Economic Effects of Diabetes on the Elderly

The beginning of the article started off very strong with the Republican views on how replacing theAffordable Care Act/ Obamacare seems to be beneficial because Americans believe that the government needs to provide healthcare for all which is “Medicare for all.” Throughout government; the left and right sides do not see eye to eye but in this discussion, they both seem to acknowledge the likelihood of this new system.

Public health emphasizes the importance of prevention and proactively taking care of one’s body. As people grow older, they must follow certain guidelines to ensure that they age healthily and successfully. One of the biggest concerns facing the aging population is chronic diseases. Chronic diseases are long term diseases that have a slow progression. Once chronic diseases pass “certain symptomatic or diagnostic thresholds,” they become a permanent aspect of an individual’s life because “medical and personal regimens can sometimes control but can rarely cure them” (Albert and Freeman 105). One chronic condition that is a cause of concern is diabetes. Diabetes is not only one of the leading causes of death in the over 65 population but

The baby-boomer generation is aging and adding more beneficiaries’ at an increasing rate than ever before and is estimated to impact the federal deficit by over 17% by 2020. Many other countries have National Healthcare that provides better care at a much lower cost. Medicare was the motivation for a universal healthcare plan and a program for the U.S. could have a positive impact. (Starr, 2011).

Republicans and economist want to privatize Medicare turning it into a voucher-like program that subsidizes purchases of private health insurance. House Republicans have proposed this bill in order to fulfill the GOP goal of balancing the budget in 10 years. Having said that, I can only hypothesize that the amount of capital available to the “new” Medicare population will dwindle and the needs of elderly patients may not be met.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) had mame dramatic changes in the field of the health care system, especially in Medicare, that will seriously take effect in American seniors. Indeed, much of the health law’s new spending is financed by spending reductions in the Medicare program. In addition to the provider payment reductions, Obamacare significantly reduces payments to Medicare Advantage (MA) plans by an estimated $156 billion from 2013 to 2022.( Elmendorf, letter to Speaker Boehner). About 27 percent of all Medicare beneficiaries are enrolled in MA plans, a system of regulated and private plans competing against each other as an alternative to traditional Medicare. MA plans are attractive to beneficiaries because they offer more generous and comprehensive coverage than traditional Medicare by capping out-of-pocket costs and offering drug coverage to a rasonable

The high dispersion of diabetes, especially through the aging population, comes at a considerable economic cost. Health care expenses for individuals with diabetes are 2.3 times greater than expenses for those without diabetes, and diabetes complications account for a significant amount of those cost.

The rate of diabetes in the United States is one of the highest compared to other developed countries. An estimate of 9.3% of the population have diabetes, of those with diabetes 27.8% have yet to be diagnosed (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2014). This means that approximately 8.1 million people are currently living with diabetes, but are unaware of it. As of 2012, 12.3% of people with diabetes were 20 years old or older, the largest population diagnosed with diabetes were adults 65 years old or older. 25.9% of this population lives with diabetes (CDC, 2014). On a national level, the CDC have launched initiatives that focus on prevention and disease management. The National Diabetes Prevention Program is an example of one such initiative. This program focuses on lifestyle changes,

Many proposals to reorganize Medicare could increase the financial and health risks faced by the vulnerable elderly. Turning Medicare into a premium-support system a voucher set randomly at the value of the second-least-expensive insurance plan could shift costs to elderly households. Increasing the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67 will leave many Americans ages 65 and 66 without insurance. The basic idea of part A Medicare payment is simple. The patient pays a deductible that approximately equal to the cost of the first day in the hospital;

President Obama’s pledge to pay for the program by taxing the rich, who is anyone that makes more than $1 million a year (which would include President Obama) and will make for “a marketplace that provides choice and competition” (Conniff, 2009). He also proposes that reform is about every American who has ever feared losing their coverage if they become too sick, lose their jobs or even change their jobs. It’s realizing that the biggest force behind our deficit is the growing costs for Medicare and Medicaid programs.”

The percent change in spending for heart disease was attributed to a 68.6% increase in cost per treated case and a 30.3% increase in the population treated. Heart disease spending was the largest among 15 medical conditions experiencing the largest rise in spending. Interestingly, the rise in cost per treated hypertension case accounted for 60% of the overall growth in spending for hypertension compared with a 19% rise in treated prevalence of the disease. This was attributed to the emergence of new and more costly antihypertensive drugs. In contrast, 50% of the rise in health care spending for diabetes was a result of a rise in treated prevalence and only 24% was attributed to an increased cost per treated case. The total spending for diabetes increased from $8.6 billion in 1987 to $18.28 billion in 2000. Spending for diabetes will surely rise exponentially in the next 10 years because of the continued increase in prevalence of the population being treated and an increased cost per case as new diabetic drugs enter the pharmacologic armamentarium. The spending for diabetes and the spending for heart disease are obviously intertwined.

Long before the 1990s when Ms. Clinton fought for a Universal Healthcare system in America, the issue of America’s healthcare had been a political quandary. The enactment of the Republican administration’s Health Management Organization Act of 1973 was a weapon meant to address that crisis, yet, it did little to fix the problem. While the liberal Democrats are fighting for Universal Healthcare coverage for all Americans, the conservative Republicans are fighting to maintain the current private health insurance, however, with some revamping of the system, which preserves the capitalistic element of the status quo. The reason for the two opposing views stems from their differences in political ideologies, which theoretically is like pitting socialism against capitalism. While the liberal Democrats’ endorsement of Universal Healthcare system is socialistic in practice, the conservative Republicans’ fight to retain the private or market based plan is unarguably in support of their pro-capitalism stance. The truth, however, is that, though almost every American believes in capitalism, yet, almost none would vote to disband the Medicare and the Medicaid programs, both of which are socialistic. In that light, the argument of a pro-capitalist nation is negated, as we do already have a socialized healthcare program for the seniors and the poor. Extending that concept to include

The Supreme Court 's favorable ruling on the Affordable Health Care Act allowed for healthcare to be available for many Americans who would otherwise not receive medical benefits. This is because it increases the number of people covered by Medicare/Medicaid, and lowers the cost of insurance through employers. While this idea is good in theory, paying for it is a challenge due to the fact that it will only add to the nation’s already enormous debit of several trillion dollars (Mulvany, 2012). From 2010-2019, the United States is predicted to spend around 400 billion dollars on healthcare. This prediction has prompted lawmakers to reduce spending on Medicare, Medicaid and other welfare programs. The spending cuts will result in less people getting the care they need due to the limited availability of money for care and the increase in the number of beneficiaries receiving

Medicare and Medicaid are two of the United States largest broken systems, which must sustain themselves in order to provide care to their beneficiaries. Both Medicare and Medicaid are funding by a joint effort between the federal government and the local state government. If and when these governments choose to cut funding or reduce spending, Medicare and Medicaid take the biggest hit. Most people see these two benefits as one in the same, two benefits the government takes out of their pay check to help fund health care. While the government does deduct a sum from paychecks everywhere, Medicare and Medicaid are very two very different programs.

The proposed health care reform bill attempts to change issues of public policy and health care management for the poor and uninsured. Many leaders from the Democratic Party are actively engaging in policy-making to fix what Rep. Henry Waxman (D-California) calls a “‘dysfunctional’ health care system” (2009). Currently, the U.S. health care system denies people with pre-existing conditions from receiving care. Another problem with the system is that the health insurance that some employers offer may be so expensive that their employees cannot afford it. Any cuts in Medicaid may mean that physicians have fewer incentives to provide adequate care for the poor. These are some of the many problems that the Affordable Health Choices Act attempts to address. Fiscally conservative political and business groups oppose this measure because they believe that any changes in public policy and health care management might affect them negatively.

Due to the upcoming presidential election, the two major political parties, and their candidates, have been focusing on the primary problems that the nation will face. Chief among those problems is the future of Medicare, the national health-insurance plan. Medicare was enacted in 1965, under the administration of Lyndon B. Johnson, in order to provide health insurance for retired citizens and the disabled (Ryan). The Medicare program covers most people aged 65 or older, as well as handicapped people who enroll in the program, and consists of two health plans: a hospital insurance plan (part A) and a medical insurance plan (part B) (Marmor 22). Before Medicare, many Americans didn't have health