. Putting individuals back in charge of their own health care decisions will enable patients to work with providers to ensure they receive the best possible health care at the lowest possible price. If providers and patients have the ability to form the contractual arrangements that they found most beneficial to them, the HMO monster would wither on the vine without the imposition of new federal regulations on the insurance industry.
HMO
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2615, CERTIFIED DEVELOPMENT COMPANY PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS ACT OF 2000
October 26, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 92:5
* Mr. Speaker, I also am pleased that this bill extends the Medical Savings Accounts (MSA) program created in 1996. MSAs and generous health care tax deductions are critical to preserving health care freedom. Federal policies removing consumer control over health care dollars inevitably have led to increased decision making by HMOs and federal bureaucrats.
HMO
Blame Congress for HMOs
February 27, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 15:2
* Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I highly recommend the attached article, “Blame Congress for HMOs” by Twila Brase, a registered nurse and President of the Citizens’ Council on Health Care, to my colleagues. Ms. Brase demolishes the myth that Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs), whose power to deny Americans the health care of their choice has been the subject of much concern, are the result of an unregulated free-market. Instead, Ms. Brase reveals how HMOs were fostered on the American people by the federal government for the express purpose of rationing care.
HMO
Blame Congress for HMOs
February 27, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 15:3
* The story behind the creation of the HMOs is a classic illustration of how the unintended consequences of government policies provide a justification for further expansions of government power. During the early seventies, Congress embraced HMOs in order to address concerns about rapidly escalating health care costs. However, it was Congress which had caused health care costs to spiral by removing control over the health care dollar from consumers and thus eliminating any incentive for consumers to pay attention to costs when selecting health care. Because the consumer had the incentive to control health care cost stripped away, and because politicians where unwilling to either give up power by giving individuals control over their health care or take responsibility for rationing care, a third way to control costs had to be created. Thus, the Nixon Administration, working with advocates of nationalized medicine, crafted legislation providing federal subsidies to HMOs, preempting state laws forbidding physicians to sign contracts to deny care to their patients, and mandating that health plans offer an HMO option in addition to traditional fee-for-service coverage. Federal subsidies, preemption of state law, and mandates on private business hardly sounds like the workings of the free market. Instead, HMOs are the result of the same Nixon-era corporatist, Big Government mindset that produced wage-and-price controls.
HMO
Blame Congress for HMOs
February 27, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 15:4
* Mr. Speaker, in reading this article, I am sure many of my colleagues will think it ironic that many of the supporters of Nixon’s plan to foist HMOs on the American public are today promoting the so-called “patients’ rights” legislation which attempts to deal with the problem of the HMOs by imposing new federal mandates on the private sector. However, this is not really surprising because both the legislation creating HMOs and the Patients’ Bill of Rights reflect the belief that individuals are incapable of providing for their own health care needs in the free market, and therefore government must control health care. The only real difference between our system of medicine and the Canadian “single payer” system is that in America, Congress contracted out the job of rationing health care resources to the HMOs.
HMO
Blame Congress for HMOs
February 27, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 15:5
* As Ms. Brase, points out, so-called “patients’ rights” legislation will only further empower federal bureaucrats to make health care decisions for individuals and entrench the current government-HMO complex. Furthermore, because the Patient’s Bill of Rights will increase health care costs, thus increasing the number of Americans without health insurance, it will result in pleas for yet another government intervention in the health care market!
HMO
Blame Congress for HMOs
February 27, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 15:6
* The only true solution to the health care problems is to truly allow the private sector to work by restoring control of the health care dollar to the individual through Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs) and large tax credits. In the Medicare program, seniors should not be herded into HMOs but instead should receive increased ability to use Medicare MSAs, which give them control over their health care dollars. Of course, the limits on private contracting in the Medicare program should be lifted immediately.
HMO
Blame Congress for HMOs
February 27, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 15:8
[From the Ideas On Liberty, Feb. 2001] BLAME CONGRESS FOR HMOS (By Twila Brase)
HMO
Blame Congress for HMOs
February 27, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 15:9
Only 27 years ago, congressional Republicans and Democrats agreed that American patients should gently but firmly be forced into managed care. That patients do not know this fact is evidenced by public outrage directed at health maintenance organizations (HMOs) instead of Congress.
HMO
Blame Congress for HMOs
February 27, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 15:10
Although members of Congress have managed to keep the public in the dark by joining in the clamor against HMOs, legislative history puts the responsibility and blame squarely in their collective lap.
HMO
Blame Congress for HMOs
February 27, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 15:11
The proliferation of managed-care organizations (MCOs) in general, and HMOs in particular, resulted from the 1965 enactment of Medicare for the elderly and Medicaid for the poor. Literally overnight, on July 1, 1966, millions of Americans lost all financial responsibility for their health-care decisions.
HMO
Blame Congress for HMOs
February 27, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 15:17
Senator Edward M. Kennedy, a longtime advocate of national health care, proceeded to hold three months of extensive hearings in 1971 on what was termed the “Health Care Crisis in America.” Following these hearings, he held a series of hearing “on the whole question of HMO’s.”
HMO
Blame Congress for HMOs
February 27, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 15:18
Introducing the HMO hearings, Kennedy said, “We need legislation which reorganizes the system to guarantee a sufficient volume of high quality medical care, distributed equitably across the country and available at reasonable cost to every American. It is going to take a drastic overhaul of our entire way of doing business in the health-care field in order to solve the financing and organizational aspects of our health crisis. One aspect of that solution is the creation of comprehensive systems of health-care delivery.”
HMO
Blame Congress for HMOs
February 27, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 15:19
In 1972, President Richard M. Nixon heralded his desire for the HMO in a speech to Congress: “the Health Maintenance Organization concept is such a central feature of my National Health Strategy.” The administration had already authorized, without specific legislative authority, $26 million for 110 HMO projects. That same year, the U.S. Senate passed a $5.2 billion bill permitting the establishment of HMOs “to improve the nation’s health-care delivery system by encouraging prepaid comprehensive health-care programs.”
HMO
Blame Congress for HMOs
February 27, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 15:20
But what the House of Representatives refused to concur, it was left to the 93rd Congress to pass the HMO Act in 1973. Just before a voice vote passed the bill in the House,
HMO
Blame Congress for HMOs
February 27, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 15:22
In the Senate, Kennedy, author of the HMO Act, also encouraged its passage: “I have strongly advocated passage of legislation to assist the development of health maintenance organizations as a viable and competitive alternative to fee-for-service practice. ..... This bill represents the first initiative by the Federal Government which attempts to come to grips directly with the problems of fragmentation and disorganization in the health care industry. ..... I believe that the HMO is the best idea put forth so far for containing costs and improving the organization and the delivery of health-care services.” In a roll call vote, only Senator Herman Talmadge voted against the bill.
HMO
Blame Congress for HMOs
February 27, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 15:23
On December 29, 1973, President Nixon signed the HMO Act of 1973 into law.
HMO
Blame Congress for HMOs
February 27, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 15:24
As patients have since discovered, the HMO — staffed by physicians employed by and beholden to corporations — was not much of a Christmas present or an insurance product. It promises coverage but often denies access. The HMO, like other prepaid MCOs, requires enrollees to pay in advance for a long list of routine and major medical benefits, whether the health-care services are needed, wanted, or ever used. The HMOs are then allowed to manage care — without access to dollars and service — through definitions of medical necessity, restrictive drug formularies, and HMO-approved clinical guidelines. As a result, HMOs can keep millions of dollars from premium-paying patients. HMO BARRIERS ELIMINATED
HMO
Blame Congress for HMOs
February 27, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 15:25
Congress’s plan to save its members’ political skins and national agendas relied on employer-sponsored coverage and taxpayer subsidies to HMOs. The planners’ long-range goal was to place Medicare and Medicaid recipients into managed care where HMO managers, instead of Congress, could ration care and the government’s financial liability
HMO
Blame Congress for HMOs
February 27, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 15:26
To accomplish this goal, public officials had to ensure that HMOs developed the size and stability necessary to take on the financial risks of capitated government health-care programs. This required that HMOs capture a significant portion of the private insurance market. Once Medicare and Medicaid recipients began to enroll in HMOs, the organizations would have the flexibility to pool their resources, redistribute private premium dollars, and ration care across their patient populations.
HMO
Blame Congress for HMOs
February 27, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 15:27
Using the HMO Act of 1973, Congress eliminated three major barriers to HMO growth, as clarified by U.S. Representative Claude Pepper of Florida: “First, HMO’s are expensive to start; second, restrictive State laws often make the operation of HMO’s illegal; and, third, HMO’s cannot compete effectively in employer health benefit plans with existing private insurance programs. The third factor occurs because HMO premiums are often greater than those for an insurance plan.”
HMO
Blame Congress for HMOs
February 27, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 15:28
To bring the privately insured into HMOs, Congress forced employers with 25 or more employees to offer HMOs as an option — a law that remained in effect until 1995. Congress then provided a total of $373 million in federal subsidies to fund planning and startup expenses, and to lower the cost of HMO premiums. This allowed HMOs to undercut the premium prices of their insurance competitors and gain significant market share.
HMO
Blame Congress for HMOs
February 27, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 15:29
In addition, the federal law pre-empted state laws, that prohibited physicians from receiving payments for not providing care. In other words, payments to physicians by HMOs for certain behavior (fewer admissions to hospitals, rationing care, prescribing cheaper medicines) were now legal.
HMO
Blame Congress for HMOs
February 27, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 15:30
The combined strategy of subsidies, federal power, and new legal requirements worked like a charm. Employees searching for the lowest priced comprehensive insurance policy flowed into HMOs, bringing their dollars with them. According to the Health Resources Services Administration (HRSA), the percentage of working Americans with private insurance enrolled in managed care rose from 29 percent in 1988 to over 50 percent in 1997. In 1999, 181.4 million people were enrolled in managed-care plans.
HMO
Blame Congress for HMOs
February 27, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 15:31
Once HMOs were filled with the privately insured, Congress moved to add the publicly subsidized. Medicaid Section 1115 waivers allowed states to herd Medicaid recipients into HMOs, and Medicare+Choice was offered to the elderly. By June 1998, over 53 percent of Medicaid recipients were enrolled in managed-care plans, according to HRSA. In addition, about 15 percent of the 39 million Medicare recipients were in HMOs in 2000. HMOS SERVE PUBLIC-HEALTH AGENDA
HMO
Blame Congress for HMOs
February 27, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 15:32
Despite the public outcry against HMOs, federal support for managed care has not waned. In August 1998, HRSA announced the creation of a Center for Managed Care to provide “leadership, coordination, and advancement of managed care systems . . . [and to] develop working relationships with the private managed care industry to assure mutual areas of cooperation.”
HMO
Blame Congress for HMOs
February 27, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 15:34
For example, Minnesota’s HMOs, MCOs, and nonprofit insurers are required by law to fund public-health initiatives approved by the Minnesota Department of Health, the state regulator for managed care plans. The Blue Cross-Blue Shield tobacco lawsuit, which brought billions of dollars into state and health-plan coffers, is just one example of the you-scratch-my-back-I’ll-scratch-yours initiatives. Yet this hidden tax, which further limits funds available for medical care, remains virtually unknown to enrollees.
HMO
Blame Congress for HMOs
February 27, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 15:35
Federal officials, eager to keep HMOs in business, have even been willing to violate federal law. In August 1998, a federal court chided the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services for renewing HMO contracts that violate their own Medicare regulations. THE RUSE OF PATIENT PROTECTION
HMO
Blame Congress for HMOs
February 27, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 15:36
Truth be told, HMOs allowed politicians to promise access to comprehensive health-care services without actually delivering them. Because treatment decisions could not be linked directly to Congress, HMOs provided the perfect cover for its plans to contain costs nationwide through health-care rationing. Now that citizens are angry with managed (rationed) care, the responsible parties in Congress, Senator Kennedy in particular, return with legislation ostensibly to protect patients from the HMOs they instituted.
HMO
Blame Congress for HMOs
February 27, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 15:37
At worst, such offers are an obfuscation designed to entrench federal control over health care through the HMOs. At best they are deceptive placation. Congress has no desire to eliminate managed care, and federal regulation of HMOs and other managed-care corporations will not protect patients from rationing. Even the U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged in its June 12, 2000, Pegram
HMO
Blame Congress for HMOs
February 27, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 15:39
What could be so bad about that? A lot, it seems. Public officials worry privately that patients with power may not choose managed-care plans, eventually destabilizing the HMOs Congress is so dependent on for cost containment and national health-care initiatives. Witness congressional constraints on individually owned, tax-free medical savings accounts and the reluctance to break up employer-sponsored coverage by providing federal tax breaks to individuals. Unless citizens wise up to Congress’s unabashed but unadvertised support for managed care, it appears unlikely that real patient power will rise readily to the top of its agenda.
HMO
THE PATIENT PRIVACY ACT -- HON. RON PAUL
July 24, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 65:2
* Establishment of such a medical identifier, especially when combined with HHS’s misnamed “federal privacy” regulations, would allow federal bureaucrats to track every citizen’s medical history from cradle to grave. Furthermore, it is possible that every medical professional, hospital, and Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) in the country would be able to access an individual citizens’ record simply by entering the patient’s identifier into a health care database.
HMO
THE PATIENT PRIVACY ACT -- HON. RON PAUL
July 24, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 65:6
* I ask my colleagues, how comfortable would you be confiding any emotional problem, or even an embarrassing physical problem like impotence, to your doctor if you knew that this information could be easily accessed by friend, foe, possible employers, coworkers, HMOs, and government agents?
HMO
THE PATIENT PRIVACY ACT -- HON. RON PAUL
July 24, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 65:8
* This argument has two flaws. First of all, history has shown that attempts to protect the privacy of information collected by, or at the command, of the government are ineffective at protecting citizens from the prying eyes of government officials. I ask my colleagues to think of the numerous cases of IRS abuses that were brought to our attention in the past few months, the history of abuse of FBI files, and the case of a Medicaid clerk in Maryland who accessed a computerized database and sold patient names to an HMO. These are just some of many examples that show that the only effective way to protect privacy is to forbid the government from assigning a unique number to any citizen.
HMO
THE PATIENT PRIVACY ACT -- HON. RON PAUL
July 24, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 65:10
* Those who claim that the Patient Privacy act would interfere with the plans to “simplify” and “streamline” the health care system, should remember that under the constitution, the rights of people should never take a backseat to the convenience of the government or politically powerful industries like HMOs.
HMO
Patients’ Bill Of Rights
2 August 2001 2001 Ron Paul 74:4
The fundamental economic principle is that true competition assures that the consumer gets the best deal at the best price possible by putting pressure on the providers. This principle applies equally to health care as it does to other goods and services. However, over the past fifty years, Congress has systematically destroyed the market in health care. HMOs themselves are the result of conscious government policy aimed at correcting distortions in the health care market caused by Congress. The story behind the creation of the HMOs is a classic illustration of how the unintended consequences of government policies provide a justification for further expansions of government power. During the early seventies, Congress embraced HMOs in order to address concerns about rapidly escalating health care costs.
HMO
Patients’ Bill Of Rights
2 August 2001 2001 Ron Paul 74:5
However, it was previous Congressional action which caused health care costs to spiral by removing control over the health care dollar from consumers and thus eliminating any incentive for consumers to pay attention to prices when selecting health care. Because the consumer had the incentive to monitor health care prices stripped away and because politicians were unwilling to either give up power by giving individuals control over their health care or take responsibility for rationing care, a third way to control costs had to be created. Thus, the Nixon Administration, working with advocates of nationalized medicine, crafted legislation providing federal subsidies to HMOs and preempting state laws forbidding physicians to sign contracts to deny care to their patients. This legislation also mandated that health plans offer an HMO option in addition to traditional fee-for-service coverage. Federal subsidies, preemption of state law, and mandates on private business hardly sound like the workings of the free market. Instead, HMOs are the result of the same Nixon-era corporatist, big government mindset that produced wage-and-price controls.
HMO
Patients’ Bill Of Rights
2 August 2001 2001 Ron Paul 74:6
I am sure many of my colleagues will think it ironic that many of the supporters of Nixon’s plan to foist HMOs on the American public are today among the biggest supporters of the “patients’ rights” legislation. However, this is not really surprising because both the legislation creating HMOs and the Patients’ Bill of Rights reflect the belief that individuals are incapable of providing for their own health care needs and therefore government must control health care. The only real difference between our system of medicine and the Canadian “single payer” system is that in America, Congress contracted out the job of rationing health care resources to the HMOs.
HMO
Patients’ Bill Of Rights
2 August 2001 2001 Ron Paul 74:7
No one can take a back seat to me regarding the disdain I hold for the HMO’s role in managed care. This entire unnecessary level of corporatism that rakes off profits and undermines care is a creature of government interference in health care. These non-market institutions and government could have only gained control over medical care through a collusion of organized medicine, politicians, and the HMO profiteers in an effort to provide universal health care. No one suggests that we should have universal food, housing, TV, computer and automobile programs; and yet, many of the poor to much better getting these services through the marketplace as prices are driven down through competition.
HMO
Patients’ Bill Of Rights
2 August 2001 2001 Ron Paul 74:8
We all should become suspicious when it is declared we need a new Bill of Rights, such as a Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights, or now a Patients’ Bill of Rights. Why do more Members not ask why the original Bill of Rights is not adequate in protecting all rights and enabling the market to provide all services? In fact, if Congress respected the Constitution we would not even be debating this bill, and we would have never passed any of the special-interest legislation that created and empowered the HMOs in the first place!
HMO
Patients’ Bill Of Rights
2 August 2001 2001 Ron Paul 74:15
Instead of this phony argument between those who believe their form of nationalized medicine is best for patients and those whose only objection to nationalized medicine is its effect on entrenched corporate interests, we ought to consider getting rid of the laws that created this medical management crisis. The ERISA law requiring businesses to provide particular programs for their employees should be repealed. The tax codes should give equal tax treatment to everyone whether working for a large corporation, small business, or self employed. Standards should be set by insurance companies, doctors, patients, and HMOs working out differences through voluntary contracts. For years it was known that some insurance policies excluded certain care. This was known up front and was considered an acceptable practice since it allowed certain patients to receive discounts. The federal government should defer to state governments to deal with the litigation crisis and the need for contract legislation between patients and medical providers. Health care providers should be free to combine their efforts to negotiate effectively with HMOs and insurance companies without running afoul of federal anti-trust laws — or being subject to regulation by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
HMO
Patients’ Bill Of Rights
2 August 2001 2001 Ron Paul 74:16
Of course, in a truly free market, HMOs and pre-paid care could and would exist — there would be no prohibition against it. The Kaiser system was not exactly a creature of the government as it the current unnatural HMO-government- created chaos we have today.
HMO
H.R. 4954
27 June 2002 2002 Ron Paul 63:3
However, Mr. Speaker, at the heart of this legislation is a fatally flawed plan that will fail to provide seniors access to the pharmaceuticals of their choice. H.R. 4954 requires seniors to enroll in a prescription benefit management company (PBM), which is the equivalent of an HMO. Under this plan, the PBM will have the authority to determine which pharmaceuticals are available to seniors. Thus, in order to get any help with their prescription drug costs, seniors have to relinquish their ability to choose the type of prescriptions that meet their own individual needs! The inevitable result of this process will be rationing, as PBM bureaucrats attempt to control costs by reducing the reimbursements paid to pharmacists to below-market levels (thus causing pharmacists to refuse to participate in PBM plans), and restricting the type of pharmacies seniors may use in the name of “cost effectiveness.” PBM bureaucrats may even go so far as to forbid seniors from using their own money to purchase Medicare-covered pharmaceuticals. I remind my colleagues that today the federal government prohibits seniors from using their own money to obtain health care services which differ from those “approved” of by the Medicare bureaucracy!
HMO
H.R. 4954
27 June 2002 2002 Ron Paul 63:12
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, both H.R. 4954 and the alternative force seniors to cede control over what prescription medicines they may receive. The only difference between them is that H.R. 4954 gives federally funded HMO bureaucrats control over seniors prescription drugs, while the alternative gives government functionaries the power to tell seniors what prescription drug they can (and can’t) have. Congress can, and must, do better for our Nation’s seniors, by rejecting this command-andcontrol approach. Instead, Congress should give seniors the ability to use Medicare funds to pay for the prescription drugs of their choice by passing my legislation giving all seniors access to Medicare Medicaid Savings Accounts.
HMO
Statement on Medical Malpractice Legislation
September 26, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 90:3
Of course, I am not suggesting Congress place price controls on the insurance industry, Instead, Congress should reexamine those federal laws such as ERISA and the HMO Act of 1973, which have allowed insurers to achieve such a prominent role in the medical profession. As I will detail below, Congress should also take steps to encourage contractual means of resolving malpractice disputes. Such an approach may not be beneficial to the insurance companies or the trial lawyers, but will certainly benefit the patients and physicians which both sides in this debate claim to represent.
HMO
Statement on Medical Malpractice Legislation
September 26, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 90:10
Congress could also help physicians lower insurance rates by passing legislation that removes the antitrust restrictions preventing physicians from forming professional organizations for the purpose of negotiating contracts with insurance companies and HMOs. These laws give insurance companies and HMOs, who are often protected from excessive malpractice claims by ERISA, the ability to force doctors to sign contracts exposing them to excessive insurance premiums and limiting their exercise of professional judgment. The lack of a level playing field also enables insurance companies to raise premiums at will. In fact, it seems odd that malpractice premiums have skyrocketed at a time when insurance companies need to find other sources of revenue to compensate for their recent losses in the stock market.
HMO
Quality Health Care Coalition Act
12 March 2003 2003 Ron Paul 32:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Quality Health Care Coalition Act, which takes a first step towards restoring a true free market in health care by restoring the rights of freedom of contract and association to health care professionals. Over the past few years, we have had much debate in Congress about the difficulties medical professionals and patients are having with Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs). HMOs are devices used by insurance industries to ration health care. While it is politically popular for members of Congress to bash the HMOs and the insurance industry, the growth of the HMOs are rooted in past government interventions in the health care market though the tax code, the Employment Retirement Security Act (ERSIA), and the federal anti-trust laws. These interventions took control of the health care dollar away from individual patients and providers, thus making it inevitable that something like the HMOs would emerge as a means to control costs.
HMO
Quality Health Care Coalition Act
12 March 2003 2003 Ron Paul 32:2
Many of my well-meaning colleagues would deal with the problems created by the HMOs by expanding the federal government’s control over the health care market. These interventions will inevitably drive up the cost of health and further erode the ability of patents and providers to determine the best health treatments free of government and third-party interference. In contrast, the Quality Health Care Coalition Act addresses the problems associated with HMOs by restoring medical professionals’ freedom to form voluntary organizations for the purpose of negotiating contracts with an HMO or an insurance company.
HMO
Quality Health Care Coalition Act
12 March 2003 2003 Ron Paul 32:3
As an OB–GYN with over 30 years in practice, I am well aware of how young physicians coming out of medical school feel compelled to sign contracts with HMOs that may contain clauses that compromise their professional integrity. For example, many physicians are contractually forbidden from discussing all available treatment options with their patients because the HMO gatekeeper has deemed certain treatment options too expensive. In my own practice, I have tried hard not to sign contracts with any health insurance company that infringed on my ability to practice medicine in the best interests of my patients and I have always counseled my professional colleagues to do the same. Unfortunately, because of the dominance of the HMO in today’s health care market, many health care professionals cannot sustain a medical practice unless they agree to conform their practice to the dictates of some HMO.
HMO
Quality Health Care Coalition Act
12 March 2003 2003 Ron Paul 32:4
One way health care professionals could counter the power of the HMOs would be to form a voluntary association for the purpose of negotiating with an HMO or an insurance company. However, health care professionals who attempt to form such a group run the risk of persecution under federal anti-trust laws. This not only reduces the ability of health care professionals to negotiate with HMOs on a level playing field, but also constitutes an unconstitutional violation of medical professionals’ freedom of contract and association.
HMO
Quality Health Care Coalition Act
12 March 2003 2003 Ron Paul 32:5
Under the United States Constitution, the federal government has no authority to interfere with the private contracts of American citizens. Furthermore, the prohibitions on contracting contained in the Sherman antitrust laws are based on a flawed economic theory which holds that federal regulators can improve upon market outcomes by restricting the rights of certain market participants deemed too powerful by the government. In fact, anti-trust laws harm consumers by preventing the operation of the free-market, causing prices to rise, quality to suffer, and, as is certainly the case with the relationship between the HMOs and medical professionals, favoring certain industries over others.
HMO
Quality Health Care Coalition Act
12 March 2003 2003 Ron Paul 32:6
By restoring the freedom of medical professionals to voluntarily come together to negotiate as a group with HMOs and insurance companies, this bill removes a government-imposed barrier to a true free market in health care. Of course, this bill does not infringe on the rights of health care professionals by forcing them to join a bargaining organization against their will. While Congress should protect the rights of all Americans to join organizations for the purpose of bargaining collectively, Congress also has a moral responsibility to ensure that no worker is forced by law to join or financially support such an organization.
HMO
Quality Health Care Coalition Act
12 March 2003 2003 Ron Paul 32:7
Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that Congress will not only remove the restraints on medical professionals’ freedom of contract, but will also empower patients to control their health care by passing my Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act. The Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act puts individuals back in charge of their own health care by expanding access to Medical Savings Accounts and providing Americans with large tax credits and tax deductions for their health care expenses. Putting individuals back in charge of their own health care decisions will enable patients to work with providers to ensure they receive the best possible health care at the lowest possible price. If providers and patients have the ability to form the contractual arrangements that they find most beneficial to them, the HMO monster will wither on the vine without the imposition of new federal regulations on the insurance industry.
HMO
Freedom from Unnecessary Litigation Act (H.R. 1249)
13 March 2003 2003 Ron Paul 34:3
Of course, I am not suggesting Congress place price controls on the insurance industry. Instead, Congress should reexamine those federal laws such as ERISA and the HMO Act of 1973, which have allowed insurers to achieve such a prominent role in the medical profession. As I will detail below, Congress should also take steps to encourage contractual means of resolving malpractice disputes. Such an approach may not be beneficial to the insurance companies or the trial lawyers, buy will certainly benefit the patients and physicians, which both sides in this debate claim to represent.
HMO
Freedom from Unnecessary Litigation Act (H.R. 1249)
13 March 2003 2003 Ron Paul 34:9
Congress could also help physicians lower insurance rates by passing legislation, such as my Quality Health Care Coalition Act (H.R. 1247), that removes the antitrust restrictions preventing physicians from forming professional organizations for the purpose of negotiating contracts with insurance companies and HMOs. These laws give insurance companies and HMOs, who are often protected from excessive malpractice claims by ERISA, the ability to force doctors to sign contracts exposing them to excessive insurance premiums and limiting their exercise of professional judgment. The lack of a level playing field also enables insurance companies to raise premiums at will. In fact, it seems odd that malpractice premiums have skyrocketed at a time when insurance companies need to find other sources of revenue to compensate for their losses in the stock market.
HMO
Crisis In Healthcare
13 March 2003 2003 Ron Paul 35:2
Unfortunately, most health care “reform” proposals either make marginal changes or exacerbate the problem. This is because they fail to address the root of the problem with health care, which is that government policies encourage excessive reliance on third-party payers. The excessive reliance on third-party payers removes all ilncentive from individual patients to concern themselves with health care costs. Laws and policies promoting Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) resulted from a desperate attempt to control spiraling costs. However, instead of promoting an efficient health care system, HMOs further took control over health care away from the individual patient and physician.
HMO
Comprehensive Health Care Reform Without Socialized Medicine
March 27, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 40:2
Unfortunately, most health care reform proposals either make marginal changes or exacerbate the problem. This is because they fail to address the root of the problem with health care, which is that government polices encourage excessive reliance on third-party payers. The excessive reliance on third-party payers removes all incentive from individual patients to concern themselves with health care costs. Laws and policies promoting Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) resulted from a desperate attempt to control spiraling costs. However, instead of promoting an efficient health care system, HMOs further took control over health care away from the individual patient and physician.
HMO
Repeal the So-Called “Medical Privacy Rule”
April 9, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 49:2
Establishment of a uniform medical identifier would allow federal bureaucrats to track every citizen’s medical history from cradle to grave. Furthermore, as explained in more detail below, it is possible that every medical professional, hospital, and Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) in the country would be able to access an individual citizen’s records simply by entering an identifier into a health care database.
HMO
Medicare Funds For Prescription Drugs
26 June 2003 2003 Ron Paul 71:3
However, Mr. Speaker, at the heart of this legislation is a fatally flawed plan that will fail to provide seniors access to the pharmaceuticals of their choice. H.R. 1 provides seniors a choice between staying in traditionally Medicare or joining an HMO or a Preferred Provider Organization (PPO). No matter which option the senior selects, choices about which pharmaceuticals are available to seniors will be made by a public or private sector bureaucrat. Furthermore, the bureaucrats will have poor to determine the aggregate prices charged to the plans. Being forced to choose between types of bureaucrats is not choice.
HMO
Medicare Funds For Prescription Drugs
26 June 2003 2003 Ron Paul 71:4
Thus, in order to get any help with their prescription drug costs, seniors have to relinquish their ability to choose the type of prescriptions that meet their own individual needs! The inevitable result of this process will be rationing, as Medicare and/or HMO bureaucrats attempt to control costs by reducing the reimbursements paid to pharmacists to below-market levels (thus causing pharmacists to refuse to participate in Medicare), and restricting the type of pharmacies seniors may use in the name of “cost effectiveness.” Bureaucrats may even go so far as to forbid seniors from using their own money to purchase Medicarecovered pharmaceuticals. I remind may colleagues that today the federal government prohibits seniors from using their own money to obtain health care services that differ from those “approved” of by the Medicare bureaucracy!
HMO
Medicare Funds For Prescription Drugs
26 June 2003 2003 Ron Paul 71:13
The alternative suffers from the same flaws, and will have the same (if not worse) negative consequences for seniors as will H.R. 1. There are only two differences between the two: First, under the alternative, seniors will not be able to choice to have a federally subsidized HMO bureaucrat deny them their choice of prescription drugs; instead, seniors will have to accept the control of bureaucrats at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Second, the alternative is even more fiscally irresponsible than H.R. 1.
HMO
Medicare Funds For Prescription Drugs
26 June 2003 2003 Ron Paul 71:20
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, both H.R. 1 and the alternative force seniors to cede control over which prescription medicines they may receive. The only difference between them is that H.R. 1 gives federally funded HMO bureaucrats control over seniors’ prescription drugs, whereas the alternative gives government functionaries the power to tell seniors which prescription drug they can (and can’t) have. Congress can, and must, do better for our Nation’s seniors, by rejecting this command- and-control approach. Instead, Congress should give seniors the ability to use Medicare funds to pay for the prescription drugs of their choice by passing my legislation that gives all seniors access to Medicare Medical Savings Accounts.
HMO
Where To From Here?
November 20, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 81:16
The immediate market reaction to the reelection of President Bush was interesting. The stock market rose significantly, led by certain segments thought to benefit from a friendly Republican administration such as pharmaceuticals, HMO’s, and the weapons industry. The Wall Street Journal summed up the election with a headline the following day: “Winner is Big Business.” The stock market rally following the election likely will be short-lived, however, as the fundamentals underlying the bear market that started in 2000 are still in place.
HMO
Introducing The Comprehensive Health Care Act
27 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 75:2
Unfortunately, most health care “reform” proposals either make marginal changes or exacerbate the problem. This is because they fail to address the root of the problem with health care, which is that government policies encourage excessive reliance on third-party payers. The excessive reliance on third-party payers removes all incentive from individual patients to concern themselves with health care costs. Laws and policies promoting Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) resulted from a desperate attempt to control spiraling costs. However, instead of promoting an efficient health care system, HMOs further took control over health care away from the individual patient and physician.
HMO
Introducing The Quality Health Care Coalition Act
27 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 78:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Quality Health Care Coalition Act, which takes a first step towards restoring a true free market in health care by restoring the rights of freedom of contract and association to health care professionals. Over the past few years, we have had much debate in Congress about the difficulties medical professionals and patients are having with Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs). HMOs are devices used by insurance industries to ration health care. While it is politically popular for members of Congress to bash the HMOs and the insurance industry, the growth of the HMOs are rooted in past government interventions in the health care market though the tax code, the Employment Retirement Security Act (ERSIA), and the federal anti-trust laws. These interventions took control of the health care dollar away from individual patients and providers, thus making it inevitable that something like the HMOs would emerge as a means to control costs.
HMO
Introducing The Quality Health Care Coalition Act
27 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 78:2
Many of my well-meaning colleagues would deal with the problems created by the HMOs by expanding the federal government’s control over the health care market. These interventions will inevitably drive up the cost of health care and further erode the ability of patents and providers to determine the best health treatments free of government and third-party interference. In contrast, the Quality Health Care Coalition Act addresses the problems associated with HMOs by restoring medical professionals’ freedom to form voluntary organizations for the purpose of negotiating contracts with an HMO or an insurance company.
HMO
Introducing The Quality Health Care Coalition Act
27 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 78:3
As an OB–GYN with over 30 years in practice, I am well aware of how young physicians coming out of medical school feel compelled to sign contracts with HMOs that may contain clauses that compromise their professional integrity. For example, many physicians are contractually forbidden from discussing all available treatment options with their patients because the HMO gatekeeper has deemed certain treatment options too expensive. In my own practice, I have tried hard not to sign contracts with any health insurance company that infringed on my ability to practice medicine in the best interests of my patients and I have always counseled my professional colleagues to do the same. Unfortunately, because of the dominance of the HMO in today’s health care market, many health care professionals cannot sustain a medical practice unless they agree to conform their practice to the dictates of some HMO.
HMO
Introducing The Quality Health Care Coalition Act
27 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 78:4
One way health care professionals could counter the power of the HMOs would be to form a voluntary association for the purpose of negotiating with an HMO or an insurance company. However, health care professionals who attempt to form such a group run the risk of persecution under federal anti-trust laws. This not only reduces the ability of health care professionals to negotiate with HMOs on a level playing field, but also constitutes an unconstitutional violation of medical professionals’ freedom of contract and association.
HMO
Introducing The Quality Health Care Coalition Act
27 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 78:5
Under the United States Constitution, the Federal government has no authority to interfere with the private contracts of American citizens. Furthermore, the prohibitions on contracting contained in the Sherman antitrust laws are based on a flawed economic theory which holds that Federal regulators can improve upon market outcomes by restricting the rights of certain market participants deemed too powerful by the government. In fact, anti- trust laws harm consumers by preventing the operation of the free-market, causing prices to rise, quality to suffer, and, as is certainly the case with the relationship between the HMOs and medical professionals, favoring certain industries over others.
HMO
Introducing The Quality Health Care Coalition Act
27 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 78:6
By restoring the freedom of medical professionals to voluntarily come together to negotiate as a group with HMOs and insurance companies, this bill removes a government-imposed barrier to a true free market in health care. Of course, this bill does not infringe on the rights of health care professionals by forcing them to join a bargaining organization against their will. While Congress should protect the rights of all Americans to join organizations for the purpose of bargaining collectively, Congress also has a moral responsibility to ensure that no worker is forced by law to join or financially support such an organization.
HMO
Introducing The Quality Health Care Coalition Act
27 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 78:7
Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that Congress will not only remove the restraints on medical professionals’ freedom of contract, but will also empower patients to control their health care by passing my Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act. The Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act puts individuals back in charge of their own health care by providing Americans with large tax credits and tax deductions for their health care expenses, including a deduction for premiums for a high-deductible insurance policy purchased in combination with a Health Savings Account. Putting individuals back in charge of their own health care decisions will enable patients to work with providers to ensure they receive the best possible health care at the lowest possible price. If providers and patients have the ability to form the contractual arrangements that they find most beneficial to them, the HMO monster will wither on the vine without the imposition of new Federal regulations on the insurance industry.
HMO
Reform Medicare To Give Seniors More Choice
12 January 2007 2007 Ron Paul 14:4
The argument that direct negotiations will restrict Medicare beneficiaries’ access to the prescription drugs of their choice assumes that the current Part D system gives seniors control over what pharmaceuticals they can use. However, under Part D, seniors must enroll in HMO-like entities that decide for them what drugs they can and cannot obtain. My district office staff has heard from numerous seniors who are unable to obtain their drugs of choice from their Part D providers. Mr. Speaker, I favor reforming Medicare to give seniors more control and choice in their health care, and, if H.R. 4 were a threat to this objective, I would oppose it.
HMO
Introducing The Quality Health Care Coalition Act
2 August 2007 2007 Ron Paul 84:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Quality Health Care Coalition Act, which takes a first step towards restoring a true free market in health care by restoring the rights of freedom of contract and association to health care professionals. Over the past few years, we have had much debate in Congress about the difficulties medical professionals and patients are having with Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs). HMOs are devices used by insurance industries to ration health care. While it is politically popular for members of Congress to bash the HMOs and the insurance industry, the growth of the HMOs are rooted in past government interventions in the health care market though the tax code, the Employment Retirement Security Act (ERSIA), and the federal anti-trust laws. These interventions took control of the health care dollar away from individual patients and providers, thus making it inevitable that something like the HMOs would emerge as a means to control costs.
HMO
Introducing The Quality Health Care Coalition Act
2 August 2007 2007 Ron Paul 84:2
Many of my well-meaning colleagues would deal with the problems created by the HMOs by expanding the federal government’s control over the health care market. These interventions will inevitably drive up the cost of health care and further erode the ability of patients and providers to determine the best health treatments free of government and third-party interference. In contrast, the Quality Health Care Coalition Act addresses the problems associated with HMOs by restoring medical professionals’ freedom to form voluntary organizations for the purpose of negotiating contracts with an HMO or an insurance company.
HMO
Introducing The Quality Health Care Coalition Act
2 August 2007 2007 Ron Paul 84:3
As an OB–GYN who spent over 30 years practicing medicine, I am well aware of how young physicians coming out of medical school feel compelled to sign contracts with HMOs that may contain clauses that compromise their professional integrity. For example, many physicians are contractually forbidden from discussing all available treatment options with their patients because the HMO gatekeeper has deemed certain treatment options too expensive. In my own practice, I tried hard not to sign contracts with any health insurance company that infringed on my ability to practice medicine in the best interests of my patients and I always counseled my professional colleagues to do the same. Unfortunately, because of the dominance of the HMO in today’s health care market, many health care professionals cannot sustain a medical practice unless they agree to conform their practice to the dictates of some HMO.
HMO
Introducing The Quality Health Care Coalition Act
2 August 2007 2007 Ron Paul 84:4
One way health care professionals could counter the power of the HMOs would be to form a voluntary association for the purpose of negotiating with an HMO or an insurance company. However, health care professionals who attempt to form such a group run the risk of persecution under federal anti-trust laws. This not only reduces the ability of health care professionals to negotiate with HMOs on a level playing field, but also constitutes an unconstitutional violation of medical professionals’ freedom of contract and association.
HMO
Introducing The Quality Health Care Coalition Act
2 August 2007 2007 Ron Paul 84:5
Under the United States Constitution, the federal government has no authority to interfere with the private contracts of American citizens. Furthermore, the prohibitions on contracting contained in the Sherman antitrust laws are based on a flawed economic theory which holds that federal regulators can improve upon market outcomes by restricting the rights of certain market participants deemed too powerful by the government. In fact, anti- trust laws harm consumers by preventing the operation of the free-market, causing prices to rise, quality to suffer, and, as is certainly the case with the relationship between the HMOs and medical professionals, favoring certain industries over others.
HMO
Introducing The Quality Health Care Coalition Act
2 August 2007 2007 Ron Paul 84:6
By restoring the freedom of medical professionals to voluntarily come together to negotiate as a group with HMOs and insurance companies, this bill removes a government-imposed barrier to a true free market in health care. Of course, this bill does not infringe on the rights of health care professionals by forcing them to join a bargaining organization against their will. While Congress should protect the rights of all Americans to join organizations for the purpose of bargaining collectively, Congress also has a moral responsibility to ensure that no worker is forced by law to join or financially support such an organization.
HMO
Introducing The Quality Health Care Coalition Act
2 August 2007 2007 Ron Paul 84:7
Madam Speaker, it is my hope that Congress will not only remove the restraints on medical professionals’ freedom of contract, but will also empower patients to control their health care by passing my Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act. The Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act puts individuals back in charge of their own health care by providing Americans with large tax credits and tax deductions for their health care expenses, including a deduction for premiums for a high-deductible insurance policy purchased in combination with a Health Savings Account. Putting individuals back in charge of their own health care decisions will enable patients to work with providers to ensure they receive the best possible health care at the lowest possible price. If providers and patients have the ability to form the contractual arrangements that they find most beneficial to them, the HMO monster will wither on the vine without the imposition of new federal regulations on the insurance industry.
HMO
Introducing The Comprehensive Health Care Act
2 August 2007 2007 Ron Paul 86:2
Unfortunately, most health care “reform” proposals either make marginal changes or exacerbate the problem. This is because they fail to address the root of the problem with health care, which is that government polices encourage excessive reliance on third-party payers. The excessive reliance on third-party payers removes all incentive from individual patients to concern themselves with health care costs. Laws and policies promoting Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) resulted from a desperate attempt to control spiraling costs. However, instead of promoting an efficient health care system, HMOs further took control over health care away from the individual patient and physician.
HMO
COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH CARE REFORM ACT
March 12, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 28:2
Unfortunately, most health care “reform” proposals either make marginal changes or exacerbate the problem. This is because they fail to address the root of the problem with health care, which is that government polices encourage excessive reliance on third-party payers. The excessive reliance on third-party payers removes all incentive from individual patients to concern themselves with health care costs. Laws and policies promoting Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) resulted from a desperate attempt to control spiraling costs. However, instead of promoting an efficient health care system, HMOs further took control over health care away from the individual patient and physician.
HMO
INTRODUCING THE QUALITY HEALTH CARE COALITION ACT
March 12, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 29:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Quality Health Care Coalition Act which takes a first step towards restoring a true free market in health care by restoring the rights of freedom of contract and association to health care professionals. For over a decade, we have had much debate in Congress about the difficulties medical professionals and patients are having with Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs). HMOs are devices used by insurance industries to ration health care. While it is politically popular for members of Congress to bash the HMOs and the insurance industry, the growth of the HMOs are rooted in past government interventions in the health care market though the tax code, the Employment Retirement Security Act (ERSIA), and the federal anti-trust laws. These interventions took control of the health care dollar away from individual patients and providers, thus making it inevitable that something like the HMOs would emerge as a means to control costs.
HMO
INTRODUCING THE QUALITY HEALTH CARE COALITION ACT
March 12, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 29:2
Many of my well-meaning colleagues would deal with the problems created by the HMOs by expanding the federal government’s control over the health care market. These interventions will inevitably drive up the cost of health care and further erode the ability of patents and providers to determine the best health treatments free of government and third-party interference. In contrast, the Quality Health Care Coalition Act addresses the problems associated with HMOs by restoring medical professionals’ freedom to form voluntary organizations for the purpose of negotiating contracts with an HMO or an insurance company.
HMO
INTRODUCING THE QUALITY HEALTH CARE COALITION ACT
March 12, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 29:3
As an OB–GYN who spent over 30 years practicing medicine, I am well aware of how young physicians coming out of medical school feel compelled to sign contracts with HMOs that may contain clauses that compromise their professional integrity. For example, many physicians are contractually forbidden from discussing all available treatment options with their patients because the HMO gatekeeper has deemed certain treatment options too expensive. In my own practice, I tried hard not to sign contracts with any health insurance company that infringed on my ability to practice medicine in the best interests of my patients and I always counseled my professional colleagues to do the same. Unfortunately, because of the dominance of the HMO in today’s health care market, many health care professionals cannot sustain a medical practice unless they agree to conform their practice to the dictates of some HMO.
HMO
INTRODUCING THE QUALITY HEALTH CARE COALITION ACT
March 12, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 29:4
One way health care professionals could counter the power of the HMOs would be to form a voluntary association for the purpose of negotiating with an HMO or an insurance company. However, health care professionals who attempt to form such a group run the risk of persecution under federal anti-trust laws. This not only reduces the ability of health care professionals to negotiate with HMOs on a level playing field, but also constitutes an unconstitutional violation of medical professionals’ freedom of contract and association.
HMO
INTRODUCING THE QUALITY HEALTH CARE COALITION ACT
March 12, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 29:5
Under the United States Constitution, the federal government has no authority to interfere with the private contracts of American citizens. Furthermore, the prohibitions on contracting contained in the Sherman antitrust laws are based on a flawed economic theory which holds that federal regulators can improve upon market outcomes by restricting the rights of certain market participants deemed too powerful by the government. In fact, anti- trust laws harm consumers by preventing the operation of the free-market, causing prices to rise, quality to suffer, and, as is certainly the case with the relationship between the HMOs and medical professionals, favoring certain industries over others.
HMO
INTRODUCING THE QUALITY HEALTH CARE COALITION ACT
March 12, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 29:6
By restoring the freedom of medical professionals to voluntarily come together to negotiate as a group with HMOs and insurance companies, this bill removes a government-imposed barrier to a true free market in health care. Of course, this bill does not infringe on the rights of health care professionals by forcing them to join a bargaining organization against their will. While Congress should protect the rights of all Americans to join organizations for the purpose of bargaining collectively, Congress also has a moral responsibility to ensure that no worker is forced by law to join or financially support such an organization.
HMO
INTRODUCING THE QUALITY HEALTH CARE COALITION ACT
March 12, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 29:7
Madam Speaker, it is my hope that Congress will not only remove the restraints on medical professionals’ freedom of contract, but will also empower patients to control their health care by passing my Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act. The Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act puts individuals back in charge of their own health care by providing Americans with large tax credits and tax deductions for their health care expenses, including a deduction for premiums for a high-deductible insurance policy purchased in combination with a Health Savings Account. Putting individuals back in charge of their own health care decisions will enable patients to work with providers to ensure they receive the best possible health care at the lowest possible price. If providers and patients have the ability to form the contractual arrangements that they find most beneficial to them, the HMO monster will wither on the vine without the imposition of new federal regulations on the insurance industry.
HMO
Statement on Comprehensive Healthcare Reform Act
March 26, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 39:2
Unfortunately, most health care “reform” proposals either make marginal changes or exacerbate the problem. This is because they fail to address the root of the problem with health care, which is that government polices encourage excessive reliance on third-party payers. The excessive reliance on third-party payers removes all incentive from individual patients to concern themselves with health care costs. Laws and policies promoting Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) resulted from a desperate attempt to control spiraling costs. However, instead of promoting an efficient health care system, HMOs further took control over health care away from the individual patient and physician.
HMO
Medical costs can be cut with freedom
14 December 1998 Texas Straight Talk 14 December 1998 verse 11 ... Cached
To deal with the ever-rising costs, consumers feel forced to relinquish more control to insurance companies and health maintenance organizations (HMOs). At the same time, doctors are forced into the systems so that the burden of regulatory paperwork can be lifted from them.
HMO
Medical costs can be cut with freedom
14 December 1998 Texas Straight Talk 14 December 1998 verse 12 ... Cached
The insurers and HMOs only make matters worse by further restricting the consumer's choices and limiting the services a physician in their group can offer. The incentive to cut costs is lost, as physicians (now working essentially as low-level employees) seek to make as much as they can in the new corporate environment, will charge the maximum the HMOs allow.
HMO
Medical costs can be cut with freedom
14 December 1998 Texas Straight Talk 14 December 1998 verse 13 ... Cached
Consumer complaints about insurers and HMOs compel politicians to write new laws and more regulations to curry voter favor. More regulations breed more costs, limiting more choices, causing more anguish, and the cycle continues.
HMO
Medical costs can be cut with freedom
14 December 1998 Texas Straight Talk 14 December 1998 verse 16 ... Cached
Under an MSA system, a consumer could save pre-tax dollars in a special account. Those dollars would be used to pay for health care expenses, with the patient negotiating directly with the physician of their choice for the care they choose without regard to HMO rules or a bureaucrat's decision. The incentive for the physician is getting paid in cash as the service is rendered, rather than waiting months for an HMO or insurance provider's billing cycle.
HMO
A flood of bills of rights
16 August 1999 Texas Straight Talk 16 August 1999 verse 13 ... Cached
Contrary to the claims of advocates for increased government regulation of health care, the problems we face do not represent market failure, but rather the failure of government policies that have destroyed the health-care market. While it appears on the surface that the interest of the patient is in conflict with the insurance companies and the Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs), in a free market this cannot happen. But when one side is given a legislative advantage in an artificial system, as with managed care, merely making an effort to balance government dictated advantages between patients and HMOs is impossible. The differences cannot be reconciled by more government mandates; because we are trying to patch an unworkable system, the impasse in Congress over this -- or any such issue -- should not be a surprise.
HMO
Dangerous to our health
11 October 1999 Texas Straight Talk 11 October 1999 verse 9 ... Cached
No one can take a back seat to me regarding the disdain I hold for the HMO's role in managed care. This entire unnecessary level of corporatism that rakes off profits and undermines care is a creature of government interference in health care dating to the 1970s. These non-market institutions could have only gained control over medical care through collusion between organized medicine, politicians, and the profiteers, in an effort to provide universal health care.
HMO
Dangerous to our health
11 October 1999 Texas Straight Talk 11 October 1999 verse 11 ... Cached
Only true competition assures that the consumer gets the best deal at the best price possible by putting pressure on the providers. Once one side is given a legislative advantage in an artificial system, as it is in managed care, trying to balance government-dictated advantages between patient and HMOs is impossible. The differences cannot be reconciled by more government mandates, which will only make the problem worse.
HMO
Dangerous to our health
11 October 1999 Texas Straight Talk 11 October 1999 verse 12 ... Cached
Patients are better served by having options and choices, not new federal bureaucracies and limitations on legal remedies. Such choices and options will arrive only when we unravel the HMO web rooted in old laws, and then change the tax code to allow Americans to fully deduct all healthcare costs from their taxes, similar to what is already allowed for employers.
HMO
Dangerous to our health
11 October 1999 Texas Straight Talk 11 October 1999 verse 13 ... Cached
While neither the current system, nor the mess produced by the House vote last week, constitutes traditional socialism, it is rather something almost worse: corporatism. As government bureaucracy continues to give preferences and protections to HMOs and trial lawyers, it will be the patients who lose, despite the glowing rhetoric from the special interests in Washington, DC. Patients will pay ever rising prices and receive declining care while doctors continue to leave the profession in droves.
HMO
Medical Privacy Threatened by Federal Health Bureaucrats
18 June 2001 Texas Straight Talk 18 June 2001 verse 4 ... Cached
The most dangerous aspect of the new regulations is the implementation of a national medical record database. All health care providers, including private physicians, insurance companies, and HMOs, will be forced to use a standard data format for patient records. Once standardized information is entered into a networked government database, it will be virtually impossible to prevent widespread dissemination of that information. If the federal government really seeks to protect medical privacy, why it is so eager to have its citizens' medical records easily available in one centralized database? The truth is that a centralized database will make it far easier for both government agencies and private companies to access your health records.
HMO
"Patients Bill of Rights" or Federal Takeover of Medicine?
02 July 2001 Texas Straight Talk 02 July 2001 verse 4 ... Cached
Today most Americans obtain health care either through an HMO or similar managed-care organization, or through government Medicare and Medicaid. Since it is very hard to make actuarial estimates for routine health care, HMOs charge most members a similar monthly premium. Because HMOs always want to minimize their costs, they often deny payment for various drugs, treatments, and procedures. Similarly, Medicare does not have unlimited funds, so it generally covers only a portion of any costs. The result of this system is that doctors and patients cannot simply decide what treatment is appropriate; instead, they constantly find themselves being second-guessed by HMO accountants and government bureaucrats. When a third party is paying the bills and malpractice lawsuits loom, doctors have every incentive to maximize costs and order all possible tests and treatments. At the same time, patients suffer when legitimate needed treatment is denied. HMOs have become a corporate, bureaucratic middleman in the healthcare system, driving up costs while undeniably degrading the quality of our medical care.
HMO
"Patients Bill of Rights" or Federal Takeover of Medicine?
02 July 2001 Texas Straight Talk 02 July 2001 verse 5 ... Cached
So what should we do about the HMO mess? Before we call for government action, we should recognize that the federal government has virtually mandated HMOs on the American people First, the tax code excludes health insurance from taxation when purchased by an employer, but not when purchased by an individual. Second, the HMO Act of 1973 forced all but the smallest employers to offer HMOs to their employees. So while many in Congress are happy to criticize HMOs today, the public never hears how the present system was imposed upon the American people by federal law. In fact, one very prominent Senator now attacking managed care is on record in the 1970s lauding HMOs as "effective and efficient mechanisms for delivering health care of the highest quality." As usual, government intervention in the private market has caused unintended consequences, but Washington blames only the HMOs themselves- not the laws that created them.
HMO
"Patients Bill of Rights" or Federal Takeover of Medicine?
02 July 2001 Texas Straight Talk 02 July 2001 verse 6 ... Cached
Not surprisingly, the loudest voices on Capitol Hill now calling for a so-called "patients bill of rights" don't want to abolish the HMO mandate. Instead, more government is proposed to fix the problem. Congress wants to micromanage the system, deciding what treatments and drugs should be paid for by health insurers. Congress also wants to create new rules allowing lawsuits against employers when the HMO refuses treatment to an employee! Surely the trial lawyers will support the new laws, but Americans certainly should understand that more federal involvement will only increase the cost of health insurance for everyone. Undoubtedly, lower-paid workers will find themselves completely uninsured when their premiums increase beyond affordable levels. The truth is that any new legislation will only serve to increase government involvement in our health care system, to the detriment of us all. Without question, the true goal of some in Congress is to create a socialized medicine system. It's politically expedient to slap a "patients rights" label on legislation which simply leads us closer to a complete government takeover of medicine.
HMO
"Patients Bill of Rights" or Federal Takeover of Medicine?
02 July 2001 Texas Straight Talk 02 July 2001 verse 7 ... Cached
We can hardly blame the market for our current healthcare woes. As with all goods and services, medical care is best delivered by the free market, with competition and patient responsibility keeping costs down. Government has neither the constitutional authority nor the wisdom to determine appropriate contract terms between individuals and health insurers. Congress needs to abolish the HMO mandate and allow favorable tax treatment for individuals paying for health care directly. Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs), which are tax-deductible and tax-exempt accounts used to pay medical expenses, should be made available to all Americans. When patients spend their own money for health care, they have a direct incentive to negotiate lower costs with their doctor. When government controls health care, all cost incentives are lost. No "patients bill of rights" will help us when the money runs out.
HMO
Government Vaccines- Bad Policy, Bad Medicine
09 December 2002 Texas Straight Talk 09 December 2002 verse 8 ... Cached
Politics and medicine don’t mix. It is simply not the business of government at any level to decide whether you choose to accept a smallpox vaccine or any other medical treatment. Yet decades of federal intervention in health care, including the impact of third-party HMOs created by federal legislation, have weakened the doctor-patient relationship. A free market system would allow doctors and patients to make their own decisions about smallpox inoculations, without the federal government hoarding, mandating, nor prohibiting the vaccine. Instead, we’re moving quickly toward the day when government controls not only what vaccines patients receive, but what kind of health care they receive at all.
HMO
The Free-Market Approach to the Medical Malpractice Crisis
31 March 2003 Texas Straight Talk 31 March 2003 verse 6 ... Cached
The federal approach also ignores the root cause of the malpractice crisis: the shift away from treating the doctor-patient relationship as a contract to viewing it as one governed by federal regulations. The third-party payer system, largely the result of federal tax laws and the HMO Act of 1973, invites insurance company functionaries, politicians, government bureaucrats, and trial lawyers into the equation. This destroys the patient’s incentive to keep costs down, because he feels he is part of “the system” and someone else pays the bill. In other words, the costs of medical care have been socialized, even though HMOs are ostensibly private businesses.
HMO
HillaryCare, Republican Style
30 June 2003 Texas Straight Talk 30 June 2003 verse 4 ... Cached
In order to participate, seniors must choose between staying in traditional Medicare and joining an HMO/PPO organization. This means either a federal bureaucrat or a nominally private-sector bureaucrat will decide what drugs will be available. Both Medicare and HMO bureaucrats inevitably will be forced to control costs, because the demand for subsidized drugs will be unlimited. They will do so by rationing drugs, especially expensive drugs. Bureaucrats may even go so far as to forbid seniors from using their own money to buy Medicare-covered drugs, just as Medicare rules now prohibit use of private funds to buy unapproved health-care services.
HMO
Paying Dearly for Free Prescription Drugs
06 October 2003 Texas Straight Talk 06 October 2003 verse 7 ... Cached
First and foremost, we must eliminate the middleman in health care. The HMO Act of 1973, coupled with tax rules that do not allow individuals to use pre-tax dollars to pay for health care, combine to force millions of Americans to deal with HMO and Medicare bureaucrats. Whenever a third-party stands between a doctor and his patient, health care becomes inefficient and expensive. Individuals should be able to decide with their doctors what drugs are appropriate, and then reduce their taxable income dollar-for-dollar for all drug expenditures. By forcing employers to offer HMOs and prohibiting individuals from paying for drugs with pre-tax dollars, government enables drug companies to set high prices for deep-pocket middlemen.
HMO
Free Market Medicine
03 May 2004 Texas Straight Talk 03 May 2004 verse 2 ... Cached
Last week the congressional Joint Economic committee on which I serve held a hearing featuring two courageous medical doctors. I had the pleasure of meeting with one of the witnesses, Dr. Robert Berry, who opened a low-cost health clinic in rural Tennessee. His clinic does not accept insurance, Medicare, or Medicaid, which allows Dr. Berry to treat patients without interference from third-party government bureaucrats or HMO administrators. In other words, Dr. Berry practices medicine as most doctors did 40 years ago, when patients paid cash for ordinary services and had inexpensive catastrophic insurance for serious injuries or illnesses. As a result, Dr. Berry and his patients decide for themselves what treatment is appropriate.
HMO
Free Market Medicine
03 May 2004 Texas Straight Talk 03 May 2004 verse 3 ... Cached
Freed from HMO and government bureaucracy, Dr. Berry can focus on medicine rather than billing. Operating on a cash basis lowers his overhead considerably, allowing him to charge much lower prices than other doctors. He often charges just $35 for routine maladies, which is not much more than one’s insurance co-pay in other offices. His affordable prices enable low-income patients to see him before minor problems become serious, and unlike most doctors, Dr. Berry sees patients the same day on a walk-in basis. Yet beyond his low prices and quick appointments, Dr. Berry provides patients with excellent medical care.
HMO
Free Market Medicine
03 May 2004 Texas Straight Talk 03 May 2004 verse 5 ... Cached
Dr. Berry’s experience illustrates the benefits of eliminating the middleman in health care. For decades, the U.S. healthcare system was the envy of the entire world. Not coincidentally, there was far less government involvement in medicine during this time. America had the finest doctors and hospitals, patients enjoyed high quality, affordable medical care, and thousands of private charities provided health services for the poor. Doctors focused on treating patients, without the red tape and threat of lawsuits that plague the profession today. Most Americans paid cash for basic services, and had insurance only for major illnesses and accidents. This meant both doctors and patients had an incentive to keep costs down, as the patient was directly responsible for payment, rather than an HMO or government program.
HMO
Free Market Medicine
03 May 2004 Texas Straight Talk 03 May 2004 verse 6 ... Cached
We should remember that HMOs did not arise because of free-market demand, but rather because of government mandates. The HMO Act of 1973 requires all but the smallest employers to offer their employees HMO coverage, and the tax code allows businesses- but not individuals- to deduct the cost of health insurance premiums. The result is the illogical coupling of employment and health insurance, which often leaves the unemployed without needed catastrophic coverage.
HMO
Free Market Medicine
03 May 2004 Texas Straight Talk 03 May 2004 verse 7 ... Cached
While many in Congress are happy to criticize HMOs today, the public never hears how the present system was imposed upon the American people by federal law. In fact, one very prominent Senator now attacking HMOs is on record in the 1970s lauding them. As usual, government intervention in the private market failed to deliver the promised benefits and caused unintended consequences, but Congress never blames itself for the problems created by bad laws. Instead, we are told more government- in the form of “universal coverage”- is the answer.
HMO
Dietary Supplements and Health Freedom
25 April 2005 Texas Straight Talk 25 April 2005 verse 9 ... Cached
form of doctors, prescriptions, HMOs, and licenses. In other words, they use supplements
HMO
Lowering the Cost of Health Care
21 August 2006 Texas Straight Talk 21 August 2006 verse 4 ... Cached
We should remember that HMOs did not arise because of free-market demand, but rather because of government mandates. The HMO Act of 1973 requires all but the smallest employers to offer their employees HMO coverage, and the tax code allows businesses- but not individuals- to deduct the cost of health insurance premiums. The result is the illogical coupling of employment and health insurance, which often leaves the unemployed without needed catastrophic coverage.
HMO
Lowering the Cost of Health Care
21 August 2006 Texas Straight Talk 21 August 2006 verse 5 ... Cached
While many in Congress are happy to criticize HMOs today, the public never hears how the present system was imposed upon the American people by federal law. As usual, government intervention in the private market failed to deliver the promised benefits and caused unintended consequences, but Congress never blames itself for the problems created by bad laws. Instead, we are told more government- in the form of “universal coverage”- is the answer. But government already is involved in roughly two-thirds of all health care spending, through Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs.
HMO
Lowering the Cost of Health Care
21 August 2006 Texas Straight Talk 21 August 2006 verse 6 ... Cached
For decades, the U.S. healthcare system was the envy of the entire world. Not coincidentally, there was far less government involvement in medicine during this time. America had the finest doctors and hospitals, patients enjoyed high quality, affordable medical care, and thousands of private charities provided health services for the poor. Doctors focused on treating patients, without the red tape and threat of lawsuits that plague the profession today. Most Americans paid cash for basic services, and had insurance only for major illnesses and accidents. This meant both doctors and patients had an incentive to keep costs down, as the patient was directly responsible for payment, rather than an HMO or government program.
HMO
Diagnosing our Health Care Woes
25 September 2006 Texas Straight Talk 25 September 2006 verse 5 ... Cached
It’s time to rethink the whole system of HMOs and managed care. This entire unnecessary level of corporatism rakes off profits and worsens the quality of care. But HMOs did not arise in the free market; they are creatures of government interference in health care dating to the 1970s. These non-market institutions have gained control over medical care through collusion between organized medicine, politicians, and drug companies, in an effort to move America toward “free” universal health care.
HMO
Diagnosing our Health Care Woes
25 September 2006 Texas Straight Talk 25 September 2006 verse 7 ... Cached
Only true competition assures that the consumer gets the best deal at the best price possible by putting pressure on the providers. Patients are better served by having options and choices, not new federal bureaucracies and limitations on legal remedies. Such choices and options will arrive only when we unravel the HMO web rooted in old laws, and change the tax code to allow individual Americans to fully deduct all healthcare costs from their taxes, as employers can.
HMO
Diagnosing our Health Care Woes
25 September 2006 Texas Straight Talk 25 September 2006 verse 8 ... Cached
As government bureaucracy continues to give preferences and protections to HMOs and trial lawyers, it will be the patients who lose, despite the glowing rhetoric from the special interests in Washington. Patients will pay ever rising prices and receive declining care while doctors continue to leave the profession in droves.
Texas Straight Talk from 20 December 1996 to 23 June 2008 (573 editions) are included in this Concordance. Texas Straight Talk after 23 June 2008 is in blog form on Rep. Paul’s Congressional website and is not included in this Concordance.
Remember, not everything in the concordance is Ron Paul’s words. Some things he quoted, and he added some newspaper and magazine articles to the Congressional Record. Check the original speech to see.