Quote:
Originally Posted by CFrance
(Post 1322562)
But I don't want 98% of the providers in Central Florida. I want the ability to access providers anywhere in the country. That's why we have a supplement as opposed to an advantage plan. If I get a rare disease, I want to go where the knowledge is and not have to jump through hoops to get there. I know how you feel about research/teaching centers, GE, but we feel differently for various reasons I won't go into for fear of being accused of giving opinion based on just anecdotal information!
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by villagerjack
(Post 1322594)
Actually the Villages was losing money. Last year they subsidized the Plan with $6 million out of their own pocket. We love the Villages Plan. We put away in a separate savings account the money we saved from not paying for a supplemental plan just in case we want to go to a doctor who is not in the Plan. So far all my doctors on NY and Florida are in the Plan.
|
I went back and re-read my post, and I can see how it may have been misconstrued. I did not intend to diminish anybody's bad experience, I feel bad for their misfortune. Likewise, I did not intend to throw water on anyone's great experience. My point is that these things tend to have a bell shaped curve with a norm and outliers. I just don't think tens of thousands of people should be making an important decision based on a few dozen outliers, good or bad. That is why I advocated getting the facts from the source
As far as rare diseases go, the good news is that they are RARE. The chances of an otherwise healthy individual getting a "rare" disease, then NEEDING a specialist/hospital far out of our area, and then getting denied by the insurer are quite remote. Yes, "stuff" can happen, but that scenario is highly unlikely and I question whether it should be the basis for a coverage decision. And again, the overwhelming likelihood is that the out of state care would be covered, but yes, you might have to "jump through hoops". So, if someone's number 1 concern is avoiding "hoops" to go anywhere they want in the case of a "rare" disease, then they need to stick with Medicare/supplemental insurance and opt out of TVH.
Remember, the dramatic changes in health care delivery are not a local phenomena, they are national changes based on government policy, especially the ACA. This is a 2700 page legislation with over 44,000 pages of regulations, the full impact of which just starts in 2017. All that the law mandates has been working its way into the system and planning for years, so unfortunately "repeal and replace" is far more complicated than taking a vote in Congress. The emphasis of this legislation had absolutely nothing to do with "affordability" or "quality care", its main goal was cost containment and 100% government control over health care. Since the powers that be could not get single payer government health care, the next best thing was to control all the other payers, and hospitals, and doctors with a series of financial incentives and penalties. The net effect, however, is to drive up cost, spend more health care dollars and time on administration and regulation and less on direct patient care. It forces doctors and hospitals into an alphabet soup of ACOs, PCMHs, MIPS, MACRA etc. or face penalties starting in 2017. My "good friend", Jonathan Gruber (aka "stupidity of the American voter"), architect of this plan, conceived of a system of 40 or 50 regional health care systems that control all the hospitals and providers under them. Then the government just has to tug the puppet strings of these systems, instead of thousands of hospitals and hundreds of thousands of providers. To this end they have thrown hundreds of billions of dollars out there so everyone has a massive food fight, and then they will deal with the winners. Of course, once their system is in place and they have 100% control, the squeeze will begin. The result---the one thing they could never say---will be the only reliable cost savings----rationing of healthcare. So what you WANT is irrelevant to the government. Hopefully we will at least be able to get what we NEED, at least for a while. Sorry for the bleak outlook.
As far as TVH not "making enough money", I suspect they are losing or have LOST money. I don't know where that 6 million figure comes from---I know people in TVH management and this is not something they would discuss, nor would I ask, so you must have better connections than I do. Also, given the immense initial investment in infrastructure, a lot of that loss may be depreciation rather than actual cash flow. But in either case, hypothetically, if a good offer came along, say from UHC, they would be idiots not to grab it
So, in summary, changes are underway nationally, so fasten your seatbelt, but make decisions based on facts and your current situation and try to avoid the "what if" game, unless you are psychic.