<p>You’re cherry picking your sources. The Ma Division of Health Care Finance and Policy claims it went up 9%.</p>
<p><a href=“http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/massachusetts-reports-continued-rise-emergency-room-usage”>http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/massachusetts-reports-continued-rise-emergency-room-usage</a></p>
<p>GP, do you have stats for any period more recent than 2004-08? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, but neither does CF.</p>
<p>You vet Heartland? And the freelancer? Same group that worked against health reform and other issues? It’s somehow better than the Journal of the American Medical Assn? </p>
<p>Try this one: <a href=“http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/02/us-health-reform-er-idUSTRE7514VX20110602”>http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/02/us-health-reform-er-idUSTRE7514VX20110602</a> especially “low severity visits.”</p>
<p>In the study LF links, emergency room visits in the hospitals they studied increased 4% from 2006 to 2008.</p>
<p>I didn’t cherrypick, GP. I picked the first result I found, figuring a JAMA article would be considered a reliable source. </p>
<p>But notice what else the Heartland article said:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then I fail to see what your statistic has to do with the Affordable Care Act, since it’s from 2004-08, and the ACA wasn’t signed into law until 2010. By “your statistic” I mean this statement:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Romneycare, LasMa.</p>
<p>Another glimpse into the future…</p>
<p><a href=“http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:online.wsj.com/articles/stephen-t-parente-the-short-unhappy-life-of-obamacare-1402441569”>http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:online.wsj.com/articles/stephen-t-parente-the-short-unhappy-life-of-obamacare-1402441569</a></p>
<p>Some highlights…notice…this references the magical, mystical ‘average’ family…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Time for a collective “OOPS”.</p>
<p>Dr. Parente is a member of American Action Forum, a right-wing think tank. His opinion – and that’s what it is – is hardly surprising. </p>
<p>LaMas…his ‘opinion’ is based on data from HHS… Are you saying they provide supposed right wing leaning data?</p>
<p>And, under this assumption…any and all info coming from the the WH should then be suspect. - such as the oft repeated decrease in costs to average family, and the ability to keep your plans and your docs. Hmmm…those did turn out to be rather wrong opinions.</p>
<p>Is there anyplace where he cites this data?</p>
<p>If he means 5 years, and that the dollar values are annual, 1375 equates to premiums rising $23/month, from one year to the next. And the family increase would be $70/mo. </p>
<p>Has anyone else looked even at their state’s rate increase filings for 2015 yet? </p>
<p>"Stephen T. Parente is the Minnesota Insurance Industry Chair of Health Finance in Carlson School of Management and the Director of the Medical Industry Leadership Institute at the University of Minnesota.</p>
<pre><code>Education
PhD - Johns Hopkins University
MPH - University of Rochester
MPP - University of Rochester
Area of Expertise
Health Care
Notable Positions
Chair of Health Finance - Carlson School of Management, University of Minnesota
Health Policy Advisor - McCain 2008
Legislative Fellow - Office of Senator John D. Rockefeller IV
</code></pre>
<p>As a Professor in the Finance Department, he specializes in health economics, information technology, and health insurance. Dr. Parente has been the principal investigator on large funded-studies regarding consumer directed health plans, health information technology and health policy micro-simulation. He is currently on the governing board of the Health Care Cost Institute. He is the Founding Director of the Medical Valuation Laboratory, a nine college interdisciplinary effort to accelerate medical innovation from scientists, clinicians and entrepreneurs. Dr. Parente was a health policy advisor for the McCain 2008 Presidential Campaign and served as Legislative Fellow in the office of Senator John D. Rockefeller IV (D WV) in 1992/93. He has a doctorate from Johns Hopkins University."</p>
<p>Oh yeah, this guy has no credentials.</p>
<p>^ The issue was his slant. </p>
<p>Guys, Stephen T. Parente is qualified to gather, evaluate and interpret data. Stephen’s evaluation takes into account the planned implementation of those clauses and requirements currently on hold. Calling the interpretation a ‘slant’ simple says ‘I don’t like the conclusion so I will challenge the capabilities of the researcher’. In this case, the researcher is solid.</p>
<p>No. As far as I could tell we don’t even know what data he actually used. Aren’t you at least curious? I looked at his other report link and it was basically the same. “We estimate.” “It is likely that.” If we knew more, perhaps some of you could actually defend his position. And the comment about slant was about his perspective<a href=“not%20his%20degrees%20or%20etc.”>/u</a> It matters in the issue of whether or not he seeks to provide unbiased info and is a reliable source. </p>
<p>And he has been making his view of ACA very clear for years. He’s not an unbiased analyst; he has a point of view.</p>
<p>Indeed, he does, though I don’t actually disagree with his projection, which is in essence that healthcare premiums will rise.
What i find disingenuous is the fact that his article doesn’t address what would have happened WITHOUT ACA. Nor does he mention what, comparatively, group employer plans will cost in 2019.</p>
<p>The kind of cost increase he’s projecting is actually roughly $600 less on a family premiums than the increases I personally experienced between 2009-2013 in our pooled employer group plan.</p>
<p>Again, we seem to be confusing the concept of regulated universal access/coverage with universal affordability. There is only one other model of universal coverage where this distinction is unnecessary, and nobody wanted what went along with that ;)</p>
<p>And btw, abuse of emergency room resources is indeed a “universal” issue not unique to the US. The difference is that in countries where the government itself is directly paying for the abuse, there is a tad bit motivation to address it with public information campaigns, auxiliary triage, and policies that promote increased availability of urgent care clinics.</p>
<p>I would hazard a guess that insurance companies are highly interested in these strategies, and this interest would be reflected in the structure of many exchange plans, where the deductible is now $250 for n emergency room visit where formerly $100 ;)</p>
<p>“Oh yeah, this guy has no credentials.”</p>
<p>Paul Krugman has equally as impressive credentials, along with a Nobel, yet I doubt you accept anything he says about ACA. </p>
<p>Whether Krugman or Krauthammer, very article, report, statistical analysis, news item and radio broadcast has a slant. Some producers pride themselves in a particular slant…it’s what brings in the paycheck. From this moment in the space/time continuum where we sit…it is all projection, evaluation, interpretation, guesstimating. (kind of like climate change 
). Any conclusion is only as good as the origination information - remember GIGO. In this case, the author relied on information and a modeling system from the HHS.</p>
<p>As long as any information presented results the apologetic groups circling the wagons and protecting ‘their’ POV our discussion here is just an exercise in typing. </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.hsinetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/HSI_How-is-Obamacare-Impacting-Health-Plan-Designs_Final.pdf”>http://www.hsinetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/HSI_How-is-Obamacare-Impacting-Health-Plan-Designs_Final.pdf</a></p>
<p>This is the report from the authors. Page 21 shows the data supporting the conclusion of an uninsured population between 35-40 million in 2022. </p>
<p>
Those of us who have been paying for insurance are well aware of the annual sticker shock. It’s those who have entered the system, most likely in a subsidized manner, for the first time who will be shocked by the increases. </p>
<p>In addition, the projection is for a 2%-3% increase in Medicaid enrollment annually until 2024. Remember, this is the system which reimburses so little that providers resist taking patients.</p>
<p>Everyone ha a point of view. It’s impossible not to have a point of view. It’s also intentionally impossible to have accurate numbers on which to base analysis so the people who keep saying “vet” are suggesting something that should be doable, but it just isn’t. Sadly.</p>